[from Rick Marken (960613.1330)]
Jeff Vancouver (960613.12:50 EST) comments on Peter Burke's American
Sociological Review:
It is exactly the kind of research that us psychologist attempt all the
time - despite Rick's notions to the contrary.
Peter's research is, indeed, similar to the kind of research psychologists do
all the time. There is an independent variable (the different types of
networks) and a dependent variable (the relative size of the "power
advantage" between individuals in the network). But Peter's research is a lot
closer to PCT research than conventional research because he compares the
results of his experiment to a control model.
The IV (network type) in Peter's experiment actually defines different
feedback functions between the outputs of the individuals (and the model)
in the experiment and the hypothetical controlled variables (points,
participation in exchanges). The DV is the state of the individual (and
model) outputs that bring the presumed controlled variables closer to their
reference. The Test for the Controlled variable is done by seeing how well
the model fits the data.
The model assumes that individuals are controlling three different variables:
participation in the exchanges, the actual number of points received and the
time taken to accept the offer. To the extent that the model fits the data
(and it did fit fairly well) we can conclude that the individuals are,
indeed, controlling variables that are at least closely related to these.
Using "network type" as the IV was a good choice for doing this kind of
Testing for Controlled Variables because the change in the feedback function
is a _disturbance_ to two of the main variables controlled by the model;
participation in the exchange and amount of points received. So Peter did a
version of The Test, comparing the behavior of people to that of a model
controlling a particular variable to see if people deal with the disturbance
(change in feedback function) as the model does.
I am still not entirely clear on all the details of Peter's study. But it
looks like a very promising approach to the study of one type of
interpersonal control -- one where a group of individuals controls for a
limited resource, like money.
The second criticism is like the first in that I would only suggest that
the authors acknowledge it in the discussion section...what is the
ecological validity of the paradigm?
I think questions of "ecological validity" have been leveled at scientific
research ever since Galileo started rolling balls down inclined planes. The
basic idea of "ecological validity", as I understand it, is that the laws you
discover in the contrived conditions of the lab don't necessarily apply under
the messy conditions of the "real world" outside the lab. If this were true,
however, chemistry and physics would have no use in the "real world".
Fortunately, laws like f=ma and r~p, are true in the lab and in the "real
world". because the lab part of the "real world".
Erling Jorgensen (960613.1420) --
Gallo, A., Duchatelle, E., Elkhessaimi, A., LePape, G., et al.
(1995). Topographic analysis of the rat's bar behaviour in the
Skinner box. _Behavioural Processes_, 1995 Mar., Vol. 33(3),
319-328.
Great find!
While the authors are finally noticing the _changing means_ of accomplishing
the event of a "bar-press," I'm not sure they go far enough with their new
insight.
Yes! They avoid noticing (or trying to notice) the disturbances that make
these variations _necessary_. They avoid seeing what is clearly in front of
their eyes: a rat who _wants_ the bar down; a rat who has the _purpose_
of getting the bar down; a rat doing _whatever is necessary_ to produce an
_intended_ result (bar down). But, since their theoretical preconceptions
forbid "mental states" like purpose, intention, want and desire, they see a
rat _emitting_ many different outputs that (lucky for the rat) produce the
same result (bar down). I think Gallo, Duchatelle, Elkhessaimi, LePape.
et al. would have a heart attack if they looked at the rat's behavior through
control theory glasses.
Best
Rick