Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
By Gillian Fournier
~ Less than a minute read
The extent to which people believe they have power over events in their
lives. A person with an internal locus of control believes that he or she can
influence events and their outcomes, while someone with an external locus
of control blames outside forces for everything.
This concept was brought to light in the 1950’s by Julian Rotter. The
underlying question regarding the locus of control is this…do I control my life
or does something else (like a God) control it? This simple idea has profound
significance as it influences peoples’ beliefs very strongly. Do you believe in
God? Are you an agnostic? Why? Do I just have good luck? If I make all the
right decisions does that mean I can make my life be exactly how I envision
it? These are all questions that might arise from that simple premise.
I think this page has some excellent insights about the locus of control and
how it relates to psychological well
being: http://wilderdom.com/psychology/loc/LocusOfControlWhatIs.html
Psychology
Class tutorial
What is Locus of James Neill
Last updated:
Related constructs Control? 06 Dec 2006
The full name Rotter gave the construct was Locus of Control of
Reinforcement. In giving it this name, Rotter was bridging behavioural
and cognitive psychology. Rotter's view was that behaviour was largely
guided by "reinforcements" (rewards and punishments) and that through
contingencies such as rewards and punishments, individuals come to
hold beliefs about what causes their actions. These beliefs, in turn,
guide what kinds of attitudes and behaviours people adopt. This
understanding of Locus of Control is consistent, for example, with Philip
Zimbardo (a famous psychologist):
A locus of control orientation is a belief about whether the outcomes of our
actions are contingent on what we do (internal control orientation) or on events
outside our personal control (external control orientation)." (Zimbardo, 1985, p.
275)
Links
Locus of Control (Rotter, 1954) - James Neill
Locus of Control - Gale Encyclopedia of Childhood & Adolescence
Locus of Control - WikEd
Taking Control of Our Lives: The Far Reaching Effects of Locus of Control -
web-based tutorial
Psychology Lab on Motivation and Locus of Control - web-based tutorial
More Locus of Control links
References
Hans, T. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effects of adventure
programming on locus of control. Journal of Contemporary
Psychotherapy, 30(1),33-60.
Hattie, J. A., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T. & Richards, G. E.
(1997). Adventure Education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class
experiences that have a lasting effect. Review of Educational Research,
67, 43-87.
Mamlin, N., Harris, K. R., Case, L. P. (2001). A Methodological Analysis
of Research on Locus of Control and Learning Disabilities: Rethinking a
Common Assumption. Journal of Special Education, Winter.
Marsh, H. W. & Richards, G. E. (1986). The Rotter Locus of Control
Scale: The comparison of alternative response formats and implications
for reliability, validity and dimensionality. Journal of Research in
Personality, 20, 509-558.
Marsh, H. W. & Richards, G. E. (1987). The multidimensionality of the
Rotter I-E Scale and its higher order structure: An application of
confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 39-
69.
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80, Whole No. 609.
Wikipedia. Locus of control.
When you explore the subtopic of health, you will realize that numerous
health behaviors are influenced by one's locus of control. Health locus of
control beliefs have been demonstrated to originate from prior experiences
and reinforced behaviors. Upbringing, socioeconomic status, age, and
attributions made from encounters with the health problems of others are
variables that can be investigated in this section.
The final subtopic deals with how culture relates to, or possibly
influences, locus of control. A great deal of research exists which supports the
claim that the culture of an individual may impact his or her degree of
internality or externality. A range of this kind of research will be examined, as
well as some opposing findings, which reveal that culture does not have an
impact upon one's perceived control. Alternative influences that are believed
to have a greater impact will be introduced.
Locus of Control
Control: an easy word to understand yet a challenging word to actually deal
with. We have people that think they control everything, others that think they
are controlled by the world around them and pretty much everything in
between. Control can be defined as the power to determine outcomes by
directly influencing actions, people and events. When we look at it that way,
we can begin to see that there is no way to control everything in our lives. I'm
not saying we cannot control anything, but put in the context of that
definition, we have to step back and really analyze what we can and cannot
control.
The word 'control' becomes even more interesting when we have the
word locus, before it. You see, locus is defined as a position, point or place, or
more specifically, a location where something occurs. A person's locus of
control may be internal or external.
For example, let's say you're a person with an internal locus of control and you
get a promotion at work or achieve some other type of success. You will
probably attribute that positive end result to the work you put in. In other
words, your success was a direct result of your hard work.
If, on the other hand, you have an external locus of control, you might
attribute that promotion or success to external or environmental factors, such
as luck, fate, timing, other people or some type of divine intervention.
Let's use the same example and say that you were denied a promotion. If your
locus of control is internal, you would find a way to blame yourself for the
perceived failure. If your locus of control is external, it would be easy, even
natural, to blame outside sources beyond your control.
On the other hand, a person who identifies with an external locus of control
looks at everything around them as part of the success or failure. In many
ways, they believe in the team aspect more than those that focus on the
internal locus of control, as they will always praise those around them for a
job well done, even if they had nothing to do with it at all. They are team
players.
A person who has internal locus of control will never say something like "I failed because
the exam was hard" but instead he takes responsibility by asking himself questions such
as "what was the wrong thing i did" and "how can i prevent that from happening the next
time"
The person who has internal locus of control never says something like "i didn't find work
because of the high unemployment rate at the country i live in" but instead tries to find out
how can he improve his chances of getting a better job.
In short the person with internal locus of control does not claim that the word is a rosy
place as he knows that things might be unfair sometimes but instead he focuses on
solutions that he can come up with rather than blaming other factors for his failures.
That person believes that the whole world is plotting against him, that luck exists and that
life is unfair.
The main reason that person believes in luck is to explain how are there people around
him succeeding while he can't. A brilliant plan that he comes up with to protect his ego and
self worth.
The person who has external locus of control always blames other factors for his failures
such as god's will, bad economy or lack of luck. If you feel that you have external locus of
control then you must do your best to get over that self defeating thinking patternbefore
it ruins your life.
I am not asking you to believe that life is simple or that things can't be tough sometimes
but all i am asking you is to shift your focus from the things that might have caused your
failure to the things that might lead you to future success.
2knowmyself is not a simple article website nor it’s a place where you will find shallow
fixes, but it’s a place where you will find effective techniques that are backed by
psychology and that are presented in obvious and understandable format. If you think that
this is some kind of marketing hype then see what other visitors say about
2knowmyself.The book How to make someone fall in love with you was released by
2knowmyself.com; the book will dramatically increase your chance of letting someone fall
in love with you.
Motivation
"Ability is what you're capable of doing.
Objectives
* Define motivation
* Identify and list characteristics of motivation
* List methods for improving motivation
As you read the textbook chapter on Locus of Control and Motivation, take note of what
motivates you and how you can improve your motivation to learn. Motivation is what drives
or inspires you to achieve your goals or behave in a certain manner. It is the 'why' you do
something.
There are two kinds of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic. With intrinsic motivation you are
motivated to do something because you derive a sense of pleasure or satisfaction from
completing the task. Your participation in the activity may bring you pleasure (e.g.
gardening), you may dream it is important (e.g. earn an A.A. degree), or simply because you
feel it is will benefit others (e.g. volunteer). You may also be motivated by extrinsic sources.
These are sources outside of your such as feeling compelled by others to achieve something
(e.g. parents/spouse desires for you to earn all A's) , act in a certain manner to please a
family member, or because you have been told to.
(d) Believe that your work will have an effect in your life
Locus of Control
Objectives
* Define locus of control
* Identify and list external and internal locus of control characteristics
* Write a summary comparison of internal and external locus of control
Locus control is different than motivation (why you do something). Locus of control is
related to to where you conceptually place the responsibility, choice,and control for what
you achieve and what occurs in your life. Reflect on what you just read about motivation. Do
you understand the difference between motivation (why) to do something and your locus of
control (responsibility/control/choice)? If not, return to the previous page and review again
what is meant by motivation.
The decision to place the responsibility for your success and failures is not usually
something that you are consciously aware of. Yet, it is very important for you to reflect on
and identify your general locus of control for it can:
There are two types of locus of control, internal or external. An external locus of
control supports a belief that one is helpless, without blame, and not in control of one's
successes and failures. An individual with external locus of control blames their failure is to
outside sources such as: "I did not do well in class because the instructor was terrible" or
"The project that I had to complete did not meet expectations because I didn't have
information on how to "_____".
While a student with an internal locus of control will attribute their success and failures to
their own efforts. In the first example, a student with an internal locus of control would feel
that they were in control of what grade they earned. "I didn't do well in class but it was
because I did not give the class the time and effort needed. When I realized I didn't feel the
professor presented the information well in his/her lectures, I should have: (a) done some
extra reading, (b) made notes for each of the chapters, and (c) met with the instructor to
discuss questions I had about the lectures."
In the second example, an employee with an internal locus of control would feel that their
failure to perform was due to their lack of initiative (effort) to obtain the information they
needed. For example: "When I realized that more information/training/knowledge was
required, I should have gone to my boss for guidance, or gotten the information through
research or from fellow team members."
NOTE: Understanding internal and external locus of control is frequently very challenging.
The next few pages will provide you with activities to assist you in understanding these
concepts. Please complete them all for you will be expected to be able to: (1) define the two
terms and, (2) using a scenario, you will be expected to explain how an individual is
exhibiting internal/external locus of control.
A. TOM HORVATH, PH.D., ABPP, KAUSHIK MISRA, PH.D., AMY K. EPNER, PH.D., AND GALEN MORGAN
COOPER, PH.D.AUG 26, 2013 UPDATED MAR 14, 2016
In the previous section, we reviewed four different models of personal responsibility
for causing and solving problems.
This issue of personal responsibility for problems and their solutions brings to the
surface deeper, underlying issues. In particular, it reveals whether we see ourselves
as the actor, or the director, of our own lives.
Throughout this series on addiction, we've suggested that each person is free to
choose between and among the various theoretical models of addiction. Ideally,
people in recovery will pick some combination of models that best fits their needs
and circumstances. In this way, they can successfully solve their addiction problem.
However, these choices are largely governed by a stable personality characteristic
called "locus of control." Simply stated, this personality characteristic describes
people's sense of control over their own lives. People's understanding of their ability
to control their own lives will greatly influence which types of recovery models are
most suitable for them.
When people have an internal locus of control, they expect they will determine their
own futures because of their own actions. If we were to imagine life as a sort of
theatrical play, these people would consider themselves the directors of their own
lives. Conversely, when people have an external locus of control they do not expect
to have control over their futures. Things just happen to them. From this perspective,
they have no control or influence over their lives. Continuing with our analogy of life
as a theatrical play, these folks would consider themselves mere actors in their own
lives.
Locus of control describes people's sense of control over their lives. It also describes
the way people understand the problems they experience. In a related manner, it
somewhat predicts how they will attempt to solve these problems. For example, if I
possess an internal locus of control, I believe problems are my own doing (since I
am the director of my life). I also believe that I must solve my own problems (since I
created them).
Locus of control is a relatively stable and enduring aspect of personality (as are most
personality characteristics). It is so stable that we "take it for granted." We are
unaware of the way our particular locus of control colors our understanding of a
problem. Nonetheless, it greatly affects our approach to solving problems. Locus of
control can change, but it changes slowly, over many years.
Since locus of control is rather stable and influences our approach to problems, it
becomes highly relevant to recovery from addiction. An approach to recovery that
conflicts with your own locus of control is almost certain to fail. Therefore, find (or
create) an approach to recovery that best matches your own position on the locus of
control continuum (ranging from external to internal). If you would like, you
could take a test to measure your locus of control.
You can more simply determine this by evaluating your own attitudes toward
recovery. Do you see yourself as the person who must find a solution to your
addiction problem? Or, do you see the solution primarily coming from others? If you
have a strong internal locus of control, you will feel more comfortable with
a compensatory model, or a moral model. Conversely, if you have a strong external
locus of control, you will naturally resonate with an enlightenment model or medical
model.
These sharp distinctions between an internal and external locus of control helps us
to define this personality characteristic. However, nobody exhibits a purely internal or
external locus of control. Most of us lean in one direction or the other. The point is to
become aware of which direction you lean. This way you can more easily align your
recovery efforts to your own personality and preferences.
Personal Responsibility And Locus Of Control
A. TOM HORVATH, PH.D., ABPP, KAUSHIK MISRA, PH.D., AMY K. EPNER, PH.D., AND GALEN MORGAN
COOPER, PH.D.AUG 26, 2013 UPDATED MAR 14, 2016
In the previous section, we reviewed four different models of personal responsibility
for causing and solving problems.
This issue of personal responsibility for problems and their solutions brings to the
surface deeper, underlying issues. In particular, it reveals whether we see ourselves
as the actor, or the director, of our own lives.
Throughout this series on addiction, we've suggested that each person is free to
choose between and among the various theoretical models of addiction. Ideally,
people in recovery will pick some combination of models that best fits their needs
and circumstances. In this way, they can successfully solve their addiction problem.
However, these choices are largely governed by a stable personality characteristic
called "locus of control." Simply stated, this personality characteristic describes
people's sense of control over their own lives. People's understanding of their ability
to control their own lives will greatly influence which types of recovery models are
most suitable for them.
When people have an internal locus of control, they expect they will determine their
own futures because of their own actions. If we were to imagine life as a sort of
theatrical play, these people would consider themselves the directors of their own
lives. Conversely, when people have an external locus of control they do not expect
to have control over their futures. Things just happen to them. From this perspective,
they have no control or influence over their lives. Continuing with our analogy of life
as a theatrical play, these folks would consider themselves mere actors in their own
lives.
Locus of control describes people's sense of control over their lives. It also describes
the way people understand the problems they experience. In a related manner, it
somewhat predicts how they will attempt to solve these problems. For example, if I
possess an internal locus of control, I believe problems are my own doing (since I
am the director of my life). I also believe that I must solve my own problems (since I
created them).
Locus of control is a relatively stable and enduring aspect of personality (as are most
personality characteristics). It is so stable that we "take it for granted." We are
unaware of the way our particular locus of control colors our understanding of a
problem. Nonetheless, it greatly affects our approach to solving problems. Locus of
control can change, but it changes slowly, over many years.
Since locus of control is rather stable and influences our approach to problems, it
becomes highly relevant to recovery from addiction. An approach to recovery that
conflicts with your own locus of control is almost certain to fail. Therefore, find (or
create) an approach to recovery that best matches your own position on the locus of
control continuum (ranging from external to internal). If you would like, you
could take a test to measure your locus of control.
You can more simply determine this by evaluating your own attitudes toward
recovery. Do you see yourself as the person who must find a solution to your
addiction problem? Or, do you see the solution primarily coming from others? If you
have a strong internal locus of control, you will feel more comfortable with
a compensatory model, or a moral model. Conversely, if you have a strong external
locus of control, you will naturally resonate with an enlightenment model or medical
model.
These sharp distinctions between an internal and external locus of control helps us
to define this personality characteristic. However, nobody exhibits a purely internal or
external locus of control. Most of us lean in one direction or the other. The point is to
become aware of which direction you lean. This way you can more easily align your
recovery efforts to your own personality and preferences.
The Social Learning Theory of
Julian B. Rotter
(1916 - 2014)
Biographical Note
Julian B. Rotter was born in October 1916 in Brooklyn, NY, the third son of Jewish
immigrant parents. Rotter's father ran a successful business until the Great
Depression. The Depression powerfully influenced Rotter to be aware of social
injustice and the effects of the situational environment on people. Rotter's interest
in psychology began when he was in high school and read books by Freud and
Adler. Rotter attended Brooklyn College, where he began attending seminars given
by Adler and meetings of his Society of Individual Psychology in Adler's home.
After graduation, Rotter attended the University of Iowa, where he took classes
with Kurt Lewin. Rotter minored in speech pathology and studied with the
semanticist Wendell Johnson, whose ideas had an enduring influence on Rotter's
thinking about the use and misuse of language in psychological science. Upon
finishing his master's degree, Rotter took an internship in clinical psychology --
one of the few available at the time -- at Worcester State Hospital in Massachusetts.
In 1939, Rotter started his Ph.D. work at Indiana University, one of the few
programs to offer a doctorate in clinical psychology. There, he completed his
dissertation on level of aspiration and graduated in 1941. By earning his Ph.D. in
clinical psychology after having done a predoctoral internship, Rotter became one
of the very first clinical psychologists trained in what is now the traditional mode.
After service in the Army and Air Force during World War II, Rotter took an
academic position at Ohio State University. It was here that he embarked on his
major accomplishment, social learning theory, which integrated learning theory
with personality theory. He published Social Learning and Clinical Psychology in
1954. Rotter also held strong beliefs about how clinical psychologists should be
educated. He was an active participant in the 1949 Boulder Conference, which
defined the training model for doctoral level clinical psychologists. He spoke
persuasively that psychologists must be trained in psychology departments, not
under the supervision of psychiatrists. His ideas are still influential today (Herbert,
2002).
In 1963, Rotter left Ohio State to become the director of the clinical psychology
training program at the University of Connecticut. After his retirement, he
remained professor emeritus there.
Rotter was married to Clara Barnes, whom he had met at Worcester State, from
1941 until her death in 1985. They had two children. He later married psychologist
Dorothy Hochreich. Rotter died January 6, 2014, at the age of 97 at his home in
Connecticut.
[The above information is based on a biographical essay written by Julian Rotter: Rotter, J. B. (1993).
Expectancies. In C. E. Walker (Ed.), The history of clinical psychology in autobiography (vol. II) (pp. 273-284).
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Photos courtesy of University of Connecticut.]
Overview of Theory
When Rotter developed his social learning theory, the dominant perspective in
clinical psychology at the time was Freud's psychoanalysis, which focused on
people's deep-seated instinctual motives as determining behavior. Individuals were
seen as being naive to their unconscious impulses, and treatment required long-
term analysis of childhood experience. Even learning approaches at the time were
dominated by drive theory, which held that people are motivated by
physiologically-based impulses that press the individual to satisfy them. In
developing social learning theory, Rotter departed from instinct-based
psychoanalysis and drive-based behaviorism. He believed that a psychological
theory should have a psychological motivational principle. Rotter chose
the empirical law of effect as his motivating factor. The law of effect states that
people are motivated to seek out positive stimulation, or reinforcement, and to
avoid unpleasant stimulation. Rotter combined behaviorism and the study of
personality, without relying on physiological instincts or drives as a motive force.
The main idea in Julian Rotter's social learning theory is that personality represents
an interaction of the individual with his or her environment. One cannot speak of a
personality, internal to the individual, that is independent of the environment.
Neither can one focus on behavior as being an automatic response to an objective
set of environmental stimuli. Rather, to understand behavior, one must take both
the individual (i.e., his or her life history of learning and experiences) and the
environment (i.e., those stimuli that the person is aware of and responding to) into
account. Rotter describes personality as a relatively stable set of potentials for
responding to situations in a particular way.
Rotter sees personality, and therefore behavior, as always changeable. Change the
way the person thinks, or change the environment the person is responding to, and
behavior will change. He does not believe there is a critical period after which
personality is set. But, the more life experience one has building up certain sets of
beliefs, the more effort and intervention required for change to occur. Rotter
conceives of people in an optimistic way. He sees them as being drawn forward by
their goals, seeking to maximize their reinforcement, rather than just avoiding
punishment.
Rotter has four main components to his social learning theory model predicting
behavior. These are behavior potential, expectancy, reinforcement value, and the
psychological situation.
Expectancies are formed based on past experience. The more often a behavior has
led to reinforcement in the past, the stronger the person's expectancy that the
behavior will achieve that outcome now. In addition, people do not need to have
direct experience with reinforcement of a particular behavior. Rotter wrote that our
observations of the outcomes of others' behaviors affect our own expectancies. If
we see someone else being punished for a particular behavior, we don't have to
experience punishment personally to form an expectancy that this behavior is
likely to be punished.
The value of any given reinforcer is determined in part by other, future reinforcers
it might lead to. For example, doing well on an exam in a particular class would
have a heightened reinforcement value, if you believe that doing well in that class
will lead to being able to work in your professor's lab. Therefore, even an
apparently trivial event can have a very strong reinforcement value, either positive
or negative, if the individual sees it as leading to other strongly valued reinforcers.
The least amount of reinforcement that still has a positive value is known as
the minimal goal. If people achieve an outcome that equals or exceeds their
minimal goal, they will feel that they have succeeded. When the level of
reinforcement falls below an individual's minimal goal, that reinforcement feels
like failure. People differ in their minimal goals. Thus, the same outcome may
represent success to one person (with a lower minimal goal) while it feels like
failure to another person (with a higher minimal goal).
Predictive Formula. Behavior Potential (BP), Expectancy (E) and Reinforcement
Value (RV) can be combined into a predictive formula for behavior:
"Locus of Control." For many people, their only exposure to the ideas of Julian B.
Rotter is his concept of generalized expectancies for control of reinforcement,
more commonly known as locus of control. Locus of control refers to people's very
general, cross-situational beliefs about what determines whether or not they get
reinforced in life. People can be classified along a continuum from very internal to
very external.
People with a strong internal locus of control believe that the responsibility for
whether or not they get reinforced ultimately lies with themselves. Internals believe
that success or failure is due to their own efforts. In contrast, externals believe that
the reinforcers in life are controlled by luck, chance, or powerful others. Therefore,
they see little impact of their own efforts on the amount of reinforcement they
receive.
For Rotter, the symptoms of pathology, like all behavior, are learned. Therefore,
treatment should be considered a learning situation in which adaptive behaviors
and cognitions are taught. The therapist-client relationship is viewed as being
similar to a teacher-student relationship. Having a warm relationship between
client and therapist gives the therapist more reinforcement value for the client. This
allows the therapist to influence the client's behavior more through praise and
encouragement. Much of current cognitive-behavioral treatment has its roots in
Rotter's social learning theory, although these debts often go unacknowledged.
According to Rotter, pathology can develop due to difficulties at any point in his
predictive formula. Behavior can be maladaptive, because the individual never
learned more healthy behaviors. In this case, the therapist would make direct
suggestions about new behaviors to try and would use techniques such as role-
playing to develop more effective coping skills.
Expectancies can lead to pathology when they are irrationally low. If people have
low expectancies, they do not believe their behaviors will be reinforced.
Consequently, they put little effort into their behaviors. If they don't try to succeed,
they are likely to fail. And, when they fail, it confirms their low expectancies. This
process of decreasing expectancies is a common occurrence in pathology known as
a vicious cycle. When clients have low expectancies, therapists attempt to increase
clients' confidence by using their therapeutic influence to help clients (a) gain
insight into the irrationality of their expectancies and (b) attempt behaviors they
have been avoiding out of fear of failure. In general, social learning therapists
always attempt to raise their clients' expectancies for reinforcement.
Lastly, reinforcement value problems can lead to pathology. Reinforcers are the
goals we seek in life. If people set unrealistically high and unobtainable goals for
themselves (i.e., have too high minimal goals), they are likely to experience
frequent failure. This failure can lead to the development of the vicious cycle
described above. In this situation, therapists would help clients to lower their
minimal goals, developing reasonable, achievable standards for themselves.
Flexibility in setting minimal goals is one sign of good mental health. It is better to
strive, step by step, to achieve a series of goals than it is to set one distant, lofty
goal for oneself. A Rotter therapist also wants clients to consider the long-term
consequences of behavior, rather than just short-term consequences.
Julian B. Rotter has been cited as one of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the
20th century. Haggbloom et al. (2002) found that Rotter was 18th in frequency of
citations in journal articles and 64th in overall eminence.
Passing
News of Julian Rotter's death and obituaries have been posted here:
Personality research is still being done using Rotter's highly flexible framework.
Catanzaro and Mearns have used social learning theory to define generalized
expectancies for negative mood regulation (NMR). NMR expectancies represent
beliefs people have about their ability to control the unpleasant moods they
experience. In keeping with Rotter's theory, these expectancies predict how people
cope with a variety of upsetting events, as well as the outcomes of that coping, in
terms of mood and health. Click here to go to the NMR Research Page.
Selected Bibliography
Rotter has numerous publications spanning over seven decades. This section will
highlight his most important contributions to the literature. Interested parties
should consult these works for a more in-depth description of the concepts
introduced on this web page.
What is Locus
of Control?
Measures of Locus of James Neill
Last updated:
Locus of
Control Control 06 Dec 2006
Tutorial
Measures of Locus of Control
References
Further Reading
Kirsch, I. (1986). Self-efficacy and expectancy: Old wine with new
labels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 824-830. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.824
Mearns, J. (2009). Social learning theory. In H. Reis & S. Sprecher
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (vol. 3) (pp. 1537-1540).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412958479.n506
Williams, D. M. (2010). Outcome expectancy and self-efficacy: Theoretical
implications of an unresolved contradiction. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 14, 417-425. doi: 10.1177/1088868310368802
It’s time to take a test and see where do you stand when it
comes to your locus of control. Taking this test may be a real
eye-opener, but make sure to be as honest as you possibly
can when answering these questions. Please evaluate each
statement below using this abbreviation key (you need to
evaluate each statement for the results to be reliable):
D+ Disagree Strongly
D Disagree
D- Disagree slightly
N Neutral
A– Agree Slightly
A Agree
A+ Agree Strongly
Statement: D+ D D- N A- A A+
It is my responsibility to make the
most of my talents and abilities.
I don’t get started with a project
unless I believe that success is
possible.
I don’t plan much in advance
because you never know what
happens next.
Climbing the corporate ladder is
more about being in the right
place at the right time and
knowing the right people than
doing a good job.
Most people breakup because
they don’t make any effort to
work on their relationship.
I rely on my health providers to
get well and/or stay healthy.
Unless you are willing to get out
there and actually meet people,
you will always be lonely.
Rich and famous celebrities are
there because they were lucky.
If someone dislikes me, there is
nothing I can do about it.
Good relationships and love can
be lost because of external
factors, and there is nothing we
can do about it.
I often feel trapped and helpless.
My friends and family know me
better than I know myself.
Whether or not I get promoted
depends on the mood of my
supervisor more than my efforts.
Most so-called overnight
successes are really the result of
years of preparation and work.
In order for me to be healthy, I
need to change my lifestyle and
watch what I eat.
If two people are not in love with
each other, they usually can’t be
happy together no matter how
much they try.
Generally, my friends and
colleagues acknowledge my
accomplishments.
I know how to convince people to
give me what I want.
The person I am today is the
result of what my school and
parents taught me.
Although there are things beyond
my control, I will still do
everything I can to get the results
I want.
I worked hard for all good things I
achieved in my life.
Whenever there is a problem or a
conflict, I always analyze my own
behavior first.
The way I feel about myself is
defined by those around me.
I am highly independent and enjoy
taking decisions.
My health issues have nothing to
do with my lifestyle.
Most of the time, great projects
fail because of some external
events beyond one’s control.
Managers and supervisors are
responsible for poor results of
their subordinates.
I often feel that I don’t have any
control over my personal
relationships.
I know how to get people to like
me.
If my spouse falls out of love with
me, there is nothing I can do.
It is my responsibility to manage
my own life well.
I often can’t see the motives
behind others’ actions.
If someone fails at something, it
is probably because they didn’t
make enough effort to succeed.
Most of my problems were caused
by other people.
I can improve my well-being by
exercising, eating well and
managing my emotions.
Hard work is the best predictor of
success.
I feel that I am the one
responsible for my own
satisfaction and happiness.
I could never figure out why some
people liked me while some
others didn’t.
I am a self-reliant person.
No matter how much I try, I don’t
receive any credit for what I do.
There were situations in my life
where there was no solution.
I wouldn’t be where I am today if
not the help and support of other
people.
Most of my problems are the
result of my laziness and/or
ignorance.
Whenever I face a problem, I tend
to go with the flow and see how
everything will pan out without
my interference.
Jabberwocky
Locus of control refers to the degree to which individuals perceive they are in
control of the factors that affect their lives. External individuals feel they are
strongly influenced by others (parents, teachers, peers). Internal individuals feel
they are primarily responsible for the events that happen to them
Abstract
Go to:
1. Background
Academic achievement and preservation of students’ educational failure are two of the most
important concerns of university academic staff and parents of the students (1, 2). The
opposite of educational progress is educational failure which considering the results from
various studies, could highly affect people destinies and impose much expenses to families.
In this regard, studies have shown that self-esteem is an important factor for education
progress (3). Students with higher self-esteem appeared to be more successful in education
(4, 5). Self-esteem is considered as a vital capital and the most effective factor to progress
and development of talents and creativity (6-8). Low self-esteem is introduced as a risk factor
leading to aggression, depression, felony and weak educational outcomes (9, 10). On the
other hand, locus of control among people is another important possible personality side to be
studied and a meaningful concept in the Rotter social learning theory (11, 12). Rotter defined
locus of control as the extent to which someone believes they can affect their lives; it has two
control dimensions: internal and external. Considering Rotter hypothesis, people having
external control has positive and negative perception about happenings and events which are
not related to people behavior and is beyond personal control; Rotter considered this people
to believe in chance or have external control source (11). In other dimensions, internal control
source results from positive or negative perception of events which is under personal control
(13). Although in the Ross and Broh study had reported that academic achievement could
increase self-esteem, self-esteem does not affect subsequent achievement. In addition, locus
of control does not affect subsequent academic achievement (14). Gerardi reported a
significant relationship between the high level of self-concept and academic achievement
(15). Furthermore, several studies had shown the role of self-esteem in predicting of
academic achievement (16-18). In other hand, it should be noted that the intervention
program need to emphasize on psychological factors that mediate and predict behaviors
(19, 20).
Go to:
2. Objectives
Considering all the mentioned perceptions and the importance of knowing effective variables
on academic achievement, and due to differences in the findings of the conducted studies, the
aim of the present study was to determine the prediction of locus of control and self-esteem in
academic achievement among college students.
Go to:
3.2.1. Background
The background data included age (years), sex (boy, girl), live in dormitory (yes, no), filed of
education (medical, dentist, pharmacology, nursing, paramedical, and health), level of
education (BSc, MD), mother and father education level (Illiterate, under diploma, diploma,
BSc, MSc).
Table 1.
Demographic Characteristics of the Participants
Among the demographic characteristics, sex, father education, and mother education had a
significant effect on self-esteem and locus of control among the students (Tables 2 and
and33).
Table 2.
a
Demographic Characteristics Affected Self-Esteem Among the Students
Table 3.
a
Demographic Characteristics Affected the Locus of Control Among the Students
The bivariate analysis showed the correlations between the locus of control and self-esteem (r
= -0.439, P < 0.001), self-esteem and academic achievement (r = -0.525, P < 0.05), and the
locus of control and academic achievement (r = 0.395, P < 0.05).
Finally, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to explain the variation in
academic achievement using the self-esteem and locus of control. Table 4shows statistically
significant predictors of the outcome measure. Generally, they were accounted for 39.5% of
the variation in academic achievement.
Table 4.
a b
Predictors of the Academic Achievement ,
From a total of 252 respondents, 29.8% (n = 75) had internal locus of control, and 70.2% (n =
177) had external locus of control. In addition, our results showed that 23.8% (n = 60) had
low self-esteem and 76.2% (n = 192) had high self-esteem.
Results of the current study showed that 76.2% of the students had high self-esteem and
29.8% had internal locus control. There was a significant correlation between self-esteem,
locus of control and academic achievement. Furthermore, self-esteem and locus of control
totally predicted 39.5% of the variation in academic achievement, which self-esteem was a
stronger factor to predict the academic achievement.
Go to:
5. Discussion
Self-esteem is affected by communication with others and people with higher self-esteem
believe themselves to be more attractive, lovely and valuable, and welcome the
communication with others and create close relationships with them; as the result, self-esteem
is believed as an essential component of social relationships (22). Most of the students
(76.2%) participated in the present study showed high self-esteem, which is in accordance
with the results by Mirzaei Alavijeh et al. (3). Considering medical science students as future
employees at health and treatment centers in Iran, they will play an essential role in social
health and high self-esteem levels among them could be a positive point in this regard.
Results of the present study showed that the majority of the students (70.2%) had external
locus of control. In this regard, Mirzaei Alavijeh et al. (3) and Medanlu et al. reported similar
results (23).
Another finding from the present study was the meaningful correlation between self-esteem,
locus of control and students’ academic achievement, which means the higher the self-esteem
among students, the lower their belief in effect of chance on life and education as a part of
life. They were more dependent to their internal abilities and their educational progress
increased as the result. Mirzaei Alavijeh et al. reported a meaningful correlation among locus
of control, self-esteem and students average scores (3). In addition, other studies showed the
relationship between students’ self-esteem and academic achievement (5, 16-18). Though,
Tamanaifar et al. and other studies suggested no relationship between students’ self-esteem
and their educational progress, which does not correspond with results from the present study
(1, 14). In contrast to results of this study, Ross and Broh mentioned “locus of control does
not affect subsequent academic success” (14). Considering the reported correlation among
self-esteem, locus of control and educational progress, it seems essential to consider these
factors in planning interventions to develop students’ educational progress.
Another finding of the present study was a higher level of self-esteem among female student;
this result is similar to the results reported by other studies (1, 3). Therefore, it is suggested to
conduct more studies on self-esteem, especially among male students.
The findings reported in this study have certain limitations. First, data collection was based
on self-reporting, which is usually prone to recall bias. Second, data were collected from
Iranian medical college students in the west of Iran, and the results cannot be generalized to
other population of college students. However, even considering all these limitations, our
study has a guideline for education planners in universities to design intervention programs
for the promotion of academic achievement among college students.
5.1. Conclusions
Our findings show that designing and implementing intervention programs for promoting
self-esteem can help improve academic achievement among college students.
Go to:
Acknowledgments
This article is a part of research project supported by student research committee of
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. We would like to thank
deputy of research of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences for financial support of
this study.
Go to:
Footnotes
Authors' Contribution:Seyyed Nasrollah Hosseini, Mehdi Mirzaei Alavijeh, and Farzad Jalilian developed
the original idea, study design, data analysis and writing the manuscript. Behzad Karami Matin, Behrooz
Hamzeh, and Hossein Ashtarian participated in designing the data collection and writing the manuscript. All
authors provided comments and approved the final manuscript.
Go to:
References
1. Tamanaifar MR, Sedighi Arfai F, Salami Mohammad Abadi F. The Relationship of Emotional
Intelligence, Self Concept and Self Esteem to Academic Achivenment. Q J Res Plan High
Educ. 2011;16(2):99–113.
2. Best JR, Miller PH, Naglieri JA. Relations between Executive Function and Academic Achievement
from Ages 5 to 17 in a Large, Representative National Sample. Learn Individ Differ. 2011;21(4):327–
36. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.007.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
3. Mirzaei Alavijeh M, Rajaei N, Rezaei F, Hasanpoor S, Pirouzeh R, Babaei Borzabadi M. Comparison
of self-esteem, locus of control and their relationship with university students’ educational status at
Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences-Yazd. J Med Educ Dev. 2012;7(1):58–70.
4. Komarraju M, Musulkin S, Bhattacharya G. Role of Student–Faculty Interactions in Developing
College Students’ Academic Self-Concept, Motivation, and Achievement. J College Student
Dev. 2010;51(3):332–42. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0137. [Cross Ref]
5. Hasanvand B, khaledian M. The Relationship of Emotional Intelligence with Self-esteem and
Academic Progress. Int J Psychol Behav Sci. 2012;2(6):231–6. doi:
10.5923/j.ijpbs.20120206.06. [Cross Ref]
6. Kristjansson AL, Sigfusdottir ID, Allegrante JP. Health behavior and academic achievement among
adolescents: the relative contribution of dietary habits, physical activity, body mass index, and self-
esteem. Health Educ Behav. 2010;37(1):51–64. doi: 10.1177/1090198107313481. [PubMed] [Cross
Ref]
7. Aryana M. Relationship Between Self-esteem and Academic Achievement Amongst Pre-University
Students. J Appl Sci. 2010;10(20):2474–7. doi: 10.3923/jas.2010.2474.2477. [Cross Ref]
8. Peixoto F, Almeida LS. Self-concept, self-esteem and academic achievement: strategies for
maintaining self-esteem in students experiencing academic failure. Eur J Psychol
Educ. 2010;25(2):157–75. doi: 10.1007/s10212-010-0011-z. [Cross Ref]
9. Baumeister RF, Bushman BJ, Campbell WK. Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Aggression: Does Violence
Result From Low Self-Esteem or From Threatened Egotism? Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 2000;9(1):26–9.
doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00053.[Cross Ref]
10. Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF, Thomaes S, Ryu E, Begeer S, West SG. Looking again, and harder, for
a link between low self-esteem and aggression. J Pers. 2009;77(2):427–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2008.00553.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
11. Rotter JB. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. Am
Psychol. 1990;45(4):489–93. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.45.4.489.[Cross Ref]
12. Roddenberry A, Renk K. Locus of control and self-efficacy: potential mediators of stress, illness,
and utilization of health services in college students. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2010;41(4):353–70.
doi: 10.1007/s10578-010-0173-6. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
13. Mueller SL, Thomas AS. Culture and entrepreneurial potential. J Business Ventur. 2001;16(1):51–
75. doi: 10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00039-7. [Cross Ref]
14. Ross CE, Broh BA. The Roles of Self-Esteem and the Sense of Personal Control in the Academic
Achievement Process. Sociol Educ. 2000;73(4):270. doi: 10.2307/2673234. [Cross Ref]
15. Gerardi S. Self-concept of ability as a predictor of academic success among urban technical
college students. Soc Sci J. 2005;42(2):295–300. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.007. [Cross Ref]
16. El-Anzi FO. Academic Achievement and Its Relationship with Anxiety, Self-Esteem, Optimism, and
Pessimism in Kuwaiti Students. Soc Behav Pers Int J. 2005;33(1):95–104. doi:
10.2224/sbp.2005.33.1.95. [Cross Ref]
17. Lin YR, Shiah IS, Chang YC, Lai TJ, Wang KY, Chou KR. Evaluation of an assertiveness training
program on nursing and medical students' assertiveness, self-esteem, and interpersonal
communication satisfaction. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(8):656–65. doi:
10.1016/j.nedt.2004.09.004. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
18. Miyamoto RH, Hishinuma ES, Nishimura ST, Nahulu LB, Andrade NN, Goebert DA, et al. Path
models linking correlates of self-esteem in a multi-ethnic adolescent sample. Pers Individ
Differ. 2001;31(5):701–12. doi: 10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00172-0.[Cross Ref]
19. Jalilian F, Mari A, Mahboby M, Motlagh F, Aghaei A, Mirzaei Alavijeh M, et al. Explain of ecstasy
use among kermanshah adolescents, the west of Iran: An application of the Theory of Planned
Behavior. Life Sci J. 2014;11(1s):82–6.
20. Ahmadpanah M, Mirzaei Alavijeh M, Allahverdipour H, Jalilian F, Haghighi M, Afsar A, et al.
Effectiveness of Coping Skills Education Program to Reduce Craving Beliefs among Addicts Referred
To Addiction Centers in Hamadan: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Iran J Public
Health. 2013;42(10):1139–44. [PMC free article][PubMed]
21. Gueritault-Chalvin V, Kalichman SC, Demi A, Peterson JL. Work-related stress and occupational
burnout in AIDS caregivers: test of a coping model with nurses providing AIDS care. AIDS
Care. 2000;12(2):149–61. doi: 10.1080/09540120050001823.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
22. Leary MR. Making Sense of Self-Esteem. Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 1999;8(1):32–5. doi:
10.1111/1467-8721.00008. [Cross Ref]
23. Medanlu M, Haghani H, Jafarpour M. Relationship of Self-esteem and locus of control in to Guilty
Youth [Persian]. J Gorgan Uni Med Sci. 2001;3(7):41–5.
Articles from Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences are provided here courtesy
of Kowsar Medical Institute
Citation
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school
failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221-234.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221
Abstract
A sample of 1,803 minority students from low-income homes was classified into 3
groups on the basis of grades, test scores, and persistence from Grade 8 through
Grade 12; the classifications were academically successful school completers
("resilient" students), school completers with poorer academic performance
(nonresilient completers), and noncompleters (dropouts). Groups were compared in
terms of psychological characteristics and measures of "school engagement." Large,
significant differences were found among groups on engagement behaviors, even
after background and psychological characteristics were controlled statistically. The
findings support the hypothesis that student engagement is an important component
of academic resilience. Furthermore, they provide information for designing
interventions to improve the educational prognoses of students at risk. (PsycINFO
Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)