Week 7 - perception of control
Individual Differences – The Big Picture
Focus on themes rather than competing theories of personality (psychodynamic, humanistic, trait theories).
Fundamental questions about personality:
Origins: Where does personality come from? (e.g., genetics, culture, learning)
Change: Does personality change over time? (e.g., stability across the lifespan)
Understanding: How do we comprehend individual differences? (mechanisms rather than just descriptions)
Understanding Individual Differences
Individuals vary in their interpretation and response to the environment.
Example: Highly anxious individuals vs laid-back individuals.
Key factor in interpretation and response is the perception of control.
Lecture Objectives
Understand three theories regarding perception of control:
Learned Helplessness: What happens when control is absent.
Locus of Control: General beliefs about where control lies (internal vs external).
Attributional Style: How we explain events.
Appreciate real-world examples of these constructs.
Importance of Understanding Control
Derived from learning approaches.
Emphasizes the environment's role in shaping personality and behavior.
Learned Helplessness
Martin Seligman's Contributions:
Focus on learning; personality is partly genetic.
Half of personality influenced by:
What an individual does.
Experiences they encounter.
Not all events are within our control; individuals can choose how to respond.
Real world environment does not reflect traditional learning experiences x reward / punishment directly linked to behaviour
Not all events are in our control
Operant Conditioning - Learning Experiments
Seligman's experiments with dogs in a learning box to avoid shocks:
Aim: Teach dogs a response (jumping over a hurdle) to avoid shocks.
Observations of Learned Helplessness
Administered unconditioned electric shocks; trials were inescapable.
Subsequent trials showed that dogs did not attempt to escape; termed learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975).
Empirical Findings on Learned Helplessness
Study of 150 dogs after unavoidable electric shock:
About 2/3 exhibited helpless behavior; only 6% of naïve dogs did.
Responses varied: dogs either learned to avoid or passively accepted the shock.
This phenomenon generalized to other species (rats, cats, fish, mice, humans).
Effects of Inescapable Situations
Inability to escape leads to:
Passivity (motivational deficit).
Cognitive slowdown in learning.
Neurobiological differences detectable in brain activity.
Physical health impacts (weight loss, stress reactivity).
Real World Examples of Learned Helplessness
Depression ( learned helpless dubbed the animal model of depression)
Political apathy
Case Study: Chaney et al. (1999)
Sample: 39 young adults (18-24 years) with long-standing asthma, first attack before 12 years old.
Control Group: 94 matched individuals (age and SES without chronic health issues).
Chaney Study Methodology
Tasks: Incorrect Treatment, Post Treatment Performance, Learning Task (Concept Formation Task).
Half received noncontingent feedback.
Depression scales and anagram tasks (5-letter words).
Findings from Chaney et al.
Depression Criteria: 21% of asthma patients vs 5% of controls (significant difference).
Performance post-contingent feedback not significantly different, but varied in noncontingent feedback.
Conclusions from Learned Helplessness Research
Exposure to unescapable situations shapes responses based on past experiences.
Internalized perceptions of control can lead to maladaptive responses, even when control is possible.
Locus of Control
Julian Rotter's Theory:
Concept of locus of control affects responses to events.
Two types: Internal locus of control (believing you can influence events) and external locus of control (believing outside forces dictate events).
Rotter’s Theoretical Contributions
People strive for goals due to expected outcomes and perceived likelihood of rewards (behaviorisms).
Cognitive aspect included: people consider what they think will happen, affecting their behavior.
Social Drivers for Behaviour
Key psychological needs driving behaviour:
Recognition: Valued and competent standing.
Dominance: Desire for control and influence.
Independence: Self-control and autonomy.
Protection: Dependence on others for assistance.
Love & Affection: Need for social bonds.
Physical Comfort: Avoidance of pain; pursuit of pleasure and security.
Behavioural Response Options
Various reactions to situations, such as:
Anger, communication with authority, passivity, humor, conflict.
Decision-Making in Behaviour Selection
Factors influencing course of action:
Expectancy: Anticipated results (positive or negative).
Reinforcement value: The significance and desirability of expected outcomes.
Behavioural Potential Formula
Behaviour Potential: Likelihood of a specific behaviour in a situation.
Formula: behaviour potential v reinforcement value x expectancy
Rotter's Psychological Situation Theory
Importance of situational context in behaviour.
Individual expectations and values interact with circumstances to influence behaviour.
Locus of Control Definitions
General beliefs about reinforcement sources divided into:
External: Belief that outcomes are dictated by external forces.
Internal: Belief that outcomes result from one’s own actions.
Locus of control can vary across different life domains.
Attribution Style Overview
Response to learned helplessness emphasizes perceived control based on:
Explanatory Style: Individuals’ need for meaningful explanations for experiences.
Causal Attribution: Attributing causes to events shapes perceptions of control.
Attributional Style Components (Abramson et al., 1978)
Dimensions of attribution:
Personal: Internal vs external (e.g., "It's all my fault").
Pervasive: Specific vs global (e.g., "It happens in all aspects of my life").
Permanent: Stable vs unstable (e.g., "It happens all the time").
Intersections of Personality, Self-Esteem, and Depression
Various models explaining relationships:
Common Cause Model: Personality and depression stem from shared factors.
Continuum Model: Depression and self-esteem form part of a broader negative affectivity viewpoint.
Vulnerability Model: Multiple risk factors contribute to depression's onset and persistence.
Scar Model: Attributes low self-esteem and pessimistic styles as consequences (not causes) of depression.
Mixed Model Findings (Vulnerability and Scar Model)
Vulnerability: Pessimistic attribution style and low perceived control related to increased depressive moods.
Scar Model: High depressive mood, low self-esteem linked to negative attributional style.
Key Conclusions
Internal explanatory styles and cognitive processes influence perceived control over actions and consequences.
Lack of control is detrimental to mental health.
Both locus of control and attributional style represent different internal mechanisms in understanding personal agency over life events.
Quote: “God, grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: critique and reformulation. J. Abnorm. Psychol., 87, 49–74. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49.
Chaney, J. M. et al. (1999). An experimental examination of learned helplessness in older adolescents and young adults with long-standing asthma. J Pediatr Psychol., Jun; 24(3):259-70. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/24.3.259. PMID: 10379141.
Ledrich, J., & Gana, K. (2013). Relationship between attributional style, perceived control, self-esteem, and depressive mood in a nonclinical sample: A structural equation-modelling approach. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 86, 413–430.
Peterson, C. et al. (1982). The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6(3), 287–300.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (whole no. 69).
Seligman, M. E. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual Reviews of Medicine, 23, 407-412.