PSY307-Locus of Control
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
An internalised locus of control is beneficial to workers in the mental health profession
The Locus of Control, introduced by Rotter (1972), refers to a generalized belief regarding the extent to which life outcomes are controlled by an individual’s own characteristics or actions, or variably by external forces such as luck, fate or others. The locus represents a continuum between two polarities, namely internalised and externalised loci. 'Internals' believe that they can readily influence events in a wide variety of contexts. 'Externals', however, feel comparatively powerless to influence the course of events around them, often having a fatalistic point of view on life. A belief in an ability to influence personal outcomes can be an important personal factor related to successful aggression management in many situations. Importantly, internalised persons have been found better able to manage incidents of aggression in others (Dunn et al., 2007). This is particularly so in psychiatric wards or in accident and emergency departments of hospital where staff is often subject to physical assault and verbal abuse by mentally unwell patients in situational crises or in connection with acute episodes of their underlying illnesses.
Indee, Locus of control can influence the experience of stress, emotional upsets, and similar illnesses a worker feels. Lefcourt (1982) concluded from numerous reviewed empirical and qualitative studies that although “stress has an immediate impact upon nearly everyone irrespective of their locus of control” (p. 109), “externals reported much higher state anxiety” (p. 107) and “more negative moods than Internals” (p. 104), and “more readily reported incidences of depression” (p. 119). This is in broad agreement with reviewed findings by Levenson (1981), but balancing this, some researchers have shown no link between depression and patients’ locus of control (Wise & Rosenthal, 1982). And yet according to Levenson (1981, p. 17), to be externalised (rather than internalised) “is not always undesirable, maladjusted or bad.” In fact, Rotter (1966) suggested that extreme scores in either direction are less desirable traits, because all factors operate in reality and are causatives for varied life experiences. In general though, internals do tend to adapt better or “move on”, whereas externals might anxiously carry those unsuccessful diffusion incidents or other distressing interpersonal events into their future (Lefcourt, 1982).
In an experiment, to test whether internalized subjects would be more assertive in response to attack than would externalized subjects, 60 male undergraduate psychology students were required to select one of five incremental levels of electrical shock in response to varied aggression directed at them from an unknown opponent (Dengerink, O’Leary, & Kasner, 1975). Dengerink et al. (1975) commented that “while attack may instigate aggression, aggression is more likely to occur if it results in cessation of the attack” (p.192). They argued that internalized individuals would likely believe that their counter aggressive or assertive responses would terminate the attack. Importantly, they found that “internal locus of control subjects appropriately and consistently set high intensity shocks in response to similar high intensity attack, and low shocks in response to mild attack” (Dengerink et al., 1975, p. 191). This demonstrated the ability of internalised persons to judge the degree of aggression required for a particular situation. Externals, percieving themselves more vulnerable to others actions, usually attacked more severely in the first instance of a threat, and soon appeared “helpless” when confronted by an opponent choosing to increasingly electrically shock them (p. 196) rather than back off. Essentially supportive of Rotter’s (1966) belief that externals are less prone to try to improve their life situation, participants of high externality in this experiment “showed relatively minor variations in their aggressive responses to varying intensities of attack.” On this reasoning then then, nurses and other mental health workers who are of internalised locus (rather than externalised) are likely to better equipped emotionally to buffer the regular aggression (whether as emotional abuse or physical assault as the case may be) experienced in their routine work in caring for the mentally ill and, in particular, those clients suffering from personality disorders.
References
Robert A. Baron & Deborah R. Richardson (1997). Human Aggression (2nd ed.). Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, New York
Dengerink, H. A., O’Leary,M. R., & Kasner, K. H. (1975). Individual differences in aggressive responses to attack: Internal-external locus of control and field dependenceindependence. Journal of Research in Personality, 9(3), 191–199.
Dunn, K., Elsom, S. & Cross, W.(2007). SELF-EFFICACY AND LOCUS OF CONTROL AFFECT MANAGEMENT OF AGGRESSION BY MENTAL HEALTH NURSES. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 28:201–217.
Stephanie Chen CNN, (2009, April 20). Debunking the myths of Columbine, 10 years later Marilyn Bardsley (1995). THE HILLSIDE STRANGLERS
◄ Back to How to explain aggressive behavior? page
