A person lives in a world where he is surrounded by people, circumstances, phenomena that occur regardless of his desires and needs. When a person begins to act, he makes assumptions about what result he will achieve.

And this assumption already depends on what the individual’s locus of control will be - this is a characteristic that determines what a person’s behavior depends on. The Rotter test has been developed, which allows you to identify which locus of control a person belongs to, according to the method.

What is locus of control?

Locus of control is a person’s personal ability to look for the reasons for his failures or successes in external circumstances or in himself. This quality is usually unchanged throughout life, but is only transformed during the socialization of a person. And the reason is that a person learns to blame someone for his troubles or to find reasons for achieving his successes, fixing his gaze either on other people or on himself.

When considering locus of control, two elements are involved:

1. A significant event that causes strong feelings in a person. If no significance was attached to the event, then the person might not notice what happened at all. However, a person calls a specific event a success or failure (failure), because its achievement was very significant and is subject to critical evaluation.
2. The person himself who is looking for the reasons for the occurrence of a significant event. Here a person either finds reasons in the outside world (other people contributed/hampered, circumstances turned out this way, the time has come or not, etc.) or in himself (“I’m a loser”, “I did everything myself”, “I worked hard ", etc.).

Locus of control is based on a person’s ability to take personal responsibility, that is, to be responsible for the events occurring in his life. Thus, locus of control is divided into:

• Internal type (people in this case are called internals). A person considers himself the only factor that influences what happens to him in life. He counts only on his own qualities and actions, which influence his future.
• External type (people are called externals in this case). A person considers the main factor in shaping his destiny to be external circumstances, the actions of other people, good and bad luck, coincidence, etc.

Rotter's Locus of Control

The concept of “locus of control” was proposed by Rotter, who associated this concept with what one relies on when anticipating an event. When taking actions, what does a person hope for - himself or surrounding factors? What does a person rely on in anticipation of the desired reward (when achieving the desired goal) - on himself or the world around him?

In expected benefit theory, a person desires to achieve a desired outcome. When predicting what actions to take, he focuses on himself or on how external circumstances will develop and other people will behave. This allows us to create two subtypes of locus of control – internal and external. However, Wallston proposed supplementing the external subtype of locus of control with the following subtypes:

1. Explanation of the influence of other people.
2. Explanation by the influence of fate.

Depending on what a person hopes for and how he explains the events occurring in his life, his motivation is formed. So, if a person relies only on himself, then he engages in self-development, self-education, etc. If a person relies on others, then he can learn manipulation, methods of influencing the decisions of other people, etc. If an individual believes that everything depends on the will of fate, then he can do nothing at all, because whatever he does, everything will be meaningless, everything is already predetermined.

When studying the locus of control on a website for psychotherapeutic assistance, the website can reveal the psychology of certain individuals:

• Externals. They expect a situation that will stimulate them externally. At the same time, their main behavioral model is protection. Such people need support and approval. At the same time, the externals themselves cannot provide support and approval. If they achieve success, then they clearly demonstrate their abilities. When failure occurs, they blame everything on bad luck, bad behavior of other people, coincidence, etc. They are characterized by practical thinking and emotional instability. Such people are more prone to conformism and dependent behavior. It is easier for them to work under supervision and control; they cannot live without communication. These people are dependent on public opinion.
• Internals. They focus only on their own capabilities, abilities, competence, and determination. For them, all successes and failures are a pattern (consequence) of all their actions. They are characterized by emotional stability, abstraction, synthesis of considerations, and theoretical thinking. Such people are more prone to subordination to their will and suppression of others. They resist any manipulation and control, infringement of their freedom. It is easier for them to work alone and with a certain amount of freedom when making decisions and performing actions. These people resist the opinions of other people and try to control the behavior of others. They believe that they can cope with any task without the opinions of other people.

A person may incorrectly and biasedly assess his own capabilities and behavior. Regardless of the locus of control, each individual strives to have some degree of power over what happens. Here a person tries to learn to anticipate which of his actions will lead to which consequences. An incorrect assessment of one’s capabilities and actions leads to the fact that a person is faced with results that he did not expect. He encounters situations that disappoint him or are so shocking that the person clearly did not expect, since he predicted everything incorrectly.

Psychologists note that people achieve greater success if they rely primarily on their own strengths. However, there are practically no “pure” internals and externals in the world. Everyone has something more, something less.

Quite often, people look for others to blame. This often happens in situations where a person loses or misses something. He immediately tries to find a lot of arguments as to why this happened, and especially to find those to blame in the person of other people who interfered with his happiness.

Is it necessary to do this? After all, often the person himself is to blame for the troubles he faces. So, why look for those to blame? To ease your conscience? To justify your own mistakes? To prove to yourself that others are guilty and not you? In fact, even finding someone to blame for the situation that happened to you does not give a constructive result. Yes, you have found the culprits of your misfortune. So, what is next? Will you demand from them the return of what you lost? Or will you punish them because they cannot turn back time and not hurt you? All these actions cannot lead you to the result where you return what you need.

Finding the guilty – is it necessary to do this? Do you need to waste your time to find the offender? Or should you still direct your efforts to resolve the situation?

Remember that in any case, your guilt and responsibility are also present. Another person cannot completely ruin your life if you yourself have not given your consent to it. Therefore, it is better to spend your time after encountering failure to find a way out of what happened, resolve the problem so that what is important to you returns to you, and you acquire something that was not there before. Guilty people will not be able to return your “happiness”; they can only apologize. But it is in your power not to look for offenders, but to resolve an unpleasant situation in such a way as to not only return it, but also acquire something valuable for yourself.

Locus of control test

Rotter conducted research during which he found that there are two main categories of people. Some believe that everything depends on themselves, others take the opposite position, believing in the destiny and final significance of external factors. That is why the locus of control test was developed from the basic judgments that people of both categories use.

The internality-externality scale provides an opportunity for a person to find out in which areas of life he relies on himself, and in which - on external circumstances.

Personality locus of control

Locus of control is a personal quality that is aimed at attributing responsibility for one’s own successes and failures either to one’s own factors (behavior, character) or to external factors (circumstances, people, events, luck, etc.). Moreover, this quality is not innate. It is acquired during life, after which it is quite stable. Of course, it can change as a person socializes. However, as it forms, it becomes more and more unchanged.

“Pure” internals and externals are very rare. Usually a person becomes internal in one situation and external in another. In every area of ​​life, a person behaves in one way or another, which was developed in him during his life.

Locus of control helps determine how a person will behave in a given situation. For example, internals in the field of their health quite often understand the causes of their illnesses, monitor their health, and notice in what situations they contributed to their own illness. This is due to the fact that in childhood their parents encouraged them in those moments when they looked after their health, brushed their teeth, etc.

A person becomes one or another representative in the process of his socialization, which can be changed if you change your attitude to the situation and try new models of behavior.

• Internals are considered more successful, independent, self-reliant, friendly, purposeful, balanced, and self-confident. They are moralists who adhere to the rules of society and are distinguished by their friendliness, responsiveness, and cordiality. Capable of making risky decisions. Internals are more future-oriented. Such people reason calmly and coldly, expressing their opinion, even if someone may not like it.
• Externals are unbalanced, suspicious, unsure of themselves, restless, and aggressive. Their actions are dogmatic and authoritarian. Unexpected events make them afraid and wary. Externals are more focused on memories of the past. They try to conform to the group without trying to get all their needs met.

Bottom line

Conventionally, all people can be divided into successful and unsuccessful. Successful people are those who understand that most of their lives are shaped by their decisions and actions. It is people who need to act in order to be happy and successful, and not wait for goodness from fate. Less successful are people who take a passive position and wait for something.

Of course, the “golden mean” must be observed. Not everything is under human control. Much depends on his decisions and actions. However, externals are also right, they see that some events happen regardless of their will, so sometimes they have to obey, adapt, and resign themselves.

The concept of “locus of control” has become so common in everyday life that its meaning is significantly blurred and lost. Locus of control in ordinary consciousness is confused with such concepts as responsibility, and - although in fact these are somewhat overlapping but different phenomena. Let's try to remember and figure out what locus of control is and what are the scope of application of this concept in psychology.

“Locus of control” in the concept of J. Rotter

J. Rotter's theory is a theory of social learning, which can be attributed to the cognitive-behavioral direction in psychology. Thus, locus of control is a characteristic of a person’s cognitive sphere, in other words, a certain feature of a person’s perception and thinking.

According to J. Rotter, locus of control is a generalized expectation of the extent to which a person controls reinforcements in his life. Rotter introduced the concept of “locus of control” into his concept of social learning in order to predict human behavior in a given situation. At the same time, locus of control is just one type of “generalized expectations” of people.

External locus of control and internal locus of control

External and internal locus of control So, some people expect (believe, think, are sure) that they themselves control the reinforcements in their lives. In other words, they are confident that whether they receive a reward or punishment for their actions depends only on themselves. Such people exhibit an internal position and can conditionally be called internals.

Other people expect (believe) that no matter what effort they make, receiving reinforcement does not depend on them. Whether they are punished or rewarded depends on all sorts of external factors, from the weather to the opinions and will of other people. Such people can be called externalities.

Thus, knowing what kind of expectation (internal or external) a particular person has in a given situation, we can predict his behavior. From the internal we expect greater stability, purposefulness and independence in a specific situation, and from the external we expect greater social conformity, the desire to make contact and seek a common language with other people.

Externality-internality scale

It is important to remember that external and internal personality types do not exist! Externality-internality is a single scale with two poles. Externality and internality are not a personality type, they are a characteristic of a person’s perception and thinking.

The same person in one situation may be inclined to the internal pole of the scale and believe that here everything depends only on him; and in another situation he will tend to the external pole, believing that there are a number of situations over which he has no control. And that's normal, that's how it should be.

Concluding comments on “locus of control”

What do we have in the bottom line?

1. Locus of control is far from a universal characteristic that can be “attached” and which can “explain” any reality. On the contrary, this characteristic is quite narrow, its scope of application is significantly limited.
2. The concept of “locus of control” is necessary in order to predict a person’s behavior in a specific situation: depending on how free (internal) he believes himself to be in a given situation, this is how he will behave.
3. “Locus of control” is a characteristic of human cognitive processes: perception and thinking.
4. There are no external and internal personality types. The same person will exhibit an external position in one situation and an internal one in another. And it is right.

The concept of locus of control is one of the concepts of modern psychology, which was introduced into science by Julian Rotter. Working on the concept of human behavior in society, he came to the conclusion that each individual perceives events occurring in his life in completely different ways. Some believe that they control their lives, others, on the contrary, are sure that life or fate is controlled by a person. The concept he introduced was called Rotter's locus of control. In the understanding of modern psychology, this quantitative relationship is of great importance in the formation of a person’s personality. In this material we will consider the main types and their relationship with the individual’s existing self-esteem.

In other words, locus of control is a certain property of a person, his personal characteristic, which helps explain the reasons for his victories and defeats. It is generated by a lot of research in various areas of psychology. This design is applicable in areas such as educational psychology, clinical psychology, and health psychology.

What is locus of control in psychology?

In psychology, the concept of locus of control refers to the extent to which people believe that they can control the events that affect them. The word "locus" is translated from Latin as "place" or "locality". In other words, we can say that this is the place where a person directs his mental energy. This characteristic can be external and internal. This is a general idea of ​​what locus of control is, to go deeper you need to know some facts.

In 1954, psychologist Julian Rotter proposed that our behavior is controlled through rewards and punishments, and that it is the resulting emotions from these consequences that greatly influence a person. In 1966, Rotter published a scale designed to measure and assess external and internal locus of control. The scale was based on a forced-choice analysis between two alternatives, asking respondents to choose only one of two options for each item. While the scale was widely used, the psychologist itself was the subject of considerable criticism from those who believed that Rotter's locus of control could not be fully understood and should not be measured on such a simplistic scale.

Types of loci of control

In modern psychology, two types or types of locus of control are distinguished: internal (or internal) and external (or external). Types of locus of control are responsible for various areas of psychological activity.

Internal locus of control is characteristic of people who believe that they can control and manage their lives. Such people believe that all events in their lives come mainly from their own actions: for example, when receiving test results, people with an internal locus of control will praise or blame their abilities and themselves. People who identify as having an internal locus of control tend to take more responsibility for their actions, no matter what the outcome. They do not pay attention to external influences on their activities, it is difficult for them to work in a team, they trust only themselves and their feelings.

People with an external locus of control believe that their decisions and lives are controlled by environmental factors that a person has no control over, or in other words, these people rely on fate. If we consider their behavior in the previous example, then in this case they will praise or blame some external factors, for example, the test itself, the teacher, the favor of fate or other divine intervention, etc. Such individuals view everything around them as part of their success or failure. In many ways, they trust others more than they trust themselves. People with an external locus of control are very good at working in teams.

It is important to note that locus of control is an ongoing process. No person has 100% only external or only internal locus of control. Instead, most people fall somewhere on a continuum between these extremes.

The relationship between locus of control and self-esteem

It should be noted that the concepts of external and internal locus of control of an individual can be interchanged. For example, there are categories of people whose internal or external locus of control is very clearly expressed. But there are also individuals for whom this property can change depending on the circumstances. For example, at home they can be alone, for example, with an internal locus of control, but in society, completely different, with a pronounced external one.

Let us consider whether there is a relationship between locus of control and self-esteem when comparing individuals of one and another type. People who have a predominant internal factor of self-control are more likely to exhibit the following behavior:

• they are ready to take responsibility for their actions and actions;
• they are not dependent on the opinions of others;
• have high self-esteem and a strong sense of self-efficacy;
• they are usually always physically healthy, happy and successful.

Holders of external locus of control are characterized by the following distinctive features:

• they blame external circumstances for all their failures;
• do not believe in their own capabilities and have low self-esteem;
• feel physically overwhelmed, powerless and hopeless in difficult situations;
• need help (helpless in performing difficult tasks).

To determine what the relationship is between a person’s locus of control and his self-esteem, a group of people was asked to participate in an experiment, as a result of which it was found that an increase in the level of a person’s self-esteem directly affects the level of his subjective locus of control, which is one of the most important characteristics of self-awareness. Depending on what type of locus of control an individual belongs to, it can be stated how developed his self-esteem is. In general, the level of self-esteem is an important element of a person’s self-awareness. Psychologist Rotter assigned this concept one of the central positions in his theory.

Locus of control- this is a certain property of an individual to explain his successes or failures in activities by external circumstances (externality, external locus of control), or by internal factors (internality, internal locus of control). This term was introduced by J. Rotter in 1954.

Locus of control is a stable personal characteristic that is difficult to change, but is finally formed in the processes of its socialization. In order to determine the locus of control, a number of methods and a specialized questionnaire have been developed, which allows us to identify patterns between other personality traits.

Rotter's Locus of Control

Locus of control psychology lies in linking the causes of life situations with external events or internal conditions. The study of locus of control was first explained by Rotter. He derived locus of control theory from his own concept of social learning. In this concept, the dominant position was given to (anticipation), the subject's expectations that his certain behavioral actions will lead to a specific reward (reinforcement).

Rotter's locus of control is the anticipation of the extent to which subjects control rewards in their lives.

Rotter took as a basis the theory of individual (subjective) localization of control, which is a subtype of the “expected benefit” theory. In this theory, an individual's behavior is determined by how he can assess the likelihood of achieving the desired result.

All subjects can be divided into two types according to the theory. Types of locus of control: external locus of control and internal. These types of loci are unique characteristics of a person that shape her behavior.

Wallston refined the theory, supplementing it with a proposal to divide the external locus of control into 2 positions: “Explaining control by the influence of other people” and “Explaining control by the influence of fate.”

Locus of control is a fairly important component of motivational processes, closely interconnected with other areas of research into mental properties and characteristics of individuals, for example, the theory of self-efficacy.

The analysis and study of locus of control is carried out so that one can judge the cognitive style that is manifested in the field of learning. Since the cognitive components of the psyche are present in all its manifestations, the concept of locus control in psychology extends to personal characteristics in the processes of activity.

For individuals with an external orientation, externally directed protective behavior is inherent. Attribution of the situation for them is an opportunity for success. Thus, any situation that is externally stimulated is suitable for an externality. In cases of success, a demonstration of abilities is required. Such a person is convinced that the failures that happen to him are just the result of bad luck, a series of accidents, and the negative influence of other people. Externals really need support and approval. Without this, their performance will deteriorate. Along with this, you can’t expect any special gratitude for support from externals.

The attribution of a situation for people of the internal type most often is a belief in the patterns of their successes and failures, which depend on determination, competence, and abilities. For internals, success or failure is a natural outcome of purposeful activity.

External locus of control is inextricably linked with emotional instability and unmediated, practical thinking. And internals, on the contrary, are characterized by emotional stability and a tendency to abstraction, theoretical thinking and synthesis of considerations.

Today, the term “perceived control” is increasingly being used instead of the term locus of control. There are two components to this concept. The first is the coherence of behavioral actions and their consequences. It reflects an individual's assessment of the possibility that such actions can lead to the desired result. The second is the assessment of the individual’s ability to carry out such actions, i.e. competence.

Coherence is the most important condition for psychological comfort and life satisfaction.

It should be understood that Rotter's concept is specifically about perceived control. But an individual’s assessment of his own abilities may be biased and inaccurate. To explain this, there are a number of reasons that contribute to the misperception of control. The desire for control is seen as one of the most important processes. A certain level of independence of the individual from biological and social reality is ensured through the ability to manage his life.

A person always strives to feel his own control over circumstances, even in cases where the result is undoubtedly determined by chance. In some cases, in order to maintain a sense of control, it is quite enough to comprehend one’s ability to anticipate the occurrence of circumstances, which cannot be considered as control over them. The incorrect perception of individual control as high leads to ignoring possible dangers, as well as the development of inflated expectations regarding the effectiveness of one’s actions. As a result, the individual either finds himself unprepared for stress factors or feels completely disappointed in his abilities.

Internals and externals also have differences in the ways they interpret social circumstances, for example, in the methods of obtaining data and in the mechanisms of their causal explanations. Internals have a preference for being highly aware of tasks and situations. Externalists try to avoid situational and emotionally charged explanations of actions.

Externals are characterized by dependent and conformal behavior. And internals are not inclined to suppress others and submit. They express resistance in cases where they are being manipulated or deprived of some of their freedom. External personalities cannot imagine their existence without communication; it is easier for them to work under control and observation. Internal personalities, on the contrary, are better off functioning alone and with vital degrees of freedom.

An individual can achieve much more in life if he believes that his destiny lies in his hands. External personalities are much more susceptible to social influence than internal personalities. Internals will resist outside influence, in cases where opportunities arise, they will try to control the behavior of others. They are confident in their ability to solve problems, so they never depend on the opinions of others.

Externals are more often susceptible to psychological and psychosomatic problems. They are more likely to experience anxiety and depression. They are much more prone to stress and are susceptible to frustration and the development of neuroses. Psychologists have established a relationship between a high level of internality and positive self-esteem, a significant correlation between the images of the ideal “I” and the real “I”. Subjects with an internal locus have a significantly more active position in relation to their physical and mental health.

However, there are practically no so-called “pure” externalities or internals in the world. Each individual contains at least a little confidence in his abilities and his own strengths and a share of psychological subordination to situations.

Thus, the term locus of control allows us to trace the essential moments of manifestations of activity in the behavioral activity and relationships of subjects.

Attempts to study self-control have been going on for a long time, but Rotter’s theory is more developed. Rotter was the first to develop a questionnaire to determine locus of control.

Locus of control test

Control is one of the relatively advanced devices for regulating cognitive mental processes. It determines the relationship of subjects with the environment in such a way that both the objective qualities of stimulation and the needs of the individual are taken into account.

Observations and experiments made by Rotter allowed him to make the assumption that certain people have a strong feeling that everything that happens to them is determined by external circumstances, while others think that everything that happens to them is the result of their personal abilities and effort. As a result, he proposed to call such an attitude a locus of control.

The locus of control technique presented by Rotter includes 29 pairs of judgments. He proceeded from the fact that the locus can change and is dependent on the areas of the subject’s life. Therefore, the questionnaire items correspond to several areas, such as situations leading to affects, academic recognition, general worldview, social and political activity, social respect, dominance.

As a result of processing, two positions are obtained: internality and externality. Thus, in one field there are subjects who believe in their own ability and potential to control life events, i.e. internal locus of control. In the other field there are subjects who are convinced that all life’s punishments and rewards are a consequence of external conditions, such as fate, chance, i.e. external locus of control.

The Internality–Externality Scale was developed to measure personal differences in the perception of whether success or failure is under external or internal control. The scale developed by Rotter is designed to assess an individual's control over his own actions. By the comparative excess of the final calculations of one parameter over another, one can judge the aspiration of the locus of control. However, the scale proposed by Rotter offers only one dimension of the expectancy component.

Therefore, this scale subsequently stimulated numerous studies and the development of new measurements. Some suggested using factor analysis to refine the components of the scale. Thus, for example, the need is shown to distinguish control by chance or other people, as well as externalities capable and incapable of defensive reactions, as parameters of externality. Externals who are unable to respond defensively may take more personal responsibility for their actions than those who are capable.

Research has also shown that internals are more likely to understand themselves as capable of controlling events. Along with this, externals are more likely to explain what happened by luck, fate, chance or other external circumstances. Internals are considered more self-confident than external people.

However, Rotter's approach cannot explain why one individual sees the reasons for success or failure in himself, while others see the reasons for success or failure in external factors.

Personality locus of control

One of the most significant integral parameters of self-awareness that connects the experience of “I”, readiness for activity, and a sense of responsibility is a personality trait called locus of control.

Locus of control is a personal characteristic that reflects an individual’s tendency and predisposition to attribute responsibility for his own success and failures of activity either to external conditions, forces, or to himself and his efforts, miscalculations, to consider them as his own achievements or as the results of his own shortcomings. At the same time, such a psychological characteristic of a person is a rather stable personal property that is difficult to transform. However, this characteristic is not innate and is finally formed in the process of social development. Therefore, externality and internality are not immutable and innate personality traits.

The psychology of locus of control lies in the individual’s tendency to attribute responsibility for the events that happen to him, either to internal factors, his own efforts, or to external conditions and circumstances.

There are no one hundred percent internals, just like there are no externals. Certain features of externality may intersect with features of internality and become a mixed type. Those. a person in certain situations can take control over himself, as an internal type, and in others, give control to the influence of chance, as externals. It is this so-called “confusion” of externality and internality that is characteristic of most individuals. It underlies such a phenomenon, which has been repeatedly recorded experimentally, as a predisposition towards one’s own “I”.

The essence of this phenomenon is that subjects are predisposed to see the basis of their success in their own abilities, personality traits, striving efforts, i.e. Apply an internal locus of control. They can also attribute their failure to the action of external conditions, circumstances, i.e. resort to an external locus of control. This can be observed even under conditions where the social cost of a miscalculation is very small. Thus, most people are characterized by externality and internality to one degree or another, and the line between them will be moving, i.e. in some situations the external locus of control will dominate, and in others the internal locus of control. In addition, thanks to many current studies and experiments, it is possible to argue that the prevalence of externality or internality is determined by social learning.

Thus, research into the relationship between attitude towards one’s health and locus of control, conducted by R. Lo, showed that internals, to a greater extent than externals, understand what could possibly cause diseases, so they care more about their own well-being and health. This is due to the fact that internals received parental encouragement in cases where they looked after their own health: systematically brushed their teeth, followed a certain diet, and were regularly examined by doctors.

Thus, it appears that there is a potential for a shift in locus of control due to social relearning. Therefore, A. Bandura believed that increasing self-efficacy is inextricably linked with locus of control.

Let's look at what traits basic locus-control personalities have. People prone to the internal model are characterized by significantly greater success in life, greater self-confidence, purposefulness, independence, balance, goodwill and contact. They are essentially moralists, i.e. they try to strictly follow the rules established in a particular society, they are distinguished by gullibility, sophistication, cordiality, willpower, and rich imagination. Can make risky decisions.

Externals are the complete antipodes of internals. They are characterized by uncertainty, imbalance, suspicion, anxiety, and aggression. Their actions are based on dogmatism and authoritarianism.

People who have a dominant external locus of control are more likely to react to unpredictable events with fear and wariness. And individuals with a more pronounced internal locus of control perceive the same situation more adequately, with humor. Externals tend to look back at past situations; internals, on the contrary, purposefully strive for the future.

Subjects with a pronounced external locus adapt and adapt to the opinions of groups, trying to satisfy needs that are not their own. Internals are able to assess the situation more coldly and with restraint, more soberly; they are not afraid to express their thoughts and point of view, even if it does not coincide with the opinions of others.

So, we can conclude that people whose internal locus of control prevails are attentive to information and others, and therefore are able to structure their behavior more correctly; practically immune to attempts to put pressure on them, their opinions and actions; the ability to strive to improve oneself and one’s environment, the ability to give an adequate assessment of one’s behavior, inclinations and shortcomings. Thus, we can conclude that the internal locus of control accompanies mature individuals, while the external one, on the contrary, interferes with the processes of personal maturation and growth.

Most often, individuals with a dominant internal locus of control studied well at school, give up bad habits, wear a seat belt in the car, earn enough money, solve any problems themselves, and can give up momentary pleasures to achieve strategic results.

A sense of self-efficacy and competence is directly related to how an individual explains the reasons for his failures and lack of success. For example, many students in schools consider themselves victims. For their bad grades, they blame teachers and other circumstances and conditions that are beyond their control. However, if you work with such students additionally, so that they master a progressive attitude - they believe that directed efforts, self-discipline, and knowledge can change the situation towards improving grades. After all, successful people evaluate failure as an accident and an impetus for behavior change.

For the harmonious development of personality, an individual must have equally developed external and internal loci of control. The development and formation of the locus is initially influenced by family upbringing.

Locus of control technique

Today there are many methods for determining locus of control. However, in Russian psychology, three methods are more often used: the Rotter scale, a questionnaire for determining the level of subjective control (proposed by Etkind, Bazhin, Golynkina), a questionnaire for determining the subjective localization of control (proposed by Stolin and Panteleeva).

The most widely used method in Russia is the method of determining the level of subjective control. It is based on Rotter's locus of control theory. However, there are a number of important differences. Rotter believed that the locus of control is universal in relation to all types of situations. Those. According to Rotter, the locus of control is the same both in the area of ​​achievements and in the area of ​​failures.

When working on a methodology for determining the level of subjective control, the starting point was that in a number of cases it is likely that there is more than just a unidirectional combination of the locus of control. This assumption has empirical evidence. Therefore, the developers of the methodology made a proposal to distinguish several subscales in the questionnaire: control in circumstances of achievement, failure, in the field of family and industrial relations, in the field of health.

This technique contains 44 questions. As a result of this questionnaire, it is possible to derive a general indicator of the individual degree of subjective control and four specific and situational parameters that will characterize the degree of subjective control in the interpersonal and family spheres, in the production area, in the individual’s attitude to health and his illnesses. As a result of this technique, types of locus of control were identified in accordance with seven scales.

The first scale is general internality. A high score on this scale corresponds to a high degree of subjective control over arbitrary significant circumstances. People with a high indicator believe that most of the significant events in their lives are the result of their personal efforts, that they can control events and, as a result, take responsibility for their lives. A low score on the scale corresponds to a low degree of subjective control. People with a low degree of subjective control do not notice the relationship between their efforts and important events. They view such events as the result of chance or the efforts of other people.

The next scale is internality in the sphere of achievements. A high score on this scale indicates that the test taker has a high degree of subjective control over positive emotional events. Such individuals believe that they have achieved everything good in life through their efforts and that in the future they are able to successfully achieve a certain goal in the future. A low score indicates that the subject associates his success, joys and achievements with external conditions, for example, luck, fate, chance, and the help of others.

The third scale is internality in the sphere of failures. A high score indicates a high sense of subjective control regarding negative circumstances, which can manifest itself in a tendency to blame oneself for various unpleasant circumstances in life. A low score indicates that the individual tends to attribute negative situations to the influence of others or the result of bad luck.

The fourth scale is the manifestation of internality in family relationships. A high score shows that the individual considers himself responsible for the events that occur in his family. A low score indicates that the individual blames his partners for important situations in the family.

The fifth scale is the internal locus of control in the field of industrial relations. A high score indicates that the subject considers himself a significant factor in shaping his production activities, for example, in career growth. A low score indicates that the individual attaches great importance to external conditions, colleagues, luck or bad luck.

The sixth scale is internality in the sphere of interpersonal relationships. A high score indicates that the individual feels capable of arousing the sympathy and respect of others. Low - the individual is rather not inclined to take responsibility for relationships with other people.

The seventh scale is internality in the sphere of attitudes towards health and diseases. A high score indicates that the subject can consider himself responsible for his own health and thinks that recovery depends on his actions. A subject with a low score thinks that health and illness are the result of chance and hopes for recovery, which will come as a result of the actions of others, mainly doctors.

The method of subjective localization of control is aimed at determining the locus of control as a generalized and generalized variable. This technique contains 32 points, 26 of which are working, 6 are designed for camouflage. The questionnaire is built on the principle of forced choice of one of two statements. The basis for this questionnaire was the Rotter scale using its primary parameters: one-dimensionality, a small number of statements, and a scale format that requires selecting one of the statements in each item. However, some statements were reformulated, and another 4 were removed due to the fact that they were not suitable for Russia. In addition, 7 pairs of statements were added that relate to the lives of students.

In order to increase the reliability of the results obtained and minimize positional effects, the technique is normalized to three parameters. The first parameter is externality - internality, which is ensured by the format of the scale. The second is the direction of attributions - approximately the same number of statements are formulated in both the third and first person. The third is an emotional sign - approximately the same number of statements describe emotional negative and positive situations.