[From Jeff Vancouver (2008.10.07.1330)]
It has been awhile, but this thread caught my interest (albeit a week late).
I indeed know John Bargh and he knows me. We worked in the same department
(NYU) in the 90's. I also know Charles Carver. Both are social psychologists
whereas I am an I/O psychologist, so we don't tend to run in the same
circles (e.g., go to the same conferences or publish in the same journals)
too much.
Anyway, I have been submitting and usually getting published responses to
the criticisms in the literature of PCT. Many of the long-time CSGnet
members know I published a direct response to Bandura and Locke's diatribe
(Vancouver, 2005). I also have a chapter in a philosophy book on the
criticisms (Vancouver & Zawidzki, 2007). Another response was focused at a
John Bargh article in American Psychologist (Vancouver & Scherbaum, 2000).
It might be best described as a nit, but one that I think Bill P. would
agree should be addressed.
Meanwhile, I have been busy doing research and building theory. Below I
provide the full references for cites mentioned above and some of my more
recent work. Because it is either published or under review, I cannot post
it to a list, but I can send out articles upon request (my email is
vancouve@ohio.edu).
A central difference between my approach and Bill's is the role I give to
more modern control theory concepts (e.g., Kalman filters and forward
models). Indeed, the self-efficacy concept falls into this category and is
reflected in a lot of my work (see below). I do not know the DEGREE to which
they play a role in human behavior, but it seems that at least simplified
versions of them are needed to capture some observed human behavior. This
question of degree seems a central issue in psychomotor control and other
subdisciplines in psychology. However, I am with Bill in seeing what can be
done with simpler models (i.e., combinations of feedback models).
I have also gotten a lot more into computational modeling (thanks to Rick's
pushing me) as can be seen in many of the titles listed below.
Unfortunately, I am one of the few in I/O or social psychology who does
computational modeling and it has been a struggle to get these papers
accepted. Indeed, the top paper on the list (which is in reverse
chronological order) was Scherbaum's Masters theses, primarily done in the
last century! So it goes.
Jeff V.
My PCT-related papers:
Scherbaum, C. A., & Vancouver, J. B. (revised and resubmitted). If we
produce discrepancies, then how? Testing a computational process model of
positive goal revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Vancouver, J. B., Tamanini, K. B., & Yoder, R. J. (in press). Using dynamic
computational models to reconnect theory and research: A socialization by
the proactive newcomer exemplar. Journal of Management.
Vancouver, J. B. (2008). Integrating self-regulation theories of work
motivation into a dynamic process theory. Human Resource Management Review,
18, 1-18.
Vancouver, J. B. & Scherbaum, C. A. (2008). Do We Self-Regulate Actions or
Perceptions? A Test of Two Computational Models. Computational and
Mathematical Organizational Theory, 14, 1-22.
Vancouver, J. B., More, K. M., & Yoder, R. J. (2008). Self efficacy and
resource allocation: Support for a discontinuous model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 35-47
Vancouver, J. B., & Zawidzki, T. (2007). What Determines the Self in Self
Regulation: Applied Psychology's Struggle with Will. In D. Ross, D.
Spurrett, H. Kincaid, & L. Stephens (Eds.), Distributed Cognition and the
Will (pp. 289-322). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Vancouver, J. B. (2006). Control theory. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Vancouver, J. B. & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self efficacy negatively
relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 1146-1153.
Vancouver, J. B., & Day, D. V. (2005). Industrial and Organization Research
on Self Regulation: From Constructs to Applications. Applied Psychology:
International Review, 54, 155-185.
Vancouver J. B., Putka, D. J., & Scherbaum, C. A. (2005). Testing a
Computational Model of the Goal Level Effect: An Example of a Neglected
Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 100 127.
Vancouver, J. B. (2005). The Depth of History and Explanation as Benefit and
Bane for Psychological Control Theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
38-52.
Vancouver, J. B., & Tischner, E. C. (2004). The Effect of Feedback Sign on
Task Performance Depends on Self Concept Discrepancies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 1092-1098.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M. Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002).
Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 506-516.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The changing
signs in the relationships between self efficacy, personal goals and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 605-620.
Vancouver, J. B. & Putka, D. J. (2000). Analyzing Goal-Striving Behavior and
a Test of the Generalizability of Perceptual Control Theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 334-362.
Vancouver, J. B. & Scherbaum Jr., C. A. (2000). Automaticity, goals and
environmental interactions. American Psychologist, 55, 763-764.
Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Self-regulation in Industrial/Organizational
Psychology: A tale of two paradigms. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M.
Zeidner, (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 303-341). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 5:19 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Locke, Goal-seeking, and PCT
Hello, John and all --
Well, John, that clears up one minor worry -- whether all this
unrequested information and opinion would be a presumption on your
tolerance. I just bulldozeded my way in, while Warren wondered if
this was entirely diplomatic. Welcome.
I've never met Charles Carver -- invited him to attend a Control
Systems Group meeting some time back, but he couldn't make it and I
think may have hestitated to risk exposure to what he may have
mistaken for a group of nit-picking engineers (we're anything but). I
hope you'll consider showing your face at one of our meetings. We're
in process of going fully international now so the question of the
next meeting (which would be the 25th since the first in 1985 if it
happens) is up in the air.
I worked with most of the people Locke attacks in the papers I cite,
while they were doing research or writing books, because they asked
me to look over the control-theory stuff. We didn't always agree on
how to apply PCT, but the relationships were good enough for
starters. Face-to-face meetings would have worked better, but
obviously they all learned enough to infuriate Locke and Bandura and
others in that camp. I hope I'm not standing on any of your toes. You
may also know Jeff Vancouver, a long-time CSG member, who publishes
in your field.
I'm all out of old papers for now. What's your impression so far?
Best,
Bill P.