Locus of Control: Rotter 1954

Julian Rotter observed people in therapy and noticed that:

• Different people, given identical conditions for learning, learn different things

• Some people respond predictably to reinforcement, others less so, and some respond unpredictably

• Some people see a direct and strong connection between their behaviour and the rewards and punishments received

The core of his approach is called Expectancy Value Theory: the basic assumption is that your behaviour is determined not just by the presence or size of reinforcements, but by the beliefs about what the results of your behaviour are likely to be i.e., how likely you are to get the reinforcement.  For example:

You’re looking for a job when you finish your Psych degree. You see an ad for one that pays $40,000 and one that pays $60,000. Classic behaviourism would say you’d go for the big money but according to Rotter’s social learning theory there’s something that behaviourism leaves out: What if you think you haven’t got a hope of getting the job that’s offering $60,000 but a good chance of getting the $40,000 one? So if you think your chance of getting the big job is 50/50 Rotter would say that mathematically it’s worth $30,000 to you, whereas if you think you’re a shoo in for the other job (i.e. a 100% likely to get it) then that job is worth $40,000 to you.  So the lower paying job has a HIGHER EXPECTED VALUE.

From this viewpoint, people hold expectancies and these expectancies influence behaviour. These expectancies are mental representations: based on past outcomes and the situation they now confront; these things then influence their judgment of the likelihood of getting their desired outcome. Thus their expectancy judgments have a causal influence on their behavioural choices.

Rotter believed, as do most social learning theorists, that if you see a link between behaviours and reinforcers then your behaviour is affected by the reinforcers. If you don’t see the link, then you react less predictably to reinforcers (and learning is not as likely to occur). The term Rotter coined for these beliefs about whether a behavior will meet with a rewarding outcome was LOCUS OF CONTROL. Locus means "place".  "Internal" (high General Expectancy) locus of control people believe that through their behavior they can control the likelihood of receiving reinforcers.  "External" (low General Expectancy") locus of control people don't see as much link between their behavior and the likelihood of being rewarded.

Hundreds of studies have shown individual differences in Locus of control.  Rotter saw locus of control as being very general whereas subsequent research suggests that it may be specific to different domains (e.g., academic, health). Rotter also saw this Internal-External continuum as a personality trait whereas others disagree.  Therapy based on Rotter’s work often includes social skills training, as he believes that Low Expectancies discourage the individual from engaging in the world sufficiently to learn them.

Also see: The Social Learning Theory of Julian B. Rotter

Locus of Control - A Class Tutorial

Found this originally: HERE.

Homework Help: Social Studies: Psychology: Attribution Theory - Explaining Behavior

Everyone - including psychologists - tries to explain the behavior of themselves and others. We try to attribute causal factors to behavior. Sometimes we infer correctly, but other times we are wrong. Regardless of the correctness of our attribution, we change our opinions and behavior accordingly. What factors influence our attributions?

Consider two people buying a cone of "tooty-fruity, double-nutty" ice cream. If one person bought the cone when the store was out of all flavors except that one, you would tend to attribute the purchase to a situational cause. If she wanted ice cream, there was no other choice. If the other person purchased his cone when there were many flavors available, you would attribute his behavior to a personal cause. He really likes "tooty-fruity, double-nutty" ice cream.

Whether you attribute a personal or situational cause depends on several factors. Two of these factors are consistency and distinctiveness. Consistency means that the behavior is the same over various instances, situations or people. In contrast, distinctiveness means the behavior is only seen with certain people, in certain situations or specific instances. Consistency leads to attribution of personal causes, while distinctiveness suggests situational causes.

Suppose Joe - a co-worker or classmate - avoids you. Does this mean he dislikes you? (Maybe you haven't been using a good deodorant.) Could it be just a coincidence? If it happened distinctively over time - he just avoided you for a day or two - you might assume that something has been upsetting him. If it was distinctive over people - Joe avoids you but doesn't avoid others - he may dislike you. If he avoided you at work or school but was sociable outside of those situations- you might assume that work/school pressures were affecting him. However, if Joe avoids almost all types of people most of the time and in most situations, you would be likely to attribute a personal cause - Joe is shy. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, your attributions will influence your behavior toward Joe.

Another factor affecting attribution is consensus (agreement). If there is consensus, we tend to attribute a situational cause. For example, if millions of people flock to see a movie, we assume that the movie was good. In contrast, if someone sees a movie six times, when others are staying away in droves, we attribute a personal cause - she likes that type of movie.

Situational demands also influence our attributions. When observed behavior goes along with the situational demands, we assume a situational cause. It tells us very little about the person. If the behavior is contrary to the situational demands, we assume a personal cause. For example, if a woman wears a bathing suit to the beach, we assume it is situationally caused. However, if she wears it to the office, a personal attribution is more likely to be made.

In making attributions, it makes a great deal of difference whether we are the actor or observer in relation to the behavior. As the actor, we know the history behind our behavior. As an observer, we are often ignorant of the history. For examples, suppose you have seen Tanya at the last five parties you attended. You may assume that Tanya likes parties and is sociable and outgoing. However, if you say this to her, you might get a response like this:

Knowing the history (background) for this behavior changes your attribution.

This actor-observer difference often leads to a fundamental attribution error. As we observe the behavior of others - not knowing their history - we tend to attribute their acts to their desires, motives or personality traits. As actors, we tend to attribute situational causes to our own actions.

Suppose someone knocks over a cup of coffee. If we observe this, we tend to assume personal causes - that person is clumsy or careless. If we knock over the cup, it is because of situational factors - the cup was too close to the edge of the table, the quarters were too cramped or someone accidentally bumped into us.

There is also a sex-bias in attribution. Competency is viewed as a masculine trait in our culture. If two people successfully perform a task, both men and women tend to attribute the man's success to skill and the woman's success to luck!

So - before you make a judgment about someone's behavior - try to get more information about their background (history) to reduce your chances of attribution error. In other words, before you jump to a conclusion - ask some questions.

* Adapted from Dennis Coon's Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior, 2001, pages 638-640

Stage 1 - Sensorimotor Stage - Birth to 18-24 months
Objects are real, when present (cease to exist when they disappear)
Sucking reflex - nourishment
Beginning of memory and thought processes
Actions are repeated that produce reinforcing properties
Stage 2 - Preoperational Stage - Ages 2 to 7
Thinking is concrete - reality is what is perceived (no more, no less)
Child is center of his/her universe - solidarity, imaginary play initially
Development of language; ability to play, pretend
Imitating others - gaining knowledge through experience with the environment
Curious - discovery of surroundings
starting to sort things into categories - colors, shapes, sizes
Stage 3 - Concrete Operational - approximately 8 years to 11 years
Solvings, math problems
Seeing things from other's point of view
Beginning of understanding/empathy
Move from being egocentric to concern for others
Engaging with others - games
Stage 4 - Formal Operational Thought - adolescence through adulthood
Abstract and logical thinking
Capacity to reason and think through problems
Contrasts time periods/events - past, present, future
Reflection - contemplation of future
Achievement through social interaction
Stages display continuity - each stage builds on preceeding stage.

Cross-roads from childhood to adulthood.
Massive physiological changes (e.g., voice, size), coordination reduces, sex characteristics lead to a period of great adjustment.
Western society grands a moratorium (e.e., not yet expected to be an adult but no longer seen as a child).
Identity crisis = uncertainty about the future and the childs role in it.
Adolescents often experience the pressure to prematurely adopt an identity, which prevents the resolution of the crisis.