according to rotter’s expectancy theory, which of the following cognitions would lead to someone having a studious personality?

get according to rotter’s expectancy theory, which of the following cognitions would lead to someone having a studious personality? from EN Bilgi.

inquiz ch 13 Flashcards

Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards terms like extraversion, According to Rotter's expectancy theory, which of the following cognitions would lead to someone having a studious personality?, self-report measures and more.

inquiz ch 13

4.0 4 Reviews

8 studiers in the last hour

extraversion

Click card to see definition 👆

social vs retiring

fun lovirng vs sober

affectionate vs reserved

Click again to see term 👆

According to Rotter's expectancy theory, which of the following cognitions would lead to someone having a studious personality?

Click card to see definition 👆

-an internal locus of control

-the expectancy that studying will lead to good grades

-placing a high value on academic success

Click again to see term 👆

1/30 Created by TayonnaSmith

Terms in this set (30)

extraversion social vs retiring

fun lovirng vs sober

affectionate vs reserved

According to Rotter's expectancy theory, which of the following cognitions would lead to someone having a studious personality?

-an internal locus of control

-the expectancy that studying will lead to good grades

-placing a high value on academic success

self-report measures

questionnaire-based assessments that do not try to uncover unconscious influences

projective measures

use ambiguous pictures or stories to examine unconscious processes

personality in everyday life

collecting data about someone's interactions and tendencies

Personality in everyday life

A person wears a device that provides behavioral data.

Rorschach inkblot test

A person describes what an ambiguous image appears to be.

NEO Personality Inventory

A person indicates how well a series of traits describes him.

Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)

A person tells a story about an ambiguous picture.

Place in order from earliest to latest Freud's stages of psychosexual personality development.

-oral -anal -phalic -latent -gential

Sign up and see the remaining cards. It’s free!

Boost your grades with unlimited access to millions of flashcards, games and more.

Continue with Google

Continue with Facebook

Already have an account?

Recommended textbook explanations

Psychology 10th Edition

Carolyn Seefer, Mary Ellen Guffey

180 explanations Abnormal Psychology 8th Edition

David Barlow, Stefan Hofmann, V Durand

307 explanations

A Concise Introduction To Logic Loose-Leaf Version Lms Integrated Mindtap Philosophy 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card

13th Edition

Lori Watson, Patrick J. Hurley

1,960 explanations

Cengage Advantage Books: Cognitive Psychology

3rd Edition

E Bruce Goldstein, Robert Hershberger

150 explanations

Sets with similar terms

Chapter 10

53 terms Anjellycaca

Prominent Psychologists

40 terms Rachael356

Psychology Exam 3

53 terms maddy_rae_fiedler

Psych Exam 3: Test Your Learning

45 terms Kax_N

Sets found in the same folder

Chapter 13: self and personality

35 terms anjellycuh

Psychology Chapter 13 Inquizative

20 terms

kathleencstewartPLUS

Chapter 12: Social Psychology Norton InQuizit…

64 terms allywelk

Chapter 12: Social Psychology Inquisitive

42 terms Miranda_Flenard

Other sets by this creator

Unit 5 Vocab

172 terms TayonnaSmith

Psychology Chapter 3 Devlopment

58 terms TayonnaSmith

Chapter 11- nervous system

11 terms TayonnaSmith

CH 8.-4-8.6

42 terms TayonnaSmith

Other Quizlet sets

Intro to Financial Accounting: Lesson 11 (Set…

13 terms idan_nadler

Smaller Book for art history Northern

13 terms jam040298

Related questions

QUESTION

Match each third party to its best description.

7 answers QUESTION

What might happen to an individual who frequently uses hand sanitizer?

6 answers QUESTION

How does audience measurement on the web differ from that for traditional media?

7 answers QUESTION

T/F: As a child progresses through training, the items in a stimulus pair will become more similar

2 answers 1/6

Source : quizlet.com

The Social Learning Theory of Julian B. Rotter

The Social Learning Theory of

(1916 - 2014)

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 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 history of clinical psychology in autobiography

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 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.

Source : psych.fullerton.edu

Locus of control

Locus of control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article is about Locus of control. For other uses, see Locus.

Locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they, as opposed to external forces (beyond their influence), have control over the outcome of events in their lives. The concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality psychology. A person's "locus" (plural "loci", Latin for "place" or "location") is conceptualized as internal (a belief that one can control one's own life) or external (a belief that life is controlled by outside factors which the person cannot influence, or that chance or fate controls their lives).[1]

Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe events in their life are primarily a result of their own actions: for example, when receiving exam results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with a strong external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors such as the teacher or the exam.[2]

Locus of control has generated much research in a variety of areas in psychology. The construct is applicable to such fields as educational psychology, health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, and clinical psychology. Debate continues whether domain-specific or more global measures of locus of control will prove to be more useful in practical application. Careful distinctions should also be made between locus of control (a personality variable linked with generalized expectancies about the future) and attributional style (a concept concerning explanations for past outcomes), or between locus of control and concepts such as self-efficacy.

Locus of control is one of the four dimensions of core self-evaluations – one's fundamental appraisal of oneself – along with neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem.[3] The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997), and since has proven to have the ability to predict several work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance.[4] In a follow-up study, Judge et al. (2002) argued that locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem factors may have a common core.[5]

Contents

1 History

2 Personality orientation

3 Measuring scales

4 Attributional style

5 Applications

5.1 Organizational psychology and religion

5.2 Consumer research

5.3 Political ideology

6 Familial origins 7 Age

8 Gender-based differences

9 Cross-cultural and regional issues

10 Self-efficacy 11 Stress 12 See also 13 References 14 Sources 15 Bibliography 16 External links

History[edit]

Weiner's attribution theory as

applied to student motivation

Perceived locus of control

Internal External

Attributions of control Ability Hardness of tasks

Attributions of no control Effort Luck or fate

Locus of control as a theoretical construct derives from Julian B. Rotter's (1954) social learning theory of personality. It is an example of a problem-solving generalized expectancy, a broad strategy for addressing a wide range of situations. In 1966 he published an article in which summarized over a decade of research (by Rotter and his students), much of it previously unpublished. In 1976, Herbert M. Lefcourt defined the perceived locus of control: "...a generalised expectancy for internal as opposed to external control of reinforcements".[6] Attempts have been made to trace the genesis of the concept to the work of Alfred Adler, but its immediate background lies in the work of Rotter and his students. Early work on the topic of expectations about control of reinforcement had been performed in the 1950s by James and Phares (prepared for unpublished doctoral dissertations supervised by Rotter at Ohio State University).[7]

Another Rotter student, William H. James studied two types of "expectancy shifts":

, believing that success (or failure) would be followed by a similar outcome

, believing that success (or failure) would be followed by a dissimilar outcome

Additional research led to the hypothesis that typical expectancy shifts were displayed more often by those who attributed their outcomes to ability, whereas those who displayed atypical expectancy were more likely to attribute their outcomes to chance. This was interpreted that people could be divided into those who attribute to ability (an internal cause) versus those who attribute to luck (an external cause). Bernard Weiner argued that rather than ability-versus-luck, locus may relate to whether attributions are made to stable or unstable causes.

Rotter (1975, 1989) has discussed problems and misconceptions in others' use of the internal-versus-external construct.

Personality orientation[edit]

Rotter (1975) cautioned that internality and externality represent two ends of a continuum, not an either/or typology. tend to attribute outcomes of events to their own control. People who have internal locus of control believe that the outcomes of their actions are results of their own abilities. Internals believe that their hard work would lead them to obtain positive outcomes.[8] They also believe that every action has its consequence, which makes them accept the fact that things happen and it depends on them if they want to have control over it or not. attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. People with an external locus of control tend to believe that the things which happen in their lives are out of their control,[9] and even that their own actions are a result of external factors, such as fate, luck, the influence of powerful others (such as doctors, the police, or government officials) and/or a belief that the world is too complex for one to predict or successfully control its outcomes. Such people tend to blame others rather than themselves for their lives' outcomes. It should not be thought, however, that internality is linked exclusively with attribution to effort and externality with attribution to luck (as Weiner's work – see below – makes clear). This has obvious implications for differences between internals and externals in terms of their achievement motivation, suggesting that internal locus is linked with higher levels of need for achievement. Due to their locating control outside themselves, externals tend to feel they have less control over their fate. People with an external locus of control tend to be more stressed and prone to clinical depression.[10]

Source : en.wikipedia.org