![]() ![]() 25 Specifically, the scale is built on the idea that people can attribute their health outcomes to one of three sources: internal influences that are under one’s control (i.e. 24Īdditionally, the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale was developed on the basis that a scale specific to health could provide more sensitive predictions of health behaviors and internal locus of control. The Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale, for example, was developed for children between the age of 9 and 18, and later adapted for preschool and primary children, college-age students, and seniors. Other instruments have since been developed to measure locus of control among specific populations. By applying the scale to such diverse populations, locus of control has shown to vary across situational contexts and to be a motivator behind people’s behaviors. Rotter’s I-E scale itself has been used to measure internal and external locus of control among Black civil rights activists in the 1960s, 20 women going through divorce, 21 adolescents who had experienced the Chernobyl accident, 22 and Bosnian refugees living in Norway, 23 among others. ![]() Self-efficacy: people’s judgements of their ability to succeed in a situation 18 and.Attributional biases, such that people seek out inaccurate explanations for behaviors 17. ![]() Learned helplessness: when people perceive an inability to escape negative events and a lack of control 16.Locus of control has also contributed to the development of other theories such as: 14, 15 Related to such applications, scores from scales measuring locus of control have been correlated with outcome markers for psychological disorders, school achievements, and physical health. Locus of control is a prominent construct that has influenced personality psychology, 4, 5 social psychology, 6, 7 education, 8, 9 medicine, 10, 11 business, 12, 13 and even sports. This finding led to the differentiation of people who attribute outcomes to ability and talent versus luck. 1 Research on these two constructs found that typical expectancy shifts were more common for those with an internal locus of control, while atypical expectancy shifts were more common for those with an external locus of control. By contrast, atypical expectancy shifts occur when individuals believe that successes or failures would be followed by dissimilar outcomes. Typical expectancy shifts occur when individuals believe that successes or failures would be followed by similar outcomes. To assist Rotter’s research, his student William James differentiated between typical and atypical expectancy shifts. The goal of the I-E scale is to measure two concepts related to beliefs about the nature of the world: (1) achievement motivation, linked to an internal locus of control and (2) outer-directedness, a tendency to conform to others and linked to an external locus of control. For example, people can either select “In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world” or “Unfortunately, an individual’s worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries.” On the scale, each item is a paired option, on which participants select one of two options most relevant for themselves. Rotter realized that locus of control was a more general, global concept.1 He developed the internal-external (I-E) scale, consisting of 29 forced-choice questions. 1 Related to his social learning theory, Rotter detailed his work surrounding locus of control, which he believed existed on a continuum between internal and external forces. Rotter thus added a subjective perspective to social learning.Īfter his 1954 publication, Rotter published an article entitled Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement in 1966, summarizing a decade of his and his students’ research. To this end, individual differences determined whether a behavior was likely to occur, and the consequences of that behavior would determine the likelihood of it occurring again. He theorized that people’s personalities and social environments worked together to create probabilities of behavior, and that learning resulted from reinforcements of such behaviors. Rotter recognized the importance of reinforcement, but he was also interested in the interactions between people and their environments. 2 Previously, social learning theories focused on the learning of behavior through conditioning: punishment and reinforcement. ![]() In 1954, psychologist Julian Rotter published Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, a book in which he expanded on Albert Bandura’s social learning theories. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |