[from Jeff Vancouver (2007.08.03 10:10 EST)]
Gary and Dawn,
I will shamelessly point out that I have reviewed PCT, PCT-like,
and barely PCT theories and research in a number of published articles (see
list below), some more explicitly than others. Dawn, you might find the Behavioral
Science paper particularly interesting. Some of these articles are
downloadable from my web site (http://www.psych.ohiou.edu/people/faculty/vancouver/vancouver.html),
but I can send them to individuals requesting them (same copyright issues Dawn
mentioned). Like Gary, I am only about halfway through your article Dawn. One
of my students had brought it to my attention. It is useful to have these
reviews given the breadth of control theory models/theories out there (tough to
keep up). But like Einstein’s sphere of knowledge, the more I learn about, the
more I learn about my ignorance. So many articles to follow up on …
Jeff V.
Vancouver, J. B. (2006). Control theory. In S. G.
Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
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. (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. (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.
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal
constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological
Bulletin,120(3), 338-375.
Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Living systems theory as a
paradigm for organizational behavior:Â Understanding humans, organizations, and
social processes. Behavioral Science, 41(3), 165-204.
···
From: Control Systems
Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary
Cziko
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:00 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Dawn T. Robinson, “Control theories in sociology”
[from Gary Cziko 2007.08.03
07:30 CDT]
Dawn:
Welcome to CSGnet!
Thank you for making your presence known on CSGnet (as one of the listowners of
CSGnet, I suppose I should have already known you were here) and for making
your review chapter available for CSGnet participants.
On 8/3/07, Dawn T. Robinson sodawn@uga.edu wrote:
[from Dawn T. Robinson 2007.08.03 06:30 EDT]
Yes, this paper does reviews control theories in sociology more broadly
and, specifically, describes several research traditions that were
directly inspired by Powers’ B:CP. Most of the works reviewed (with
McClelland’s being one of the notable exceptions) are not that
“PCT-like,” but all involve some kind of control system
model.
As I mentioned earlier, I have not yet fully read and digested your paper, but
it does appear to be a very useful and concise introduction to
PCT-inspired theory and research in sociology.
Most of the works reviewed (with
McClelland’s being one of the notable exceptions) are not that
“PCT-like,” but all involve some kind of control system model.
There are two principal ways in which PCT has been used for behavioral
research. The first is doing the Test of the Controlled Variable in which
disturbances are applied to a suspected controlled perceptual variable and the
behavior of a living system is observed to see if it acts to resist the
disturbance. The other is to create a working model of perceptual control,
either simple or hierarchical (usually simulated by a computer program) and the
behavior of the working model is compared with the behavior of a living system.
I’d be very interested to know the extent to which either of these two
approaches for PCT research are employed in the research that you review in
your chapter.
Lastly, let me offer an apology for mistakingly calling PCT
“perception
control theory” in the review! I had seen both used before and
thought
that the “perceptual” version was the error.
I had never seen (or at least noticed) the descriptor “perception control
theory” before reading your chapter. But a Google search reveals:
“perception control theory” = 301 instances
“perceptual control theory” = 14,800 instances
So perception control theory is indeed out there, but dwarfed by perceptual
control theory.
Perceptual control theory
sounds like it would refer to using perceptual information to control
something else; while perception control theory sounds like it refers to
the control of perceptions.
As I understand PCT, both perception and “something
else” are controlled. The “something else” is some part of the
physical world outside of the living control system which is represented in
some way by the perception ( e.g., the position of the actual knot on the
actual rubber band is controlled by controlling one’s perception of it).
I think that and my greater familiarity
with theories whose names are more parallel to the latter (affect
control theory and identity control theory) . . .
Nonetheless, “perception control theory” makes sense to me, too. Many
things that are controlled don’t seem to have an adjectival form (e.g., speed
control, tobacco control, firearm control), but “perception”
does have “perceptual.”
If I recall correctly, it was Kent McClelland who first used the term
“perceptual control theory” to refer to control theory applied to
living organisms, so blame it on a sociologist! Although I believe it was me
who suggested the widespread adoption of this term to describe Powers-type
control theory, so I share some of the blame, too!
–Gary
P.S. I have added “Perception control theory” to the Wikipedia with a
redirect to “Perceptual control theory.”