OK Rick agreed! I would think
yes, that we could make the case that this situation underlines the fact
that most psychologists are not aware of the origins of control theory in
psychology, but that an important minority are aware (as indicated by the
immediate replies to my email), and believe that the accurate history
needs to be represented. I would be very happy to join in with that
email, and article.
All the best,
Warren
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Richard Marken > > rsmarken@gmail.com > > wrote:
[From Dag Forssell (2015.03.18.1215 PDT)]
Just back to email, I read the thread on the ATA
definintion on control theory.
Wow! As Rick said, shocking but predictable.
Surely this speaks to the pervasive, profound ignorance among
“scientists”.
Seems to me an excellent idea to submit an article by Rick, Warren and
Tim.
Might you include not just a correction of history, but also a statement
of the promise for the future?
Would a reference to
www.iapct.org be
appropriate?
How can I update this website?
Best to all, Dag
At 10:38 AM 3/18/2015, wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List > wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2015.03.18.1015)]
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Warren Mansell > wmansell@gmail.com > wrote:
Yep, this certainly isn’t satisfactory!
Rick, I think it probably deserves a (polite) follow up letter to
explain that we need a more immediate and effective amendment. You could
explain that we are contacting Carver and Scheier, and that we have
already collected signatories from a range of senior psychologists and
other academic researchers in the USA and around the world to request an
immediate amendment. Then, we do need to get the wording right so that
the signatories know what they are signing and it is the right balance of
setting the record straight immediately, and being realistic. Like Rick
says, the important thing is that the message get s to everyone who might
read that definition in the dictionary as soon as possible. And, of
course, that electronic versions and reprints are amended as soon as
possible.
How does that sound Rick?
RM: I see you’ve already done what I would have suggested! Which is
write to Gary and explain that immediate correction is required. Great
work. The only other thing I would suggest, since Gary seems to be quite
responsive about this (I really did have some pleasant interactions with
him when I submitted my papers to American Psychologist) is that you ask
Gary to set aside some space in American Psychologist for us to write
either a letter or, better, a brief article called “Control
Theory in Psychology” to address the egregious error made in the
Dictionary. Just changing the entry is not really enough; I think a
public correction is needed. So how about you (or me) writing to Gary and
suggesting (demanding) that he publish a brief article describing the
actual history of control theory in psychology. I suggest the authors be
me, you and Tim. Even if he says no we should write such an article and
submit it to AP.
Best
Rick
Warren
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Richard Marken > < > csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2015.03. 17.1510)]
RM: Fred Nickols just sent this comment regarding VanderBos’s reply
to me personally so I’m putting it up on the net becuase I like it so
much:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Fred Nickols > fred@nickols.us wrote:
Not only “no,” but hell no! This is a first rate example of
unprofessional behavior at its worst and I shall use it as such.
RM: I agree. So what do we do? I think we really have to have APA
send out an errata notice to every recipient of the dictionary!! How do
we get that do happen. Make him an offer he can’t refuse? 
Bes t
Rick
On Mar 17, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Richard Marken > (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet > Mailing List) > < > csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2015.03.17.1500)]
Here’s the reply I just got from Gary VandenBos. Anyone think this is
a sufficient way to deal with this?
Best
Rick
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: VandenBos, Gary
gary@apa.org
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:50 PM
Subject: RE: Control Theory Entry in APA Dictionary of
Psychology
To: Richard Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com
Rick: Thank you for your message. I do remember your
name, from earlier editorial correspondence and your published
materials.
I appreciate this information about the dictionary entry on “control
theory”.
We will put the information into the “review and update” file for
that further research gets done on this entry.
All the best, Gary
From: Richard Marken
[
mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:57 PM
To: VandenBos, Gary
Cc: Richard Marken
Subject: Control Theory Entry in APA Dictionary of
Psychology
Dear Dr. VandenBos
I don’t know if you remember me but we’ve had some pleasant
interactions over papers I’ve submitted (unsuccessfully) to American
Psychologist back in 2007 and 2012. This time I’m getting in touch
with you regarding an entry in the APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd
ed, for which you are Editor in Chief: I don’t receive the dictionary
myself but a colleague got in touch with me about a rather serious error
in the entry on control theory. Here’s a copy of the entry as it was
copied to me:
“control theory 1. the idea that people regulate their
behavior through repeated cycles of comparing their current state to a
standard and acting to reduce discrepancies. [first proposed in 1982 by
U.S. social psychologists Charles S. Carver (1947- ) and Michael
Scheier] 2. a field of mathematics and engineering dealing with
monitoring and controlling the behavior of certain physical processes and
systems to produce the desired or best outcome.”
I found this very disturbing because just about everything in this
entry is wrong.First of all, control theory is not about people
regulating their behavior; it’s about people regulating variable
aspects of their own perceptual experience, a process we see as
“behavior”.
It’s hard to tell who was first to propose the application of control
theory to understanding human behavior (there are many possibilities ,
ncluding Craik,1947, and N. Weiner , 1948) but it certainly wasn’t
Carver and Scheier. Carver and Scheier’s application of control theory is
based on the work of William T. Powers who is, indeed, the first person
to correctly apply control theory to understanding the behavior of
living organisms. The theory described in Carver and Scheier’s 1982 book
is based entirely on Powers’ 1973 classic Behavior: The control of
perception. And Carver and Scheier certainly didn’t try to hide the
fact that Powers’ book was the basis of their work; Powers is referenced
throughout their 1982 book.
So it’s a terrible disservice to the memory and contributions of
William T. Powers to say that control theory was first proposed by Carver
and Scheier, not only because Powers predates Carver and Scheier by
nearly 10 years (actually by far more than 10 years since the first
published description of Powers’ control theory model appeared in a two
part journal article in 1960.) but also because Carver and Scheier didn’t
get control theory right anyway, as evidenced by the fact that they think
that control theory is about regulation of behavior when, in fact,
it’s about regulation (control) of perception.
I hope you will send a note out to those who received a copy of the
dictionary explaining the error and providing a corrected version of the
control theory entry that would look something like this:
“control theory 1. a theory of how organisms produce
purposeful behavior by acting so as to maintain perceptual variables in
reference states specified by the organism itself. The theory was
first proposed by William T. Powers (1926-2013 ) in Behavior: The Control
of Perception (1973) 2. a field of mathematics and engineering
dealing with the regulation of certain physical variables and processes
to produce the desired outcome.”
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of
Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of
Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble