Locus of control

The cognitive-social perspective encouraged valuable research focused on the degree of personal control expected in interaction with our environment. Some people develop a personality where they feel they have little control in life, and that whatever happens to them is the result of fate, chance or the intervention by powerful others. People who believe the environment is all powerful and control their outcomes are said to have an external locus of control. Other people possess an internal locus of control with the opposite perspective and believe that they largely can control the outcomes of their lives through their own efforts. There is much research that shows that the locus of control concept has practical outcomes for people. People with an internal locus of control typically fare better in life represented by higher achievement, more independence from constraints, and in having the ability to cope with stress (Findley & Cooper, 1986; Benassi, Sweeney, & Dufour, 1988; Miller, Lefcourt, Holmes, Ware, & Saleh, 1986).

A related concept of learned helplessness has also generated much research. Seligman (1991) originally developed the concept from his experiments with animals, but found the construct helpful to also understand a variety of human reactions. People who have little control in their lives, for example prisoners or those subject to powerful religious authority, often believe that there is nothing they can do that will improve their lives and they learn helplessness in the face of the all powerful environmental forces. The outcome of learned helplessness is increased stress and lower morale, and a sense of hopelessness and depression. However, people who have not learned helplessness and who exercise opportunities for choice improve individual health and morale. Sociocultural environments like authentic democracies create subjectively a sense of control that produces greater happiness and well-being (Inglehart, 1990).

8.1.5 Cross-cultural research on locus of control and autonomy: In control or being controlled.

A great deal of cross-cultural research exists on the locus of control concept developed by Rotter (1966). This personality trait is describes the degree to which people believe they can control the environment or reversely the extent to which they are subject to external control. The locus of control concept is based on social learning theory as the reinforcement of behavior over time create an enduring personality trait where people come to see their positive and negative life outcomes as either contingent on their own behavior (internal locus of control) or dependent on powerful forces outside individual control (external locus of control. Students with an internal locus of control believe for example that grades and other scholarly outcomes are the results of their own behavior, whereas their classmates with an external locus of control believe that chance, luck or the attitudes of the teacher are the main determinants of achievement. Not surprisingly people who have little actual power or status in their lives feel that they cannot influence outcomes and consequently develop an external locus of control. For example more Afro-Americans possess an external locus of control compared to European Americans (Dyal, 1984) reflecting the real relationships between the actual control that people can exersize in their lives and the locus of control variable.

On the whole Americans tend to score higher on the internal locus of control variable compared to Asians reflecting the Western culture of individualism and personal responsibility (van Haaften & Van den Vijver, 1999). Other studies have also supported the higher scores of Americans compared to other national groups (Hamid, 1994; Munroe, 1979). Dyal found that European Americans had a higher internal locus of control, compared to Afro-Americans in the United States again reflecting the lack of real control by people who are impoverished and marginalized and cultural effects of learned helplessness.

Do Americans feel more in control of their lives or could that self-perception be just a manifestation of self-stereotypes and self-serving biases? The cultural values of personal independence that support an internal locus of control in the United States may be an illusionary since recent decades have shown that economically the majority of citizens in the U.S. are subject to speculators, financers and the greed of banks over which they have no control. Although socioeconomic status is a logical determinant of locus of control, research has shown that gender also create differences with females believing more strongly in an external locus of control (Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1997). The research on locus of control suggests the importance of beliefs about the environment that preceded social-cognitive interaction theories.

Some researchers have suggested that all people, regardless of culture, have fundamental psychological needs for autonomy although how these needs are met depends on the cultural context. As we have seen elsewhere there are basic differences between cultures in how people construe themselves with people who live in collectivistic cultures seeing themselves as more interdependent and therefore not autonomous. However, others suggest that people are autonomous whenever they can act consistent with their values regardless of whether the culture is collectivistic or individualistic (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003). People internalize cultural beliefs and practices in all cultures and the perception of autonomy is universal although in many cases delusionary. However acting consistent with personal values, even if delusionary, is related to subjective well-being (Chirkov, Ryan, & Willness, 2005).

The social-cognitive perspective stress the viewpoint that internal dynamics do not determine all aspects of behavior, but that the powerful effects of situational pressures must be taken into account. Social-cognitive interaction theory has subsequently produced a large body of research in cognition and learning. A major criticism made of the theory is that the emphasis on the situational pressures incorrectly diminishes the importance of a person’s inner traits. However, that criticism seems less credible when the theory is understood as explaining personality as the outcome of the interaction of inner traits and the environment. Genetic factors are also overlooked in social-cognitive interaction theory and we know from twin studies that many personality traits like aggression or extraversion are linked to hardwired heritage. Finally, we should remember that no personality theory contains all relevant or important ideas, and each perspective is but a window into the reality of the human psyche.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 987