Behavior is always seen through the theoretical preferences of the observer. These preferences act like different prescriptions for glasses. The most popular glasses use the causal theory prescription, through which an organism's behavior appears to be the result of external or internal causes. This article describes glasses that use the less familiar control theory prescription, through which behavior looks like the organism's purposeful efforts to control its own perceptions. The consequences of looking at the same behavior through these different “glasses” are demonstrated by comparing examples of real-life behavior with the behavior of computer simulations available on the Internet. A method is described that makes it possible to determine which “glasses” provide the best view of any particular example of behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BablerT., & DannemillerJ. (1993). Role of acceleration in judging landing location of free-falling objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 15–31.
2.
BarghJ. A., & FergusonM. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 925–945.
3.
BizziE., Mussa-OnvaldiF. A., & GiszterS. (1991). Computations underlying the execution of movement: A biological perspective. Science, 253, 287–291.
4.
BraitenbergV. (1986). Vehicles: Experiments in synthetic psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
BrunerJ. S., & PostmanL. (1949). On the perception of incongruity: A paradigm. Journal of Personality, 18, 206–223.
6.
ChapmanS. (1968). Catching a baseball. American Journal of Physics, 36, 868–870.
7.
DennettD. C. (1989). The intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
GelmanR., DurginF., & KaufmanL. (1995). Distinguishing animates from inanimates. In SperberD., PremackD., & PremackA., Causality and culture (pp. 150–184). Oxford, England: Plenum.
9.
GergeleyG., NádasdyZ., GergeleyC., & SzilviaB. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56, 165–193.
10.
LorenzK. (1988). Here Am I-Where are You? The Behavior of the Greylag Goose. New York: Harcourt Brace.
11.
MarkenR. S. (1988). The nature of behavior: Control as fact and theory. Behavioral Science, 33, 196–206.
12.
MarkenR. S. (1992). Mind readings: Experimental studies of purpose. Los Angeles: MindReadings.com.
13.
MarkenR. S. (1993). The blind men and the elephant: Three perspectives on the phenomenon of control. Closed Loop, 3(1), 37–46.
14.
MarkenR. S. (1997). The dancer and the dance: Methods in the study of living control systems. Psychological Methods, 2, 436–446.
15.
MarkenR. S. (2001). Controlled variables: Psychology as the center fielder views it. American Journal of Psychology, 114, 259–282.
16.
McBeathM. K., ShafferD. M., & and KaiserM. K. (1995). How baseball outfielders determine where to run to catch fly balls. Science, 268, 569–573.
17.
McPhailC., PowersW. T., & TuckerC. W. (1992). Simulating individual and collective action in temporary gatherings. Social Science Computer Review, 10(1), 1–28.
18.
MitchellS. K. (1979). Interobserver agreement, reliability, and generalizability of data collected in observational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 376–390.
19.
PageT. J., & IwataB. A. (1986). Interobserver agreement: Theory and current methods. In PolingA. & FuquaR. W., Research methods in applied behavior analysis: Issues and advances (pp. 99–126). New York: Plenum.
20.
PowersW. T. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
21.
PowersW. T. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the foundations of experimental psychology. Psychological Review, 85, 417–435.
22.
PowersW. T. (1999). A model of kinesthetically and visually controlled arm movement. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 463–479.
23.
PowersW. T., ClarkR. K., & McFarlandR. L. (1961). A general feedback theory of human behavior: Part I. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 11, 71–88.
24.
PremackD. (1990). The infant's theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition, 36, 1–16.
25.
ReynoldsC. W. (1987). Flocks, herds, and schools: A distributed behavioral model. Computer Graphics SIGGRAPH Conference Proceedings, 21(4), 25–34.
26.
SearleJ. R. (1986). Minds, brains and science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
TolmanE. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Century.
28.
TresilianJ. R. (1995). Study of a servo-control strategy for projectile interception. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(A), 688–715.
29.
WienerN. (1948). Cybernetics: Communication and control in man and machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
WilhelmsJ., & SkinnerR. (1990). A notion for behavioral animation. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 10(3), 14–22.
