Rotter

Whereas the behaviourists did not accept mentalistic explanations for a person’s behaviour, the social-behaviourists used cognitive constructs. Though personality is still learned, when a person is reinforced for a behaviour, responses aren’t strengthened or weakened so much as the person learns a relationship between the response and the reinforcer. Rotter used differences in learned habits, expectancies and reinforcement values to explain individual differences in behaviour. Personality and environment are interdependent, e.g. your previous learning history affects your beliefs, which in turn affect perception. History is only important insofar as it has predictive value, e.g. you need not go as far as determining what a person’s relationship with their parents was like if previous exam grades are a better predictor of future ones.

Initially reinforcers are associated with drive reduction, e.g. your parents with satisfaction of hunger, but then reinforcers generalise in a classically conditioned way, e.g. your parent’s praise becomes a reinforcer. Needs and goals/reinforcers are synonymous depending on whether you’re looking at the environment as a determinant of the person’s behaviour or at the person.

Through meeting reinforcers you develop expectancies (from 0-100%), your belief about the properties of an object or event. They can be simple cognitions, e.g. labelling, “I think that painting’s by Picasso”, behaviour-reinforcement beliefs, e.g. “if I work hard I’ll pass my exam”, or about sequences of reinforcement, e.g. “if I get a degree, I’ll get a good job”.

Behaviour potential is the likelihood of behaviours given a specific environment. Behaviours can include re-evaluation, rejection, planning. The potential for a behaviour depends on how many options you think are open to you.

The psychological significance of a situation is the meaning of that situation for that person, e.g. a confrontational situation is different for a person who has always been punished for aggression.

Reinforcement value is the importance you’d put on a particular reinforcer were all reinforcers equally likely.

Minimum reinforcement is that reinforcement that defines the cut-off line between a punisher and a reinforcer, e.g. I’d feel punished if I got a 2:2 in my degree, and ok if I got a 2:1, where the next person might be satisfied with a 2:2.

Rotter thought that behaviours and reinforcers could be functionally related, e.g. I plan hard, try to get a good night’s sleep, wake up early to try to do a good job, for which my reinforcers are satisfaction, praise and good exam results.

Freedom of movement is a generalised expectancy that a set of functionally related behaviours will result in functionally related reinforcers.

Locus of control is a generalised expectancy, internal if you believe reinforcing events are dependent on your own behaviour (different from Bandura’s self-efficacy which is more about your belief that you can perform the required behaviour, as distinct from outcome expectancy, the likely consequences of that behaviour). E.g. if you think your exam results are down to your hard work, then you’ve got an internal locus of control. If you think it’s because the examiner doesn’t like you, then it’s an external locus of control. There’s a short battery of forced choice items to test for this.

According to Rotter, development involves modifying ones expectancies and reinforcement values through socialisation. Language is important because it helps you discriminate and generalise. Maladjustment is cognitive constructs that do not lead to love, acceptance and identification with others, low freedom of movement and high need value resulting in defensive strategies.

Evidence for Rotter’s theory is that if parents are consistent in their behaviour towards their kids, their kids are more likely to have an internal locus of control. If parents are inconsistent, and this is associated with their being overprotective and domineering (as Rotter predicted, saying if they were so the child would have unrealistic expectancies once they got to school), then they are more likely to have an external locus of control. If they have one parent due to divorce or death, they are more likely to have an external locus of control.

In terms of health, those with an internal locus of control are more likely to be healthy, more likely to give up smoking, to know more about their ailment if they have one, to ask the doctor more questions.

With regards to education, those with an internal locus of control are more likely to learn given experience, more likely to attain higher marks, to persevere. Those with an external locus of control are more likely to make excuses. They even prefer situations with excuses built in, e.g. being more likely than those with an internal locus of control to choose a test that said, “there are some misspellings in this paper that shouldn’t affect your performance, but may do”. Those with an internal locus of control are more likely to feel pride on good achievement, and shame or guilt on poor.

With regards to career, those with an internal locus of control are more likely to choose part-time work congruent with their career expectations while in college, to feel satisfied in their jobs, to stay in the job for longer, to feel more of a sense of autonomy, less stress. They are also more likely to feel stress as being facilitatory.

With regards to social interaction, those with an internal locus of control are more likely to adjust well at university, to nod while listening, to make filler utterances, less likely to make conversation-stopping utterances. They are less likely to be sympathetic, more punitive to wrongdoers. They have fewer romantic attachments and report love to be less mysterious.

Over the lifespan, the uneducated elderly are more likely to have an external locus of control. The educated elderly maintain an internal locus of control despite, e.g. failing health, by modifying expectancies and reinforcement values, e.g. not wanting to play football any more.

In terms of comprehensiveness, though this theory does attempt to explain normal and abnormal development and everything from parental style to alcoholism, I think it fails to adequately cover the more serious psychoses.

In terms of precision and testability, the locus of control-test has proven reliable and valid. Most concepts are well defined and testable.

In terms of parsimony, a few concepts explain a range of behaviour, from gamblers with their over-value of immediate gratification to people who can’t give up smoking because, “they’re addicted now”.

In terms of empirical validity, as the number of studies mentioned exemplify there’s been lots of research on locus of control, though not much on the rest. There is an idealistic prediction formula not mentioned here for behaviour given expectancies and reinforcement values.

In terms of heuristic value, there’s been lots of research generated by locus of control. These days the locus of control tests are more functionally related situations specific, e.g. about work.

In terms of applied value, it’s been useful with non-psychotic problems. Therapy involves determining a person’s beliefs about their needs, attitudes and behaviours, adjusting the values they put on reinforcers to be more realistic, learning new behaviours and changing expectancies (rather that dwelling on the depression say). Therapists who use methods congruent with their client’s locus of control are more likely to be effective, e.g. directive with someone with an external locus of control and non-directive with an internal.

[ Home ] [ Up ]