Locus control (locus of control)
The term "L. To." serves to denote a group of subjective opinions or beliefs regarding the relationship between behavior and its consequences in the form of rewards or punishments. A more precise formulation of these opinions about LK sounds like the opposition of internal and external control of reinforcement (I-E). When a specific person perceives reinforcements (both positive and negative) as the result of his own behavior, his efforts, or his relatively constant characteristics, we have before us an example of internal beliefs. External beliefs, on the contrary, are associated with the perception of reinforcement as a consequence of luck, a lucky chance, fate, the intervention of influential people, or simply an unpredictable (due to complexity) combination of circumstances. Of course, people's opinions about L.K. (or about I-E) are not limited to a dichotomy, but are represented by points of a continuous continuum along an axis with the poles formed by internal and external beliefs, respectively.
The concept of I-E was first proposed and introduced by J. Rotter. He not only defined this concept, but also formulated the basic. provisions of the theory of social teaching, which could be included in the composition. In addition, Rotter made available to the scientific community a significant amount of psychometric data and research results. construct validity of the I-E scale designed to measure this concept.
Theoretical basis of the concept of I-E
Mn. Of those who use the concept of physical behavior in their research, they do so without paying attention to how it fits into the broader scheme of factors that influence behavior. This simplistic approach has sometimes led to erroneous predictions, disappointment with the small proportion of variance explained by the I-E factor, or serious obstacles to the generalization of data from a number of studies. Indeed, from the very beginning, the concept of I - E was formulated as one of several. variables in the broader system of social theory. learning, which, interacting with each other, causes this or that behavior in each specific situation. These variables include: a) expectations; b) the comparative value of reinforcements; c) psychol. situation.
I-E is viewed as a generalized expectation regarding how best to categorize situations presented to people. a problem that needs to be solved. Thus, L.K. is a generalized expectation or belief regarding the optimal, from the point of view. a specific person, a way of looking at the connection between his behavior and the subsequent occurrence of reward or punishment.
In any given situation, the expectation that a specific behavior will lead to specific results is determined by three variables. Firstly, these are specific expectations for the success of this behavior, fundamentally. on previous experience of actions in the same situation. Secondly, these are generalized expectations of success, basic. on generalizing the experience of actions in all similar situations. Thirdly, these are generalized expectations associated with experience in solving numerous problems, of which the I-E problem is only a particular example. The interaction of all three variables determines people's expectations. regarding the success of the behavior in question. And previous experience with a given situation determines the relative strength of influence of each of these three variables.
I-E measurement
The most widely used instrument for measuring personality traits as a generalized personality characteristic is the I-E scale. This scale consists of 23 pairs of statements (with forced choice) along with six “filler statements” that help hide the purpose of the test from the subjects.
Rotter's own data provided little evidence that his scale had more than one dimension. Since that time, however, evidence in favor of the multidimensional nature of I - E began to accumulate, and to date a fair amount of it has already been collected. In addition, there was a development many additional scales for measuring beliefs in specific areas of I - E (health, politics, etc.). Most of these scales are designed for adults, but over time, children's versions of the I-E scales also appeared.
Links between I-E and personal control
An orientation toward internalizing beliefs would seem to imply that the individual should take a more active and controlling position in relation to the external environment. Indeed, there is ample evidence to support this assumption. Their accumulation no less indicates the validity of the I-E scale, since the main. part of the research was carried out using this particular measuring instrument.
In the field of health and personal hygiene, the above assumption is confirmed by a number of studies. In one of the earliest cycles of research. I - E has been shown that internal patients with tuberculosis are more informed about their physical health. condition and are eager to receive more such information. from doctors and nurses than similar external patients. In addition, it was observed that internal smokers seemed to be more attentive to warnings to quit the habit compared to external smokers. Similarly, there are connections between internal beliefs and behavior aimed at preventing diseases of teeth and gums; effective participation in weight loss programs; favorable attitude towards vaccinations; participation in physical education and recreational activities and compliance with various types of regimens recommended by doctors. Even the use of seat belts is more common among internals than among externals. What is impressive is that such a general, non-specific personality variable as I - E shows similar connections with the above forms of behavior, especially when we take into account the complex, multi-factorial nature of the latter.
In plural In relationships, internals appear to be more competent than externals. Perhaps this impression arises from their more active attempts to acquire information that will allow them to influence the external environment, since they are confident that they are capable of exerting such an influence.
In cases where others attempt to exert interpersonal influence, internals are typically expected to be more persistent than externals; at the very least, their consent should be more deliberate and logical than just a reflex action. A number of studies confirmed this assumption. Basically, such data were obtained in research. conformity, implicit influence and other similar phenomena. To the extent that verbal conditioning represents a situation of implicit influence, the data accumulated here can also be considered to confirm the assumption made above, since we find that externals develop conditioned responses of this type more easily than internals. Similar results are found when considering changes in attitudes. Externals seem to be unusually susceptible, especially when they encounter information. from authoritative sources.
Research results in the field of achievements are extremely ambiguous. For children, academic success is directly related to internalizing beliefs, while for college students this relationship is noticeably weaker or reversed. Similarly, when it comes to studying the relationships between the need for achievement and the I-E variable, the data are quite contradictory and, moreover, are often noisy due to the influence of gender differences. In a related area of research. It was found that internalizing children are more able to delay immediate gratification in order to obtain delayed rewards. Likewise, because externalizers are more likely to attribute the results of their performance to external factors, they are unable to fully experience the sense of pride and satisfaction caused by achievements, which is, as such, an integral part of the “achievement syndrome.”
Relatively recent research. were focused on the possibility that certain externalities choose their beliefs as a defensive reaction. That is, “in reality” they do not believe in the external organization of the world. Rather, their externalizing beliefs represent a kind of defensive rationalization so that they can explain (justify) the failure that has occurred or the expected failure. This is the direction of research. suggests that the beliefs of some externalists are “congruent” with their previous experience or reinforcement dynamics, while the beliefs of others are only “defensive” steps taken to minimize the consequences of failure, which could otherwise undermine vitality "loser".
Origin of I-E
Perhaps the most serious lag in publications on the problem of L. is observed in the field of systematic research. development of I - E beliefs. And yet, certain relationships were noted here, at least in general terms. For example, parents, giving their children warmth and love, giving them a sense of security and a positive emotional charge, helping to form a variety of skills, thereby contribute to the development of their internal orientation. The consistency of parental reinforcements, behavior and standards is also associated with the development of internality in children. In addition, data from a number of studies. talk about the compatibility of external beliefs with low socioeconomic status. Racial and ethnic groups that have little or no access to power and mobility exhibit more externalized belief systems. There are even some reasons to believe that certain cultures can more or less explicitly teach an external position.
see also Field dependence, Internally and externally directed behavior, Obedience
Locus of control
What is locus of control
This is the degree of independence of a person, his activity and independence. As one of the most significant characteristics of a person, locus of control reflects a person’s level of responsibility in achieving any of his specific goals, the level of perception of his responsibility for occurring events and their consequences. It is a person’s tendency to attribute responsibility for events in life and the results of his activities to external forces (external, external locus of control) or to his own abilities and efforts (internal, internal locus of control). People with an external locus of control, who tend to attribute the consequences of their actions to the influence of circumstances, are usually called externalists, since they attribute responsibility for their activities exclusively to external conditions. The opposite type is internals. People of this type consider only themselves responsible for the results of their activities. Even if the circumstances are unfavorable, the internal will not make excuses for mistakes or failures.
In the process of studying the phenomenon of control, many different experimental studies have been carried out. And this is what became clear.
It turned out that people with a predominant external locus of control most often react to unforeseen situations with fear and wariness. While individuals with a more developed internal locus perceive the same task more adequately, often even with humor. And when it comes to planning or remembering their lives, the former often turn to the past, while the latter tirelessly look to the future.
People with an external locus of control believe that little depends on their efforts in life. Therefore, they consider it unnecessary to plan their actions or constantly put decisions on the back burner. They are not very responsible, anxious, unsure of their abilities, aggressive, easily depressed, but at the same time they are not inclined to defend their principles. People with an external locus of control estimate their risks very roughly. For example, they may take risks based on rather illogical beliefs, such as: “We haven’t rolled the number 12 in a long time, let’s bet on it.”
In addition, people with an external locus of control are much more likely to conform. To participate in one of the experiments, psychologists gathered people with a high external and internal locus of control into a group. The purpose of the experiment was to test which of them was ready to agree with the incorrect opinion of the majority. All participants were given money with which they could bet on their own or someone else’s opinion. People with a high internal locus of control began to place large bets on their own opinion when it contradicted the opinion of the majority. Those who had an external locus of control preferred to keep a low profile, even if they were confident that they were right.
People with an internal locus of control are those who consider themselves responsible for their own lives and their decisions. And if they are responsible, then they are more motivated to achieve results. Therefore, those with an internal locus of control show greater responsibility, emotional stability, and a willingness to delay pleasure in order to achieve a goal. They believe that hard work will definitely lead to success.
People with an internal locus of control are able to defend their rights at all levels - both to “pump up rights” in everyday situations and to participate in political actions. For example, in another experiment in the 1960s, Rotter asked college students involved in the civil rights movement to complete questionnaires. And what? – people with an internal locus of control predominated among them.
In relation to their health, those with an internal locus of control also show a certain tendency. For example, Rotter's experiment involved smokers with internal and external locus of control. After warnings about the dangers of smoking began to be printed on cigarette packs (remember, this happened in the 1960s), people with a high internal locus of control began to try to quit smoking, and people with an external locus behaved relaxed: what happens is what happens. will. Moreover, all participants in the experiment believed in the validity of the warnings.
To summarize, people with an external locus of control in terms of their health rely on someone else’s help: on a “magic pill”, on doctors, on fate – but they are in no hurry to take any actions themselves to make their fate easier.
So, people with a developed internal locus of control are distinguished by the fact that:
They are attentive to others and to information coming from outside. Thanks to this, they structure their behavior more correctly.
They are little susceptible to attempts to pressure their opinions and behavior.
Able to strive to improve themselves and their living environment.
They are able to adequately assess their behavior, their abilities and shortcomings.
Thus, the internal locus accompanies mature individuals, but the external one, on the contrary, interferes with the process of personal maturation.
But here’s the question: is the desire to rely on oneself and the feeling of “knee-deep sea” always for the good? Alas, not always.
Firstly, any goals must be realistic. Trying to change the unchangeable is the shortest and most direct path to disappointment and depression.
Secondly, the perception of one’s capabilities often depends on the state of society. It is not for nothing that the concept of “locus of control” appeared in prosperous America. Much later, researchers noticed that in countries where the economy is not good, and the legal protection of citizens is even worse, the internal locus of control is not particularly popular among the population. Which, in general, is logical: if tomorrow is not very predictable and the situation is precarious, it is difficult to make even short-term plans. This approach, by the way, is typical for Russia: burn it all with fire, and tomorrow, lo and behold, it will completely collapse. Moreover, if we are surrounded by people constantly muttering: “What can we do? What depends on us? - then it is likely that over time, natural cheerfulness and self-confidence will begin to fail.
Locus of control is not a diagnosis; it is a value, although relatively stable, but capable of changing throughout life. What influences the formation of internal locus of control?
In addition to economics and legal protection, the family situation plays a role. If parents are consistent in terms of discipline, clearly express their love for the child and try to instill in him the habit of being responsible for himself, the child is likely to have an internal locus of control. And for children of authoritarian, strict and inconsistent parents (from whom you don’t know what to expect - rewards or punishment) - external.
Those who find themselves in responsible jobs with immediately noticeable results of their work can acquire an internal locus of control. And finally, the last (and most reliable way) to start taking responsibility for your life is to simply start taking responsibility for your life.
Who studied Locus of Control?
In the twentieth century, a number of studies have been conducted on the topic of locus of control. We present the results of some of the most interesting studies:
(Plath and Eisenman, 1968): Internals imagine their future as more eventful. The passage of time is faster. For externals, the time perspective is shortened and eventful.
(Thayer et al., 1969): Externals are more concerned with the organization of their time. They have poor time management and ineffective use of time. Goals change over time, their implementation is constantly postponed.
(Lombardo and Fantasia): The expectation of success in academic activities among external students of both sexes turned out to be very low. External students were less likely to expect love and affection from others compared to internal students. External LC causes feelings of depression and anxiety, reducing overall life satisfaction. Internal LC contributes to more normal functioning of the individual, instilling in her self-esteem.
Internals have a pronounced independence; they react painfully to attempts at manipulation; avoid clarifying relationships and conflicts; aimed at realizing their abilities, at work; realize their creative potential most fully (compared to external students).
Pronounced self-defense reactions and mechanisms of the “aggression and attack” type; blaming others for conflicts; lack of self-confidence, inadequate self-esteem; insufficiently developed self-regulation, emotional instability, irrational use of mental energy, insufficient realization of creative potential - characteristics inherent in externalities.
Interns are more actively seeking information about possible health problems. Take precautions to maintain or improve your health, such as stopping smoking, starting to exercise, and seeing your doctor regularly. As children, internals were encouraged more by their parents if they took care of their health. Interns know more about what can cause the disease. The likelihood of developing psychological illnesses among internals is lower than among externals.
Externalities are more likely to have psychological problems: anxiety and depression are more common for them. Externals have less self-esteem than internals.
Externals are less well adapted than internals. Externals are much more susceptible to social influence than internals.
Internals resist social influence, but also strive to control the behavior of others. Internals prefer people who can be manipulated and dislike those they cannot influence. Internals are more confident in their ability to solve problems and are therefore independent of the opinions of others.
(Fares and Wilson): Internals like internals better.
(Lombardo): The respondents believed that the internal personality is more liked by itself than the external one.
(Efran, 1963): Externalists are less likely to suppress their failures because they preemptively accept external factors as causes of success and failure.
The more a person believes that everything in his life depends on his own abilities and efforts, the more often he finds meaning in life and sees its goals.
Thai workers have an external LC, American workers have an internal one, and Mexican workers occupy a middle position.
Those college swimmers who explain their failures in "optimistic terms" are more likely to exceed their coaches' expectations than their pessimistic counterparts.
Locus of control
(from Latin locus - place, location and French contrуle - check) - a quality that characterizes a person’s tendency to attribute the results of his activities to external forces (external or external L. to.) or to one’s own abilities and efforts (internal or internal L. to .). The concept of physical therapy was proposed by the American psychologist D. Rotter. Personality is a stable property of an individual, formed in the process of his socialization. To determine personality traits, a questionnaire was created and a set of methods was developed that makes it possible to identify a natural connection between personality traits and other personal characteristics. It has been shown that people who have internal personality traits are more self-confident, consistent and persistent in achieving their goals, prone to introspection, balanced, sociable, friendly and independent. A tendency towards external love, on the contrary, manifests itself along with such traits as lack of confidence in one’s abilities, imbalance, the desire to postpone the implementation of one’s intentions indefinitely, suspicion, etc. It has been experimentally shown that internal personality is a socially approved value (the ideal self (see) is always attributed to internal personality).
Brief psychological dictionary. - Rostov-on-Don: “PHOENIX”. L.A. Karpenko, A.V. Petrovsky, M. G. Yaroshevsky. 1998 .
Locus of control
A concept characterizing the localization of the reasons with which a subject explains his own behavior and the behavior of other people, introduced by the American psychologist Yu. Rotter. A quality that characterizes a person’s tendency to attribute responsibility for the results of his activities:
1 ) external forces - external, external locus of control; corresponds to the search for reasons for behavior outside oneself, in one’s environment; the tendency to an external locus of control manifests itself along with such traits as lack of confidence in one’s abilities, imbalance, the desire to postpone the implementation of one’s intentions indefinitely, anxiety, suspicion, conformity and aggressiveness;
2 ) own abilities and efforts - interval, internal locus of control; corresponds to the search for the causes of behavior within oneself; it has been shown that people with an internal locus of control are more self-confident, consistent and persistent in achieving their goals, prone to introspection, balanced, sociable, friendly and independent; Internal locus of control has also been shown to be a socially endorsed value; the ideal self is always attributed an internal locus of control;
Locus of control is a stable property of an individual, formed during his socialization. To determine the locus of control, a special questionnaire was created and a set of techniques was developed to identify the natural connection between it and other personal characteristics.
Dictionary of a practical psychologist. - M.: AST, Harvest. S. Yu. Golovin. 1998.
Locus of control Etymology.
Comes from Lat. locus - place and controle - check.
Category.Theoretical concept of J. Rotter's personality model.
Specificity.The individual's belief that his behavior is determined primarily either by himself (internal locus of control) or by his environment and circumstances (external locus of control). Formed in the process of socialization, it becomes a stable personal quality.
Literature.Kondakov I.M., Nilopets M.N. Experimental study of the structure and personal context of locus of control // Psychological Journal, No. 1, 1995
Psychological Dictionary. THEM. Kondakov. 2000.
LOCUS OF CONTROL
(English) locus of control) - American term. psychologist Julian Rotter (Rotter, 1966) to refer to the ways (strategies) by which people attribute (attribute) causality and responsibility for the results of their own and others' activities. It is assumed that different people have (preference) for a particular type of attribution of causation and responsibility. In other words, people can differ greatly in what attribution they give to their own and/or others' successes and failures.
There are 2 polar ways of attributing causality and responsibility (L.c.). In one case, causality and responsibility are attributed to the acting personality itself (her efforts, abilities, desires) - this strategy is called “internal” (“internal L.K.”, “subjective L.K.”); in the other case, “responsibility is assigned “on factors independent of the individual - external circumstances, accidents, luck, the mystical factor of fate, the fatal effect of heredity, etc.; the second method is called “external physical therapy.”
According to the degree of propensity for these 2 personality traits, people are classified into internals and externals. More precisely, this is the name given to individuals who receive extreme scores on the internality scale. The terms “internals” and “externals” should not be confused with the consonant terms “introverts” and “extroverts.”
In domestic literature the term “L. To." is often replaced by the “locus of subjective control”, and the modified Rotter questionnaire is called the “Level of Subjective Control Questionnaire” (abbr. “USK Questionnaire”). (B.M.)
Large psychological dictionary. - M.: Prime-EVROZNAK. Ed. B.G. Meshcheryakova, acad. V.P. Zinchenko. 2003 .
Locus of control
LOCUS OF CONTROL (With. 376) is a term that is borrowed from the English language and, because of this, is often misleading. The fact is that by control we are accustomed to understand the procedure for checking and assessing: “The teacher controls the completion of homework”; “A commission has been created to control the quality of products”... In Romano-Germanic languages, control is understood somewhat differently - as management, control of the situation. The phrase “Everything is under control” (by the way, also borrowed “from there”) has become fashionable in our country today. So, it means not so much that “everything is under supervision,” but rather that “the situation is in our power, it is manageable.”
The word “locus” is of Latin origin, it means “location”, “focus”, “source”.
Thus, if we explain this term in the words of our native language, then we should probably talk about the “source of responsibility”. Why was this term invented by psychologists, what phenomenon does it describe?
By locus of control, experts understand a psychological quality of a person that characterizes his tendency to attribute responsibility for the events that happen to him to external forces or to his own abilities and efforts. Accordingly, a distinction is made between external and internal locus of control. It has been noticed that people differ significantly from each other in this quality. One is sure that he is the master of his own destiny, that all important events in his life depend mainly on how he behaves himself. Another is inclined to see the source of his joys and troubles in the intricacy of external conditions that have little dependence on himself. With trepidation, he awaits the favor of the authorities, superiors, parents - all those on whom, in his opinion, his well-being depends. It is not difficult to guess that luck more often favors the former. After all, popular wisdom says: “Trust in God, but don’t make a mistake yourself!”
A number of experiments have shown that people with an internal locus of control are more self-confident, consistent and persistent in achieving their goals, balanced, sociable, friendly and independent. The tendency to an external locus of control, on the contrary, manifests itself along with such traits as lack of confidence in one’s abilities, the desire to postpone the implementation of one’s intentions indefinitely, suspicion, aggressiveness and conformism.
It seems that this trait is not so much an individual as a national feature. At least, this would seem to be evidenced by a large-scale study conducted in the early 90s. in a number of European countries. It covered tens of thousands of people living in the countries of the European Economic Community, as well as Eastern European post-communist states. It turned out that the mentality of residents of the EEC is much more characterized by a tendency to rely on one’s own strengths, while for residents of Eastern Europe, psychological dependence on external circumstances is more pronounced. It is important to note that the same ratio was found in the territory of united Germany: West Germans are distinguished by great self-confidence, while residents of the newly annexed eastern lands, being representatives of the same people, are more likely to gravitate towards the Eastern European mentality. This is understandable: the way of life that rulers have been instilling for decades cannot but affect the attitude of citizens.
Such a study has not been conducted in our country, although its results are not difficult to predict. We are accustomed to the fact that very little depends on the will of an individual, and we wait with trepidation to see how good and evil wizards (who, in fact, turn out to be completely indistinguishable from one another) will decide our fate. It’s no wonder that most of our folk tales talk about this. In them, the main mechanism for the development of the plot is fabulous luck, which allows the heroes to grab the Firebird by the tail, lose the weight of the Goldfish, etc. And there, “at the behest of a pike,” miracles begin, to the accomplishment of which the hero does not even need to make an effort. Perhaps the most colorful fairy-tale image is the self-assembled tablecloth. We absorb faith in this archetype with our mother’s milk and live our whole lives with the hope that one day, as if by magic, we will find ourselves on the jelly banks of the milk river. True, all sorts of Filthy Idols always interfere with this, but there is always hope that a fairy-tale hero will appear and immediately chop off the dragons' heads. Then we will live!
Life is not much like a fairy tale. As soon as some kind person entices us with a self-assembled tablecloth, some villain immediately snatches it right from under our noses. The miracle heroes, deaf to our groans, sleep soundly on the stove. And the potential Ivan Tsarevich spends his entire life walking around like Ivan the Fool, fruitlessly waiting for his Firebird.
Many psychotherapists and psychological consultants consider the formation of an internal locus of control to be their task. After all, no problem can be solved if you believe that its solution does not depend on you. Conversely, even the most depressing situation can be corrected If This is facilitated by self-confidence.
In the practice of psychological counseling, specialists often use the experience accumulated over centuries by tellers of parables and edifying stories. After all, stories of this kind sometimes contain the key to solving many psychological problems. Speaking about locus of control, I would like to recall one such story, which, perhaps, will be instructive for many.
They say how, in ancient times, the Duke of Assoun once paid a visit to Barcelona. That day there was a galley in the port, on which convicts chained to the oars served as rowers. The Duke climbed on board, walked around all the prisoners and asked each one about the crime that brought him to hard labor. One man told how his enemies bribed the judge and he handed down an unfair sentence. Another said that his ill-wishers hired a false witness and he slandered him in court. The third is that he was betrayed by a friend who decided to sacrifice him in order to escape justice himself.
At the same hour, the man who admitted his guilt was pardoned and released.
This incident actually happened. And it is interesting because it quite accurately reflects what happens in our lives. We all make mistakes and constantly make excuses instead of honestly admitting our mistakes. We blame others, we blame circumstances, instead of simply saying: “I am the master of my destiny and I made myself who I am.”
The moment this truth is revealed to us, we gain freedom.
Look back at your life, sort it out. Admit your mistakes and forgive yourself for them. And you will be free from the chains of the galleys. It all starts with taking responsibility for your past, present and future.
Popular psychological encyclopedia. - M.: Eksmo. S.S. Stepanov. 2005.
Locus of control is the place in space to which you turn to in order to solve your personal problem.
When a person exclaims: “I’m so fed up with everything!”, his locus of control moves from the center to the side or upward.
His problem is that he is fed up with everything, sometimes he doesn’t even formulate for himself what exactly bothers him, that’s it! And he directs his groan to someone who is in charge of this “everything”.
Well, God, apparently, but if he’s an atheist, then to another pope, to the government, for example.
Atheists and believers are not as different as people with an internal and external locus.
What difference does it make whether a person begs from God, imagining that he can force him with prayer, or whines, cursing the government? It's about equally useless.
A believer with an internal locus is not much different from an atheist. Both of them do what is in their power, guided by the principle “do what you must, and be what will be”; one simply believes that God disposes of this “will”, and the second that these are objective world laws. The first one also thinks that these are all objective laws, but above the laws he has God, and sometimes the laws themselves are God. In this case, he is no different at all from an atheist with an internal locus.
But a person with an internal LC differs very much from a person with an external LC.
It's like two different types of people.
One person spends all his time energy on those emotions and thoughts that do not depend on him in any way.
For example: “The weather is bad, oh, what bad weather!”
For a whole hour or a whole day, such a person may worry that the weather is bad. In an hour of experience, the chemistry of his body changes so much that everything else appears in a gloomy light. But the main thing is that his entire psyche, which is a reaction apparatus, is tossing and swaying, not knowing what to do. Trouble, trouble, the LC signals, bad weather. What should I do? Where should I run? Do you urgently need to change your place of residence? Because of the weather alone? Energy is always released in response to emotion, it should go towards solving a problem, but there is nowhere to direct it. Unless you cast a spell, like witches who make it rain by dangling sticks in a puddle, and stop the rain by breaking these sticks.
And other problems outside the boundaries of influence confuse the psyche in the same way.
It is clear that a person cannot influence everything. The weather can really be terrible. Illness can happen. Another problem.
But all problems that a person cannot influence, he should perceive as objective conditions, not worry too much, not discuss for too long, not analyze, not become immersed in, and not spend too much mental energy on it. He must direct psychic energy to the part that he can correct. This part is almost always there. Even in the most fatal situation. Protect yourself from the elements, at least partially, treat a disease or prolong life, eliminate the consequences of a disaster. This is within its borders. But everything that has already happened is no, it is in the past. And what is not yet in the past, but outside the zone of his control, is also pointless to discuss. You can talk in a secular or philosophical format, they say, this is how it happens, and so on, and so on. But there is no point in investing emotions and spending a lot of time.
A meaningful and conscious existence is living with a good locus of control, spending energy within your zone of influence.
A good personality is such a locus of control that allows you to direct your attention, especially emotionally charged and close attention, only to what is within the boundaries of influence.
All attention - to the zone of influence!
This is the internal locus of control, the correct locus of control, the good one.
Those who read about locus of control on the Internet may come across articles that describe that a person’s locus should normally be both internal and external, and that a constant internal locus of control is bad. Even the author who introduced the concept of locus of control into psychology thought so. But this is still an incorrect understanding. A good locus of control cannot be external. You cannot control what is outside your zone of influence. Someone will control everything, but not you. Controlling the uncontrollable is an oxymoron. If the problem does not depend on you, you should not place the locus of control outside yourself, but simply remove your attention from this area. You must take this area beyond the boundaries of attention, and always keep the locus inside and solve that part of the problem that is within your control.
There is always part of the problem that is within your control! Therefore, the locus of control should always be internal!
Even when you are a hostage to a terrorist and must strictly follow the orders of the rescuers, without even taking a step outside the instructions, submission is not an external locus of control, but an internal one. You are in control of your submission. You understand that your sphere of influence is now narrowing to the strict implementation of instructions. Hear the order and carry it out clearly. For accurate implementation, you also need will and attention. Your situation is so dangerous that little depends on you, but the accuracy of following instructions depends on you and you need an internal locus of control in order to survive, in order to avoid unnecessary stress and unnecessary actions.
Even when the only thing you need to survive is to lie still, you need an internal locus of control to lie still and not rush back and forth like people with an external locus in such a situation, worried about the actions of rescuers and terrorists.
The external locus directs your attention beyond the boundaries of your influence. You seem to imagine that you can influence what is happening around you with your thoughts and emotions. You scold the weather and the sun will come out. Even if you don’t think so, somewhere deep down you hope so, otherwise you would feel sorry for the energy wasted on moaning.
Most often you are not aware of any of this. You are simply annoyed by the weather and you are throwing out your emotions. This is the habit of existing reactively. A certain stimulus arrived, caused a negative reaction, it must be expressed and directed in the direction from which the stimulus came. Shake your fist at Tuchka. Scold global capitalism. Send rays of evil to your new ex. Spit in the direction of other people's imperfections.
Reactive existence triggers magical thinking. In magical thinking, magical is in quotation marks. Such thinking, of course, does not possess any magic. This is the same power over the world while the orderlies turned away. This is the illusion of influence. This is imaginary power.
And the more energy spent on illusions, the less it remains for real things.
A person can get out of a reactive, automatic existence by developing conscious, proactive behavior.
Proactive behavior begins with adjusting your locus of control! By placing the locus inside your zone of influence.
Reactive people (Pisces, and not only in the resource of love) obey the will of proactive people. They don’t have their own will, it just seems like it. Reactive people react to the stimuli that proactive people create, reacting in the most predictable way for them. This is why proactive people manage reactive people so easily and effortlessly. Easier than a herd of sheep!
Reactive people's locus of control is always external. It's like a puppet's string, dangling outside, take it whoever you want.
Like Rapunzel's braid hanging outside the tower window.
It would seem, why not at least sometimes shift the locus inward, and do what is in their power?
But no, they almost never do this. Simply because they see many benefits outside their borders and are drawn to them, enviously and greedily. It seems to them that there is nothing good at all within their borders, and indeed, nothing good grows there. Before it has time to grow, everything merges.
People with an external locus are very easy to control from the outside. It seems to them that some kind of manipulation is being used against them, but no, nothing is needed. They, like sheep, follow any volitional impulse of others.
Reactive people are all the same and therefore predictable. Individuality in the full sense of the word is characteristic only of people with a normal locus. The rest react equally to stimuli. They saw something attractive and ran. I hid it from them, they run around in circles. A person with an internal locus is not caught by provocations and baits; he keeps within boundaries and is therefore invulnerable. He relies on his own, does not reactively reach out to someone else’s, so he is protected. And his strength grows, because his energy is aimed at growing this strength, and does not go into experiencing everything that does not concern him.
A person with a good locus of control always has good boundaries.
By and large, locus of control and boundaries are one and the same thing.
Locus of control is the area of your control, it is within your borders.
Some people think that if they take on “everything” and see themselves as responsible for everything, then they have an internal locus of control.
No. Their locus of control goes beyond their boundaries, they try to control what is beyond their capabilities, what they cannot reach, where they have no leverage, but under their crowns they imagine that they do.
By and large, they are no different from people who want everything done for them.
These people also think that, at their will and at the command of the pike, some miracles will happen. People will listen and do what they want, events will happen in their favor.
The hyper-responsible Onegin, holding the sky on his shoulders, is no different from Rapunzel giving orders to imaginary knights from the tower.
The sky doesn't care about Onegin just like the knights don't care about Rapunzel. And the fact that the first one bursts from the strain, and the second one just waits and sighs, is more likely to relate to the characteristics of the nervous system. The first drains energy into a hole, the second’s energy burns out in a motionless swamp, it does no good, neither one nor the other. Well, unless stupid activity also contains sensible grain, then Onegin’s resources will be partially pumped, but the greater his hyper-responsibility, the less is spent on solving real problems, on his real responsibility.
A good LC is not only a willingness to solve your problems, but also a clear understanding of where your problems are and where they are not.
Everything that is in your will is yours. Everything that concerns the will of others is not yours. You can solve other people's problems if it concerns you and if you have been delegated this right, given power. Both the first and the second. It concerns you and you have been given power. In this case, you will invest energy and get results; you will grow, not merge.
The draining of oneself and one’s energy occurs due to the merging of boundaries. Drain from drain.
Boundary fusion comes from a poor locus of control. You want to get something that is outside your boundaries, so you merge the boundaries.
Instead of acting within your boundaries and expanding your territory of influence, you reach outside your boundaries and try to simply grab it and take it. In this case, you merge the boundaries, stop seeing where your boundaries end, and accept someone else’s things as your own. And you drain yourself.
In the next post I’ll tell you how a good PM grows your SZ in a relationship. Grows quickly!
All fishing is based on two principles - capturing attention and positive reinforcement of investments. All. Your SZ is growing quickly. And both principles depend only on the locus of control. It is impossible to grab attention if you have a poor locus of control; your attention will be captured faster. And you won’t be able to create positive reinforcement correctly with a bad locus; you will reach out every time something pleasant is taken away from you. You will reach out and positively reinforce the bad treatment you receive! Without noticing it ourselves.
And then I’ll tell you how to communicate with people with a bad personality, especially if these are the closest people. I’ll say right away that if a loved one has a bad personal life, your locus can also move out, but only if he himself is rather bad. If your locus of control is good, then from communicating with a person with a bad locus it will become even better, your boundaries will become ideal. And the boundaries of a loved one will also become better, at least in the common space. Unfortunately, it is impossible to correct another person's locus of control. Boundaries can be improved, but only externally. He will build his boundaries around yours and it will seem that he himself can keep within the boundaries. As soon as he starts communicating with someone else, all the defects in his locus will come out and the boundaries will become bad, he will begin to merge. But he will behave normally with you if your boundaries are very good. That is, you cannot suffer from someone else’s bad boundaries in any way, and all your suffering due to the boundaries of your loved ones is defects in your locus of control. Better say thank you for showing you your weak points.
Do you realize how universal this locus of control tool is? How does it ensure your security and the growth of your resources? Do you feel how it shapes your boundaries?
Do you think a person has complete control over the course of his life? Most people answer this question in the affirmative, citing their life plans, aspirations and goals as evidence. However, in the case of various life difficulties, it is difficult for a person to admit his failures. An example is the following question: “in order to occupy a certain social status, is it necessary to work hard or wait for favorable circumstances?” Or: “during a family quarrel, who initiates the conflict - your environment or you?” Conventionally, people are divided into two types: the first, in the case of failures, look for their cause in the external influence of various factors, the second - prefer to take responsibility for their destiny upon themselves. In order to give the correct answer to the questions above, you should carefully familiarize yourself with the phenomenon of locus of control.
Locus of control is a generalized subjective expectation of the extent to which a person is able to control the events that happen to him
Locus of control in psychology is a phenomenon that divides all representatives of humanity into two conditional groups. Representatives of the first group blame various external factors for their troubles. Think about how often you hear from people about inadequate management, negative circumstances, bad luck and other negative influences from the external environment. People belonging to the second category are firmly convinced that external stimuli do not have a significant impact on their lives. In various difficulties, they prefer to blame only themselves. It is important to note that such people do not take into account that their difficulties may be caused by the selfish, greedy and other negative actions of the people around them.
As mentioned earlier, representatives of the first group are firmly convinced that their life goals are of little importance. In their opinion, everything is determined by fate, so you shouldn’t “jump out of your pants” and try to achieve the impossible. Representatives of the second category of people believe that perseverance and effort will allow them to achieve their goals no matter what. This division is called the phenomenon of locus of control.
Theory
For the first time, this phenomenon was consecrated in his scientific works by a psychotherapist from America, Dr. J. Rotter. This scientist in his works says that human behavior is based on two polar aspects. One of them is chosen as the main one, after which the individual begins to adhere to the given attitude. Locus of control is divided into two types:
- External type– which is the outer pole. This model of behavior involves shifting the blame for various life difficulties to a fateful combination of circumstances.
- Internal type– which is the inner pole. This behavioral model is characterized as complete control over all actions that can determine the course of life.
It is important to note that locus of control has an important impact on the course of human life.
People belonging to different groups differ in their choice of life position and the productivity of their work. The Rotter locus of control test, developed by the author of this phenomenon, allows you to determine membership in a specific group. Let's take a look at each of them in more detail.
People with an external locus of control are convinced that the events that happen to them depend on their own activity External group
People belonging to this group are firmly convinced that their efforts and efforts will not be able to change their usual way of life. In their opinion, forecasting and planning will not be successful, so they can be postponed to the near future.
Individuals included in the external group expect various gifts from life that can change their lives. Most of these individuals are characterized by such qualities as low self-esteem, unreasonable fear and anxiety. Reluctance to take responsibility is accompanied by an inability to defend one’s own interests. Experts note that this category of people is characterized by impulsiveness, causeless aggression and a tendency towards depressive disorder. They often give in to excitement and take risky actions without thinking about the possible consequences.
External locus of control is the desire for conformity. This fact is based on experiments and research conducted on the topic of the phenomenon in question. The basis of such studies is the Rotter test. Based on membership in one of the categories, experts formed a focus group. This group included people with overestimated indicators of belonging to the locus of control of both types.
The purpose of this experiment is to identify individuals who are able to resist public opinion and people who agree with it. Each test participant was given a certain financial amount, which was to be used as a bet on personal opinion or the opinions of others. As a result of the experiment, participants belonging to the internal group made bets taking into account their own opinions, despite the presence of confrontation with others. Individuals belonging to the external locus relied on public opinion, without doubting its truthfulness and correctness.
Internal type
Internal locus of control implies responsibility for decisions made and actions taken. According to experts, taking responsibility increases the power of incentives and the desire to achieve your goals. Based on this, we can say that internal locus of control is closely related to emotional stability. A person who adheres to this behavior is ready to “sacrifice” personal comfort in order to achieve the goal. The life motto of such people is that only work can help achieve success.
This type of locus of control allows an individual to defend his own worldview and interests in various situations, from family relationships to politics. In order to become more familiar with this pole, let's look at another scientific study.
Students from an American college took part in this experiment. The focus group included activists from various groups that fight for the rights of the population. The result of this experiment was quite predictable, since most of the subjects belonged to the internal group. The focus group was provided with information about how cigarettes negatively affect the internal organs and systems of the human body. The internals, having become familiar with this information, made attempts to get rid of their addiction.
Externals did not take any action, counting on magic pills that could solve all the problems that arose. None of the focus group members with this behavior pattern took a single decisive step to resist fate.
People with an internal locus of control believe that they are the ones who create reinforcements for themselves through their behavior and control everything that happens to them. Based on the above information, we can say that the internal locus has a much more beneficial effect on human life. It is this pole that increases labor productivity, brings a person pleasure from the actions performed, and also contributes to the development of resistance to external influences. However, if this pole is overexpressed, there are also negative consequences. Each individual should have only realistic incentives that can be achieved through targeted actions. Desires to change circumstances that are not subject to external influence can provoke a state of frustration and the development of depressive syndrome.
An objective assessment of one’s own capabilities is closely interconnected with the state of society. That is why overseas researchers pay such close attention to the locus of control. Many foreign countries are characterized by stability in the sphere of law and economics. This leads to the fact that the vast majority of residents of such countries perform various actions based on their internal state. From this we can conclude that the internal pole is not typical for residents of countries with unfavorable social conditions. This can be explained by the fact that in such countries global events rarely depend on the actions of a particular person. The main influence on human life here is exerted by external forces.
It is important to note that the methodology used to determine membership in one of the conditional groups has several interesting nuances. According to its author, locus of control is an unstable value and can change throughout a person's life. Changes in outlook on life can be facilitated by changes in the political or economic sphere. Family values also play an important role in this matter.
The educational process involves learning to be independent and take responsibility for all decisions made and actions taken. The methods and severity of parenting are decisive factors in the choice of locus of control.