Base materials:
Rotter J. W. (1966). Generalized expectations for internal versus
external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80,
Are you in control of the consequences of your own actions, or are they determined by some external force? Think about it: when something good happens to you, do you praise yourself for it, or do you think how lucky you are? When something bad happens, do you blame yourself or write it off to fate? The same question can be
more psychologically: Do you believe there is a causal relationship between your behavior and its consequences?
Julian Rotter, one of the world's most influential psychologists, has suggested that people differ greatly in how they take responsibility for what happens to them. When people believe that the consequences of their actions depend on luck, fate, or other forces, this means that such people, as Rotter called it, have an external (external) locus of control (locus means location). Conversely, if people believe that their own behavior and personality characteristics are responsible for the consequences of their actions, they have an internal (internal) locus of control. In his oft-cited 1966 paper, Rotter says that the tendency to view events in terms of internal or external locus of control can be explained in terms of social learning theory.
According to this theory, during childhood, from infancy, a person learns certain behaviors as they are combined with some form of reinforcement. This reinforcer raises the expectation that a particular behavior will lead to the desired reinforcer in the future. When such an expectation is already there, reinforcement may not appear, and then the expectation fades. Consequently, reinforcement sometimes depends on behavior, and sometimes arises on its own (see the discussion of these dependencies in the work of B. F. Skinner). Some children in the process of development are more likely to encounter the fact that their actions have a direct impact on the appearance of reinforcement, while others are faced with the fact that reinforcement is mainly the result of some external factors. Rotter argues that your overall learning experience creates a generalized expectation in you as to whether reinforcement is controlled by external or internal forces.
“These generalized expectations,” writes Rotter, “will be reflected in the characteristic differences in behavior in a situation that in society can be considered either as a “case” or as “the result of the skills and inability of the person himself,” and can produce individual differences in specific conditions ”( R. 2). In other words, you tune in to interpret
consequences of your behavior as a result of either external or internal forces that will affect your future behavior in almost all situations. Rotter believed that the locus of control, external or internal, is an important part of your Self, your personality.
Let us return to the question posed at the beginning of the chapter. Who do you consider yourself: external or internal? Rotter wanted to study differences in this trait, and not just ask people about it, and so he developed a test that measures the locus of control of personality. Now that it was possible to measure this characteristic, Rotter could explore how it affects human behavior.
THEORETICAL BASIS
Rotter set out to test two main ideas. First, he pointed to the possibility of such an improvement in the test that it would be reliable enough to measure the degree of externality-internality of a person in life. Second, he suggested that people would show fairly stable individual differences in their interpretation of the causes of reinforcement in the same situations. Rotter decided to test his hypothesis with a comparative study of people with external and internal locus of control in different contexts.
METHOD
Rotter developed a scale containing a series of pairs of statements. Each pair contains a statement that reflects an external locus of control and a statement that reflects an internal locus of control. Subjects were instructed to choose “one statement from each pair (and only one) that you think best suits you. Make sure you choose the one you really think is right for you, not the one you think is right at all, or the one you would like to be right for you. This is the dimension of personal beliefs: there are no right or wrong answers” (p. 26). The test was designed so that each test-taker
The student had to choose one statement from each pair and could not choose both or neither.
The Rotter test has undergone many revisions and changes. In its original form, it contained 60 pairs of statements, but after various tests for reliability and validity, it was refined and reduced to 23 pairs. 6 items were added to them that are not related to the task and introduced to hide the true purpose of the test. These "fillers" are often used in these methods, because if test-takers could guess what the test measures, they might change their answers in an attempt to show a better result.
Rotter called his test 1-E scale (internality-externality scale. - Approx. ed.), under this name she is known to this day. In table. 7.1 contains examples of typical tasks
from I-E scales, as well as examples of "fillers". If you review these assignments, you will see which statements reflect an inward orientation and which statements reflect an outward orientation. Rotter claimed that his test measures the degree of expression of the personality characteristic "external or internal locus of control."
Rotter's next step was to demonstrate that this characteristic could be used to predict human behavior in certain situations. He reports several studies (his own and other authors) in which I-E scores (in various forms) were analyzed in connection with a person's actions in different life situations. These studies found a high correlation between I-E scores and various situations involving gambling, political activity, persuasion, smoking, achievement motivation, and conformity.
gambling
Rotter reports on the relationship between a person's behavior when choosing bets in a game and his locus of control. The author found out that internals (on the I-E scale) were preferred to bet for sure - on groups of numbers. People with an external locus of control were more likely to take risks. In addition, externals, as a rule, were more likely to bet on more unusual combinations, also called the trick of the player (for example, a bet on a number that has not been drawn for quite a long time, with the logic that now is the time).
Political activity
In the 1960s, Rotter and colleagues surveyed African American college students in the southern states about activities associated with the civil rights movements.
person. The results showed that those who marched and joined civil rights groups were more likely to be more oriented toward an internal locus of control.
Belief
In a rather interesting study mentioned by Rotter, with using I-E scales, two groups of students were selected - highly internal and highly external. Both groups were characterized by similar attitudes towards the system of men's and women's clubs on the college campus. Participants in both groups were asked to try to convince other students to change their attitude towards these organizations. The internals persuaded more successfully. Other studies have shown that people with an internal locus of control were more resistant to other people's attempts to manipulate their opinions.
Smoking
Internality is related to high level self-control. The two studies cited by Rotter found that: 1) smokers were more external than non-smokers; 2) people who quit smoking after Surgeon General printed a warning about the dangers of smoking on cigarette packs turned out to be more internal, although both internals and externals believed in the validity of this warning.
achievement motivation
If you believe that you yourself are responsible for the success of your enterprise, it is logical to assume that you should be more motivated to achieve success than someone who believes that it is all about luck. Rotter refers to a study conducted on a thousand students high school, in which a positive relationship was found between the internal locus of control on the I-E scale and 15 out of 17 indicators of achievement motivation. This list included college plans, time spent on homework, as well as how
parents were interested in the school success of their children. Each of these achievement factors was found more frequently in students with an internal locus of control.
Conformity
In another study, people took a conformity test proposed by Solomon Asch. In this test, the willingness of the subject to agree with the incorrect opinion of the majority was a sign of conformity (see Asch's article in this book). The subjects were given the opportunity to make money bets (the money was allocated by the experimenters) on the correctness of their judgments. In this situation, internal people were less likely than external people to agree with the opinion of the majority and put more money on their own opinion in conditions where it contradicted the opinion of the majority.
DISCUSSION
Discussing the results obtained, Rotter pointed to possible sources of individual differences identified in relation to the external-internal locus of control. He referred to several studies that examined the problem of possible causes of differences. Rotter presented three potential sources for the development of inward and outward orientation: cultural, socioeconomic differences, and variations in parenting style.
One study found differences in locus of control between different cultures. In the United States, three isolated groups were compared: Utah Indians, Mexicans, and Caucasians. It turned out that the Utah natives were, on average, highly externalized, while the white population was highly internalized. The Mexicans, on the I-E scale, were somewhere in the middle between the other two groups. In this study, which did not take into account the socio-economic factor, cultural differences in the locus of control were demonstrated.
Rotter also cites earlier, preliminary research results that show that there is a relationship between locus of control and socioeconomic level, even within the same culture. It turned out that the lower the socio-economic level, the more likely a person will be outwardly oriented.
Rotter considered parenting styles in the family as an obvious source of the formation of external or internal orientation. Although he does not provide reliable research evidence to support this view, the author believes that parents who use rewards and punishments in an unpredictable and inconsistent manner stimulate the development of an external locus of control. (Recent studies on this topic present it in more detail.)
Based on the stable nature of the data obtained, Rotter concluded that the locus of control is a definable human characteristic that is quite stable in various situations. Moreover, the impact on behavior from the factor of external-internal orientation is such that this factor affects different people differently in similar situations. Rotter also believes that the locus of control can be measured and that the I-E scale is a fairly effective tool for this.
Finally, Rotter suggested that people with an internal locus of control (those who believe they can control their own destiny) are more likely than externals to: 1) derive from life situations information useful to improve the effectiveness of their future behavior in similar situations; 2) more often take the initiative to change and improve living conditions; 3) value internal skills and achieving goals more; and 4) are more resistant to manipulation by others.
FURTHER RESEARCH
Since Rotter developed the I-E scale, there have been hundreds of studies examining the relationship between locus of control and behavior. Next, we will consider short description row
research dealing with the diversity of human behavior.
In a 1966 article, Rotter touched on the relationship between locus of control and health care. Other studies have been carried out on this issue. In a review of studies on locus of control, Strickland (1977) writes that internals generally feel more responsible for their health. They are more likely to lead a healthy lifestyle (do not smoke and eat right) and behave less risky in order to avoid accidents. Also in these studies, it was found that people with an internal locus of control are less prone to stress and suffer less from stress-related diseases.
Rotter's hypotheses about the relationship between parenting style and locus of control have been partly confirmed. Studies have shown that parents of internalized children showed more love for their child, were more consistent with discipline, and also tried more to instill in their children the habit of taking responsibility for their actions. Parents of externals, on the other hand, were more authoritarian and strict and did not give their children control over their lives (see the discussion in Davis & Phares, 1969).
In another rather interesting study, it was demonstrated that the concept of locus of control can have applications in sociology and the study of disasters. Sims and Baumann (1972) applied Rotter's theory to explain why tornadoes kill people in Alabama. more people than in Illinois. Researchers noticed that tornado deaths were five times higher in the south compared to the western United States and sought to determine the cause. One by one, they rejected physical explanations, such as the strength of the hurricane and intensity (storms tend to be stronger in Illinois), the time of day when a given a natural phenomenon(the same number of tornadoes passed in both states at night), the type of buildings (stone houses are just as dangerous as wooden houses, but for different reasons) and the quality of the warning systems (even before there were warning systems, the death rate in Alabama was the same) .
After excluding all environmental factors, Sime and Bauman suggested that the differences could be explained by psychological variables and proposed that locus of control be considered a plausible possibility. In the four counties of Illinois and Alabama where tornadoes raged and, accordingly, there were deaths, the researchers conducted a survey based on a modified version of the 1-E Rotter scale. They found that Alabama respondents showed much greater locus of control externality compared to Illinois respondents. Based on these results, as well as responses to other questions from the Tornado Behavior Questionnaire, the researchers concluded that internality is more conducive to tornado survival (these people are serious about the news presented in the media, and warnings to others). This is a direct result of people's inner conviction that their behavior can change the course of events. In this study, Alabamians were "less confident in themselves as a source of influence on events, as well as in their ability to act effectively enough ... The data ... form a convincing picture of how a person's personality can affect the quality of his interaction with nature" ( Sims & Baumann, 1972, p. 1391).
MODERN DEVELOPMENTS
To say that hundreds of researchers have used Rotter's theory of locus of control since it appeared in 1966 is to underestimate the real extent of its application. In reality, there are thousands of such studies! If you look at the period from 1997 to 2000, the time since the previous edition of this book, you will find over 600 articles that reference Rotter's early research. This is far more than the number of references to any other study cited in this book. The fact that so many people rely on Rotter's theory in their work speaks in favor of a general agreement on the influence and validity of internality-externality as a personality characteristic. In what follows, we consider several examples of such studies.
from a huge variety of works based on Rotter's research. It is natural that if you do not feel personal, inner strength and the ability to control events in your life, then you probably feel helpless and hopeless when something does not work out for you. Well, helplessness and hopelessness are two key symptoms of depression. (This issue will be discussed in more detail later in the Seligman study.) The association between locus of control and depression has been confirmed and extended by Yang and Clum (2000). This study demonstrated how childhood stress caused by abuse, instability in the family, or a general negative environment in it create low self-esteem, externality, and also cause severe depression and suicidal tendencies in adulthood.
Very often, when discussing Rotter's research, the question of religious faith comes up. Many religious people feel that it is sometimes necessary to place one's destiny in the hands of God; within the framework of Rotter's theory, this means a tendency to an external locus of control with corresponding negative consequences. The Journal of Psychology and Religion has a rather elegant study on this subject (Welton, Adkins, Ingle & Dixon, 1996). Using various scales and subscales of the locus of control test, the researchers assessed the degree of internality in the subjects, the perceived control from other strong people, faith in fate and faith in the power of God. Respondents with high ratings of faith in the power of God, however, were found to have advantages associated with an internal locus of control. The authors argue that if a person is an external on the Rotter scale, but external power is perceived by him as emanating from a powerful superior being, then such people are much less likely to experience problems usually associated with an external locus of control (for example, impotence, depression, low achievement, low motivation for change).
Many cross-cultural studies have used the concept of locus of control as a personality characteristic. For example, Russian scientists studied the locus of control and adherence to right-wing political authoritarian attitudes among college students in Russia and America (Dyakonova
and Yurtaikin, 2000). The results showed that in American students, a larger internal locus of control correlated with higher levels of commitment to authoritarianism; at Russian students no such correlation was observed. Another cross-cultural study using the Rotter 1-E scale examined the psychological adjustment to a cancer diagnosis in a deeply superstitious collectivist culture (Sun and Stewart, 2000). Interestingly, the results of this study showed that “even in a culture where there is widespread belief in the existence of the supernatural, it [internal locus of control] is positively associated, and fate orientation is negatively associated with adjustment” to serious diagnoses such as cancer (p. 177 ). The attention of researchers who turned to Rotter's work was also directed to the following issues: post-traumatic stress, problems of control and aging, methods of assisting with childbearing, coping with unexpected stress, noisy environments, academic achievement, white-collar crime, adult children of alcoholics , child harassment, mental health and natural disasters, contraceptive use, and the prevention of HIV and AIDS.
CONCLUSION
Externality-internality is generally recognized as a relatively stable aspect of the human personality that can be measured and has importance to predict behavior in a variety of situations. The phrase relatively stable is used because a person's locus of control can change under certain circumstances. Externals often acquire significant internality when, in the course of their professional careers, they are entrusted with power and responsibility. Highly internal people may become more externally oriented during times of stress and uncertainty. Moreover, a person can learn to be more internal if given the opportunity to do so.
Rotter's concept implies that internals are more adaptable and more effective in life. Despite the fact that the bulk of the research confirms this assumption, Rotter in his recent works gives some warning (see: Rotter, 1975). Every person, and in particular the internal, should be attentive to environment. If a person tries to change the unchangeable, he is guaranteed frustration, disappointment and depression. When external forces actually control the consequences of a person's behavior, the most realistic and healthy approach in this case would be to take one of the external benchmarks.
LITERATURE
Davis, W, & Phares, E. (1969). Parental antecedents of internal-external control of reinforcement. Psychological Reports, 24,427-436.
D "yakonova, N., & Yurtaikin, V (2000). An authoritarian personality in Russia and in the USA: Value orientation and locus of control. Voprosy Psikhologii, 4, 51-61.
Rotter, J. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 56-67.
Sims, J., & Baumann, D. (1972). The tornado threat: Coping styles in the North and South. Science, 176, 1386-1392.
Strickland, B. (1977). Internal-external control of reinforcement. In T. Blass (Ed.), Personality variables in social behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sun, L., & Stewart, S. (2000). Psychological adjustment to cancer in a collective culture. International Journal of Psychology, J5(5), 177-185.
\\elton, G., Adkins, A., Ingle, S., & Dixon, W. (1996). God control - The 4th dimension. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 24(1), 13-25.
Yang, B., & Clum, G. (2000). Childhood stress leads to later suicidality via its effects on cognitive functioning. Suicide and Life-Threating Behavior, 30(3), 183-198.
How moral are you?
Base materials:
It is very important for a business person to be able to properly negotiate. The outcome of the meeting very often depends on the diplomacy of both sides. By sincerely and objectively answering the test questions, you will be able to assess your ability to conduct business negotiations both with partners and employees of the company.
5 points - true to the highest degree,
4 points - almost always true,
3 points - indefinite assessment,
2 points - usually this does not happen,
1 point - this never happens.
1. I am not afraid to give orders to subordinates and take responsibility for their failure to fulfill them.
3. I try to take into account other people's comments.
4. During discussions and disputes, I manage to substantiate my point of view logically.
5. I believe that my employees should cope with their tasks without outside help.
6. When I am criticized, I defend my innocence with all my might.
7. In a dispute, I listen to the arguments of opponents.
8. I plan any event in advance.
9. I tend to admit my mistakes.
10. When any suggestions come from employees, I express my options.
11. I always try to help those who have problems.
12. My arguments are for the most part convincing.
13. My enthusiasm is transferred to others.
14. I listen to all suggestions and strive to implement them as much as possible.
15. I recognize my point of view as the only correct one.
16. I fully understand critical comments, even if they are expressed in harsh terms.
17. I try to express my thoughts clearly and clearly.
18. I am not ashamed to admit my incompetence, if any.
19. I actively defend my position.
20. I present other people's ideas as my own.
21. When solving a problem, I always think about how others would act in this situation. I try to find strong arguments.
22. I am ready to advise employees on how best to organize work.
23. When I plan my career prospects, I don't care what others think about it. Their plans do not concern me.
24. I am always interested in someone else's opinion, even if it does not coincide with mine.
25. If someone is not satisfied with my decision, I try to change it.
26. I insist on my projects and try to get others to agree with me.
27. I do not hide my problems, plans and intentions.
28. I do my best to get support for my projects.
29. Feelings of others are not indifferent to me.
30. I do not seek to listen to interlocutors. Smooth for me - to express my opinion.
31. I listen to criticism and only then give arguments in my defense.
32. I consistently express my thoughts.
33. I believe that others also have the right to express their point of view, and I always give them the opportunity to do so.
34. I listen carefully to the arguments of my opponents and try to detect inconsistencies in them.
35. To show my interlocutors that I am following their reasoning, I have to change my point of view.
36. I do not tend to interrupt interlocutors.
37. I do not insist on my point of view if I am not sure of it.
38. I always advise people how they should act in a given situation, even if they are not interested in my opinion.
39. My emotional speech encourages people to work harder.
40. At meetings, I always try to get all my colleagues to speak, even those who usually do not ask for the floor.
Result
To determine if your negotiating style is diplomatic, you will need two indicators: sum A and sum B. To get the first result, calculate the total points for points 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 40. Having summed up the scores for items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 38, 39, you get the second result. Both numbers must be between 20 and 100.
Then compare your results. If sum A is at least 10 points higher than sum B, you are an excellent diplomat. This means that you seek to take into account someone else's point of view and attach great importance employees' opinions about your projects. People are pleased to work under your leadership, because thanks to you they feel their involvement in all the affairs of the company.
If B is more than 10 points higher than A, your negotiating style is likely to be authoritarian and unceremonious. In meetings, you try to keep the initiative in your hands. The main thing for you is to realize your own projects. You are not interested in the opinion of partners, and they practically do not get the opportunity to express it. You state your point of view harshly and categorically, without waiting for the approval of employees. At the same time, you always have a lot of new plans and ideas.
In some situations, an authoritarian meeting style is acceptable. The need for such behavior arises, as a rule, when there is not enough time to discuss all the details of the problem. And yet, you should resort to it only in extreme cases, especially if in the future you will have to deal with these partners more than once.
A diplomatic approach to business is appropriate in situations where a decision can only be made after the approval of all participants in the meeting, as well as when there are big disagreements on this issue. The diplomatic style of discussing a problem is good only if both sides have enough time and understand the essence of the issue equally.
In other words, the style of negotiation should be chosen taking into account the tasks and specific circumstances. According to psychologists, both diplomatic and authoritarian behavior can positively affect the outcome of the meeting (of course, provided that it corresponds to the situation).
If the difference between sum A and sum B is less than 10 points, your style of behavior is ambiguous and may change depending on the circumstances.
Everything that surrounds us in one way or another affects our perception of ourselves. The emotions we experience are indicators of whether we are doing well or badly in life. Why do we not take into account the opinions of others? We tend to evaluate each other, and no matter what objective and constructive things criticism is built on, it still has an emotional and subjective coloring.
Imagine that a person looks like an apple: he has an outer shell and a core. Of course, we are made up of many more layers. But we offer you a more simplified version. This will help you look at everything from a different angle and create a platform where it will be easier for you to judge people.
What we notice in others in the first place can be called just. Exists a large number of theories about what we pay attention to the moment we see another for the first time. Each of them is correct in its own way, because someone evaluates your appearance, while others evaluate your gait, gestures or voice. Your outer shell, or rind, may not taste like you think. To determine its characteristics, ask the barista who makes you coffee for work every day, or customers who see you for the first time, about what they can say about you now. Remember that it is not always worth relying on the opinions of others about you, but it can open our eyes to what we do not fully see in ourselves. Are you considered friendly? Would others like to get to know you better? You can convince yourself as much as you like that you are the kindest soul person, but if others see you as aggressive and rude, then you should rethink your opinion about yourself.
The part that is the largest of all can be called the pulp. This is how your loved ones see you, how much of your thoughts and soul you can entrust to friends, family, loved ones. They contact you more than others, you spend a huge amount of time with them and, most importantly, behave sincerely and frankly. Look at how you behave in their company: whether you allow them to be uncivilized, whether you discuss others, are rude and pull the blanket over yourself. If you can identify what seems bad in your behavior, then there is still something in you that is worth changing. Otherwise, no one forbids you to think of yourself as a good person.
In each of us there is something that we will not share even with those whom we trust without memory. When analyzing your inner world will not help others, because they do not even know about it. Be extremely honest with yourself. Imagine some unrealistic situation in which you have to choose between altruism and selfishness, and exaggerate it. For example, a train is running on rails, which either runs over five people or a bag with a lot of money.
to be human in modern world hard, but being good is even harder. This implies responsibility for what example you set. In any case, there are not only classic villains or Disney princesses. We are all a symbiosis of good and bad, just like the world around us. Therefore, if you think that you have a flaw, do not rush to correct it. Perhaps it is he who makes you who you are.