G. Yu. Eysenck (1916–1997) Hans Jurgen Eysenck is one of the greatest psychologists of the 20th century. He was born in Berlin, in a family whose interests were as far from science as possible: his mother was a film actress, a silent film star who starred in 40 films, and his father was a popular entertainer.

Chapter 24. Julian Rotter and the theory of social cognitive learning D. Chernyshev environment. Rotter rejects the concept

Part Two Dreams (1916)

Part Three General Theory (1917)

The theory of social learning by D. Rotter is a concept of personality, which, following the theory of A. Bandura, emphasizes the role of motivational and cognitive factors in human learning. As Rotter himself wrote: “It is a social learning theory because it emphasizes the fact that the main or basic types of behavior can be learned in social situations, and these types of behavior are complexly connected with needs that require satisfaction in mediation with other people”

Julian Rotter believed that four interacting variables underlie the prediction of human social behavior in complex situations (the material below is based on the presentation of Rotter's theory given by L. Hjell and D. Ziegler):

1. Potential for behavior. This term describes the likelihood of a given behavior "occurring in some situation or situations in connection with some one reinforcer or reinforcers" (quoted in Hjell and Ziegler, p. 412). These authors give the following example. For example, someone insulted you at a party. From the standpoint of the theory under consideration, several responses are possible. You can: demand an apology; do not pay attention to the insult and transfer the conversation to another topic; hit the offender in the face or just walk away. Each of these reactions has its own behavioral potential.

2. Waiting. Expectancy is the subjective likelihood that a certain reinforcement will occur as a result of a specific behavior. For example, when deciding whether to study for an exam on the weekends, you are likely to ask if these classes will help you do better on the exam. From Rotter's point of view, the magnitude of expectation power is based on previous experience of the same or similar situation and varies from 0% to 100%. That is, if exam preparation has helped you perform better in the past, then you will have a high expectation to pass again. Rotter's concept of expectation is to explain typical behavior for a person, which is repeated because the person was previously reinforced for such behavior in this situation. If a person is faced with a particular situation for the first time, then his behavior (and expectation) will be based on his experience in a similar situation.

Rotter argues that expectation can lead to consistent behaviors regardless of time and situation and, in fact, explains the stability and unity of the individual. When predicting a person's behavior, it is necessary to rely on his own subjective assessment of success and failure, and not on the assessment of someone else.

Rotter distinguishes between expectations that are specific to a particular situation and those that are most general or applicable to a range of situations. Rotter called the first type of expectations specific expectations. they reflect the experience of one specific situation and are not applicable to the prediction of behavior. The second type of expectations is generalized expectations. , reflect the experience of various situations and can be used to predict the social behavior of a person. One such generalized expectation is the internal-external locus of control.

3. The value of reinforcement. This concept is defined as the degree to which an individual prefers one reinforcement to another given an equal probability of receiving it. So, for some, going to the cinema is important, and for others, going to the opera. The value of various reinforcements is, firstly, based on the experience of the individual, secondly, it depends on the situation, and thirdly, it changes over time. In addition, each person has a fairly stable commitment to one or another type of reinforcement, associated with a generally preferred behavior model.

4. Psychological situation. This variable represents the person's view of the psychological situation. What matters is not the objective interpretation of the situation, but how the individual himself imagines it, because it is the interpretation of the situation in certain terms that underlies the determination of the social behavior of the individual. Hjell and Ziegler, analyzing Rotter's theory, note that it is close to Bandura's theory, since in these theories "personal factors and environmental events in interaction best predict human behavior" (Hjell L., Ziegler D. Personality Theories, p. 415 ).

Thus, according to Rotter (1967), the main formula for predicting the social behavior of a person in a given social situation is the following formula: Behavior Potential = Expectation + Reinforcement Value.

Relying on the this formula, it is possible to predict the choice of alternative possibilities by a person at each specific moment of his life activity. To do this, it is necessary to know the value of the person's reinforcers associated with each possibility and her expectations regarding the reinforcers of each of the behavioral possibilities.

Also, considering people as purposeful individuals, Rotter paid great attention to the analysis of this or that social behavior of the individual. goals And needs person. It is the goals that determine the direction of human behavior in search of satisfaction of basic needs. Therefore, predicting the social behavior of a person, it is also necessary to rely on an analysis of his goals and needs. Rotter identifies six categories of needs that can be applied to the analysis of the social behavior of an individual:

Recognition status - the need to feel competent in various areas of life.

Protection-Dependence - the need for protection and assistance in achieving important goals for the individual.

Dominance - the need to influence the lives of others.

Hindependence - the need to make independent decisions and achieve goals without the help of others.

Love and affection - the need for acceptance and love from other people.

Physical comfort - physical health and pleasure needs.

Let us turn to the general formula for predicting human social behavior proposed by Rotter in 1982:

Need potential = freedom of action + need value

This formula contains two behavior factors. The first factor - the freedom of human activity is the general expectation of a person that this behavior will lead to the satisfaction of a need. The second factor is the value that a person attaches to a need associated with the expectation or achievement of some goals. Hjell and Ziegler, explaining Rotter's general forecasting formula, write that "man tends to strive for goals whose achievement will be reinforced, and the expected reinforcements will be of high value ... Provided that we know these facts, an accurate forecast is possible as to how a person will behave” (p. 419).

The central concept of Rotter's theory of social learning is the concept of "locus of control" of the individual. Locus of control is a personality variable, which is a generalized expectation by a person of what influences his behavior to a greater extent - his own actions (personality with internal locus of control) or a variety of external factors (personality with external locus of control). Rotter believed that externals and internals are not psychological types, since each individual can have characteristics not only of his own category, but also, to a small extent, of another. Such an idea of ​​the locus of personality control as a scale that has a pronounced “externality” at one pole, and “internality” at the other, formed the basis of the “Internality-Externality Scale” constructed by Rotter in 1966.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru

Introduction

The theme of my work is "The Theory of Social Learning by J. Rotter". Rotter is one of the greatest psychologists who was able to create the theory of social learning. Rotter's work has great value. He managed to create an influential theory, which was and is used to this day.

The purpose of my work is to study Rotter's theory of social learning.

Based on the goal, the following tasks were set:

* Read the biography of J. Rotter;

* To study the main ideas of the theory and its concepts;

Julian Rotter's theory is based on the assumption that cognitive factors contribute to the formation of a person's response to environmental influences. Rotter rejects the concept of classical behaviorism, according to which behavior is shaped by direct reinforcements, unconditionally derived from the environment, and believes that the main factor determining the nature of human activity is its expectations about the future.

Rotter's main contribution to modern psychology, of course, was the formulas he developed, on the basis of which it is possible to predict human behavior. Rotter argued that the key to predicting behavior is our knowledge, past history and expectations, and insisted that human behavior can best be predicted by looking at a person's relationship with the environment that matters to him.

1. Julian Rotter

Julian Rotter is an American psychologist and author of influential theories, including social learning theory and locus of control theory.

Julian Bernard Rotter was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1916. He was the third son of Jewish immigrant parents. Remembering his obligation to pay tribute to "the teacher who most influenced my intellect," Rotter expressed his appreciation for the Avenue Jay Library in Brooklyn, where he spent much of his time as a schoolboy and student (Rotter, 1982). He was an avid reader. One day, while exploring the bookshelves in search of something new, he came across books by Adler and Freud. Thus began his interest in psychology, and Rotter subsequently studied it at Brooklyn College, but only as an elective. The main subject for him was chemistry, because "there was no profession in psychology that I knew about" (Rotter, 1982, p. 343). During his early years at college, Rotter learned that Alfred Adler was teaching at Long Island Medical School. He soon began attending Adler's lectures, and he eventually invited Rotter to attend the monthly meetings of the Society for Individual Psychology, which Adler held at his home.

Continuing his studies, Rotter entered the University of Iowa in 1937 to complete his education in psychology. He got his master's degree humanities in Iowa in 1938 and a doctorate in clinical psychology from Indiana State University in 1941. During World War II, Rotter worked as a psychologist in the US Army. In 1946 he began working for State University Ohio, where he later succeeded George Kelly as Director of the Clinical Psychology Program. During his tenure at Ohio State, Rotter published his most famous work, Social Learning and Clinical Psychology (1954).

In 1963, Rotter took up a professorship at the University of Connecticut. There he also served as Director of the Clinical Psychology Training Program and received his diploma. clinical psychologist from the American College of Experts in Occupational Psychology. During his career, Rotter has written many articles, chapters, books, and test guides. In 1972, with June Chance and Jerry Phares, he published Applications of the Social Teaching Theory of Personality. Dorothy Hochreich co-wrote Personality (1975). A chapter on "Social Learning Theory" can be found in Expectations and Actions: Models of Expected Value in Psychology (Feather, 1981), an excellent overview of his theoretical position. The latest exposition of his ideas appeared in The Development and Applications of Social Learning Theory (1982). Although he retired in 1987, Rotter continues to write and supervise undergraduate theses. He and his wife live permanently in Stors, Connecticut.

Julian Rotter began to create his theory in the late 1940s and early 1950s, at which time the most significant areas were psychoanalytic and phenomenological theories of personality. According to Rotter, both of these approaches contained concepts that were not sufficiently defined, and therefore he decided to introduce clear and precise terminology. He tried to develop a conceptual framework that included well-defined terms and testable hypotheses. He also intended to construct a theory that would emphasize the role of motivational and cognitive factors in human learning. Finally, Rotter wanted to create a theory that emphasized the understanding of behavior in the context of social situations.

His social learning theory is an attempt to explain how behavior is learned through interaction with other people and elements of the environment. In Rotter's words: "It is a social learning theory because it emphasizes the fact that the main or basic behaviors can be learned in social situations, and these behaviors are intricately connected to needs that require satisfaction through mediation with other people" (Rotter, 1954, p. 84).

Focusing on how behavior is learned in a social context, Rotter also believed that behavior is largely determined by our unique ability to think and anticipate. According to him, when predicting what people will do in a certain situation, we must take into account such cognitive variables as perceptions, expectations, and values. Also in Rotter's theory there is a position that human behavior is purposeful, that is, people tend to move towards the expected goals (Rotter, 1982). According to Rotter, human behavior is determined by the expectation that a given action will eventually lead to future rewards. Combining the concepts of expectation and reinforcement within the same theory - unique property Rotter systems. Like Bandura, Rotter has developed a theory of human functioning that is quite different from Skinner's radical behaviorism.

2. Basic concepts and principles of the theory of the socialatcheniya

2.1 Fundamental ideas and concepts of the theory

The focus of Rotter's theory of social learning is the prediction of human behavior in difficult situations. Rotter believes that the interaction of four variables needs to be carefully analyzed. These variables include behavior potential, expectancy, reinforcement value, and psychological situation.

Rotter argues that the key to predicting what a person will do in a given situation lies in understanding the potential of the behavior. This term refers to the probability of a given behavior "occurring in some situation or situations in connection with some one reinforcer or reinforcers" (Rotter et al., 1972, p. 12). Imagine, for example, that someone insulted you at a party. How will you react? From Rotter's point of view, there are several responses. You can say that this is over the top and demand an apology. You can ignore the insult and move the conversation to another topic. You can punch the abuser in the face or just walk away. Each of these reactions has its own behavioral potential. If you choose to ignore the offender, it means that the potential for that reaction is greater than any other possible reaction. Obviously, the potential of each reaction can be strong in one situation and weak in another. High-pitched screams and yells can have high potential in a boxing match, but very little potential at a funeral (at least in American culture).

Rotter's concept of behavior includes virtually all types of human activity in response to a stimulus situation, which can only be somehow detected and measured. This includes high-pitched screams, pouting, crying, laughing, and fighting. Planning, analysis, learning, rationalization and procrastination are evaluated in the same way. In short, behavior consists "of motor actions, cognition, verbal behavior, non-verbal behavior, emotional responses, and so on" (Rotter and Hochreich, 1975, p. 96).

According to Rotter, expectancy refers to the subjective likelihood that a certain reinforcement will occur as a result of a specific behavior. For example, before you decide whether or not to go to a party, you are likely to try to calculate the probability of having a good time. Also, when deciding whether to study for an exam on the weekends, you are likely to ask yourself if these classes will help you do better on the exam. From Rotter's point of view, the magnitude of expectation power can range from 0 to 100 (from 0% to 100%) and is generally based on previous experience of the same or similar situation. Thus, if you have never enjoyed a party, there is very little expectation that you will enjoy it. Also, if weekend classes have always helped you do better on your exam, you probably have a high expectation that you will get a good mark again.

Rotter's concept of expectation makes it clear that if people have received reinforcement for behavior in a given situation in the past, they are more likely to repeat that behavior. For example, if you have always had a great time at parties, then in all likelihood you will agree to accept an invitation for a day off. But how can expectation explain behavior in the situation we are first confronted with? According to Rotter, in this case, the expectation is based on our experience in a similar situation. A recent college graduate who has received praise for working on a semester test over the weekend is likely to expect to be rewarded if he finishes a report for his boss over the weekend. This example shows how expectation can lead to consistent behaviors, regardless of time or situation. What Rotter is saying, in fact, is that stable expectation, generalized from past experience, does indeed explain the stability and unity of the individual. However, it should be noted that expectations do not always correspond to reality. Some people, for example, may have unrealistically high expectations about their success, no matter the situation. And others may be so insecure that they constantly underestimate their chances of success in a given situation. In any case, Rotter argues that if we want to accurately predict an individual's behavior, we should rely on his own subjective assessment of success and failure, and not someone else's assessment.

Rotter makes a distinction between those expectations that are specific to one situation and those that are most general or applicable to a range of situations (Rotter, 1966). The first, called specific expectations, reflect the experience of one specific situation and are not applicable to the prediction of behavior. The latter, called generalized expectations, reflect the experience of various situations and are very suitable for studying personality in Rotter's sense. Later in this section, we will look at a generalized expectation called internal-external locus of control.

Rotter defines the value of a reinforcement as the degree to which, given an equal probability of receiving, we prefer one reinforcement to another. Using this concept, he argues that people differ in their assessment of the importance of a particular activity and its results. Given the choice, watching basketball on television is more important to some than playing bridge with friends. Also, some people like long walks, while others do not. learning

Like expectations, the value of various reinforcements is based on our previous experience. Moreover, the value of reinforcing a particular activity can vary from situation to situation and over time. For example, social contact is likely to be more valuable if we are lonely and less valuable if we are not. However, Rotter argues that there are relatively consistent individual differences in our preference for one reinforcer over another. Some people always take free tickets to the movies and not to the opera. Accordingly, forms of behavior can also be traced in relatively stable emotional and cognitive reactions to what constitutes the main encouraged activity in life.

It should be emphasized that in Rotter's theory, the value of reinforcement does not depend on expectation. In other words: what a person knows about the value of a particular reinforcement does not in any way indicate the degree of expectation of this reinforcement. A student, for example, knows that good academic performance is of high value, and yet the expectation of getting high marks may be low due to his lack of initiative or ability. According to Rotter, the value of reinforcement correlates with motivation, while expectation correlates with cognitive processes.

The fourth and final variable used by Rotter to predict behavior is the psychological situation from the individual's point of view. Rotter argues that social situations are what the observer imagines them to be. Like Rogers, Rotter is aware that if the given circumstances of the environment are perceived by a person in a certain way, then for him this situation will be exactly the way he perceives it, no matter how strange his interpretation may seem to others.

Rotter emphasizes the important role of situational context and its influence on human behavior. He builds a theory that the totality of key stimuli in a given social situation causes a person to expect the results of behavior - reinforcement. Thus, a student might expect her to do poorly in a seminar on social psychology, and as a result, the teacher will give her a low mark, and colleagues will taunt her. Therefore, we can predict that she will drop out of school or take some other action to prevent the expected unpleasant outcome.

The theme of human interaction with the environment that is significant for him is deeply rooted in Rotter's vision of personality. As an interactionist, he argues that the psychological situation must be considered along with expectations and the value of the reinforcement, predicting the possibility of any alternative behavior. He subscribes to Bandura's view that personality factors and environmental events, in interaction, are the best predictors of human behavior.

In order to predict the potential of a given behavior in a specific situation, Rotter (1967) suggests the following formula: Behavior Potential = Expectation + Reinforcement Value

It can be seen from this equation that when we predict the likelihood of a given behavior in a given situation, we should use two variables: expectation and the value of the reinforcement. Consider the following example. You have a choice: go to the computer center on Sunday morning or stay in the hostel to watch the National Football League championship on TV. We may be able to predict which choice you will make if we know: 1) the value of the reinforcements associated with each opportunity; 2) the expectation that each of the possibilities will lead to the corresponding reinforcements. However, it should be noted that Rotter's basic formula is a hypothetical rather than a pragmatic means of predicting behavior. In fact, he suggests that the four variables we have just considered (behavior potential, expectation, reinforcement, psychological situation) are only applicable to predicting behavior under highly controlled conditions, such as in a psychological experiment. As we will see later, Rotter uses a more general formula to predict goal-directed behavior in a variety of situations that people face every day.

Rotter views people as purposeful individuals. He believes that people tend to maximize rewards and minimize or avoid punishment. Moreover, he argues that goals determine the direction of human behavior in search of satisfaction of basic needs. Therefore, according to Rotter, awareness of the goals and needs of a person provides a more generalized forecast than the forecast that allows you to make the four variables described above.

Rotter suggests that specific goals are usually closely related to broader categories understood as needs. Conceptually, a need can be described as a set of different behaviors that similarly acquire the same or similar sets of reinforcers. Rotter considers the following six categories of needs applicable to the prediction of human behavior.

recognition status. This concept refers to our need to feel competent in a wide range of areas such as school, work, Physical Culture or social work. Wanting others to recognize you as intellectually gifted is an example of a need included in this category.

Addiction protection. This concept includes the need for someone to protect us from trouble and help us achieve meaningful goals. Asking family members to take care of us when we are sick is an example of such a need.

Dominance. This concept includes the need to influence the lives of others and to be able to organize consequences based on such control. Calling on friends and neighbors to support our beloved charitable institution illustrates the need for dominance.

Independence. This concept refers to our need to make independent decisions and achieve goals without the help of others. A high school graduate who refuses advice on which college to choose thus expresses a need for independence. Any behavior that suggests a desire to rely on one's own strength reflects this category of needs.

Love and affection. This concept includes the need to be accepted and loved by other people. A prime example is a young woman who spends a lot of time and effort caring for a male friend, hoping that he will confess his love to her.

physical comfort. This last category includes the satisfaction associated with physical security, good health, and freedom from pain. Rotter points out that all other needs are acquired as a result of their association with the basic needs of physical health and pleasure. Behavior leading to sexual satisfaction illustrates the need for physical comfort.

Rotter suggests that each category of needs consists of three main components: the potential of the need, the value of the need, and the freedom of activity (including the minimum goal). These three components are analogous to the more specific concepts of behavioral potential, reinforcement value, and expectation. Together, they also form the basis of Rotter's general prediction formula (discussed below).

Need potential. Need potential refers to the likelihood that a given behavior will result in the satisfaction of a particular category of need, such as love and affection. An example of the potential for a person's need for love and affection is when a person brings sweets to his wife to gain her approval, or calls his mother to see how she is doing in response to her expression of affection. Functionally, each of these behaviors is focused on receiving love and affection from significant others.

Need value. The concept of the value of a need is defined by Rotter as the average value of a set of reinforcements. Recall that the value of a reinforcement refers to the relative preference for a particular reinforcer when all reinforcers are equally likely. Need value extends this notion to include the relative preference for different reinforcers associated with the six categories of needs described earlier. Consider, for example, a student who has completed high school and must decide whether to attend college, look for a job, join the army, or travel around the country for a year. If the most valuable reinforcing stimulus for a student is social status and the opinion of others confirming his competence, it can be said that his need value is highest for rewards associated with recognition. Rotter suggests that most people demonstrate a reasonable level of consistency in their preference for reinforcements that fall into one of six categories of needs. Thus, for one person, the most preferred category is the need to win love and affection; for the second, the need to be free from the control of others; for the third, the need to exercise power over others.

Freedom of activity and a minimum goal. Rotter's concept of freedom of action refers to an individual's expectation that certain behaviors will result in reinforcers associated with one of six categories of needs. This reflects the subjective likelihood that gratifying reinforcers will emerge as a result of the patterning of the behavior. For example, if a person believes that his wife will most likely not show joy when he brings sweets, and his mother will react negatively to a phone call, then we can say that at that moment he has low freedom of action in relation to love and affection. From Rotter's point of view, low freedom of action, together with a high value of need, leads to strong frustration in the individual, who feels ineffective in achieving important goals. More broadly, Rotter argues that maladaptation occurs when a person assigns a high value to the satisfaction of a particular need, but has very low freedom of action, that is, a low expectation of the success of a behavior that could lead to the satisfaction of this need.

The minimum goal level refers to the lowest point at which the reinforcement continues to be perceived positively by the person. In other words, the minimum goal sets a dividing line between those rewards that are positive reinforcers and those that are some kind of punishment. Thus, for some students, the "three" can be seen as a reinforcement - their minimum goals are low in the area of ​​academic performance needs. Conversely, for others, only a score of "five" will be a reinforcer - they can be said to have a higher minimum goal than the first students. According to Rotter, in the absence of competence or skill, an extremely high level of minimum goal increases the possibility of failure. Also, an extremely low level of the minimum goal reduces the likelihood of building behaviors that will increase competence or reinforce skill. On the other hand, Rotter notes that the value of a need becomes so high that it has a predominant influence on a person's life, to the exclusion of everything else. This can lead either to a distortion of reality or to an inability to distinguish between situations. For example, a person may have such an overwhelming need to please that he indiscriminately gives expensive gifts to everyone he knows. Undoubtedly, such behavior will be considered by others as rather strange.

It is important to repeat Rotter's concept of poor adaptation. For him, the combination of high need value and low freedom of action is a common cause of poor adaptation. The tendency to set clearly inflated goals contributes to the high value of the need and leads to inevitable frustration and failure. People with poor adaptation also have low freedom of action because they mistakenly believe that they do not have the skills or information necessary to achieve their goals. Rotter believes that maladjusted people often seek to achieve goals in fantasies or try to protect themselves from or avoid the risk of failure.

As stated above, Rotter believes that his basic formula is limited to predicting specific behaviors in controlled situations where reinforcements and expectations are relatively simple. The prediction of behavior in everyday situations, from his point of view, requires a more generalized formula. Therefore, Rotter proposes the following predictive model (Rotter, 1982): Demand Potential = Activity Freedom + Demand Value

This equation shows that two separate factors determine the potential for building behaviors to meet specific needs. The first factor is the freedom of human activity or the general expectation that this behavior will lead to the satisfaction of a need. The second factor is the value that a person attaches to a need associated with the expectation or achievement of some goals. In other words, Rotter general formula prognosis means that a person tends to strive for goals whose achievement will be reinforced, and the expected reinforcements will be of high value. According to Rotter, provided that we know these facts, it is possible to accurately predict how a person will behave.

2.3 Locus of control

The general prediction formula also highlights the impact of the generalized expectation that reinforcement will occur as a result of certain behaviors in different situations. Rotter identified two such generalized expectations: locus of control and interpersonal trust. Locus of control, discussed below, is the basis of the Rotter Internal-External Scale, one of the most widely used self-report measures in personality research.

Much of the research that has been done in accordance with Rotter's theory has focused on a personality variable called locus of control (Rotter, 1966, 1975). As a central construct of social learning theory, locus of control is a generalized expectation of the degree to which people control reinforcers in their lives. People with an external locus of control believe that their successes and failures are governed by external factors such as fate, luck, good fortune, powerful people, and unpredictable environmental forces. "Externals" believe that they are hostages of fate. In contrast, people with an internal locus of control believe that success and failure are determined by their own actions and abilities (internal or personal factors). "Internals" therefore feel that they are more influencing reinforcers than people with an externally oriented locus of control.

Although belief in external or internal control can be seen as a personality trait in terms of individual differences, Rotter (1982) makes it clear that externals and internals are not "types" because each has characteristics not only of its own category, but also, to a small extent, degree, another. The construct should be considered as a continuum with a pronounced "externality" at one end, and "internality" at the other, while people's beliefs are located at all points in between, mostly in the middle. In other words, some people are very external, some are very internal, and most are between the two extreme poles. With this in mind, we can turn to the measurement of locus of control and some of the important psychosocial characteristics associated with individual differences in this important dimension.

Measurement of locus of control. Although there are several ways to measure control orientation that are applicable to children and adults, the "I-E Scale" created by Rotter (Rotter, 1966) is most commonly used by researchers in this field. It consists of 23 pairs of forced choice statements, with six additional questions to mask the purpose of this test. Some of the statements are presented in Table. 8-3. The results were processed on a computer, and for each answer indicating an external orientation, the subject received one point, and so on for all 23 pairs. Scores are ranked from zero to 23, with the highest score reflecting high externality. Researchers using the I-E scale typically identified subjects whose scores fell outside the extremes of the distribution (for example, above the 75th percentile or below the 25th percentile). These subjects were classified as either externals or internals, and those whose results were intermediate were excluded from further study. The researchers then continued to look for differences between the two extreme groups by measuring other measures of self-report and/or behavioral responses.

An example of forced choice statements of the internal-external Rotter scale

1. a) It often turns out that what should happen does happen. (E) b) I never rely on fate when deciding whether or not to act in a certain way. (AND)

2. a) No matter how hard you try, someone still doesn't like you. (A) b) People who fail to please others simply do not understand how to behave with them. (AND)

3. a) In the end, people are treated the way they deserve it. (I) b) Unfortunately, no matter how hard a person tries, often his merits remain unrecognized. (Uh)

Characteristics of externals and internals. Research based on the Rotter I-E scale shows that externals and internals differ not only in their belief about where the source of control of their behavior lies (Strickland, 1989). One of the key differences that distinguish externals from internals is the way they look for information about their environment. Several studies have shown that internals are more likely than externals to actively seek information about possible health problems (Strickland, 1979; Wallston and Wallston, 1981).

Internals are also more likely than externals to take precautions to maintain or improve their health, such as quitting smoking, starting to exercise, and seeing a doctor regularly (Strickland, 1978; Wallston and Wallston, 1982). An explanation for such consistent facts can be found in people's early family experiences when they were children. Namely, Lo (Lau, 1982), comparing externals and internals, found that the latter were more encouraged by parents if they took care of their health - they kept to a diet, brushed their teeth well, and were regularly shown to the dentist and therapist. As a result early experience Internals are more aware than externals of what can cause illness and are more concerned about their health and well-being.

Studies also show that people with an external locus of control are more likely to have psychological problems than in people with an interval locus of control (Lefcourt, 1982, 1984; Phares, 1978). For example, Phares (1976, 1978) reports that anxiety and depression are higher in externals and lower in self-esteem than internals. Also, internals are less likely to develop mental illness than externals. It has even been shown that the suicide rate is positively correlated (r = 0.68) with the average level of population externality (Boor, 1976). Why is externality associated with poor adaptation? We can only reason that people are able to achieve more in life if they believe that their destiny is in their own hands. This, in turn, leads to better adaptation in internals, which has been noted in many studies (Parkes, 1984).

Finally, numerous studies show that externals are much more socially affected than internals (Phares, 1978; Strickland, 1977). Indeed, Phares (1965) found that internals not only resist external influences, but also, when given the opportunity, try to control the behavior of others. Also, internals tend to like people they can manipulate and dislike those they cannot influence (Silverman and Shrauger, 1970). In short, internals appear to be more confident in their ability to solve problems than externals and are therefore independent of the opinions of others.

3. Rotter questionnaire

Questionnaire USK (level of subjective control) Julian Rotter diagnoses the localization of control over significant events, in other words - the level of personal responsibility. It is based on the distinction between two loci of control - internal and external, and, accordingly, two types of people - internals and externals.

internal type. A person believes that the events happening to him depend primarily on his personal qualities(competence, purposefulness, ability level, etc.) and are natural consequences of his own activities.

external type. A person is convinced that his successes and failures depend primarily on external circumstances - environmental conditions, the actions of other people, chance, luck or bad luck, etc.

Each individual occupies a particular position on the continuum defined by these polar loci of control.

Questionnaire text

Instructions: You will be asked 44 statements relating to various aspects of life and attitudes towards them. Please rate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with the above statements on a 6-point scale: - 3-2 -1 + 1 + 2 + 3, from complete disagreement (-3) to complete agreement (+3). social learning rotter control

In other words, give each statement a score from one to three with a corresponding "+" (agreement) or "-" (disagreement) sign.

1. Promotion depends more on luck than on the ability and effort of a person.

2. Most divorces happen because people didn't want to fit in with each other.

3. Illness is a matter of chance; If you are destined to get sick, then nothing can be done.

4. People find themselves lonely because they themselves do not show interest and friendliness to others.

5. The fulfillment of my desires often depends on luck.

6. It is useless to make efforts in order to win the sympathy of other people.

7. External circumstances, parents and well-being affect family happiness no less than the relationship of spouses.

8. I often feel like I have little influence on what happens to me.

9. As a rule, leadership is more effective when the leader has full control over the actions of subordinates, and does not rely on their independence.

10. My grades at school, at the institute often depended on random circumstances (for example, the mood of the teacher) more than on my own efforts.

11. When I make plans, I generally believe that I can carry them out.

12. What many people think is luck or good luck is actually the result of long, focused efforts.

13. I think that the right lifestyle can help health more than doctors and medicines.

14. If people are not suitable for each other, then no matter how hard they try, they still will not be able to establish family life.

15. The good that I do is usually appreciated by others.

16. People grow up the way their parents raise them.

17. I think that chance or fate does not play an important role in my life.

18. I don't try to plan far ahead, because a lot depends on how things turn out.

19. My grades in school depended most of all on my efforts and level of preparedness.

20. In family conflicts I often feel responsible for myself than for the opposite side.

21. The life of most people depends on a combination of circumstances.

22. I prefer a guide where you can decide for yourself what to do and how to do it.

23. I think that my lifestyle is in no way the cause of my illnesses.

24. As a rule, it is an unfortunate set of circumstances that prevents people from succeeding in their affairs.

25. In the end, the people who work in it are responsible for the poor management of the organization.

26. I often feel like I can't change anything under the circumstances.

27. If I really want, I can win over almost anyone.

28. So many circumstances affect the rising generation that the efforts of parents to educate them are often futile.

29. What happens to me is the work of my own hands.

30. It can be difficult to understand why leaders act the way they do.

31. A person who has not been able to succeed in his work, most likely, did not show enough effort.

32. Most often, I can get what I want from my family members.

33. In the troubles and failures that were in my life, other people were more often guilty than myself.

34. A child can always be protected from colds if he is monitored and properly dressed.

35. In difficult circumstances, I prefer to wait until problems resolve themselves.

36. Success is the result of hard work and little depends on chance or luck.

37. I feel that the happiness of my family depends on me more than on anyone else.

38. It has always been difficult for me to understand why some people like me and others don't like me.

39. I always prefer to make a decision and act on my own, rather than relying on the help of other people or on fate.

40. Unfortunately, the merits of a person often remain unrecognized, despite all his efforts.

41. In family life There are situations that cannot be resolved even with the strongest desire.

42. Capable people who failed to realize their potential should only blame themselves for this.

43. Many of my successes were only possible with the help of other people.

44. Most of my failures came from inability, ignorance or laziness and depended little on luck or bad luck.

Results processing

The processing of test results includes several stages.

1st stage. Counting "raw" (predvariant) points on the scales.

Indicators (scales):

1. IO - scale of general internality;

2. ID - scale of internality in the field of achievements;

3. IN - scale of internality in the field of failures;

4. IS - scale of internality in family relations;

5. IP - the scale of internality in industrial relations;

6. MI - scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations;

7. IZ - scale of internality in relation to health and disease.

Calculate the sum of points for each of the seven scales, while the questions indicated in the "+" column are taken with the same score sign, and the questions indicated in the "-" column change the sign of the score to the opposite.

The table below shows the numbers of the statements related to the respective scales.

2nd stage. Transfer of "raw" points to walls(standard scores) is made in accordance with the table below. The walls are presented on a 10-point scale and make it possible to compare the results of different studies.

Analyze quantitatively and qualitatively the indicators of USC on seven scales, comparing the results (obtained "profile") with the norm. A wall value equal to 5 is considered normal. Deviation to the right (6 or more walls) indicates the internal type of the level of subjective control in the relevant situations, deviation to the left (4 or less walls) indicates an external type.

Description of assessed scales

1. General internality scale- AND ABOUT. A high score on this scale corresponds to a high level of subjective control over any significant situations. Such people believe that most important events in their lives is the result of their own actions, that they can control them, and thus they feel their own responsibility for these events and for how their life as a whole develops. A low score on the AI ​​scale corresponds to low level subjective control. Such people do not see the connection between their actions and life events that are significant to them, do not consider themselves able to control this connection and believe that most events and actions are the result of an accident or the actions of other people.

2. Achievement Internality Scale- ID. High scores on this scale correspond to a high level of subjective control over emotionally positive events and situations. Such people believe that they themselves have achieved all the good things that have been and are in their lives, and that they are able to successfully pursue their goals in the future. Low scores on the ID scale indicate that a person attributes his successes, achievements and joys to external circumstances - luck, good fortune or the help of other people.

3. Scale of internality in the field of failures- IN. High scores on this scale indicate a developed sense of subjective control over negative events and situations, which manifests itself in a tendency to blame oneself for various troubles and suffering. Low IQ scores indicate that a person is inclined to attribute responsibility for such events to other people or to consider these events as the result of bad luck.

4. Scale of internality in family relations- IS. High rates mean that a person considers himself responsible for the events taking place in his family life. Low SI indicates that the subject considers not himself, but his partners to be the cause of significant situations that arise in his family.

5. Scale of internality in the field of industrial relationseny- IP. A high IP indicates that a person considers his actions an important factor in organizing his own production activities, in developing relationships in a team, in his promotion, etc. A low IP indicates that a person tends to attach more importance to external circumstances - leadership, comrades at work, luck or bad luck.

6. Scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations- THEM. A high index of IM indicates that a person considers himself able to control his formal and informal relationships with other people, to arouse respect and sympathy for himself. Low MI, on the contrary, indicates that a person cannot actively form his social circle and tends to consider his interpersonal relationships the result of partner activity.

7. Internality Scale for Health and Illness- FROM. High CI indicators indicate that a person considers himself largely responsible for his health: if he is sick, he blames himself for this and believes that recovery largely depends on his actions. A person with low CI considers health and illness to be the result of an accident and hopes that recovery will come as a result of the actions of other people, especially doctors.

The study of self-esteem of people with different types subjective control showed that people with low USC characterize themselves as selfish, dependent, indecisive, unfair, fussy, hostile, insecure, insincere, dependent, irritable. People with high TSC consider themselves to be kind, independent, decisive, fair, capable, friendly, honest, self-reliant, unflappable. Thus, USC is associated with a person's feeling of his strength, dignity, responsibility for what is happening, with self-respect, social maturity and independence of the individual.

To interpretation.

When people talk about their (high) responsibility, they are more likely to talk about their willingness to experience guilt. Be careful, your high responsibility, if you combine it with worries about the result, becomes not quite a blessing and puts you before a choice: either reduce responsibility or unlearn the habit of worrying.

Conclusion

In general, social learning theory emphasizes the importance of motivational and cognitive factors in explaining individual behavior in the context of social situations and attempts to explain how behavior is learned through interaction with other people and elements of the environment. Empirical conclusions and methodological tools developed in the theory of social learning are actively and fruitfully used in experimental studies personality.

Rotter's emphasis on the importance of social and cognitive factors in explaining human learning expands the boundaries of traditional behaviorism. His theory proceeds from the fact that the most important aspects of personality are learned within a social context. Rotter's theory also complements Bandura's theory by emphasizing the mutual interaction of man and his environment. Both theorists reject Skinner's view that people respond passively to external reinforcements. As we have seen, Rotter argues that people are able to recognize that certain behaviors in certain situations, and not in some other situation, are likely to be rewarded. In addition, he views people as cognitive creatures who actively pursue their goals and create strategies for behavior throughout life. Finally, Rotter's theory offers a parsimonious and coherent framework for organizing what is known about human behavior. Focused on a limited number of well-defined concepts and principles of the functioning of the personality, his ideas will undoubtedly contribute to the development of personology. On the other hand, with the exception of the study of the locus of control, Rotter's theory has not given rise to any empirical research, which it fully deserves.

J. Rotter showed the importance of such internal variables that affect human behavior, such as: locus of control, expectation of the probability of satisfying a need, the severity of the need, the subjective significance of the value of reinforcement. Rotter's teaching was a new step in the development of neobehaviorism.

Sources

1. http://www.psychologos.ru/articles/view/psihologos - encyclopedia of practical psychology.

2. Great Soviet encyclopedia - electronic version;

3. Wikipedia - electronic encyclopedia;

4. N. I. Povyakel. Theory of social learning (J. Rotter); on the;

5. R. Frager, J. Faydiman. Personality theories and personal growth.657p.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Biography of J.B. Rotter. Features of the theory of social learning. Understanding personality, methods of study. A set of behavior types. behavioral potential. Personality deformation, methods psychological help. An experiment by Rotter, Liverant and Crone in 1961

presentation, added 12/01/2016


Rotter's Theory of Social Cognitive Learning. Psychological analysis structural components behavior. The problem of increasing the motivation of employees. The emergence of behavior and the factors that determine it. Bandura's concept of self-efficacy.

thesis, added 08/25/2011


Locus of control as a psychological factor that characterizes the type of personality. The history of the emergence of methods from the side of the theory of social learning by J. Rotter. Conformity as an accentuation character. Differences between internal and external personalities.

term paper, added 05/22/2009


Characteristics of the theory of learning (acquisition of individual experience). Distinctive features modern concepts of learning: the theory of systematic (stage-by-stage) formation of knowledge, skills and mental actions; formation theory scientific concepts at schoolchildren.

control work, added 04/01/2010


Psychodiagnostics as a method psychological research. Psychological testing and survey. Leonhard's characterological questionnaire. The level of subjective control by J. Rotter, R. Kettel's questionnaire. Individual typological questionnaire L.N. Sobchik.

term paper, added 01/22/2012


B. Skinner's theory of operant conditioning. Recognition of the presence of complex behavior explained by combinations of chains of stimuli and responses. The specifics of the behavioral concept of learning. Socio-cognitive theory. Learning through observation.

term paper, added 04/05/2012


The concepts of locus of control and school anxiety in psychology. An empirical study of the level of subjective control and school anxiety in middle-aged schoolchildren. Questionnaire for the level of subjective control, as well as Phillips school anxiety.

term paper, added 02/21/2013


Main theoretical approaches to the study of locus of control. Methods of effective self-control of behavior. Definition and stages of stress, methods of its prevention and prevention. Study of the relationship between the locus of personality control and stress resistance.

term paper, added 10/12/2009


Study of the main causes of aggressive behavior, factors contributing to its formation and manifestation. Characterization of the forms of behavioral activity of animals and humans. The study of the categories of the theory of attraction, aggressiveness and imitation.

abstract, added 05/17/2012


Provisions of the psychoanalytic theory of child development. Pavlov's theory of classical and instrumental learning. The essence of the theoretical principles of operant learning by Thorndike and Skinner. Analysis of "tools" in the study of human mental development.