1.8: Locus of control Flashcards
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks)
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966)
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter 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
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter 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.
First AO3 PEEL paragraph
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter 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.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
Example
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter 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.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
Who is this further supported by?
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter 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.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
What does this do?
This:
- Suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence
- Increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter 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.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.
Second AO3 PEEL paragraph
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter 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.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
Example
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter 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.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter 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.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
What does this do?
This:
- Challenges the link between an internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour
- Invalidates the previous supporting research
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter 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.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between an internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour and invalidates the previous supporting research.
However,
However, it is possible that the results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control
Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter 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.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between an internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour and invalidates the previous supporting research.
However, it is possible that the results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control.
Third AO3 PEEL paragraph
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of LoC is that it plays a limited role in resistance to social influence
