William Shakespeare
Locus of control is a theoretical concept in psychology that characterizes a person’s ability to attribute their successes or failures either only to internal or only to external factors. If a person tends to attribute performance results solely to external factors, this is an external locus of control. And a person’s tendency to attribute performance results only to internal factors is, accordingly, an internal locus of control. A person who attributes the result of an activity to external factors is an external type [a person with a low level of subjective control (USC)], and a person who attributes the result of an activity to internal factors is an internal type [a person with a high level of subjective control (USC) ]. The concept of locus of control was introduced in 1954 by American social psychologist Julian Rotter. In this article we will look at this concept from the side that is most interesting to us.
So, first, let's find out what are internal and what are external factors to which a person can attribute the results of his activities. Internal factors include: the positive and negative qualities of a person, his efforts, the presence or absence of the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities, as well as experience and the like. And external factors are a combination of circumstances, the behavior of other people, the presence or absence of certain resources and, in general, various manifestations of the external environment. Naturally, our successes and failures are influenced to varying degrees by both external and internal factors. Another thing is what each individual person prefers to see as the reason for this or that success or failure. After all, if you try, you can always explain and justify any of your failures to a large extent or even exclusively by external factors, as the external personality type does, while completely ignoring your own mistakes, shortcomings, weaknesses, and lack of the necessary competence to achieve the desired result. in some matter and so on. And at the same time, any successful combination of circumstances can, if you try, be attributed to your own efforts, your skills, diligence and other internal factors. You understand that this approach to assessing the patterns of one’s successes and failures significantly distorts the picture of reality that a person has in his head, thereby preventing him from drawing the right conclusions from his actions and decisions and, if necessary, making the necessary changes to them. We can deceive other people, justifying our failures solely by external factors, or attributing our successes solely to our efforts and personal qualities, but we should not deceive ourselves in this matter, otherwise in the future we will not be able to repeat our success and avoid failures. This is the most important point for us in the issue under consideration.
Locus of control is also called “localization of volitional control.” This means that a person can place blame on external or internal factors, depending on whether he has an external or internal location of control. Suppose you fail in something, who will you blame for it? Now, if you have external localization of control, you will blame your failure on external factors, and if internal, then, accordingly, on internal ones, that is, blame yourself. Now pay attention to what you usually do when you fail or something doesn’t work out for you - who do you blame for this? This will help you understand what locus of control you have. I repeat that those people who are inclined to explain the consequences of their actions mainly by the influence of external circumstances, that is, they attribute responsibility for their activities exclusively to external conditions, are called externals. And people who only consider themselves responsible for the results of their activities are called internals. Don’t be alarmed by these terms; although they are unfamiliar to the ear, in general they convey the meaning of the difference between different people. As you can see, we are talking about two types of people, those who take responsibility for everything that happens to them, and those who shift it onto others. Although in life not everything is so strict, and in different situations, both those and other people, both externals and internals, can explain their successes and failures differently, that is, they do not always strictly and completely correspond to their personality type.
For us, friends, another question is more important: what kind of internal or external locus of control do we need in everyday life? We must somehow use our volitional efforts for our own benefit, right? It is one thing to understand who you are according to the above definitions, and quite another to make yourself the person we need you to be. You know, I don’t think there is a clear answer to this question. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty that you always need to be only external or internal, that one is better than the other. Of course, any sane person can say that blaming one’s failures exclusively or even predominantly on external factors does not make much sense. More often than not, this approach to explaining one’s failures is an excuse that no one needs. In general, such a view of life can be called irresponsibility. It is much more useful to always adequately evaluate your own actions, your own decisions, your own strengths and weaknesses, and work on yourself to change what you want to change, rather than trying, say, to change circumstances, other people, or even the laws of nature. It sounds rational, of course. But, after all, we are still studying human psychology, which means we must understand that man, with all his merits, to a greater extent and in most cases, is an irrational being, not a rational one. Therefore, it is extremely important for him to be able to stabilize his internal state in situations that greatly undermine most of us and hit our self-confidence. Therefore, sometimes it is more useful to justify your failures and mistakes by external factors, instead of blaming only yourself for them and thus eating yourself from the inside. In other words, some of us, perhaps all of us, benefit from exercising an external locus of control in some situations.
We must also understand that all people are different, and not many of us can perceive certain events in our lives, if not exclusively, then at least predominantly from a rational position. And the point is not in the complexity of these events, not in the fact that they are difficult to understand and adequately evaluate, the point is in the character of people - for some it is strong, for others it is weak. Therefore, some people are ready to perceive their shortcomings and analyze their mistakes, while others are not. There are also very emotional people for whom an emotional attitude is extremely important - it must be positive so that they can not only do something successfully, but also have the desire to do something in general. Such people are not very pleased to realize that they may be wrong about something, may be mistaken in something, may not know something, may not be able to do something, and so on. Therefore, it does not always make sense to point out to them their own mistakes and shortcomings, in the hope that they will deal with them and correct them. But supporting their opinion that external circumstances prevented them from achieving success in something or caused their failure may turn out to be a very correct decision, since it is the person who is in solidarity with them that they will want to listen to and follow his advice to correct the situation. And there are also people who are morally very weak, and they cannot see all their failures solely as their fault; such an approach to life will simply break them. It will be especially harmful to their already low self-esteem, which, if they are critical of themselves, will drop even lower, which in turn will make them even less adapted to all kinds of difficulties and to life in general. Therefore, in order to stabilize their internal state, such people adhere to an external locus of control, that is, they shift responsibility for their failures primarily to external circumstances and other people, thereby relieving themselves of the emotional burden that is unnecessary for them. It is worth noting that some of our failures can indeed be explained solely by external factors, not justified, but explained, for the sake of an objective assessment of the situation. But this does not mean that we ourselves cannot do anything in a given situation in order to influence it and correct something in it, however, we also need to be able to correctly understand the limits of our capabilities, so as not to blame ourselves later. which is not your fault.
As for success, it is, of course, more pleasant to attribute it to your personal qualities, and not to a successful coincidence of circumstances, luck or the merits of other people, and not only internals, but also externals like to do this, since every person wants to think well of himself and wants Seeing ourselves in the best light is important for our self-esteem. I don’t often meet people in my life who would say that their successes are associated more with simple luck, and not with their efforts, skills, knowledge, efforts, and so on. Therefore, although the external personality type implies that a person attributes his successes and failures to external factors, in life such people associate their success to a greater extent with themselves, at least in my observations, rather than with the actions of other people, luck, luck , by chance and so on. But the internal type of personality not only connects the events that happen to him with his personal qualities - his competence, determination, attitude, level of abilities, and so on, but also specifically looks for such a connection. Here we are talking about a person consciously taking responsibility for his life and for everything that happens in it. And he does this not only because he has a strong character, a mature mind and great will, but also because, and sometimes only because, this is a promising view of himself and his life. People with an internal locus of control are much more confident in themselves. They are consistent and very persistent in achieving their goals, and are also quite balanced, relatively independent and very friendly. These people understand that there is no point in making themselves a victim of circumstances or hoping for luck - they, as they say, are, because they want to be, the architects of their own happiness. So as you can see, the difference between external and internal locus of control is significant.
Thus, from my point of view, he should ultimately take responsibility for everything that happens in a person’s life, even in situations where he has little influence at all. Only in this case will his brain work for the future, for the result. If, in order to stabilize his internal state, to ease his soul, a person needs to shift responsibility for his failures to other people and, in general, to external factors - so be it. This is allowed. This is better than completely giving up, judging and suppressing yourself. But at the same time, you need to slowly turn your attention to yourself and focus on your strengths and weaknesses in order, so to speak, to tighten the necessary screws in yourself and in the future try to act more effectively, more competently, more effectively. Then a person will make fewer mistakes in his life and will fail less often. And in your successes, you also don’t need to see only luck and a favorable combination of circumstances, no matter how beautiful it may look. As you know, the strongest and the smartest are lucky, so rely on yourself, not on luck. Therefore, for me, the concept of locus of control is, first of all, responsibility and maturity of mind. These qualities either exist and they are developed in a person, and then he is more internal, that is, he has an internal locus of control, and therefore is the creator of his life, or they are not developed in him and he is more external, that is, has an external locus of control, and then he has something to work on, something to strive for.
Therefore, it makes sense to devote your time and energy to analyze and correctly evaluate all your actions, decisions, actions, knowledge and skills, your personal qualities, your capabilities and achievements. This will allow you to understand yourself, understand yourself and find ways to make yourself more adaptable to life. External factors also need to be studied in order to understand what patterns exist in life and how you can adapt to them, how you can use them. Therefore, both external and internal locus of control must be in harmony with each other. In other words, the degree of our responsibility should be distributed in proportion to our capabilities. And if we objectively have fewer opportunities to influence external factors, then it makes no sense to shift responsibility onto them. It is much more important and useful to be responsible for internal factors and look at life through the prism of personal responsibility for everything that happens to us in this world.
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.
You are responsible for your own life, aren't you? Of course, an adult who has some income has a lot of worries and expenses. But alas, we do not always take responsibility for our lives. Ask yourself a few questions. For example, to achieve career success, do you need to work hard, put in effort, or maybe just get lucky? Who is to blame for family conflicts - you or your family? If you are late for a meeting or work, is it because of a broken alarm clock or do you admit that you overslept?
Just think, is it really that important and is there a difference? Yes, there is some aspect. One type of people looks for the reasons for what is happening to them in the external environment (inadequate management at work, ununderstanding parents, fatal coincidence of circumstances, fate, corrupt officials).
Another type of people does not believe that the external environment has such a huge influence on their lives and more attribute responsibility for their fate to themselves, despite the existence of corrupt officials.
The former claim that no matter what they do, their behavior still plays an insignificant role and life itself will decide the course of events, while the latter are confident that much depends on their efforts and perseverance; life can be changed by yourself. This phenomenon is called "locus of control."
Scientific background
American psychologist J. Rotter noticed the presented phenomenon and began to research and develop it. The scientist identified two polar aspects in the concept, one of which a person chooses and adheres to.
These are external and internal locus of control. The first is the external pole (“They are to blame for everything. I can’t do anything”), and the second is the internal pole (“I can and should lead my life and be responsible for my actions”).
It would seem that the locus of control can influence human life, but the impact is significant. After all, people who adhere to different poles have differences in terms of life strategies and the productivity of their activities.
Thus, Rotter's locus of control appears to us. The technique he developed helps determine what type a person belongs to.
Outer pole
Individuals with an external locus of control are confident that it is unlikely that anything in this life depends on their efforts and efforts. Then why make plans, predict the consequences of your actions and decide something, because you can postpone the decision until later, and suddenly it will somehow work out on its own. They are not responsible, but they are characterized by anxiety, lack of confidence in their capabilities and abilities, aggressiveness, a tendency to depression and an inability to defend their boundaries and principles. Such people often take risks and do not think ahead.
Externality - a predisposition to conformity
In addition, the external locus of control in psychology is also a tendency towards conformity. Psychologists developed an experimental program and conducted the following study. The Rotter test was used as a tool. Locus of control became a criterion for selecting respondents to the experimental group. Individuals with high scores on both external and internal locus of control were identified.
The main idea of the study was to test which of the individuals would be able to resist the opinion of the majority, and who would be willing to agree with it. Respondents received money and, using it, could bet either on their own opinion or on someone else's. Participants, having an internal locus of control, placed greater emphasis on their opinions, despite contradictions with others. Individuals with an external locus did not express their thoughts, even when they were confident in their correctness and truthfulness.
Inner pole
People with an internal locus take responsibility for their own lives, their actions and decisions. The fact is that responsibility affects motivation and the desire to achieve results. It turns out that the internal locus of control in psychology is also emotional stability, the willingness to postpone pleasure until later in order to achieve a goal now. These individuals have a strong belief that hard work will lead to success.
Such a locus of personal control allows a person to defend and protect his interests, from everyday everyday events to participation in political actions. To illustrate, we present the results of another experiment by J. Rotter.
The respondents were college students who were active participants in various movements fighting for civil rights. The results were expected, because among these people the majority had an internal locus of control.
An interesting experiment is about the dangers of smoking. Participants were given information on the packs about the negative effects of cigarettes (the study was conducted in the 60s of the 20th century). After such a message, the internals tried to quit smoking, but the externals relaxed and let everything take its course - come what may. Individuals with an external locus of control counted on help from doctors, magic pills, and fate, but did nothing themselves to change their condition.
Underwater rocks
Considering the above information, the internal pole brings much more benefit and effectiveness, plus some bonus feelings, such as: pleasure from work, self-reflection, resistance to external manipulation and initiative. But excessive expression of such a phenomenon does not always bring positive results.
The individual must set realistic goals. And the desire to change something that cannot change in any way can lead to frustration and depressive experiences.
How a person perceives his capabilities depends on the current state of society. It is not for nothing that locus of control has become the subject of research by American psychologists.
The USA is a stable country with good economic and legal indicators; accordingly, people rely more on their internal feelings, and in unfavorable conditions, the internal locus of control is not very popular among society. This is natural, because in such countries little depends on the person himself, and forces coming from outside have a great influence.
I would like to note that locus of control parameters have the ability to change throughout life and are not a final diagnosis.
In addition to the economic and political situation, the family also influences the formation of the personality of internals. Parents cultivate the child’s independence and responsibility for his actions, or they take care of him and do not allow him to take even a step. Accordingly, loving parents will raise a child with an internal locus of control, while despotic and authoritarian parents will grow up with an external one.
Conclusion
If you want to change the parameter of this phenomenon towards responsibility, then try to act in accordance with those characteristics that are responsible for internality. Over time, the pole will change and you will feel in control of your own life.
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 is a property of a person that determines his tendency to attribute responsibility for his activities to external forces (the so-called external locus or external) or to personal efforts and abilities (internal, internal).
Self-control
A relatively perfect mechanism of regulation and evaluation is control. In order for the subject to be able to realize and analyze his own actions and states, he uses a mechanism such as self-control. Its emergence and improvement is determined by the requirements of the collective for human behavior. Formed self-regulation helps an individual control his behavior in various situations.
To do this, there must be a standard and the ability to obtain information about controlled states and actions. In stressful situations, it is an object of volitional regulation.
A person can consciously regulate his own states, motives and actions, comparing them with certain subjective ideas and norms as a result of self-control. It is necessary in order to meet the requirements of society, therefore it is a socially mediated phenomenon, inherent only in such a social being as a person.
Self-control allows you to make a conscious choice of the most acceptable and permissible forms of response to the circumstances that arise around it.
Locus of control
The subject of control is the individual himself, society as a whole, and the social environment. A person’s reaction depends on whether he feels like he is the master of fate or “floating at the will of the waves.” Responsibility for control can also be attributed either to external forces or to one's own efforts and abilities. In any case, a person cares about what has already happened and who is responsible for how the event will end - he or fate, chance, i.e. everything that cannot be controlled. “Locus of control” is what is called in psychology to determine the source of what controls his life - the external environment or himself. This is a stable property of an individual, which is formed in the process of personal socialization.
Your locus of control can be determined using a developed set of special techniques. This allows one to assess personal characteristics to some extent.
Those who consider themselves to be people with an internal locus of control are likely to have done well in school, do not smoke, use seat belts in the car, use contraceptives, solve family problems on their own, strive to earn a lot of money and easily give up pleasure in order to achieve strategic goals.
The degree of competence and well-being depends on how a person explains his failures. Chances are you know students who consider themselves victims. They always blame their academic failures on things beyond their control, such as their own intelligence, “bad” teachers, tests, and useless textbooks. This is the external locus of control.
They are very likely to assess failure as an accident and believe that a new approach to solving the problem is needed. whose locus of control is most likely internal, they believe that failures can be controlled, and that they need to sell as many insurance policies as possible.
Externals and internals also differ in the type of interpretation of social situations, in particular, in the method of obtaining information and in the mechanism of their causal explanation. The locus of control of internals provides greater awareness of the situation and problem, and higher responsibility than external people. “Pure” externals and internals practically do not exist. Every person has a degree of confidence in his own abilities, strengths and a degree of dependence on circumstances.