Locus of Control

Locus of ControlBy Gillian Fournier ~ Less than a minute read The extent to which people believe they have power over events in their lives. A person with an internal locus of control believes that he or she can influence events and their outcomes, while someone with an external locus of control blames outside forces for everything. This concept was brought to light in the 1950’s by Julian Rotter. The underlying question regarding the locus of control is this…do I control my life or does something else (like a God) control it? This simple idea has profound significance as it influences peoples’ beliefs very strongly. Do you believe in God? Are you an agnostic? Why? Do I just have good luck? If I make all the right decisions does that mean I can make my life be exactly how I envision it? These are all questions that might arise from that simple premise. I think this page has some excellent insights about the locus of control and how it relates to psychological well being: http://wilderdom.com/psychology/loc/LocusOfControlWhatIs.html Psychology Class tutorial What is Locus of James Neill Last updated: Related constructs Control? 06 Dec 2006  What is Locus of Control?  Is an internal locus of control desirable?  Links  References What is Locus of Control? Within psychology, Locus of Control is considered to be an important aspect of personality. The concept was developed originally Julian Rotter in the 1950s (Rotter, 1966). Locus of Control refers to an individual's perception about the underlying main causes of events in his/her life. Or, more simply: Do you believe that your destiny is controlled by yourself or by external forces (such as fate, god, or powerful others)? The full name Rotter gave the construct was Locus of Control of Reinforcement. In giving it this name, Rotter was bridging behavioural and cognitive psychology. Rotter's view was that behaviour was largely guided by "reinforcements" (rewards and punishments) and that through contingencies such as rewards and punishments, individuals come to hold beliefs about what causes their actions. These beliefs, in turn, guide what kinds of attitudes and behaviours people adopt. This understanding of Locus of Control is consistent, for example, with Philip Zimbardo (a famous psychologist): A locus of control orientation is a belief about whether the outcomes of our actions are contingent on what we do (internal control orientation) or on events outside our personal control (external control orientation)." (Zimbardo, 1985, p. 275) Thus, locus of control is conceptualised as referring to a unidimensional continuum, ranging from external to internal: External Locus of Internal Locus of Control Control Individual believes that Individual believes that his/her behaviour is guided his/her behaviour is guided by fate, luck, or other by his/her personal external circumstances decisions and efforts. Is an internal locus of control desirable? In general, it seems to be psychologically healthy to perceive that one has control over those things which one is capable of influencing. In simplistic terms, a more internal locus of control is generally seen as desirable. Having an Internal locus of control can also be referred to as "self-agency", "personal control", "self-determination", etc. Research has found the following trends:  Males tend to be more internal than females  As people get older they tend to become more internal  People higher up in organisational structures tend to be more internal (Mamlin, Harris, & Case, 2001) However, its important to warn people against lapsing in the overly simplistic view notion that internal is good and external is bad (two legs good, four legs bad?). There are important subtleties and complexities to be considered. For example:  Internals can be psychologically unhealthy and unstable. An internal orientation usually needs to be matched by competence, self-efficacy and opportunity so that the person is able to successfully experience the sense of personal control and responsibility. Overly internal people who lack competence, efficacy and opportunity can become neurotic, anxious and depressed. In other words, internals need to have a realistic sense of their circle of influence in order to experience 'success'.  Externals can lead easy-going, relaxed, happy lives. Despite these cautions, psychological research has found that people with a more internal locus of control seem to be better off, e.g., they tend to be more achievement oriented and to get better paid jobs. However, thought regarding causality is needed here too. Do environmental circumstances (such as privilege and disadvantage) cause LOC beliefs or do the beliefs cause the situation? Sometimes Locus of Control is seen as a stable, underlying personality construct, but this may be misleading, since the theory and research indicates that that locus of control is largely learned. There is evidence that, at least to some extent, LOC is a response to circumstances. Some psychological and educational interventions have been found to produce shifts towards internal locus of control (e.g., outdoor education programs; Hans, 2000; Hattie, Marsh, Neill & Richards, 1997). Links  Locus of Control (Rotter, 1954) - James Neill  Locus of Control - Gale Encyclopedia of Childhood & Adolescence  Locus of Control - WikEd  Taking Control of Our Lives: The Far Reaching Effects of Locus of Control - web-based tutorial  Psychology Lab on Motivation and Locus of Control - web-based tutorial  More Locus of Control links References Hans, T. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effects of adventure programming on locus of control. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 30(1),33-60. Hattie, J. A., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T. & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure Education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that have a lasting effect. Review of Educational Research, 67, 43-87. Mamlin, N., Harris, K. R., Case, L. P. (2001). A Methodological Analysis of Research on Locus of Control and Learning Disabilities: Rethinking a Common Assumption. Journal of Special Education, Winter. Marsh, H. W. & Richards, G. E. (1986). The Rotter Locus of Control Scale: The comparison of alternative response formats and implications for reliability, validity and dimensionality. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 509-558. Marsh, H. W. & Richards, G. E. (1987). The multidimensionality of the Rotter I-E Scale and its higher order structure: An application of confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 39- 69. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80, Whole No. 609. Wikipedia. Locus of control. Taking Control of Our Lives: The Far-Reaching Effects of Locus of Control By Mandy Grantz, Amy Mackey, Yvette Otterman, & Michael Wise Welcome to our locus of control web tutorial! In your journey through this website we hope you gain a better understanding of locus of control and how it applies to the world around you. Within our subtopic pages, you will notice selected topics are linked to external sites. You can visit any or all of these sites that interest you. They are not necessary to understand the content of the pages, rather their purpose is to enhance your understanding of the ideas explored. We suggest that you visit the overview section first to acquire a general conception of what locus of control is and its far-reaching effects. Then, simply follow your curiosity! In the subtopic of education, you will learn how a student's locus of control relates to his or her academic success, as measured by study time and grades. Depending upon students' locus of control orientations, it has been found that they respond to positive and negative feedback differently. A promising method of increasing a student's internal locus of control, attribution training, is also discussed. This section further investigates how locus of control surfaces in learning disabled and adult students. When you explore the subtopic of health, you will realize that numerous health behaviors are influenced by one's locus of control. Health locus of control beliefs have been demonstrated to originate from prior experiences and reinforced behaviors. Upbringing, socioeconomic status, age, and attributions made from encounters with the health problems of others are variables that can be investigated in this section. The final subtopic deals with how culture relates to, or possibly influences, locus of control. A great deal of research exists which supports the claim that the culture of an individual may impact his or her degree of internality or externality. A range of this kind of research will be examined, as well as some opposing findings, which reveal that culture does not have an impact upon one's perceived control. Alternative influences that are believed to have a greater impact will be introduced. Is your locus of control internal or external? Your perception of where control lies can have an impact on your viewpoint and the way you interact with your environment. This lesson explores the differences between internal and external lotus of control and how each impacts organizational behavior. Locus of Control Control: an easy word to understand yet a challenging word to actually deal with. We have people that think they control everything, others that think they are controlled by the world around them and pretty much everything in between. Control can be defined as the power to determine outcomes by directly influencing actions, people and events. When we look at it that way, we can begin to see that there is no way to control everything in our lives. I'm not saying we cannot control anything, but put in the context of that definition, we have to step back and really analyze what we can and cannot control. The word 'control' becomes even more interesting when we have the word locus, before it. You see, locus is defined as a position, point or place, or more specifically, a location where something occurs. A person's locus of control may be internal or external. Internal vs. External Locus of Control People who base their success on their own work and believe they control their life have an internal locus of control. In contrast, people who attribute their success or failure to outside influences have an external locus of control. For example, let's say you're a person with an internal locus of control and you get a promotion at work or achieve some other type of success. You will probably attribute that positive end result to the work you put in. In other words, your success was a direct result of your hard work. If, on the other hand, you have an external locus of control, you might attribute that promotion or success to external or environmental factors, such as luck, fate, timing, other people or some type of divine intervention. Let's use the same example and say that you were denied a promotion. If your locus of control is internal, you would find a way to blame yourself for the perceived failure. If your locus of control is external, it would be easy, even natural, to blame outside sources beyond your control. The Benefits and Drawbacks Individuals who identify with an internal locus of control tend to take more responsibility for their actions, whether those actions or the end results are good or bad. They do not accept outside influence for the outcomes, no matter what that is. If, for example, this person did not get back to work in time from lunch, they would think they should have eaten in the office or not gone to lunch altogether. The results of the action are theirs and theirs alone to bear. On the other hand, a person who identifies with an external locus of control looks at everything around them as part of the success or failure. In many ways, they believe in the team aspect more than those that focus on the internal locus of control, as they will always praise those around them for a job well done, even if they had nothing to do with it at all. They are team players. There are drawbacks to both of these viewpoints, though. An internally- focused person will be hard on themselves and constantly analyze what they did wrong. That perspective almost forces these individuals to be hard charging, driven individuals that at times can assume a take-no-prisoners attitude. Conversely, those that have an external focus may come off as someone who just does not accept responsibility. While they are and can be team players, if the result is not a positive one, they will be the first to complain that something outside their personal control attributed to the shortfall. he extent to which people believe they have power over events in their lives. A person with an internal locus of control believes that he or she can influence events and their outcomes, while someone with an external locus of controlblames outside forces for everything. Internal locus of control internal locus of control is a personal trait that every successful person has. People who have internal locus of control feel responsible for the outcomes they get in their lives. A person who has internal locus of control will never say something like "I failed because the exam was hard" but instead he takes responsibility by asking himself questions such as "what was the wrong thing i did" and "how can i prevent that from happening the next time" The person who has internal locus of control never says something like "i didn't find work because of the high unemployment rate at the country i live in" but instead tries to find out how can he improve his chances of getting a better job. In short the person with internal locus of control does not claim that the word is a rosy place as he knows that things might be unfair sometimes but instead he focuses on solutions that he can come up with rather than blaming other factors for his failures. External locus of control The person who has external locus of control is the opposite of the one who has internal locus of control. That person believes that the whole world is plotting against him, that luck exists and that life is unfair. The main reason that person believes in luck is to explain how are there people around him succeeding while he can't. A brilliant plan that he comes up with to protect his ego and self worth. The person who has external locus of control always blames other factors for his failures such as god's will, bad economy or lack of luck. If you feel that you have external locus of control then you must do your best to get over that self defeating thinking patternbefore it ruins your life. Internal Vs external locus of control There is no doubt that people who have internal locus of control keep moving from a success to anther while those who have external locus keep trying to find explanations for their failures. I am not asking you to believe that life is simple or that things can't be tough sometimes but all i am asking you is to shift your focus from the things that might have caused your failure to the things that might lead you to future success. 2knowmyself is not a simple article website nor it’s a place where you will find shallow fixes, but it’s a place where you will find effective techniques that are backed by psychology and that are presented in obvious and understandable format. If you think that this is some kind of marketing hype then see what other visitors say about 2knowmyself.The book How to make someone fall in love with you was released by 2knowmyself.com; the book will dramatically increase your chance of letting someone fall in love with you. want to know more? How to think positively ok,but what if the external conditions were really unfavorable How to get rid of limiting beliefs? hmmm, but don't that contradict with religious beliefs ? How to get over anyone in few days (book) How to make anyone fall in love with me fast (book) How to end Depression instantly (book) How to control people's minds (Course) How to develop rock solid self confidence fast (course) Rotter's (1954) Locus of Control is a personality theoretical paradigm which people use to explain their circumstances. Locus (location) of control basically means that cause for something comes from, either, within a person's own control, or from the control of environmental factors. People with a tendency to refer to their internal locus of control tap on their own abilities, self-efficacy and self-esteem as causative agents of change. In contrast, people who blame the government, their... Motivation "Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it." by Lou Holtz Objectives * Define motivation * Identify and list characteristics of motivation * List methods for improving motivation As you read the textbook chapter on Locus of Control and Motivation, take note of what motivates you and how you can improve your motivation to learn. Motivation is what drives or inspires you to achieve your goals or behave in a certain manner. It is the 'why' you do something. There are two kinds of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic. With intrinsic motivation you are motivated to do something because you derive a sense of pleasure or satisfaction from completing the task. Your participation in the activity may bring you pleasure (e.g. gardening), you may dream it is important (e.g. earn an A.A. degree), or simply because you feel it is will benefit others (e.g. volunteer). You may also be motivated by extrinsic sources. These are sources outside of your such as feeling compelled by others to achieve something (e.g. parents/spouse desires for you to earn all A's) , act in a certain manner to please a family member, or because you have been told to. Ways which may help you improve your intrinsic motivation (a) Make your goals challenging and personal, (b) Engage your curiosity and sense of wonder, (c) Choose for yourself to engage in an activity, and (d) Believe that your work will have an effect in your life Show/hide comprehension question... Locus of Control Objectives * Define locus of control * Identify and list external and internal locus of control characteristics * Write a summary comparison of internal and external locus of control Locus control is different than motivation (why you do something). Locus of control is related to to where you conceptually place the responsibility, choice,and control for what you achieve and what occurs in your life. Reflect on what you just read about motivation. Do you understand the difference between motivation (why) to do something and your locus of control (responsibility/control/choice)? If not, return to the previous page and review again what is meant by motivation. The decision to place the responsibility for your success and failures is not usually something that you are consciously aware of. Yet, it is very important for you to reflect on and identify your general locus of control for it can:  strongly influences your motivation  sense of self direction  feeling of control over what you do and accomplish There are two types of locus of control, internal or external. An external locus of control supports a belief that one is helpless, without blame, and not in control of one's successes and failures. An individual with external locus of control blames their failure is to outside sources such as: "I did not do well in class because the instructor was terrible" or "The project that I had to complete did not meet expectations because I didn't have information on how to "_____". While a student with an internal locus of control will attribute their success and failures to their own efforts. In the first example, a student with an internal locus of control would feel that they were in control of what grade they earned. "I didn't do well in class but it was because I did not give the class the time and effort needed. When I realized I didn't feel the professor presented the information well in his/her lectures, I should have: (a) done some extra reading, (b) made notes for each of the chapters, and (c) met with the instructor to discuss questions I had about the lectures." Key attributes of internal locus of control include:  You are in control of your success and failures  Positive attitude  Accepting responsible for your actions, achievements, and failures  Understanding that your success and failures comes from your own effort In the second example, an employee with an internal locus of control would feel that their failure to perform was due to their lack of initiative (effort) to obtain the information they needed. For example: "When I realized that more information/training/knowledge was required, I should have gone to my boss for guidance, or gotten the information through research or from fellow team members." NOTE: Understanding internal and external locus of control is frequently very challenging. The next few pages will provide you with activities to assist you in understanding these concepts. Please complete them all for you will be expected to be able to: (1) define the two terms and, (2) using a scenario, you will be expected to explain how an individual is exhibiting internal/external locus of control. Show/hide comprehension question... Show/hide comprehension question... Personal Responsibility And Locus Of Control A. TOM HORVATH, PH.D., ABPP, KAUSHIK MISRA, PH.D., AMY K. EPNER, PH.D., AND GALEN MORGAN COOPER, PH.D.AUG 26, 2013 UPDATED MAR 14, 2016 In the previous section, we reviewed four different models of personal responsibility for causing and solving problems. This issue of personal responsibility for problems and their solutions brings to the surface deeper, underlying issues. In particular, it reveals whether we see ourselves as the actor, or the director, of our own lives. Throughout this series on addiction, we've suggested that each person is free to choose between and among the various theoretical models of addiction. Ideally, people in recovery will pick some combination of models that best fits their needs and circumstances. In this way, they can successfully solve their addiction problem. However, these choices are largely governed by a stable personality characteristic called "locus of control." Simply stated, this personality characteristic describes people's sense of control over their own lives. People's understanding of their ability to control their own lives will greatly influence which types of recovery models are most suitable for them. When people have an internal locus of control, they expect they will determine their own futures because of their own actions. If we were to imagine life as a sort of theatrical play, these people would consider themselves the directors of their own lives. Conversely, when people have an external locus of control they do not expect to have control over their futures. Things just happen to them. From this perspective, they have no control or influence over their lives. Continuing with our analogy of life as a theatrical play, these folks would consider themselves mere actors in their own lives. Locus of control describes people's sense of control over their lives. It also describes the way people understand the problems they experience. In a related manner, it somewhat predicts how they will attempt to solve these problems. For example, if I possess an internal locus of control, I believe problems are my own doing (since I am the director of my life). I also believe that I must solve my own problems (since I created them). Locus of control is a relatively stable and enduring aspect of personality (as are most personality characteristics). It is so stable that we "take it for granted." We are unaware of the way our particular locus of control colors our understanding of a problem. Nonetheless, it greatly affects our approach to solving problems. Locus of control can change, but it changes slowly, over many years. Since locus of control is rather stable and influences our approach to problems, it becomes highly relevant to recovery from addiction. An approach to recovery that conflicts with your own locus of control is almost certain to fail. Therefore, find (or create) an approach to recovery that best matches your own position on the locus of control continuum (ranging from external to internal). If you would like, you could take a test to measure your locus of control. You can more simply determine this by evaluating your own attitudes toward recovery. Do you see yourself as the person who must find a solution to your addiction problem? Or, do you see the solution primarily coming from others? If you have a strong internal locus of control, you will feel more comfortable with a compensatory model, or a moral model. Conversely, if you have a strong external locus of control, you will naturally resonate with an enlightenment model or medical model. These sharp distinctions between an internal and external locus of control helps us to define this personality characteristic. However, nobody exhibits a purely internal or external locus of control. Most of us lean in one direction or the other. The point is to become aware of which direction you lean. This way you can more easily align your recovery efforts to your own personality and preferences. Personal Responsibility And Locus Of Control A. TOM HORVATH, PH.D., ABPP, KAUSHIK MISRA, PH.D., AMY K. EPNER, PH.D., AND GALEN MORGAN COOPER, PH.D.AUG 26, 2013 UPDATED MAR 14, 2016 In the previous section, we reviewed four different models of personal responsibility for causing and solving problems. This issue of personal responsibility for problems and their solutions brings to the surface deeper, underlying issues. In particular, it reveals whether we see ourselves as the actor, or the director, of our own lives. Throughout this series on addiction, we've suggested that each person is free to choose between and among the various theoretical models of addiction. Ideally, people in recovery will pick some combination of models that best fits their needs and circumstances. In this way, they can successfully solve their addiction problem. However, these choices are largely governed by a stable personality characteristic called "locus of control." Simply stated, this personality characteristic describes people's sense of control over their own lives. People's understanding of their ability to control their own lives will greatly influence which types of recovery models are most suitable for them. When people have an internal locus of control, they expect they will determine their own futures because of their own actions. If we were to imagine life as a sort of theatrical play, these people would consider themselves the directors of their own lives. Conversely, when people have an external locus of control they do not expect to have control over their futures. Things just happen to them. From this perspective, they have no control or influence over their lives. Continuing with our analogy of life as a theatrical play, these folks would consider themselves mere actors in their own lives. Locus of control describes people's sense of control over their lives. It also describes the way people understand the problems they experience. In a related manner, it somewhat predicts how they will attempt to solve these problems. For example, if I possess an internal locus of control, I believe problems are my own doing (since I am the director of my life). I also believe that I must solve my own problems (since I created them). Locus of control is a relatively stable and enduring aspect of personality (as are most personality characteristics). It is so stable that we "take it for granted." We are unaware of the way our particular locus of control colors our understanding of a problem. Nonetheless, it greatly affects our approach to solving problems. Locus of control can change, but it changes slowly, over many years. Since locus of control is rather stable and influences our approach to problems, it becomes highly relevant to recovery from addiction. An approach to recovery that conflicts with your own locus of control is almost certain to fail. Therefore, find (or create) an approach to recovery that best matches your own position on the locus of control continuum (ranging from external to internal). If you would like, you could take a test to measure your locus of control. You can more simply determine this by evaluating your own attitudes toward recovery. Do you see yourself as the person who must find a solution to your addiction problem? Or, do you see the solution primarily coming from others? If you have a strong internal locus of control, you will feel more comfortable with a compensatory model, or a moral model. Conversely, if you have a strong external locus of control, you will naturally resonate with an enlightenment model or medical model. These sharp distinctions between an internal and external locus of control helps us to define this personality characteristic. However, nobody exhibits a purely internal or external locus of control. Most of us lean in one direction or the other. The point is to become aware of which direction you lean. This way you can more easily align your recovery efforts to your own personality and preferences. The Social Learning Theory of Julian B. Rotter (1916 - 2014) Biographical Note Julian B. Rotter was born in October 1916 in Brooklyn, NY, the third son of Jewish immigrant parents. Rotter's father ran a successful business until the Great Depression. The Depression powerfully influenced Rotter to be aware of social injustice and the effects of the situational environment on people. Rotter's interest in psychology began when he was in high school and read books by Freud and Adler. Rotter attended Brooklyn College, where he began attending seminars given by Adler and meetings of his Society of Individual Psychology in Adler's home. After graduation, Rotter attended the University of Iowa, where he took classes with Kurt Lewin. Rotter minored in speech pathology and studied with the semanticist Wendell Johnson, whose ideas had an enduring influence on Rotter's thinking about the use and misuse of language in psychological science. Upon finishing his master's degree, Rotter took an internship in clinical psychology -- one of the few available at the time -- at Worcester State Hospital in Massachusetts. In 1939, Rotter started his Ph.D. work at Indiana University, one of the few programs to offer a doctorate in clinical psychology. There, he completed his dissertation on level of aspiration and graduated in 1941. By earning his Ph.D. in clinical psychology after having done a predoctoral internship, Rotter became one of the very first clinical psychologists trained in what is now the traditional mode. After service in the Army and Air Force during World War II, Rotter took an academic position at Ohio State University. It was here that he embarked on his major accomplishment, social learning theory, which integrated learning theory with personality theory. He published Social Learning and Clinical Psychology in 1954. Rotter also held strong beliefs about how clinical psychologists should be educated. He was an active participant in the 1949 Boulder Conference, which defined the training model for doctoral level clinical psychologists. He spoke persuasively that psychologists must be trained in psychology departments, not under the supervision of psychiatrists. His ideas are still influential today (Herbert, 2002). In 1963, Rotter left Ohio State to become the director of the clinical psychology training program at the University of Connecticut. After his retirement, he remained professor emeritus there. Rotter served as president of the American Psychological Association's divisions of Social and Personality Psychology and Clinical Psychology. In 1989, he was given the American Psychological Association's Distinguished Scientific Contribution award. Rotter was married to Clara Barnes, whom he had met at Worcester State, from 1941 until her death in 1985. They had two children. He later married psychologist Dorothy Hochreich. Rotter died January 6, 2014, at the age of 97 at his home in Connecticut. [The above information is based on a biographical essay written by Julian Rotter: Rotter, J. B. (1993). Expectancies. In C. E. Walker (Ed.), The history of clinical psychology in autobiography (vol. II) (pp. 273-284). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Photos courtesy of University of Connecticut.] Overview of Theory When Rotter developed his social learning theory, the dominant perspective in clinical psychology at the time was Freud's psychoanalysis, which focused on people's deep-seated instinctual motives as determining behavior. Individuals were seen as being naive to their unconscious impulses, and treatment required long- term analysis of childhood experience. Even learning approaches at the time were dominated by drive theory, which held that people are motivated by physiologically-based impulses that press the individual to satisfy them. In developing social learning theory, Rotter departed from instinct-based psychoanalysis and drive-based behaviorism. He believed that a psychological theory should have a psychological motivational principle. Rotter chose the empirical law of effect as his motivating factor. The law of effect states that people are motivated to seek out positive stimulation, or reinforcement, and to avoid unpleasant stimulation. Rotter combined behaviorism and the study of personality, without relying on physiological instincts or drives as a motive force. The main idea in Julian Rotter's social learning theory is that personality represents an interaction of the individual with his or her environment. One cannot speak of a personality, internal to the individual, that is independent of the environment. Neither can one focus on behavior as being an automatic response to an objective set of environmental stimuli. Rather, to understand behavior, one must take both the individual (i.e., his or her life history of learning and experiences) and the environment (i.e., those stimuli that the person is aware of and responding to) into account. Rotter describes personality as a relatively stable set of potentials for responding to situations in a particular way. Rotter sees personality, and therefore behavior, as always changeable. Change the way the person thinks, or change the environment the person is responding to, and behavior will change. He does not believe there is a critical period after which personality is set. But, the more life experience one has building up certain sets of beliefs, the more effort and intervention required for change to occur. Rotter conceives of people in an optimistic way. He sees them as being drawn forward by their goals, seeking to maximize their reinforcement, rather than just avoiding punishment. Rotter has four main components to his social learning theory model predicting behavior. These are behavior potential, expectancy, reinforcement value, and the psychological situation. Behavior Potential. Behavior potential is the likelihood of engaging in a particular behavior in a specific situation. In other words, what is the probability that the person will exhibit a particular behavior in a situation? In any given situation, there are multiple behaviors one can engage in. For each possible behavior, there is a behavior potential. The individual will exhibit whichever behavior has the highest potential. Expectancy. Expectancy is the subjective probability that a given behavior will lead to a particular outcome, or reinforcer. How likely is it that the behavior will lead to the outcome? Having high or strong expectancies means the individual is confident the behavior will result in the outcome. Having low expectancies means the individual believes it is unlikely that his or her behavior will result in reinforcement. If the outcomes are equally desirable, we will engage in the behavior that has the greatest likelihood of paying off (i.e., has the highest expectancy). To have a high expectancy, people must believe both (a) that they have the capacity to enact the behavior effectively and (b) that that behavior will result in reinforcement. Expectancies are formed based on past experience. The more often a behavior has led to reinforcement in the past, the stronger the person's expectancy that the behavior will achieve that outcome now. In addition, people do not need to have direct experience with reinforcement of a particular behavior. Rotter wrote that our observations of the outcomes of others' behaviors affect our own expectancies. If we see someone else being punished for a particular behavior, we don't have to experience punishment personally to form an expectancy that this behavior is likely to be punished. It is important to note that expectancy is a subjective probability, because one common source of pathology is irrational expectancies. There may be no relationship whatsoever between the person's subjective assessment of how likely a reinforcement will be and the actual, objective probability of the reinforcer's occurring. People can either over- or underestimate this likelihood, and both distortions can potentially be problematic. Reinforcement Value. Reinforcement is another name for the outcomes of our behavior. Reinforcement value refers to the desirability of these outcomes. Things we want to happen, that we are attracted to, have a high reinforcement value. Things we don't want to happen, that we wish to avoid, have a low reinforcement value. If the likelihood of achieving reinforcement is the same (i.e., expectancies are equal), we will exhibit the behavior with the greatest reinforcement value, the one directed toward the outcome we prefer most. As the name social learning theory suggests, the social environment is of primary importance in shaping our behavior. Social outcomes, such as approval, love or rejection, are powerful influences on our behavior. For people, the most important reinforcers are often social reinforcers. As with expectancy, reinforcement value is subjective, meaning that the same event or experience can vastly differ in desirability, depending on the individual's life experience. Punishment from a parent would be negatively reinforcing to most children and something to be avoided. However, children who get little positive attention from parents can seek out parental punishment because it has a higher reinforcement value than neglect. The value of any given reinforcer is determined in part by other, future reinforcers it might lead to. For example, doing well on an exam in a particular class would have a heightened reinforcement value, if you believe that doing well in that class will lead to being able to work in your professor's lab. Therefore, even an apparently trivial event can have a very strong reinforcement value, either positive or negative, if the individual sees it as leading to other strongly valued reinforcers. The least amount of reinforcement that still has a positive value is known as the minimal goal. If people achieve an outcome that equals or exceeds their minimal goal, they will feel that they have succeeded. When the level of reinforcement falls below an individual's minimal goal, that reinforcement feels like failure. People differ in their minimal goals. Thus, the same outcome may represent success to one person (with a lower minimal goal) while it feels like failure to another person (with a higher minimal goal). Predictive Formula. Behavior Potential (BP), Expectancy (E) and Reinforcement Value (RV) can be combined into a predictive formula for behavior: BP = f(E & RV) This formula can be read as follows: behavior potential is a function of expectancy and reinforcement value. Or, in other words, the likelihood of a person's exhibiting a particular behavior is a function of the probability that that behavior will lead to a given outcome and the desirability of that outcome. If expectancy and reinforcement value are both high, then behavior potential will be high. If either expectancy or reinforcement value is low, then behavior potential will be lower. Psychological Situation. The psychological situation represents Rotter's idea that each individual's experience of the environment is unique. Although the psychological situation does not figure directly into Rotter's formula for predicting behavior, Rotter believes it is always important to keep in mind that different people interpret the same situation differently. Different people will have different expectancies and reinforcement values in the same situation. Thus, it is people's subjective interpretation of the environment, rather than an objective array of stimuli, that is meaningful to them and that determines how they behave. Generality versus Specificity. An important dimension of personality theories is the generality versus specificity of their constructs. General constructs are broad and abstract, while specific constructs are narrow and concrete. Both types of constructs have their advantages. A theory with general constructs allows one to make many predictions, across situations, from knowing only a small amount of information. The disadvantages of general constructs, though, are that they are harder to measure and the predictions made from them have a lower level of accuracy. Specific constructs, on the other hand, are easier to measure, and they can be used to make more accurate predictions. However, these predictions are limited to being situation-specific. For example, knowing that someone is a generally hostile person allows us to make predictions that this individual will be hostile toward a range of people. Across situations, this person is likely to be more hostile to others than is someone low in hostility. However, our ability predict how hostile this person would be to Jane, for example, is limited, because there may be other factors that determine whether this individual will treat Jane in a hostile way during a particular encounter (e.g., person likes Jane, or situational factors inhibit an expression of hostility). On the other hand, if we know that this person hates Jane, we can predict with a high level of accuracy that this person will be hostile toward Jane. But, we will not be able to predict whether this person will treat other people in a hostile way. A strength of Rotter's social learning theory is that it explicitly blends specific and general constructs, offering the benefits of each. In social learning theory, all general constructs have a specific counterpart. For every situationally specific expectancy there is a cross-situational generalized expectancy. Social learning theory blends generality and specificity to enable psychologists to measure variables and to make a large number of accurate predictions from these variables. "Locus of Control." For many people, their only exposure to the ideas of Julian B. Rotter is his concept of generalized expectancies for control of reinforcement, more commonly known as locus of control. Locus of control refers to people's very general, cross-situational beliefs about what determines whether or not they get reinforced in life. People can be classified along a continuum from very internal to very external. People with a strong internal locus of control believe that the responsibility for whether or not they get reinforced ultimately lies with themselves. Internals believe that success or failure is due to their own efforts. In contrast, externals believe that the reinforcers in life are controlled by luck, chance, or powerful others. Therefore, they see little impact of their own efforts on the amount of reinforcement they receive. Rotter has written extensively on problems with people's interpretations of the locus of control concept. First, he has warned people that locus of control is not a typology. It represents a continuum, not an either/or proposition. Second, because locus of control is a generalized expectancy it will predict people's behavior across situations. However, there may be some specific situations in which people who, for example, are generally external behave like internals. That is because their learning history has shown them that they have control over the reinforcement they receive in certain situations, although overall they perceive little control over what happens to them. Again, one can see the importance of conceiving of personality as the interaction of the person and the environment. Psychopathology and Treatment. Rotter is very opposed to the medical model conception of mental disorders as being diseases or illnesses. Rather, he conceives of psychological problems as maladaptive behavior brought about by faulty or inadequate learning experiences. Rotter (1969) wrote that pathology might develop when a "person anticipating punishment or failure may avoid situations physically, avoid by repression or may attempt to reach [his or her] goals through rationalization, fantasy or symbolic means" (p. 7). For Rotter, the symptoms of pathology, like all behavior, are learned. Therefore, treatment should be considered a learning situation in which adaptive behaviors and cognitions are taught. The therapist-client relationship is viewed as being similar to a teacher-student relationship. Having a warm relationship between client and therapist gives the therapist more reinforcement value for the client. This allows the therapist to influence the client's behavior more through praise and encouragement. Much of current cognitive-behavioral treatment has its roots in Rotter's social learning theory, although these debts often go unacknowledged. According to Rotter, pathology can develop due to difficulties at any point in his predictive formula. Behavior can be maladaptive, because the individual never learned more healthy behaviors. In this case, the therapist would make direct suggestions about new behaviors to try and would use techniques such as role- playing to develop more effective coping skills. Expectancies can lead to pathology when they are irrationally low. If people have low expectancies, they do not believe their behaviors will be reinforced. Consequently, they put little effort into their behaviors. If they don't try to succeed, they are likely to fail. And, when they fail, it confirms their low expectancies. This process of decreasing expectancies is a common occurrence in pathology known as a vicious cycle. When clients have low expectancies, therapists attempt to increase clients' confidence by using their therapeutic influence to help clients (a) gain insight into the irrationality of their expectancies and (b) attempt behaviors they have been avoiding out of fear of failure. In general, social learning therapists always attempt to raise their clients' expectancies for reinforcement. Lastly, reinforcement value problems can lead to pathology. Reinforcers are the goals we seek in life. If people set unrealistically high and unobtainable goals for themselves (i.e., have too high minimal goals), they are likely to experience frequent failure. This failure can lead to the development of the vicious cycle described above. In this situation, therapists would help clients to lower their minimal goals, developing reasonable, achievable standards for themselves. Flexibility in setting minimal goals is one sign of good mental health. It is better to strive, step by step, to achieve a series of goals than it is to set one distant, lofty goal for oneself. A Rotter therapist also wants clients to consider the long-term consequences of behavior, rather than just short-term consequences. Importance to the Field of Psychology Julian B. Rotter has been cited as one of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Haggbloom et al. (2002) found that Rotter was 18th in frequency of citations in journal articles and 64th in overall eminence.  Haggbloom, S. J. et al. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6, 139-152. doi: 10.1037/1089- 2680.6.2.139 Radio Interview & Profile Julian Rotter was interviewed about locus of control on the Mind Changers program on the BBC in 2012. Julian Rotter was also profiled in 2012 in UConn Today. Passing News of Julian Rotter's death and obituaries have been posted here:  The American Psychological Association published an obituary in its flagship American Psychologist journal: Strickland, B. R. (2014). Julian B. Rotter (1916-2014). American Psychologist, 69, 545-546. doi: 10.1037/a0036918  The University of Connecticut's UConn Today and the Psychology Department  The Hartford Courant  BBC radio (starts at 9:00) Contemporary Research in Social Learning Theory Personality research is still being done using Rotter's highly flexible framework. Catanzaro and Mearns have used social learning theory to define generalized expectancies for negative mood regulation (NMR). NMR expectancies represent beliefs people have about their ability to control the unpleasant moods they experience. In keeping with Rotter's theory, these expectancies predict how people cope with a variety of upsetting events, as well as the outcomes of that coping, in terms of mood and health. Click here to go to the NMR Research Page. Selected Bibliography Rotter has numerous publications spanning over seven decades. This section will highlight his most important contributions to the literature. Interested parties should consult these works for a more in-depth description of the concepts introduced on this web page.  Rotter, J. B. (1942). Level of aspiration as a method of studying personality. II. Development and evaluation of a controlled method. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 410-422. doi: 10.1037/h0054342  Rotter, J. B., & Rafferty, J. E. (1950). The Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank manual: College form. New York: Psychological Corp.  Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall. doi: 10.1037/10788-000  Rotter, J. B. (1960). Some implications of a social learning theory for the prediction of goal directed behavior from testing procedures. Psychological Review, 67, 301-316. doi: 10.1037/h0039601  Rotter, J. B., Liverant, S., & Crowne, D. P. (1961). The growth and extinction of expectancies in chance controlled and skilled tasks. Journal of Psychology, 52, 161-177. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1961.9916516  Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80. (Whole No. 609). doi: 10.1037/h0092976  Rotter, J. B. (1969, June). A social learning approach to community mental health. In Symposium on youth: their values, goals and career concepts [third report]. Rensselaerville, NY. (ERIC No. ED036828) download  Rotter, J. B. (1970). Some implications of a social learning theory for the practice of psychotherapy. In D. Levis (Ed.), Learning approaches to therapeutic behavior change (pp. 208-241). Chicago: Aldine.  Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26, 443-452. doi: 10.1037/h0031464  Rotter, J. B. (1971). On the evaluation of methods of intervening in other people's lives. Clinical Psychologist, 24, 1.  Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. E., & Phares, E. J. (1972). Applications of a social learning theory of personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.  Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 56-67. doi: 10.1037/h0076301  Rotter, J. B. (1978). Generalized expectancies for problem solving and psychotherapy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 1-10. doi: 10.1007/BF01172508  Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness and gullibility. American Psychologist, 26, 1-7. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.1.1  Rotter, J. B. (1981). The psychological situation in social learning theory. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 169-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  Rotter, J. B. (1982). The development and applications of social learning theory. New York: Praeger.  Rotter, J. B. (1989). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45, 489-493. doi: 10.1037//0003- 066X.45.4.489  Rotter, J. B., Lah, M. I., & Rafferty, J. E. (1992). Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank Second Edition manual. New York: Psychological Corporation.  Rotter, J. B. (1992). Some comments on the "cognates of personal control." Applied & Preventive Psychology, 1, 127-129. doi: 10.1016/S0962- 1849(05)80154-4 What is Locus of Control? Measures of Locus of James Neill Last updated: Locus of Control Control 06 Dec 2006 Tutorial  Measures of Locus of Control  References Measures of Locus of Control Julian Rotter (1966) developed a 29-item Locus of Control questionnaire. Since then, many others have tested, criticiqued and refined the concept and the measurement tool (e.g., Marsh & Richards, 1986). Rotter's original instrument is still in wide use, but increasingly people are turning to more specific measures of Locus of Control (e.g., health locus of control) and / or to multidimensional measures (Marsh & Richards, 1987).  Rotter's 29-item Locus of Control (paper & pencil - print it out) - Scoring  Rotter's 29-item Locus of Control (web-based - do it online & compare your scores to military officers and business executives)  Pettijohn's 20-item Locus of Control (web-based - do it online)  Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales (paper & pencil - 3 measures)  Work Locus of Control (Spector, 1988) References Marsh, H. W. & Richards, G. E. (1986). The Rotter Locus of Control Scale: The comparison of alternative response formats and implications for reliability, validity and dimensionality. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 509-558. Marsh, H. W. & Richards, G. E. (1987). The multidimensionality of the Rotter I-E Scale and its higher order structure: An application of confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 39- 69. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcements, Psychological Monographs, 80, Whole No. 609. Locus Of Control & Attributional Style Test rongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree agree/disagree disagree 1 2 3 4 5 1. Heredity determines most of one's personality. 2. Whatever plans you make, there is always something unexpected that will interfere with them. 3. Intelligence is a given and cannot be trained or become stunted. 4. You cannot fool your destiny. 5. I can complain about politics, but that's about all I can do. 6. When I ace a test or do really well on a project at work, I assume that I succeeded only because it was an easy one. 7. In one way or another, academic success is mostly a result of one's socio-economic background. 8. Unless a person is given the chance to meet new people, he/she will end up lonely. Further Reading  Kirsch, I. (1986). Self-efficacy and expectancy: Old wine with new labels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 824-830. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.824  Mearns, J. (2009). Social learning theory. In H. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (vol. 3) (pp. 1537-1540). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412958479.n506  Williams, D. M. (2010). Outcome expectancy and self-efficacy: Theoretical implications of an unresolved contradiction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 417-425. doi: 10.1177/1088868310368802 Locus of Control: External or Internal? [TEST] Locus of control is allocation of responsibility for the events in your life. Do you feel like you are in control of your environment and the outcomes you are getting, or do you feel helpless and frustrated as if you were caught up in the river of life? Do you think that your achievements are the direct result of your efforts or, perhaps, just plain luck? It’s time to take a test and see where do you stand when it comes to your locus of control. Taking this test may be a real eye-opener, but make sure to be as honest as you possibly can when answering these questions. Please evaluate each statement below using this abbreviation key (you need to evaluate each statement for the results to be reliable): D+ Disagree Strongly D Disagree D- Disagree slightly N Neutral A– Agree Slightly A Agree A+ Agree Strongly Statement: D+ D D- N A- A A+ It is my responsibility to make the most of my talents and abilities. I don’t get started with a project unless I believe that success is possible. I don’t plan much in advance because you never know what happens next. Climbing the corporate ladder is more about being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people than doing a good job. Most people breakup because they don’t make any effort to work on their relationship. I rely on my health providers to get well and/or stay healthy. Unless you are willing to get out there and actually meet people, you will always be lonely. Rich and famous celebrities are there because they were lucky. If someone dislikes me, there is nothing I can do about it. Good relationships and love can be lost because of external factors, and there is nothing we can do about it. I often feel trapped and helpless. My friends and family know me better than I know myself. Whether or not I get promoted depends on the mood of my supervisor more than my efforts. Most so-called overnight successes are really the result of years of preparation and work. In order for me to be healthy, I need to change my lifestyle and watch what I eat. If two people are not in love with each other, they usually can’t be happy together no matter how much they try. Generally, my friends and colleagues acknowledge my accomplishments. I know how to convince people to give me what I want. The person I am today is the result of what my school and parents taught me. Although there are things beyond my control, I will still do everything I can to get the results I want. I worked hard for all good things I achieved in my life. Whenever there is a problem or a conflict, I always analyze my own behavior first. The way I feel about myself is defined by those around me. I am highly independent and enjoy taking decisions. My health issues have nothing to do with my lifestyle. Most of the time, great projects fail because of some external events beyond one’s control. Managers and supervisors are responsible for poor results of their subordinates. I often feel that I don’t have any control over my personal relationships. I know how to get people to like me. If my spouse falls out of love with me, there is nothing I can do. It is my responsibility to manage my own life well. I often can’t see the motives behind others’ actions. If someone fails at something, it is probably because they didn’t make enough effort to succeed. Most of my problems were caused by other people. I can improve my well-being by exercising, eating well and managing my emotions. Hard work is the best predictor of success. I feel that I am the one responsible for my own satisfaction and happiness. I could never figure out why some people liked me while some others didn’t. I am a self-reliant person. No matter how much I try, I don’t receive any credit for what I do. There were situations in my life where there was no solution. I wouldn’t be where I am today if not the help and support of other people. Most of my problems are the result of my laziness and/or ignorance. Whenever I face a problem, I tend to go with the flow and see how everything will pan out without my interference. Behavior Management: Locus of Control Understand the difference between praise and encouragement and when to use each method as a form of motivation for your students. Jabberwocky Locus of control refers to the degree to which individuals perceive they are in control of the factors that affect their lives. External individuals feel they are strongly influenced by others (parents, teachers, peers). Internal individuals feel they are primarily responsible for the events that happen to them ocus of Control or Self-Esteem; Which One is the Best Predictor of Academic Achievement in Iranian College Students Seyyed Nasrollah Hosseini,1 Mehdi Mirzaei Alavijeh,2 Behzad Karami Matin,3 Behrooz Hamzeh,3Hossein Ashtarian,3 and Farzad Jalilian4,* Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ► Abstract Go to: 1. Background Academic achievement and preservation of students’ educational failure are two of the most important concerns of university academic staff and parents of the students (1, 2). The opposite of educational progress is educational failure which considering the results from various studies, could highly affect people destinies and impose much expenses to families. In this regard, studies have shown that self-esteem is an important factor for education progress (3). Students with higher self-esteem appeared to be more successful in education (4, 5). Self-esteem is considered as a vital capital and the most effective factor to progress and development of talents and creativity (6-8). Low self-esteem is introduced as a risk factor leading to aggression, depression, felony and weak educational outcomes (9, 10). On the other hand, locus of control among people is another important possible personality side to be studied and a meaningful concept in the Rotter social learning theory (11, 12). Rotter defined locus of control as the extent to which someone believes they can affect their lives; it has two control dimensions: internal and external. Considering Rotter hypothesis, people having external control has positive and negative perception about happenings and events which are not related to people behavior and is beyond personal control; Rotter considered this people to believe in chance or have external control source (11). In other dimensions, internal control source results from positive or negative perception of events which is under personal control (13). Although in the Ross and Broh study had reported that academic achievement could increase self-esteem, self-esteem does not affect subsequent achievement. In addition, locus of control does not affect subsequent academic achievement (14). Gerardi reported a significant relationship between the high level of self-concept and academic achievement (15). Furthermore, several studies had shown the role of self-esteem in predicting of academic achievement (16-18). In other hand, it should be noted that the intervention program need to emphasize on psychological factors that mediate and predict behaviors (19, 20). Go to: 2. Objectives Considering all the mentioned perceptions and the importance of knowing effective variables on academic achievement, and due to differences in the findings of the conducted studies, the aim of the present study was to determine the prediction of locus of control and self-esteem in academic achievement among college students. Go to: 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Participants and Procedure This cross-sectional study was conducted on 300 college students at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, the west of Iran, in 2014. The sample size was calculated at the 95% significant level according to the results of a pilot study and a sample of 300 was estimated. From a total of 300 students, 252 cases (84%) signed the consent form and voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. This study was conducted with approval from Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences’ institutional review board. 3.2. Measure Participants responded to the standard self-report questionnaire. The questionnaire included four sections that comprised of 95 questions: Seven questions for demographic, one question about academic achievement, 29 questions for Rotter locus of control scale, and 58 questions about the Coopersmith self-esteem inventory. 3.2.1. Background The background data included age (years), sex (boy, girl), live in dormitory (yes, no), filed of education (medical, dentist, pharmacology, nursing, paramedical, and health), level of education (BSc, MD), mother and father education level (Illiterate, under diploma, diploma, BSc, MSc). 3.2.2. Academic Achievement Status This status evaluated through asking a single question which questioned about the average score of previous semester of students [0 - 20]. 3.2.3. Rotter Locus of Control Scale This scale includes 29 items where each item contains two sentences as A and B on important social events. 23 items evaluate locus control and six items were chosen neutrally to support the scale and cover the given scale. Among 23 items used in scoring each A choice equals one score and B choice gets a zero; therefore, maximum and minimum scores in this scale would be 23 and 0, respectively. A total score of each person represents type and degree of each person’s locus control, only participants gained 9 scores or more meet internal locus control. This questionnaire has been used in several studies to recalculate and confirmed the reliability of the questionnaire (3, 21). 3.2.4. Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory Self-esteem was evaluated by the Coopersmith 58-item standard scale. Each item was measured on an ordinal 5-point Likert-type scaling (like me” or “not like me). Examples of the items are: “I find it very hard to talk in front of a group.” This questionnaire was used in several studies in Iran and its reliability and validity was proven. Generally, 50 items are divided into four scales of self-esteem (general), social self-esteem (peers), family self- esteem and educational self-esteem (school). In addition to these four subscales, it offers a total score. Furthermore, 8 items are pathometers and are responded choosing yes or no. The higher the score from this test, the more the self-esteem. Therefore, scores higher than 25 show high self-esteem and scores lower than 25 represents low self-esteem among participants (3, 5). 3.3. Data Analysis Data were analyzed by SPSS version 21 using appropriate statistical tests including correlation, and linear regression at the significant level of 95%. Go to: 4. Results The mean age of the respondents was 21.44 years (95% CI: 21.15, 21.73), ranged from 18 to 27 years. More details of demographic characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Participants Among the demographic characteristics, sex, father education, and mother education had a significant effect on self-esteem and locus of control among the students (Tables 2 and and33). Table 2. a Demographic Characteristics Affected Self-Esteem Among the Students Table 3. a Demographic Characteristics Affected the Locus of Control Among the Students The bivariate analysis showed the correlations between the locus of control and self-esteem (r = -0.439, P < 0.001), self-esteem and academic achievement (r = -0.525, P < 0.05), and the locus of control and academic achievement (r = 0.395, P < 0.05). Finally, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to explain the variation in academic achievement using the self-esteem and locus of control. Table 4shows statistically significant predictors of the outcome measure. Generally, they were accounted for 39.5% of the variation in academic achievement. Table 4. a b Predictors of the Academic Achievement , From a total of 252 respondents, 29.8% (n = 75) had internal locus of control, and 70.2% (n = 177) had external locus of control. In addition, our results showed that 23.8% (n = 60) had low self-esteem and 76.2% (n = 192) had high self-esteem. Results of the current study showed that 76.2% of the students had high self-esteem and 29.8% had internal locus control. There was a significant correlation between self-esteem, locus of control and academic achievement. Furthermore, self-esteem and locus of control totally predicted 39.5% of the variation in academic achievement, which self-esteem was a stronger factor to predict the academic achievement. Go to: 5. Discussion Self-esteem is affected by communication with others and people with higher self-esteem believe themselves to be more attractive, lovely and valuable, and welcome the communication with others and create close relationships with them; as the result, self-esteem is believed as an essential component of social relationships (22). Most of the students (76.2%) participated in the present study showed high self-esteem, which is in accordance with the results by Mirzaei Alavijeh et al. (3). Considering medical science students as future employees at health and treatment centers in Iran, they will play an essential role in social health and high self-esteem levels among them could be a positive point in this regard. Results of the present study showed that the majority of the students (70.2%) had external locus of control. In this regard, Mirzaei Alavijeh et al. (3) and Medanlu et al. reported similar results (23). Another finding from the present study was the meaningful correlation between self-esteem, locus of control and students’ academic achievement, which means the higher the self-esteem among students, the lower their belief in effect of chance on life and education as a part of life. They were more dependent to their internal abilities and their educational progress increased as the result. Mirzaei Alavijeh et al. reported a meaningful correlation among locus of control, self-esteem and students average scores (3). In addition, other studies showed the relationship between students’ self-esteem and academic achievement (5, 16-18). Though, Tamanaifar et al. and other studies suggested no relationship between students’ self-esteem and their educational progress, which does not correspond with results from the present study (1, 14). In contrast to results of this study, Ross and Broh mentioned “locus of control does not affect subsequent academic success” (14). Considering the reported correlation among self-esteem, locus of control and educational progress, it seems essential to consider these factors in planning interventions to develop students’ educational progress. Another finding of the present study was a higher level of self-esteem among female student; this result is similar to the results reported by other studies (1, 3). Therefore, it is suggested to conduct more studies on self-esteem, especially among male students. The findings reported in this study have certain limitations. First, data collection was based on self-reporting, which is usually prone to recall bias. Second, data were collected from Iranian medical college students in the west of Iran, and the results cannot be generalized to other population of college students. However, even considering all these limitations, our study has a guideline for education planners in universities to design intervention programs for the promotion of academic achievement among college students. 5.1. Conclusions Our findings show that designing and implementing intervention programs for promoting self-esteem can help improve academic achievement among college students. Go to: Acknowledgments This article is a part of research project supported by student research committee of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. We would like to thank deputy of research of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences for financial support of this study. Go to: Footnotes Authors' Contribution:Seyyed Nasrollah Hosseini, Mehdi Mirzaei Alavijeh, and Farzad Jalilian developed the original idea, study design, data analysis and writing the manuscript. Behzad Karami Matin, Behrooz Hamzeh, and Hossein Ashtarian participated in designing the data collection and writing the manuscript. All authors provided comments and approved the final manuscript. Conflict of Interest:The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Go to: References 1. Tamanaifar MR, Sedighi Arfai F, Salami Mohammad Abadi F. The Relationship of Emotional Intelligence, Self Concept and Self Esteem to Academic Achivenment. Q J Res Plan High Educ. 2011;16(2):99–113. 2. Best JR, Miller PH, Naglieri JA. Relations between Executive Function and Academic Achievement from Ages 5 to 17 in a Large, Representative National Sample. Learn Individ Differ. 2011;21(4):327– 36. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.007.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] 3. Mirzaei Alavijeh M, Rajaei N, Rezaei F, Hasanpoor S, Pirouzeh R, Babaei Borzabadi M. Comparison of self-esteem, locus of control and their relationship with university students’ educational status at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences-Yazd. J Med Educ Dev. 2012;7(1):58–70. 4. Komarraju M, Musulkin S, Bhattacharya G. Role of Student–Faculty Interactions in Developing College Students’ Academic Self-Concept, Motivation, and Achievement. J College Student Dev. 2010;51(3):332–42. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0137. [Cross Ref] 5. Hasanvand B, khaledian M. The Relationship of Emotional Intelligence with Self-esteem and Academic Progress. Int J Psychol Behav Sci. 2012;2(6):231–6. doi: 10.5923/j.ijpbs.20120206.06. [Cross Ref] 6. Kristjansson AL, Sigfusdottir ID, Allegrante JP. Health behavior and academic achievement among adolescents: the relative contribution of dietary habits, physical activity, body mass index, and self- esteem. Health Educ Behav. 2010;37(1):51–64. doi: 10.1177/1090198107313481. [PubMed] [Cross Ref] 7. Aryana M. Relationship Between Self-esteem and Academic Achievement Amongst Pre-University Students. J Appl Sci. 2010;10(20):2474–7. doi: 10.3923/jas.2010.2474.2477. [Cross Ref] 8. Peixoto F, Almeida LS. Self-concept, self-esteem and academic achievement: strategies for maintaining self-esteem in students experiencing academic failure. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2010;25(2):157–75. doi: 10.1007/s10212-010-0011-z. [Cross Ref] 9. Baumeister RF, Bushman BJ, Campbell WK. Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Aggression: Does Violence Result From Low Self-Esteem or From Threatened Egotism? Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 2000;9(1):26–9. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00053.[Cross Ref] 10. Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF, Thomaes S, Ryu E, Begeer S, West SG. Looking again, and harder, for a link between low self-esteem and aggression. J Pers. 2009;77(2):427–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 6494.2008.00553.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref] 11. Rotter JB. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. Am Psychol. 1990;45(4):489–93. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.45.4.489.[Cross Ref] 12. Roddenberry A, Renk K. Locus of control and self-efficacy: potential mediators of stress, illness, and utilization of health services in college students. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2010;41(4):353–70. doi: 10.1007/s10578-010-0173-6. [PubMed] [Cross Ref] 13. Mueller SL, Thomas AS. Culture and entrepreneurial potential. J Business Ventur. 2001;16(1):51– 75. doi: 10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00039-7. [Cross Ref] 14. Ross CE, Broh BA. The Roles of Self-Esteem and the Sense of Personal Control in the Academic Achievement Process. Sociol Educ. 2000;73(4):270. doi: 10.2307/2673234. [Cross Ref] 15. Gerardi S. Self-concept of ability as a predictor of academic success among urban technical college students. Soc Sci J. 2005;42(2):295–300. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.007. [Cross Ref] 16. El-Anzi FO. Academic Achievement and Its Relationship with Anxiety, Self-Esteem, Optimism, and Pessimism in Kuwaiti Students. Soc Behav Pers Int J. 2005;33(1):95–104. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2005.33.1.95. [Cross Ref] 17. Lin YR, Shiah IS, Chang YC, Lai TJ, Wang KY, Chou KR. Evaluation of an assertiveness training program on nursing and medical students' assertiveness, self-esteem, and interpersonal communication satisfaction. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(8):656–65. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2004.09.004. [PubMed] [Cross Ref] 18. Miyamoto RH, Hishinuma ES, Nishimura ST, Nahulu LB, Andrade NN, Goebert DA, et al. Path models linking correlates of self-esteem in a multi-ethnic adolescent sample. Pers Individ Differ. 2001;31(5):701–12. doi: 10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00172-0.[Cross Ref] 19. Jalilian F, Mari A, Mahboby M, Motlagh F, Aghaei A, Mirzaei Alavijeh M, et al. Explain of ecstasy use among kermanshah adolescents, the west of Iran: An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Life Sci J. 2014;11(1s):82–6. 20. Ahmadpanah M, Mirzaei Alavijeh M, Allahverdipour H, Jalilian F, Haghighi M, Afsar A, et al. Effectiveness of Coping Skills Education Program to Reduce Craving Beliefs among Addicts Referred To Addiction Centers in Hamadan: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42(10):1139–44. [PMC free article][PubMed] 21. Gueritault-Chalvin V, Kalichman SC, Demi A, Peterson JL. Work-related stress and occupational burnout in AIDS caregivers: test of a coping model with nurses providing AIDS care. AIDS Care. 2000;12(2):149–61. doi: 10.1080/09540120050001823.[PubMed] [Cross Ref] 22. Leary MR. Making Sense of Self-Esteem. Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 1999;8(1):32–5. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00008. [Cross Ref] 23. Medanlu M, Haghani H, Jafarpour M. Relationship of Self-esteem and locus of control in to Guilty Youth [Persian]. J Gorgan Uni Med Sci. 2001;3(7):41–5. Articles from Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences are provided here courtesy of Kowsar Medical Institute Citation Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221 Abstract A sample of 1,803 minority students from low-income homes was classified into 3 groups on the basis of grades, test scores, and persistence from Grade 8 through Grade 12; the classifications were academically successful school completers ("resilient" students), school completers with poorer academic performance (nonresilient completers), and noncompleters (dropouts). Groups were compared in terms of psychological characteristics and measures of "school engagement." Large, significant differences were found among groups on engagement behaviors, even after background and psychological characteristics were controlled statistically. The findings support the hypothesis that student engagement is an important component of academic resilience. Furthermore, they provide information for designing interventions to improve the educational prognoses of students at risk. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) Locus of Control: Academic Achievement and Retention in a Sample of University First-Year Students Gifford, Denise D.; Briceno-Perriott, Juanita; Mianzo, Frank Journal of College Admission, v191 p18-25 Spr 2006 Higher education administrators are seeking to identify additional effective student pre-college predictors of university academic success to utilize in an increasingly competitive admission environment. A study of more than 3,000 first-year students assessed a traditional pre-college predictor, the ACT, along with a new potential pre-college predictor, locus of control, to determine their effectiveness in predicting first-year student academic achievement as measured by end-of-first-year cumulative GPA. The results of the study indicated that first- year students who entered university with lower scores on the locus of control scale (internals) obtained significantly higher GPAs than those who scored higher (externals) on this same scale. Pre-college ACT scores also served as an effective predictor of student academic success as demonstrated by significantly higher cumulative GPAs at the end of the first year. In addition, this study found that first-year students retained to their sophomore year demonstrated a statistically higher GPA than those who were not retained. (Contains 1 table.)