We show how a control system model of behavior called Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) can provide a unifying framework for research in all traditional areas of psychology—as a basis for building hypotheses, working models, and applications. PCT views behavior, at all levels, as the control of perceptual inputs. This view is virtually the opposite of that of now standard models—exemplified by the General Linear Model—which view behavior as controlled by perceptual inputs. The PCT model calls for a new approach to research that is aimed at discovering the input variables that organisms control, rather than the input variables that control organisms. This new approach, called The Test for the Controlled Variable, can be applied to the study of all aspects of behavior, from motor control to cognitive neuroscience to counseling and clinical psychology.
BellH. C., & PellisS. M. (2011). A cybernetic perspective on food protection in rats: Simple rules can generate complex and adaptable behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 82, 659–666. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.06.016
CareyT. (2008). Perceptual control theory and method of levels: Contributions to a transdiagnostic perspective. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 1, 237–255. doi:10.1521/ijct.2008.1.3.237
4.
CohenJ., & CohenP. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
CozbyP. C. (2009). Methods in behavioral research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
6.
CzikoG. (2000). The things we do: Using the lessons of Bernard and Darwin to understand the what, how, and why of our behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
GibsonJ. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
HigginsonS., MansellW., & WoodA. M. (2011). An integrative mechanistic account of psychological distress, therapeutic change and recovery: The Perceptual Control Theory approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 249–259. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.005
9.
LeeD. N., & AronsonE. (1974). Visual proprioceptive control of standing in human infants. Perception & Psychophysics, 15, 529–532. doi:10.3758/BF03199297
10.
LevitinD. J. (2002). Experimental design in psychological research. In LevitinD. J. (), Foundations of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 115–130). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
MarkenR. S. (1980). The cause of control movements in a tracking task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 755–758. doi:10.2466/pms.1980.51.3.755
12.
MarkenR. S. (1986). Perceptual organization of behavior: A hierarchical control model of coordinated action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 267–276. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.12.3.267
13.
MarkenR. S. (1989). Behavior in the first degree. In HershbergerW. (), Volitional action (pp. 299–314). Elsevier Science Publishers: North-Holland. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61916-0
14.
MarkenR. S. (1991). Degrees of freedom in behavior. Psychological Science, 2, 92–100. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00107.x
15.
MarkenR. S. (1997). The dancer and the dance: Methods in the study of living control systems. Psychological Methods, 2, 436–446. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.4.436
16.
MarkenR. S. (2001). Controlled variables: Psychology as the center fielder views it. The American Journal of Psychology, 114, 259–281. doi:10.2307/1423517
17.
MarkenR. S. (2005). Optical trajectories and the informational basis of fly ball catching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 630–634. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.3.630
18.
MarkenR. S. (2009). You say you had a revolution: Methodological foundations of closed-loop psychology. Review of General Psychology, 13, 137–145. doi:10.1037/a0015106
19.
McBeathM. K., ShafferD. M., & KaiserM. K. (1995). How baseball outfielders determine where to run to catch fly balls. Science, 268, 569–573. doi:10.1126/science.7725104
20.
McLeodP., ReedN., & DienesZ. (2001). Towards a unified fielder theory: What we do not know about how people run to catch a ball. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1347–1355. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.6.1347
21.
McPhailC., PowersW. T., & TuckerC. W. (1992). Simulating individual and collective action in temporary gatherings. Social Science Computer Review, 10, 1–28. doi:10.1177/089443939201000101
22.
MooreR. K. (2007). PRESENCE: A human-inspired architecture for speech-based human-machine interaction. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 56, 1176–1188. doi:10.1109/TC.2007.1080
23.
PellisS. M., & BellH. C. (2011). Closing the circle between perceptions and behavior: A cybernetic view of behavior and its consequences for studying motivation and development. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 404–413. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2011.07.010
PlooijF. X. (1984). The behavioral development of free-living chimpanzee babies and infants. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
26.
PowersW. T. (1973a). Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
27.
PowersW. T. (1973b). Feedback: Beyond behaviorism. Science, 179, 351–356. doi:10.1126/science.179.4071.351
28.
PowersW. T. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology. Psychological Review, 85, 417–435. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.417
29.
PowersW. T. (2008). Living control systems III: The fact of control. Bloomfield, NJ: Benchmark Publications.
30.
PowersW. T., ClarkR. K., & McFarlandR. L. (1960a). A general feedback theory of human behavior. Part I. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 11, 71–88. doi:10.2466/pms.1960.11.1.71
31.
PowersW. T., ClarkR. K., & McFarlandR. L. (1960b). A general feedback theory of human behavior: Part II. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 11, 309–323. doi:10.2466/pms.1960.11.3.309
32.
RobertsonR. J., GoldsteinD. M., MermelM., & MusgraveM. (1999). Testing the self as a control system: Theoretical and methodological issues. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 571–580. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1998.0256
33.
RunkelP. (2003). People as living things: The psychology of perceptual control. Hayward, CA: Living Control Systems Publishing.
34.
SchachterS., & SingerJ. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, 379–399. doi:10.1037/h0046234
35.
ShafferD. M., KrauchunasS. M., EddyM., & McBeathM. K. (2004). How dogs navigate to catch Frisbees. Psychological Science, 15, 437–441. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00698.x
SwannW. B.Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In SulsJ. & GreenwaldA. G. (), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
VancouverJ. B., PutkaD. J., & ScherbaumC. A. (2005). Testing a computational model of the goal-level effect: An example of a neglected methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 100–127. doi:10.1177/1094428104271998
39.
VancouverJ. B., & ZawidzkiT. (2007). What determines the self in self-regulation: Applied psychology's struggle with will. In RossD., SpurrettD., KincaidH., & StephensL. (), Distributed cognition and the will (pp. 289–322). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
WarrenW. H., & FajenB. R. (2008). Behavioral dynamics of visually-guided locomotion. In FuchsA. & JirsaV. (), Coordination: Neural, behavioral, and social dynamics (pp. 45–76). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74479-5_3
