1.8: Locus of control Flashcards
Locus of control
Locus of control is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives
Locus of control was identified as a what by who (what year)?
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966)
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
Rotter proposed the concept of locus of control (LoC), which is a concept concerned with what vs what?
Rotter proposed the concept of locus of control (LoC), which is a concept concerned with:
1. Internal
vs
2. External
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
Rotter proposed the concept of locus of control (LoC), which is a concept concerned with internal vs external.
People with an internal locus of control show little what?
People with an internal locus of control show little:
1. Conformity
Or,
2. Obedience
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
Rotter proposed the concept of locus of control (LoC), which is a concept concerned with internal vs external.
People with an internal locus of control show little conformity or obedience.
Individuals with a high internal LoC believe that they can affect the what of situations?
Individuals with a high internal LoC believe that they can affect the outcomes of situations
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
Rotter proposed the concept of locus of control (LoC), which is a concept concerned with internal vs external.
People with an internal locus of control show little conformity or obedience.
Individuals with a high internal LoC believe that they can affect the outcomes of situations.
Individuals with a high external LoC believe that things turn out a certain way regardless of what?
Individuals with a high external LoC believe that things turn out a certain way regardless of their actions
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
Rotter proposed the concept of locus of control (LoC), which is a concept concerned with internal vs external.
People with an internal locus of control show little conformity or obedience.
Individuals with a high internal LoC believe that they can affect the outcomes of situations.
Individuals with a high external LoC believe that things turn out a certain way regardless of their actions.
Internals believe that they’re mostly responsible for what?
Internals believe that they’re mostly responsible for what happens to them
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
Rotter proposed the concept of locus of control (LoC), which is a concept concerned with internal vs external.
People with an internal locus of control show little conformity or obedience.
Individuals with a high internal LoC believe that they can affect the outcomes of situations.
Individuals with a high external LoC believe that things turn out a certain way regardless of their actions.
Internals believe that they’re mostly responsible for what happens to them.
Externals believe that things happen without their own what?
Externals believe that things happen without their own control
Internal LoC refers to the belief that things happen as a result of an individual’s what?
Internal LoC refers to the belief that things happen as a result of an individual’s:
- Choices
- Decisions
Internal LoC refers to the belief that things happen as a result of an individual’s choices and decisions, while external LoC refers to the belief that things happen as a result of what?
Internal LoC refers to the belief that things happen as a result of an individual's choices and decisions, while external LoC refers to the belief that things happen as a result of: 1. Luck 2. Fate Or, 3. Other uncontrollable external forces
Rotter (1966) believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals what?
Rotter (1966) believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure
Rotter (1966) believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having what?
Rotter (1966) believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to:
1. Conform
Or,
2. Obey
The characteristics of internals include what?
The characteristics of internals include:
- Very responsible
- Having higher intelligence
- Being the achievers in society
Rotter (1966) believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.
If someone takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences (good or bad), they’re more likely to do what?
If someone takes personal responsibility for their:
1. Actions
2. Experiences
(good or bad), they’re more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs
Rotter (1966) believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.
If someone takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences (good or bad), they’re more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs.
People with a high internal LoC are more what?
People with a high internal LoC are more:
- Self-confident
- Achievement-orientated
Who (what year) gave Rotter’s locus of control scale to how many university students?
Spector (1983) gave Rotter’s locus of control scale to 157 university students
Spector (1983) gave Rotter’s locus of control scale to 157 university students and found that participants with a high external LoC did conform more than those with a low external LoC, but only when?
Spector (1983) gave Rotter’s locus of control scale to 157 university students and found that:
1. Participants with a high external LoC did conform more than
2. Those with a low external LoC
,but only in situations that produced normative social pressure
Spector (1983) gave Rotter’s locus of control scale to 157 university students and found that participants with a high external LoC did conform more than those with a low external LoC, but only in situations that produced normative social pressure.
Both types of participants did not conform in situations that produced what?
Both types of participants did not conform in situations that produced informational social influence
Spector (1983) gave Rotter’s locus of control scale to 157 university students and found that participants with a high external LoC did conform more than those with a low external LoC, but only in situations that produced normative social pressure.
Both types of participants did not conform in situations that produced informational social influence.
This suggests that people with less of a need for what will be more able to resist social influence?
This suggests that people with less of a need for acceptance into a social group will be more able to resist social influence
Who (what year) exposed undergraduates to peers who expressed what attitudes to drug taking?
Shute (1975) exposed undergraduates to peers who expressed either: 1. Conservative Or, 2. Liberal attitudes to drug taking
Shute (1975) exposed undergraduates to peers who expressed either conservative or liberal attitudes to drug taking.
He found that undergraduates with an internal LoC did what to expressing pro-drug attitudes?
Shute found that undergraduates with an internal LoC conformed less to expressing pro-drug attitudes
Shute (1975) exposed undergraduates to peers who expressed either conservative or liberal attitudes to drug taking.
Shute found that undergraduates with an internal LoC conformed less to expressing pro-drug attitudes, supporting the idea that having an internal LoC increases what?
Shute found that undergraduates with an internal LoC conformed less to expressing pro-drug attitudes, supporting the idea that having an internal LoC increases resistance to conformity
Who (what year) found that Japanese people conform more easily than Americans and have more of an external LoC?
Moghaddam (1998) found that Japanese people:
- Conform more easily than Americans
- Have more of an external LoC
Moghaddam (1998) found that Japanese people conform more easily than Americans and have more of an external LoC.
This suggests that differences in what can be explained by differences in LoC?
This suggests that differences in resistance to social influence across cultures can be explained by differences in LoC
Who (what year) performed a meta-analysis of what?
Avtgis (1998) performed a meta-analysis of studies involving:
- LoC
- Conformity
Avtgis (1998) performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal locus of control were less what?
Avtgis (1998) performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal locus of control were less:
- Easily persuadable
- Likely to conform
Avtgis (1998) performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal locus of control were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform, supporting the idea of differences in LoC being linked to differences in what?
Avtgis (1998) performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal locus of control were less:
1. Easily persuadable
2. Likely to conform
,supporting the idea of differences in LoC being linked to differences in the ability to resist social influence
Who (what year) tested for a link between LoC and obedience?
Holland (1967) tested for a link between:
- LoC
- Obedience
Holland (1967) tested for a link between LoC and obedience, but found what?
Holland (1967) tested for a link between:
1. LoC
2. Obedience
,but found no relationship between the 2
Holland (1967) tested for a link between LoC and obedience, but found no relationship between the 2.
However, who (what year) reanalysed Holland’s data using what?
Blass (1991) reanalysed Holland’s data using more precise statistical analysis
Holland (1967) tested for a link between LoC and obedience, but found no relationship between the 2.
However, Blass (1991) reanalysed Holland’s data using more precise statistical analysis and found that participants with an internal LoC were more able to do what than those with an external LoC?
Blass (1991) reanalysed Holland’s data using more precise statistical analysis and found that:
1. Participants with an internal LoC were more able to resist obedience
than
2. Those with an external LoC
Holland (1967) tested for a link between LoC and obedience, but found no relationship between the 2.
However, Blass (1991) reanalysed Holland’s data using more precise statistical analysis and found that participants with an internal LoC were more able to resist obedience than those with an external LoC.
Those with an internal LoC were especially resistant if they thought the researcher was trying to do what?
Those with an internal LoC were especially resistant if they thought the researcher was trying to: 1. Force Or, 2. Manipulate them to obey
Holland (1967) tested for a link between LoC and obedience, but found no relationship between the 2.
However, Blass (1991) reanalysed Holland’s data using more precise statistical analysis and found that participants with an internal LoC were more able to resist obedience than those with an external LoC.
Those with an internal LoC were especially resistant if they thought the researcher was trying to force or manipulate them to obey.
This suggests that the aspect of what in a situation is important?
This suggests that the aspect of personal control in a situation is important
Holland (1967) tested for a link between LoC and obedience, but found no relationship between the 2.
However, Blass (1991) reanalysed Holland’s data using more precise statistical analysis and found that participants with an internal LoC were more able to resist obedience than those with an external LoC.
Those with an internal LoC were especially resistant if they thought the researcher was trying to force or manipulate them to obey.
This suggests that the aspect of personal control in a situation is important, because those with a high internal LoC like to feel they have what over their behaviour?
This suggests that the aspect of personal control in a situation is important, because those with a high internal LoC like to feel they have:
1. Choice
2. Control
over their behaviour
Who (what year) found no relationship between LoC and obedience among Australian participants?
Schurz (1985) found no relationship between:
1. LoC
2. Obedience
among Australian participants
Schurz (1985) found no relationship between LoC and obedience among Australian participants, who gave the highest level of what they believed to be what?
Schurz (1985) found no relationship between LoC and obedience among Australian participants, who gave the highest level of what they believed to be:
1. Painful
2. Skin-damaging
bursts of ultrasound to a learner
Schurz (1985) found no relationship between LoC and obedience among Australian participants, who gave the highest level of what they believed to be painful, skin-damaging bursts of ultrasound to a learner.
However, participants with an internal LoC tended to take more what for their actions than those with an external LoC?
- Participants with an internal LoC
tended to take more responsibility for their actions than - Those with an external LoC
Schurz (1985) found no relationship between LoC and obedience among Australian participants, who gave the highest level of what they believed to be painful, skin-damaging bursts of ultrasound to a learner.
However, participants with an internal LoC tended to take more responsibility for their actions than those with an external LoC, which again suggests that what may be related to resistance of social influence?
- Participants with an internal LoC
tended to take more responsibility for their actions than - Those with an external LoC
,which again suggests that feelings of personal control may be related to resistance of social influence
Holland (1967) tested for a link between LoC and obedience, but found no relationship between the 2.
However, Blass (1991) reanalysed Holland’s data using more precise statistical analysis and found that participants with an internal LoC were more able to resist obedience than those with an external LoC.
Those with an internal LoC were especially resistant if they thought the researcher was trying to force or manipulate them to obey.
This suggests that the aspect of personal control in a situation is important, because those with a high internal LoC like to feel they have choice and control over their behaviour.
Holland (1967) also did what?
Holland (1967) also:
- Repeated Milgram’s study
- Measured whether participants were internals or externals
Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether participants were internals or externals.
What percentage of internals did what?
37% of internals:
- Did not continue to the highest shock level
- Showed independence
Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether participants were internals or externals.
37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level and showed independence.
Only what percentage of externals did not continue to the highest shock level?
Only 23% of externals did not continue to the highest shock level
Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether participants were internals or externals.
37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level and showed independence.
Only 23% of externals did not continue to the highest shock level.
Because internals showed greater resistance, this increases what?
Because internals showed greater resistance, this increases:
- The validity of the LoC explanation
- Our confidence that it can explain social resistance
? and ? (what year) investigated the link between what?
Jones and Kavanagh (1996) investigated the link between:
- Moral disengagement
- Individual differences in LoC
Jones and Kavanagh (1996) investigated the link between moral disengagement and individual differences in LoC.
Jones and Kavanagh found that those with a high external LoC were more likely to obey who?
Jones and Kavanagh found that those with a high external LoC were more likely to obey unethical authority figures
Jones and Kavanagh (1996) investigated the link between moral disengagement and individual differences in LoC.
Jones and Kavanagh found that those with a high external LoC were more likely to obey unethical authority figures.
This is a possible explanation for what?
This is a possible explanation for:
- Corporate fraud
- Institutional abuses of power where junior staff members fail to resist immoral/criminal directives given to them by more senior managers
Who (what year) analysed data from what?
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over how long?
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period - 1960 to 2002
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period - 1960 to 2002.
The data showed that, over this time span, people have become what?
The data showed that, over this time span, people have become more:
1. Resistant to obedience
,but
2. External
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period - 1960 to 2002.
The data showed that, over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, then we would expect people to have become more what?
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, then we would expect people to have become more internal
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period - 1960 to 2002.
The data showed that, over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, then we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between what?
This challenges the link between:
- Resistance
- An internal LoC
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period - 1960 to 2002.
The data showed that, over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, then we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between resistance and an internal LoC.
However, the results may be due to a what?
The results may be due to a changing society
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period - 1960 to 2002.
The data showed that, over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, then we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between resistance and an internal LoC.
However, the results may be due to a changing society, where many things are increasingly what?
The results may be due to a changing society, where many things are increasingly outside personal control
The role of LoC may be what?
The role of LoC may be exaggerated
The role of LoC may be exaggerated.
Who (what year) found that LoC is only important in new situations?
Rotter et al (1982) found that LoC is only important in new situations
The role of LoC may be exaggerated.
Rotter et al (1982) found that LoC is only important in new situations.
It has little influence in what situations?
LoC has little influence in familiar situations
The role of LoC may be exaggerated.
Rotter et al (1982) found that LoC is only important in new situations.
LoC has little influence in familiar situations, where what are always more important?
LoC has little influence in familiar situations, where previous experiences are always more important
The role of LoC may be exaggerated.
Rotter et al (1982) found that LoC is only important in new situations.
LoC has little influence in familiar situations, where previous experiences are always more important.
This does suggest that LoC can explain only what?
This does suggest that LoC can explain only a limited range of situations
The role of LoC may be exaggerated.
Rotter et al (1982) found that LoC is only important in new situations.
LoC has little influence in familiar situations, where previous experiences are always more important.
This does suggest that LoC can explain only a limited range of situations, in which people might do what?
This does suggest that LoC can explain only a limited range of situations, in which people might resist social influence
The role of LoC may be exaggerated.
Rotter et al (1982) found that LoC is only important in new situations.
LoC has little influence in familiar situations, where previous experiences are always more important.
This does suggest that LoC can explain only a limited range of situations, in which people might resist social influence.
This means that LoC is not as what in resistance as some have suggested?
This means that LoC is not as important a factor in resistance as some have suggested
