Self-regulation

CSGnet Archive CSG2014
1

Hi Jeff,

I’m not acquanted with your defense of
“control theory” (don’t know which version), and I’m sorry that I’ll
not read it. But I can assure that Mary was quite right. I was mediator in
talkings between Bill Powers
and Carver, Scheier. It’s sure that Carvers “self-regulation” theory
is “opposite” to PCT. I assume that was the reason why their
friendship felt apart. But I’m sure that Carver and Scheier (authors of
“self-regulation on behavior”) were Bill’s “students”.

Maybe we could try to define what you
meant with self-regulation that is just different word for PCT. Can you define
your “Self-regulation theory” ?

Best,

Boris

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On
Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014
6:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Boris,

I have been in this
business for about 20 years now. I have seen the Mary discourse (though it has
been awhile). I am not persuaded. I believe Rick knows this. You might read my
2005 defense of control theory. It spells out my position.

Jeff

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.

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Boris Hartman
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014
2:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Jeff,

I thought that Rick will send you a
discourse from Mary Powers about PCT and self-regulation theory. In short,
self-regulation theory is far from just being different word for PCT. I would
say it’s “opposite” to PCT.

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu]
On Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:15
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and Learning
PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Rick,

I do not really
monitor this channel very much, so if I engage in a “conversation”
it is likely to be sporadic.

The short answer to
your question of the difference between PCT and self-regulation theory is the
words. I do not mean to be glib, but the way I see it is that a lot of
different people, using a lot of different labels, are using a very similar
conceptual framework. It seems that self-regulation theory is one of the more
universal labels. I am not sure where one draws the line between enough
differences or unique specifications to call something a different name. My
sense is that theory names emerge to give the researcher some status. I am not
interested in creating a new label for what I do (though I reserve the right to
change my mind on that). Moreover, I am interested in emphasizing the
commonality, not the difference among approaches. Don’t get me wrong. I
want to eliminate the bad (i.e., invalid) parts of theories, but that might be
called refining as opposed to killing the theory.

More specifically
regarding the difference between the model I presented in the paper I sent
around and my understanding of PCT’s learning element is that learning in
PCT is a global response to error in the hierarchy on the hierarchy globally,
whereas my model is much more local. I have a footnote to that effect in the
paper. Otherwise, it is highly influenced by you and Bill and others in the PCT
community. In particular, if PCT is about understanding how collections of
negative feedback control loops might explain human behavior, then that is what
I am doing. Moreover, PCT seem to me a lot about doing the above formally
(i.e., with computational models). I am all over that as well.

Jeff

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu]
On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014
3:58 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

[From Rick Marken (2014.04.02.1255)]

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Vancouver, Jeff vancouve@ohio.edu wrote:

Hi all,

I saw my name in the post below and thought
I might distribute my latest model. Apparently it should be out sometime this
year.

Jeff Vancouver

Hi Jeff

Thanks for sending this paper. I haven’t had time to
read it over carefully but based on my brief scan of it I think it would
be great if we could discuss it on CSGNet, if you are willing. I think such a
discussion would be very useful to those of us who are interested in PCT because
the theory you describe in the paper, while not PCT (you call it “self
-regulation” theory) is certainly inspired by PCT (as you note by your
references to Powers’ work). And based on all the references in the paper there
are apparently a whole lot of people who are working on developing and testing
this PCT inspired “self -regulation” theory – people who seem to
have little or no contact with those of us who are developing and testing
PCT.

So what I would like to discuss is what you see as the
differences between PCT and “self-regulation” theory. And why
was it seen as necessary to make these modifications to Powers theory?

I think it would by most informative if we could
discuss this in the context of the kind of task performance that the MGPM model
described in the paper is designed to account for. I think it was some
kind of scheduling task but I didn’t see – probably because I just skimmed the
paper so far-- a description of the task.

Hopefully, this could be a start at reconciling
“self-regulation” and PCT. It may end in divorce (irreconcilable
differences) but I think we should at least try some couples counseling first.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard
S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

It is difficult to get a
man to understand something, when his salary depends upon
his not understanding it. – Upton
Sinclair

No
virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7343 - Release Date: 04/14/14

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7357 - Release Date: 04/17/14

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7357 - Release Date: 04/17/14

2

My reading of Jeff’s excellent 2005 article which I use in teaching for PCT is that it is consistent with Mary’s critique and it makes excellent points defending PCT against self-regulatory theories that are not ‘subsystem’ theories as Jeff Describes them. My experience is that most self-regulatory theories are not subsystem theories, but PCT is.

Warren

···

On Friday, April 18, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Jeff

I’m not acquanted with your defense of
“control theory” (don’t know which version), and I’m sorry that I’ll
not read it. But I can assure that Mary was quite right. I was mediator in
talkings between Bill Powers
and Carver, Scheier. It’s sure that Carvers “self-regulation” theory
is “opposite” to PCT. I assume that was the reason why their
friendship felt apart. But I’m sure that Carver and Scheier (authors of
“self-regulation on behavior”) were Bill’s “students”.

Maybe we could try to define what you
meant with self-regulation that is just different word for PCT. Can you define
your “Self-regulation theory” ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On
Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014
6:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Boris,

I have been in this
business for about 20 years now. I have seen the Mary discourse (though it has
been awhile). I am not persuaded. I believe Rick knows this. You might read my
2005 defense of control theory. It spells out my position.

Jeff

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.

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Boris Hartman
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014
2:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Jeff,

I thought that Rick will send you a
discourse from Mary Powers about PCT and self-regulation theory. In short,
self-regulation theory is far from just being different word for PCT. I would
say it’s “opposite” to PCT.

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu]
On Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:15
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and Learning
PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Rick,

I do not really
monitor this channel very much, so if I engage in a “conversation”
it is likely to be sporadic.

The short answer to
your question of the difference between PCT and self-regulation theory is the
words. I do not mean to be glib, but the way I see it is that a lot of
different people, using a lot of different labels, are using a very similar
conceptual framework. It seems that self-regulation theory is one of the more
universal labels. I am not sure where one draws the line between enough
differences or unique specifications to call something a different name. My
sense is that theory names emerge to give the researcher some status. I am not
interested in creating a new label for what I do (though I reserve the right to
change my mind on that). Moreover, I am interested in emphasizing the
commonality, not the difference among approaches. Don’t get me wrong. I
want to eliminate the bad (i.e., invalid) parts of theories, but that might be
called refining as opposed to killing the theory.

More specifically
regarding the difference between the model I presented in the paper I sent
around and my understanding of PCT’s learning element is that learning in
PCT is a global response to error in the hierarchy on the hierarchy globally,
whereas my model is much more local. I have a footnote to that effect in the
paper. Otherwise, it is highly influenced by you and Bill and others in the PCT
community. In particular, if PCT is about understanding how collections of
negative feedback control loops might explain human behavior, then that is what
I am doing. Moreover, PCT seem to me a lot about doing the above formally
(i.e., with computational models). I am all over that as well.

Jeff

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu]
On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014
3:58 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

[From Rick Marken (2014.04.02.1255)]

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Vancouver, Jeff vancouve@ohio.edu > wrote:

Hi all,

I saw my name in the post below and thought
I might distribute my latest model. Apparently it should be out sometime this
year.

Jeff Vancouver

Hi Jeff

Thanks for sending this paper. I haven’t had time to
read it over carefully but based on my brief scan of it I think it would
be great if we could discuss it on CSGNet, if you are willing. I think such a
discussion would be very useful to those of us who are interested in PCT because
the theory you describe in the paper, while not PCT (you call it “self
-regulation” theory) is certainly inspired by PCT (as you note by your
references to Powers’ work). And based on all the references in the paper there
are apparently a whole lot of people who are working on developing and testing
this PCT inspired “self -regulation” theory – people who seem to
have little or no contact with those of us who are developing and testing
PCT.

So what I would like to discuss is what you see as the
differences between PCT and “self-regulation” theory. And why
was it seen as necessary to make these modifications to Powers theory?

I think it would by most informative if we could
discuss this in the context of the kind of task performance that the MGPM model
described in the paper is designed to account for. I think it was some
kind of scheduling task but I didn’t see – probably because I just skimmed the
paper so far-- a description of the task.

–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

3

Hi Warren,

I’m pretty sure (with many talkings to
Bill), that Bill was the first in psychology to introduce Control Theory. When
I asked him if he is the “father” of Control Theory in psychology, he
answered : “Yes, son” J

In our discussions Charles Carver
desparately tried to prove that Bill wasn’t the first. But after enumerating
some authors we came to the conclusion that many of them were the later date (so
they could get knowledge about “Control” who knows where) or that
previous theories were not about control. So my conclusion was that Bill was the first to introduce
“Control Theory” into psychology. But I can be wrong. So if you,
Garett or Jeff can provide some author that was explaining “control
theory” before 1960 you are welcome to prove who was the first to
introduce “Control theory” into psychololgy.

So maybe I didn’t understand you right Warren
what you meant with “…most self-regulatory theories are not
subsystem theories, but PCT is”.

If I understand right what you are saying, your position is by my
oppinion wrong. “Self-regulatoy” theories are subsystem to PCT and by
my oppinion wrong subsystem.

Maybe I don’t understand what kind of
ordering did you use ?

WM:

My reading of Jeff’s excellent 2005 article which I use in teaching for
PCT is that it is consistent with Mary’s critique and it makes excellent points
defending PCT against self-regulatory theories…

HB :

Jeff exposed Mary’s writing in this way : “…Mary discourse (though it has been awhile).
I am not persuaded…”.

So maybe again I don’t
understand something or you two understood Mary differently.

Maybe you could make a
short abstract of Jeff’s knowledge about “control theories” and your
position in it. But if “position” of Jeff in “control theories -
selfregulation” is described with his not yet pressed article, than your explanation
is not needed. His theory is not far away from Carver/Scheier’s so it’s “opposite”
to PCT.

IF I can conclude from
what was already presented and definitions that were provided by Garett, I got
the impression that :

(1) organisms act to
seek or maintain numerous goals based on changing internal and external conditions
(Austin and Vancouver, 1996)

(2) goals are
regulating behavior through negative control loops (conclusion from Garett’s
text)

(2) to
regulate one’s goals through behavior means atempts to achieve goals (conclusion from Garett’s text)

(3) “in
general, regulation refers to keeping something regular; to maintaining a
variable at some value despite disturbances to the variable” (Kanfer,
1990). This position is possibly also present in non-pressed article Vancouver
at all in diagram where “controlled variable” is in outside
environment…

(4) "feed-back processes are important in the self-regulation of
human behavior…even behavior that’s consciously controlled (Carver,
Sheier, 1998).

How can we maintain some variable (I assume that is meant something outside
“line” between organism and environment) at some value despite
disturbannces…? With what : regulation of behavior ? Does that mean that
we are regulating behavior to manipulate variable outside to some goal state ? So
we are “controlling” behavior toward goals ? What is meant by goal in
this case ? If it’s references meant as “goals”, they can’t “regulate”
behavior, as references and perception do.

.

And I really don’t’
understand how could such an equation be made :

GH :

Whereas PCT talks about “controlling” and
“references,” Jeff’s work talks about “regulating” and
“goals.”

Now if we make more precise definition it would probably goes like this
: whereas PCT talks about “CONTROLLING
PERCEPTION” and “references,” Jeff’s work talks about WHAT…?
“REGULATING BEHAVIOR” and goals ?

So it seems like we are regulating behavior to manipulate something
outside to the desired state which is formed inside organism ? Did I get the
point ?

GH :

I do not think that Jeff’s work should be equated to other
self-regulation researchers.

HB :

So could somebody please explain to me, what’s the difference between Jeff’s
“self-regulation” theory and other “self-regulation researchers”,
and what’s the difference between Jeff’s ““self-regulation”
theory” and PCT ?

And please note, that I will not read Jeff’s article for which I have
to pay. Speccially if it’s about “self-regulation”. I’m not
interested in it. I’m interested in PCT.

I would really advise
you to re-read Mary’s discourse again and analyze what she had to say. Everything
what she wrote is in accordance with what I “heard” in simultaneous discussion
with Bill, Carver, Scheier. And please note that my opinion is that Bill and
Mary really knew what they were talking about. I couldn’t say that for Carver
and Scheier and after that with Baumeister. But interesting Baumeister did
direct me to Bill about questions of the diagram “basic unit of cybernetic
control”. There was a quite “stormy” discussion with Carver who’s
diagram it is. There was no author under Bill’s generic diagram in Carver/Scheier
book. It’s quite complicated for me how psychologist think about “control”,
“perception”, “behavior”… and others work.

Best,

Boris

P.S, As always please try to understand
that I’m not from your language speaking area. Maybe I could understand something
wrong

···

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 10:04
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Self-regulation

My reading of Jeff’s excellent 2005 article which I use in teaching for
PCT is that it is consistent with Mary’s critique and it makes excellent points
defending PCT against self-regulatory theories that are not ‘subsystem’
theories as Jeff Describes them. My experience is that most self-regulatory
theories are not subsystem theories, but PCT is.

Warren

On Friday, April 18, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Jeff

I’m not acquanted with your defense of “control
theory” (don’t know which version), and I’m sorry that I’ll not read it.
But I can assure that Mary was quite right. I was mediator in talkings between Bill Powers and Carver,
Scheier. It’s sure that Carvers “self-regulation” theory is
“opposite” to PCT. I assume that was the reason why their friendship
felt apart. But I’m sure that Carver and Scheier (authors of
“self-regulation on behavior”) were Bill’s “students”.

Maybe we could try to define what you meant with self-regulation
that is just different word for PCT. Can you define your “Self-regulation
theory” ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On
Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014
6:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Boris,

I have been in this business for
about 20 years now. I have seen the Mary discourse (though it has been awhile).
I am not persuaded. I believe Rick knows this. You might read my 2005 defense
of control theory. It spells out my position.

Jeff

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.

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Boris Hartman
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014
2:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Jeff,

I thought that Rick will send you a discourse from Mary
Powers about PCT and self-regulation theory. In short, self-regulation theory
is far from just being different word for PCT. I would say it’s
“opposite” to PCT.

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On
Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:15
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Rick,

I do not really monitor this channel
very much, so if I engage in a “conversation” it is likely to be
sporadic.

The short answer to your question of
the difference between PCT and self-regulation theory is the words. I do not
mean to be glib, but the way I see it is that a lot of different people, using
a lot of different labels, are using a very similar conceptual framework. It
seems that self-regulation theory is one of the more universal labels. I am not
sure where one draws the line between enough differences or unique
specifications to call something a different name. My sense is that theory
names emerge to give the researcher some status. I am not interested in
creating a new label for what I do (though I reserve the right to change my
mind on that). Moreover, I am interested in emphasizing the commonality, not
the difference among approaches. Don’t get me wrong. I want to eliminate
the bad (i.e., invalid) parts of theories, but that might be called refining as
opposed to killing the theory.

More specifically regarding the
difference between the model I presented in the paper I sent around and my
understanding of PCT’s learning element is that learning in PCT is a
global response to error in the hierarchy on the hierarchy globally, whereas my
model is much more local. I have a footnote to that effect in the paper.
Otherwise, it is highly influenced by you and Bill and others in the PCT
community. In particular, if PCT is about understanding how collections of
negative feedback control loops might explain human behavior, then that is what
I am doing. Moreover, PCT seem to me a lot about doing the above formally
(i.e., with computational models). I am all over that as well.

Jeff

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On
Behalf Of Richard
Marken
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014
3:58 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

[From
Rick Marken (2014.04.02.1255)]

On
Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Vancouver,
Jeff vancouve@ohio.edu wrote:

Hi all,

I saw my name in the post below and
thought I might distribute my latest model. Apparently it should be out
sometime this year.

Jeff Vancouver

Hi
Jeff

Thanks
for sending this paper. I haven’t had time to read it over carefully but based
on my brief scan of it I think it would be great if we could discuss it
on CSGNet, if you are willing. I think such a discussion would be very useful
to those of us who are interested in PCT because the theory you describe in the
paper, while not PCT (you call it “self -regulation” theory) is
certainly inspired by PCT (as you note by your references to Powers’ work). And
based on all the references in the paper there are apparently a whole lot of
people who are working on developing and testing this PCT inspired “self
-regulation” theory – people who seem to have little or no contact with
those of us who are developing and testing PCT.

So
what I would like to discuss is what you see as the differences between PCT and
“self-regulation” theory. And why was it seen as necessary to
make these modifications to Powers theory?

I
think it would by most informative if we could discuss this in the context of
the kind of task performance that the MGPM model described in the paper is
designed to account for. I think it was some kind of scheduling task but
I didn’t see – probably because I just skimmed the paper so far-- a
description of the task.

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

No virus found in
this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7363 - Release Date: 04/18/14

4

Hi Boris,

You are right, but I think you are misunderstanding me. Unless you include cybernetics, then Bill was the first to introduce control theory into psychology as far as I am aware too. My reading of Jeff’s article is that he endorses this view pretty much but it’s best if he sends you the article, or I can shortly when back in the office.

Warren

···

Sent from my iPhone

On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:58, “Boris Hartman” boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

I’m pretty sure (with many talkings to
Bill), that Bill was the first in psychology to introduce Control Theory. When
I asked him if he is the “father” of Control Theory in psychology, he
answered : “Yes, son” J

In our discussions Charles Carver
desparately tried to prove that Bill wasn’t the first. But after enumerating
some authors we came to the conclusion that many of them were the later date (so
they could get knowledge about “Control” who knows where) or that
previous theories were not about control. So my conclusion was that Bill was the first to introduce
“Control Theory” into psychology. But I can be wrong. So if you,
Garett or Jeff can provide some author that was explaining “control
theory” before 1960 you are welcome to prove who was the first to
introduce “Control theory” into psychololgy.

So maybe I didn’t understand you right Warren
what you meant with “…most self-reggulatory theories are not
subsystem theories, but PCT is”.

If I understand right what you are saying, your position is by my
oppinion wrong. “Self-regulatoy” theories are subsystem to PCT and by
my oppinion wrong subsystem.

Maybe I don’t understand what kind of
ordering did you use ?

WM:

My reading of Jeff’s excellent 2005 article which I use in teaching for
PCT is that it is consistent with Mary’s critique and it makes excellent points
defending PCT against self-regulatory theories…

HB :

Jeff exposed Mary’s writing in this way : “…Mary discourse (though it has been awhile).
I am not persuaded…”.

So maybe again I don’t
understand something or you two understood Mary differently.

Maybe you could make a
short abstract of Jeff’s knowledge about “control theories” and your
position in it. But if “position” of Jeff in “control theories -
selfregulation” is described with his not yet pressed article, than your explanation
is not needed. His theory is not far away from Carver/Scheier’s so it’s “opposite”
to PCT.

IF I can conclude from
what was already presented and definitions that were provided by Garett, I got
the impression that :

(1) organisms act to
seek or maintain numerous goals based on changing internal and external conditions
(Austin and Vancouver, 1996)

(2) goals are
regulating behavior through negative control loops (conclusion from Garett’s
text)

(2) to
regulate one’s goals through behavior means atempts to achieve goals (conclusion from Garett’s text)

(3) “in
general, regulation refers to keeping something regular; to maintaining a
variable at some value despite disturbances to the variable” (Kanfer,
1990). This position is possibly also present in non-pressed article Vancouver
at all in diagram where “controlled variable” is in outside
environment…

(4) "feed-back processes are important in the self-regulation of
human behavior…even behavior that’s consciously controlled (Carver,
Sheier, 1998).

How can we maintain some variable (I assume that is meant something outside
“line” between organism and environment) at some value despite
disturbannces…? With what : regulation of behavior ? Does that mean tthat
we are regulating behavior to manipulate variable outside to some goal state ? So
we are “controlling” behavior toward goals ? What is meant by goal in
this case ? If it’s references meant as “goals”, they can’t “regulate”
behavior, as references and perception do.

.

And I really don’t’
understand how could such an equation be made :

GH :

Whereas PCT talks about “controlling” and
“references,” Jeff’s work talks about “regulating” and
“goals.”

Now if we make more precise definition it would probably goes like this
:
whereas PCT talks about “CONTROLLING
PERCEPTION” and “references,” Jeff’s work talks about WHAT…?
“REGULATING BEHAVIOR” and goals ?

So it seems like we are regulating behavior to manipulate something
outside to the desired state which is formed inside organism ? Did I get the
point ?

GH :

I do not think that Jeff’s work should be equated to other
self-regulation researchers.

HB :

So could somebody please explain to me, what’s the difference between Jeff’s
“self-regulation” theory and other “self-regulation researchers”,
and what’s the difference between Jeff’s ““self-regulation”
theory” and PCT ?

And please note, that I will not read Jeff’s article for which I have
to pay. Speccially if it’s about “self-regulation”. I’m not
interested in it. I’m interested in PCT.

I would really advise
you to re-read Mary’s discourse again and analyze what she had to say. Everything
what she wrote is in accordance with what I “heard” in simultaneous discussion
with Bill, Carver, Scheier. And please note that my opinion is that Bill and
Mary really knew what they were talking about. I couldn’t say that for Carver
and Scheier and after that with Baumeister. But interesting Baumeister did
direct me to Bill about questions of the diagram “basic unit of cybernetic
control”. There was a quite “stormy” discussion with Carver who’s
diagram it is. There was no author under Bill’s generic diagram in Carver/Scheier
book. It’s quite complicated for me how psychologist think about “control”,
“perception”, “behavior”… and others work.

Best,

Best,

Boris

P.S, As always please try to understand
that I’m not from your language speaking area. Maybe I could understand something
wrong

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 10:04
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Self-regulation

My reading of Jeff’s excellent 2005 article which I use in teaching for
PCT is that it is consistent with Mary’s critique and it makes excellent points
defending PCT against self-regulatory theories that are not ‘subsystem’
theories as Jeff Describes them. My experience is that most self-regulatory
theories are not subsystem theories, but PCT is.

Warren

On Friday, April 18, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net > wrote:

Hi Jeff

I’m not acquanted with your defense of “control
theory” (don’t know which version), and I’m sorry that I’ll not read it.
But I can assure that Mary was quite right. I was mediator in talkings between Bill Powers and Carver,
Scheier. It’s sure that Carvers “self-regulation” theory is
“opposite” to PCT. I assume that was the reason why their friendship
felt apart. But I’m sure that Carver and Scheier (authors of
“self-regulation on behavior”) were Bill’s “students”.

Maybe we could try to define what you meant with self-regulation
that is just different word for PCT. Can you define your “Self-regulation
theory” ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On
Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014
6:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Boris,

I have been in this business for
about 20 years now. I have seen the Mary discourse (though it has been awhile).
I am not persuaded. I believe Rick knows this. You might read my 2005 defense
of control theory. It spells out my position.

Jeff

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.

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Boris Hartman
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014
2:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Jeff,

I thought that Rick will send you a discourse from Mary
Powers about PCT and self-regulation theory. In short, self-regulation theory
is far from just being different word for PCT. I would say it’s
“opposite” to PCT.

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On
Behalf Of Vancouver, Jeff
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:15
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

Hi Rick,

I do not really monitor this channel
very much, so if I engage in a “conversation� it is likely to be
sporadic.

The short answer to your question of
the difference between PCT and self-regulation theory is the words. I do not
mean to be glib, but the way I see it is that a lot of different people, using
a lot of different labels, are using a very similar conceptual framework. It
seems that self-regulation theory is one of the more universal labels. I am not
sure where one draws the line between enough differences or unique
specifications to call something a different name. My sense is that theory
names emerge to give the researcher some status. I am not interested in
creating a new label for what I do (though I reserve the right to change my
mind on that). Moreover, I am interested in emphasizing the commonality, not
the difference among approaches. Don’t get me wrong. I want to eliminate
the bad (i.e., invalid) parts of theories, but that might be called refining as
opposed to killing the theory.

More specifically regarding the
difference between the model I presented in the paper I sent around and my
understanding of PCT’s learning element is that learning in PCT is a
global response to error in the hierarchy on the hierarchy globally, whereas my
model is much more local. I have a footnote to that effect in the paper.
Otherwise, it is highly influenced by you font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D’>More specifically regarding the
difference between the model I presented in the paper I sent around and my
understanding of PCT’s learning element is that learning in PCT is a
global response to error in the hierarchy on the hierarchy globally, whereas my
model is much more local. I have a footnote to that effect in the paper.
Otherwise, it is highly influenced by you and Bill and others in the PCT
community. In particular, if PCT is about understanding how collections of
negative feedback control loops might explain human behavior, then that is what
I am doing. Moreover, PCT seem to me a lot about doing the above formally
(i.e., with computational models). I am all over that as well.

Jeff

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On
Behalf Of Richard
Marken
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014
3:58 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Programming and
Learning PCT - Chicken or the Egg?

[From
Rick Marken (2014.04.02.1255)]

On
Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Vancouver,
Jeff vancouve@ohio.edu wrote:

Hi all,

I saw my name in the post below and
thought I might distribute my latest model. Apparently it should be out
sometime this year.

Jeff Vancouver

Hi
Jeff

Thanks
for sending this paper. I haven’t had time to read it over carefully but based
on my brief scan of it I think it would be great if we could discuss it
on CSGNet, if you are willing. I think such a discussion would be very useful
to those of us who are interested in PCT because the theory you describe in the
paper, while not PCT (you call it “self -regulation” theory) is
certainly inspired by PCT (as you note by your references to Powers’ work). And
based on all the references in the paper there are apparently a whole lot of
people who are working on developing and testing this PCT inspired “self
-regulation” theory – people who seem to have little or no contact with
those of us who are developing and testing PCT.

So
what I would like to discuss is what you see as the differences between PCT and
“self-regulation” theory. And why was it seen as necessary to
make these modifications to Powers theory?

I
think it would by most informative if we could discuss this in the context of
the kind of task performance that the MGPM model described in the paper is
designed to account for. I think it was some kind of scheduling task but
I didn’t see – probably because I just skimmed the paper so far-- a
description of the task.

–

Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory

No virus found in
this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7363 - Release Date: 04/18/14

3D3 face=“Times New Roman”>No virus found in
this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7363 - Release Date: 04/18/14