# Burke's paper and control

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/burkes-paper-and-control/2022>\
**Category:** CSG1996\
**Created:** [June 13, 1996, 5:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/burkes-paper-and-control/2022 "1996-06-13T17:31:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jeff\_Vancouver1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jeff\_Vancouver1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jeff_Vancouver1)\
**Post date:** [June 13, 1996, 5:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/burkes-paper-and-control/2022/1 "1996-06-13T17:31:22Z")

</div>

[from Jeff Vancouver 960613.12:50 EST]

I too read Peter Burke's American Sociological Review paper with  
considerable interest and delight. Like Kent McClelland's from 94, it  
seems to indicate at least an openness to the model in sociology. And the  
comparative data is great.

Of course the academic in me has to react in a more tempered and  
judicious manner. Specifically, if I was given the charge of being a  
reviewer for ASR (which will never likely happen), I would have too major  
comments.

First, I would be impressed by the implications of changes to  
participation reference values and how that \_reversed\_, at least in one  
case, the power distribution of the participants (as measured by  
points). However, I would be cautious in interpreting these result \_as  
if\_ this is the way actual participants behaved given that the condition  
simulated was not the situation in the experiment. I would suggest that  
the authors suggest that a next step is trying to create this reference  
value in the participants to verify that the simulation matches reality.  
It would be a powerful confirmation of the utility of your model over the  
others. Of course, as a good PCTer, I would simpathize with the  
potential problem of influencing this reference value in participants.  
Of course, you may already be working on this. It is exactly the kind of  
research that us psychologist attempt all the time - despite Rick's  
notions to the contrary. In other words, if you wanted some thoughts on  
it, I have some and would be glad to discuss them.

The second criticism is like the first in that I would only suggest that  
the authors acknowledge it in the discussion section. it may be that the  
developers of the paradigm have already addressed the issue ad nausium  
[sp]. That is, what is the ecological validity of the paradigm? That  
your participants act as they do in the artificially constrained confinds  
of a lab does not guarantee that they would ever act that way in real  
life. This is a common theme in reviewers' comments to lab studies in my  
field (organizational behavior). I have made them often when I review.  
But for some the ecological validity argument is an excuse for ignoring  
anything not done in the field. I do not feel that way at all.  
Nonetheless, it is an important issue that I expect researchers to at  
least give a node to (perhaps citing how Markovsky or whoever has  
addressed it). Alternatively suggesting that we need to go to real  
organizations (e.g., Microsoft) and see how different configurations  
(e.g., software design teams) play out in the long run. This is what we  
I/O psychologists and OB researchers do all the time.

Ironically, I see these two issues as possibly connected. That is, it  
seems to me that one way to manipulation the participation reference  
signal is to have competing (substitutable?) parties in which any  
participant can engage. E.g., you could say to a participant, "you may  
engage in this 'game' or that one or both," thus dividing participation as  
a reference for more than one exchange game. This dividing and  
substitution seems to me a real aspect of the real world, such that in the  
real world, one might expect to see the kind of interesting reverse effect  
\_often\_!

Just some thoughts,

Later

Jeff

> **···**
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Jeffrey B. Vancouver  
> Assistant Professor Phone: (212)998-7816  
> Department of Psychology Fax: (212)995-4018  
> New York University e-mail: jeffv@xp.psych.nyu.edu  
> 6 Washington Pl., Rm 572  
> New York, NY 10003

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Scott\_Brandon](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@Scott\_Brandon](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Scott_Brandon)\
**Post date:** [June 14, 1996, 2:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/burkes-paper-and-control/2022/2 "1996-06-14T14:18:04Z")

</div>

Re: Jeff Vancouver (960613. 12:50 pm)

Sociology is anything but receptive to PCT. My department is not only  
unaware of Powers' work, but is also reluctant to open their mind to  
anything new in the study of social behavior. The only sociologists I  
know who are receptive to PCT are those on the CSG-net. I think Tom  
Fararro and Markovsky are also aware of B:CP. I too read Burke's paper  
and think it is one of the better papers ASR has published in the last  
five years.

Scott Brandon  
Department of Sociology  
McMaster University  
Hamilton, Ontario  
Canada  
L8S 4M4

e-mail: brandon@mcmaster.ca

> **···**
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Jeff Vancouver wrote:
> 
> > [from Jeff Vancouver 960613.12:50 EST]
> > 
> > I too read Peter Burke's American Sociological Review paper with  
> > considerable interest and delight. Like Kent McClelland's from 94, it  
> > seems to indicate at least an openness to the model in sociology. And the  
> > comparative data is great.
> > 
> > Of course the academic in me has to react in a more tempered and  
> > judicious manner. Specifically, if I was given the charge of being a  
> > reviewer for ASR (which will never likely happen), I would have too major  
> > comments.
> > 
> > First, I would be impressed by the implications of changes to  
> > participation reference values and how that \_reversed\_, at least in one  
> > case, the power distribution of the participants (as measured by  
> > points). However, I would be cautious in interpreting these result \_as  
> > if\_ this is the way actual participants behaved given that the condition  
> > simulated was not the situation in the experiment. I would suggest that  
> > the authors suggest that a next step is trying to create this reference  
> > value in the participants to verify that the simulation matches reality.  
> > It would be a powerful confirmation of the utility of your model over the  
> > others. Of course, as a good PCTer, I would simpathize with the  
> > potential problem of influencing this reference value in participants.  
> > Of course, you may already be working on this. It is exactly the kind of  
> > research that us psychologist attempt all the time - despite Rick's  
> > notions to the contrary. In other words, if you wanted some thoughts on  
> > it, I have some and would be glad to discuss them.
> > 
> > The second criticism is like the first in that I would only suggest that  
> > the authors acknowledge it in the discussion section. it may be that the  
> > developers of the paradigm have already addressed the issue ad nausium  
> > [sp]. That is, what is the ecological validity of the paradigm? That  
> > your participants act as they do in the artificially constrained confinds  
> > of a lab does not guarantee that they would ever act that way in real  
> > life. This is a common theme in reviewers' comments to lab studies in my  
> > field (organizational behavior). I have made them often when I review.  
> > But for some the ecological validity argument is an excuse for ignoring  
> > anything not done in the field. I do not feel that way at all.  
> > Nonetheless, it is an important issue that I expect researchers to at  
> > least give a node to (perhaps citing how Markovsky or whoever has  
> > addressed it). Alternatively suggesting that we need to go to real  
> > organizations (e.g., Microsoft) and see how different configurations  
> > (e.g., software design teams) play out in the long run. This is what we  
> > I/O psychologists and OB researchers do all the time.
> > 
> > Ironically, I see these two issues as possibly connected. That is, it  
> > seems to me that one way to manipulation the participation reference  
> > signal is to have competing (substitutable?) parties in which any  
> > participant can engage. E.g., you could say to a participant, "you may  
> > engage in this 'game' or that one or both," thus dividing participation as  
> > a reference for more than one exchange game. This dividing and  
> > substitution seems to me a real aspect of the real world, such that in the  
> > real world, one might expect to see the kind of interesting reverse effect  
> > \_often\_!
> > 
> > Just some thoughts,
> > 
> > Later
> > 
> > Jeff
> > 
> > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Jeffrey B. Vancouver  
> > Assistant Professor Phone: (212)998-7816  
> > Department of Psychology Fax: (212)995-4018  
> > New York University e-mail: jeffv@xp.psych.nyu.edu  
> > 6 Washington Pl., Rm 572  
> > New York, NY 10003