My curiosity aroused by the Wolfram-Locke discussion, I asked Jeffrey
Vancouver for a copy of the Wolfram-Locke paper and learned that what he
had was a Bandura & Locke paper titled "Negative Self-Efficacy and Goal
Effects Revisited." So, I asked him for that and read it. Following are
some comments.
The first and last sentences from the abstract of the Bandura & Locke paper
say it all:
"The present article addresses the verification of the functional
properties of self-efficacy beliefs."
<snip>
"The large body of evidence, evaluated by nine meta-analyses for
the effect sizes of self-efficacy beliefs and the vast body of research on
goal setting contradict findings (Vancouver, et al., 2002, in press) that
belief in one's capabilities and personal goals are self-debilitating."
My take is that, depending on your perspective, the Bandura & Locke paper
could be viewed as an attack on PCT or as a defense against an attack on
self-efficacy, said attack being launched by Jeffrey Vancouver et al in a
couple of papers cited by Bandura & Locke. In PCT terms, I suppose you
might say that Bandura & Locke are controlling for a variable that could be
loosely termed "the reputable standing of the concept of self-efficacy."
I read the paper twice and found much of it incomprehensible owing partly
to my lack of familiarity with most (but not all) of the literature cited;
partly because of the frequently dense, almost unreadable prose; and partly
because of the disjointed logic. The paper is not an easy read. That
doesn't make it a bad paper but some other things do.
For me, some of the "badness" appears right up front, in the
Abstract. Consider these two sentences from the Abstract:
"It [the paper] documents how self-efficacy beliefs operate in
concert with goal systems within a sociocognitive theory of self-regulation
in contrast to the focus of control theory on discrepancy
reduction. Social cognitive theory posits proactive discrepancy production
by adoption of goal challenges working in concert with reactive discrepancy
reduction in realizing them."
Right away, control theory is pigeonholed as "reactive" and focused on
"discrepancy reduction." From there on, it isn't difficult to anticipate
what follows.
On page 2, Bandura & Locke make this comment:
"A theory embodying feedforward self-regulation differs from
control theories rooted solely in a negative feedback control system aimed
at error correction."
Nowhere in the Bandura & Locke paper could I find an explanation of
"feedforward self-regulation" and this is the only place where "negative
feedback" can be viewed as being used correctly.
On page 3, Bandura & Locke once again make clear the purpose of their
paper; namely, to discredit claims made by "Vancouver and his associates":
"In several publications, Vancouver and his associates claim that
belief in one's capabilities has no determinative function or is
self-debilitating (Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, in press;
Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams, 2001)."
Here, too is what I take to be the controlled variable, that is, the good
and unsullied reputation of the notion of self-efficacy as a major
determinant of motivation and performance.
Bandura & Locke go on to say:
"The debilitating performance effects are said to be derived from Powers
(1991) perceptual control theory.
The present article reviews the diverse research strategies used to verify
the functional properties of efficacy beliefs and examines the conceptual,
methodological, empirical, and interpretive bases on which Vancouver et al.
rest their claim. This critique is embedded in a broader analysis of the
ontological foundations of control theory and social cognitive theory and
conceptual and methodological issues bearing on verification of causation."
Okay, sez I to myself, I'll plow through this and see what's up.
At the bottom of page 5, I came across this sentence which almost led me to
stop reading the paper:
"In modes of influence that alter efficacy beliefs by observing
models or visualizing threatening activities, people do not execute any
behavior. Consequently, they have no personal performance data for
reappraising their capabilities."
It seems to me that "observing" and "visualizing" are both instances of
behavior, albeit of primarily of a variety that we used to call "covert"
behavior. These two sentences seem to suggest that we have no other basis
for reappraising our capabilities. What happened to imagination? Or
reflection?
Along about here I began to entertain the possibility that, despite
Bandura's good name, I was reading some very sloppy writing and some
equally slippery reasoning.
On page 16, I undid my previous acceptance of Bandura & Locke's earlier use
of "negative feedback" when I came across this paragraph:
"In research examining intraindividual change, goals enhance
performance at the outset before any feedback is provided to create a
discrepancy (Bandura, 1991). Framing feedback of the same performance
discrepancy as progress toward a desired goals (e.g., +75%) versus
shortfall from the same goal (e.g., -25%) has markedly different effects
(Jourden, 1991). Feedback framed as gains toward goal attainment sustained
high perceived self-efficacy, raised self-set goals, and supported
self-satisfaction and group productivity in the management of a simulated
organization. By contrast, under factually equivalent discrepancy feedback
framed as goal shortfalls, perceived self-efficacy plummets, self-set goals
decrease, self-satisfaction declines, and organizational performance
progressively deteriorates. So much for the driving power of negative
feedback. The removal of a negative is not the same as the attainment of a
positive."
It seems that Bandura & Locke now equate "negative feedback" with criticism
as well as some variant on the notion that a glass can be half full (+50%)
or half empty (-50%). This suggested to me that they really didn't have a
clue as to what a negative feedback loop was all about and, on page 22, I
came across another comment that confirmed my suspicion:
"In social cognitive theory, humans are proactive and forward
looking rather than backward looking locked in a negative feedback loop
(Bandura, 2001). They extend their aspirations distally well beyond their
proximal performance level and override a lot of negative feedback along
the way in pursuit."
"Negative feedback" is used in two very different senses in the sentences
above but the authors seem unaware of that.
Backing up from page 22 a bit: On page 18 I came across what I believe to
be a completely erroneous statement that could reflect poor writing, an
absence of editing, or a lack of understanding:
"Control theory of human functioning was developed by Powers
(1973) as an outgrowth of the cybernetic model in engineering to show how
mechanical devices are regulated through feedback based on the results of
their previous motions."
I'm no grammarian but that sentence reads as though the authors are saying
that Bill developed PCT to show how mechanical devices are regulated. It
reflects, to me, a lack of understanding of PCT. I suppose the sentence
could be fixed by inserting something like "originally developed" between
"model" and "in" but who's to say that the sentence doesn't read as intended?
At the top of page 19 appears the following paragraph and it says a lot
about the authors' grasp of PCT:
"An odd aspect of perceptual control theory is the claim that
"people act to control perceptions, not actions" (Vancouver & Putka, 2000,
p. 335). Taken literally, an organism that is focused solely on regulating
perceptions would not survive for long. People act to develop their
knowledge and capabilities and to exercise some measure of control over
their everyday lives. They obviously do so through their construals and
constructions of reality, but the aim of their purposive actions is not
just to manage their perceptions but to manage their life circumstances."
That paragraph persuades me that Bandura & Locke do not understand
PCT. Why that would be the case is a purely speculative venture. But, by
this point, I was convinced that all that was going on in the paper was a
defense of the notion of self-efficacy, a notion that the authors clearly
saw as having been faulted, or criticized or attacked in papers by
Vancouver et al. I don't believe they set out to attack or trash PCT per
se; that was incidental to but necessary in defending self-efficacy because
it formed the theoretical basis for Jeffrey's papers.
Will the Bandura & Locke paper get PCT any good press? I doubt it. But I
don't think it will get Bandura & Locke much, either. It's just not a very
convincing paper but then I doubt I'm a representative member of the
intended audience.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
740.397.2363
nickols@safe-t.net
"Assistance at a Distance"
http://www.nickols.us