[From Rick Marken (2002.11.27.1020)]
Bruce Gregory (2002.11.27.1258)--
Rick Marken (2002.11.23.0810)
>Maybe I wasn't clear about it in my post but when I referred to the
>"...periodic pangs of love we feel for the one who said "yes" long
>ago"
>I was alluding my own personal experience (which I presume is
>similar to
>that of other people), which I count as data. The PCT model of
>emotion
>(such as it is) is largely about personal experience. So much of the
>pertinent data, it seems to me, will be our own observations of how
>we
>feel in various circumstances.
As far as I know, interpretations of emotional responses using the
PCT model are all just-so stories.
Perhaps (though I think turning the PCT model of emotion from just-so story into
working model would be a pretty easy matter). But my point was that the emotional
responses themselves are _data_.
They have never been published in
peer-reviewed literature and for good reason--there is no
quantitative data to compare with a simulation.
I think they have never been published in the peer-reviewed literature because
they have never been submitted. I don't know of any case of a PCT model of
emotion being rejected because it was not compared to quantitative data. I think
the problem is simply that no one has, yet, compared the model to quantitative
data (including subjective data on emotional response) or tried to publish the
results of such a comparison.
After writing this I see that Peter Burke (2002.11.27.1010PST) has posted some
references on emotion and PCT. So apparently the PCT model of emotion has been
published in the peer reviewed literature. Thanks Peter. I'll take a look at them
ASAP.
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
[From Bruce Gregory (2002.11.27.1258)]
Rick Marken (2002.11.23.0810)
Maybe I wasn't clear about it in my post but when I referred to the
"...periodic pangs of love we feel for the one who said "yes" long
ago"
I was alluding my own personal experience (which I presume is
similar to
that of other people), which I count as data. The PCT model of
emotion
(such as it is) is largely about personal experience. So much of the
pertinent data, it seems to me, will be our own observations of how
we
feel in various circumstances.
As far as I know, interpretations of emotional responses using the
PCT model are all just-so stories. They have never been published in
peer-reviewed literature and for good reason--there is no
quantitative data to compare with a simulation. I am not objecting to
telling these stories, since they demonstrate how the model might be
use to simulate data when and if it becomes available, I am simply
suggesting that one might not want to blur the distinction between
just-so stories and actual confrontations between data and
simulations.
[From Peter Burke (2002.11.27.1010PST)]
From Bruce Gregory (2002.11.27.1258)
As far as I know, interpretations of emotional responses using the
PCT model are all just-so stories. They have never been published in
peer-reviewed literature and for good reason--there is no
quantitative data to compare with a simulation. I am not objecting to
telling these stories, since they demonstrate how the model might be
use to simulate data when and if it becomes available, I am simply
suggesting that one might not want to blur the distinction between
just-so stories and actual confrontations between data and
simulations.
Persons who are interested in affective outcomes of the control model may
be interested in the following papers that are available on my web site
at http://wat2146.ucr.edu/online.htm
1. Burke, Peter J. and Michael M. Harrod. 2002. "To Good to Be Believed?"
Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago.
2. Burke, Peter J. and Jan E. Stets. 1999. "Trust and Commitment through
Self-Verification." Social Psychology Quarterly 62:347-66.
3. Cast, Alicia D. and Peter J. Burke. 2002. "A Theory of Self-Esteem."
Social Forces 80:1041-68.
Peter
[From Bruce Gregory (2002.11.27.2037)]
Rick Marken (2002.11.27.1020)
There is nothing in your response to which I would take exception.