![]() Although others have attempted to refine its conceptual underpinnings, the essential definition of self-efficacy remains the same today. In this introduction to the concept of self-efficacy-an important cognate of LOC-Bandura attempts to describe how the construct may serve to bring together disparate perspectives on cognition and motivation. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Scholars have made myriad attempts to dismantle the original conceptualization of LOC as a broad-based, global generalized expectancy.īandura, A. If the goal of this bibliography were to provide a comprehensive list of resources that describe the hundreds of conceptualizations of LOC that have been developed since Rotter first introduced the concept in the 1950s, it would literally take more than the rest of the space allotted to do so. 1978, which argued that expectancies about people’s health behaviors would be important in determining how they acted in health-related situations. Perhaps one of the most successful domain-specific conceptualizations of LOC was described by Wallston, et al. Despite Rotter’s evidence-based skepticism about the utility of domain-specific conceptualizations of LOC, he recognized that there could be room for such conceptualizations within his SLT if they contributed incremental validity to the prediction of relevant behavior. 2002 presented new data that challenged the appropriateness of distinguishing between LOC, self-efficacy, and other similar constructs (e.g., self-esteem and neuroticism). To further quell confusion about the LOC construct, Peterson and Stunkard 1992 was published to highlight differences between LOC and similar constructs such as self-efficacy (which is described in Bandura 1977) and explanatory style. ![]() Later, when Rotter 1990 was published, it served as another reminder of what LOC was-and was not-and re-emphasized the importance of understanding LOC within the framework of SLT. Nevertheless, many researchers seemed to misunderstand this early work and to ignore LOC’s place within Rotter’s social learning theory (SLT), which prompted the publishing of Rotter 1975. Therefore, being the true scientist that he was, Rotter followed the data-rather than his intuition-and concluded that a global conceptualization of LOC was warranted. Initially, Rotter theorized that there would be separate loci of control for different goal domains (e.g., achievement, social recognition, love, affection, etc.) however, he failed in his attempts to create a measure that separated these domains into independent factors. ![]() Many of these endeavors are summarized elegantly in Lefcourt 1981–1984 and Lefcourt 1992. Since the publication of Rotter 1966 (cited under Measurement), which introduced the concept of LOC, theoreticians and researchers have endeavored to refine, change, and redefine its nature and parameters. Consistent with this latter point, and despite being the subject of thousands of research studies, much remains to be learned about LOC, including whether it is causally linked to its myriad correlates and whether it can be changed. Studies guided by SLT have most often examined early experiences with caregivers as the antecedents of individual differences in LOC, but conclusions regarding the origins of this personality characteristic are far from firm. Although Rotter originally conceptualized LOC as a generalized expectancy regarding control of reinforcement across a broad number of situations, the construct also has been studied as a domain-specific characteristic (e.g., health LOC) and has sometimes been confused with related, but distinct, constructs such as self-efficacy and attributional style. A product of Rotter’s equally significant social learning theory (SLT), the construct of LOC has influenced diverse fields within and outside of psychology, including personality and social psychology, medicine, business, and sports. Existing along a continuum, individuals considered to have a more “internal” LOC tend to see outcomes as being contingent on their own actions, whereas those considered to be more “external” tend to believe that outcomes are a result of external forces, such as luck, fate, chance, or powerful others. Conceived of by Julian Rotter, PhD-considered by many to be one of the most influential figures in the history of psychology-LOC reflects the degree to which an individual sees outcomes as being related to personal behaviors and characteristics versus external factors. Locus of control (LOC), or internal versus external control of reinforcement, is one of the most studied personality constructs in the social sciences. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |