Diagnosis method for USC Rotter

Test-questionnaire of the level of subjective control (USC) by J. Rotter

I didn’t think to copy the questions right away, but from the ones I copied:

A person who has not been able to succeed in his or her job most likely did not try hard enough. – “most likely” – depends on an incredible number of factors. For example, I became a pro, but bosses have not changed for 35 years (!!!) - since Soviet times (!). The city is small - there is no work, nowhere to go. Dot.

A child can always be protected from a cold if you look after him and dress him correctly. - depends not only on the child (his state of health, often determined from birth), also on those with whom he will walk, their provocative or stimulating actions and the “compliance” of the child.

In difficult circumstances, I prefer to wait until the problems resolve themselves. I know several people who do this and for them “everything resolves itself.” When I wait, it only gets worse. This is purely individual and is not considered on the scale of one incarnation of a specific person.

Success is the result of hard work and depends little on chance or luck. – Let’s take Zuckerberg: he accidentally fell into a group of guys (drunk) who were developing Facebook; I had a chance to steal - I stole the codes and presented them as my own. What does it depend on? – from luck? or from “hard work”? Or Gates - he stole an unfinished Windows from Apple and registered it as his own. If not for this fact, I would not be able to earn any billions. A VERY controversial point! Or several of my classmates became directors within 1-2 years of joining enterprises: six months later the chief engineers died and they turned out to be the only “non-new employees”, a year later they became directors - and the owners had no option but to trust. Everything is not as simple as in the tests)))

I've always had a hard time understanding why some people like me and others don't. this does not depend on the psychological characteristics of the individual, their level of development, etc., but on insight.

Unfortunately, a person’s merits often remain unrecognized, despite all his efforts. This is an indisputable fact - there are thousands of examples among scientists and inventors.

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

Capable people who fail to realize their potential have only themselves to blame. – Here you need to understand that talent itself (in any field) is one thing, but the ability to break through is something completely different. In my organization, for example, there are many talented scientists and programmers, but they are HELPED to realize their abilities by those who develop the areas of their activities and look for contracts. Without these people - blame yourself, don't blame yourself - only low wages.

Many of my successes were only possible thanks to the help of other people. – read the comment above.

Most of my failures were due to inability, ignorance or laziness and had little to do with luck or bad luck. – if you are a line specialist – undoubtedly. If you are, for example, a trader or a racer, for example, luck is 50% of success.

Rotter's Locus of Control Test

Description of the technique

The “Locus of Control” technique is one of the first test techniques aimed at identifying the locus of control of behavior (internality-externality). Developed in the 1950s by the American psychologist J. Rotter within the framework of the concept of behavioral psychology.

History of creation

Rotter's social learning theory appeared in the mid-1950s and was finally formed within 20 years. It arose in the context of American science aimed at positive knowledge. True, Adlerian psychology, focused on the social determinants of behavior, had a great influence on the choice of value bases. So, for example, axioms appeared: psychology should study the individual in the context of the surrounding world that is significant for him (axiom 1); personal constructs cannot be reduced to constructs of other sciences (axiom 2). But the influence of E. Tolman’s psychology, oriented towards the natural science approach, turned out to be stronger. This is reflected in the following axioms: behavior is purposeful and depends on reinforcement (axiom 6); goal orientation is determined by anticipation based on the experience of existing actions (axiom 7). At the same time, the neo-behaviourist tradition manifests itself in the theory of social learning and as a certain standard of scientificity, prescribing a strict formalization of initial concepts. Therefore, moving from methodological postulates to the construction of a theoretical model, Rotter tries to derive complex, “molecular” forms of behavior, which are targeted by social or clinical psychology, from elementary simple, “molar” ones, reproducible under regulated experimental conditions.

The main task of Rotter's theory is to predict behavior in a situation of choice from clearly defined alternatives. In accordance with the first concept of the theory, in a situation of choice, the action whose “behavioral potential” is higher will be implemented. The “behavioral potential” itself appears as the integration of two components: the subjective probability of reinforcement after an action, or “expectation,” and the subjective “value” of this reinforcement.

Then, trying to analyze these components and moving on to consider “value,” Rotter goes to the level of “molecular” forms of behavior. The “value” of the result of an action is expressed in the integration of the “value” of the action itself and the “value” of the consequences accompanying it.

But the author of the theory of social learning focuses on the deployment of the concept of “expectation”, which gives the following formalization: the subjective probability of an event occurring in a certain situation appears as the sum of a “specific expectation” determined by the experience of interaction with similar situations, and a “generalized expectation” based on experience solving a wider range of problems. At the same time, the role of “generated expectation” in the new situation will be decisive; in a typical situation, on the contrary, a “specific expectation” is realized, formed by the experience of interaction with this type of situation.

Rotter does not introduce concepts that would create a context for the concepts of “values” and “expectations”, for example: “dynamics of the motivational-need sphere” or “Self-concept”. This leads to the fact that a number of empirical data begin to contradict his theory. In particular, “values” and “expectations”, considered by him as independent, in fact turn out to be interrelated: with failure, the “value” of the goal decreases due to the association with unpleasant emotions. X. Heckhausen sees in this the fundamental limitations of non-situational (generalized) constructs in general compared to situation-specific ones, which raises some doubts in us. A possible solution to the issue under consideration is to describe “generalization” as a qualitative process that occurs along with the development of personal structures. For Rotter, generalization is a linear, quantitative process in which a series of experiences are generalized, so this concept remains purely descriptive for him, without experimental justification and not related to the mechanisms of creating the self-concept.

Theoretical basis

For the method of cognitive orientation, it is important that externals have weaker motivation than internals, and hence the tendency to conformism and dependence. There is a positive correlation between internality and the determination of the meaning of life: the more a subject believes that everything in his life depends on his personal efforts and abilities, the more often he finds meaning in his own life and the better he sees its goals.

For supporters of behavioral theory and behavior researchers, it is interesting that analysis of the structure of the locus of control makes it possible to discover the direction of an individual’s action, predicting the conditions that promote or interfere with this, and the dependence of behavior on reinforcements.

When working with antisocial groups, the technique can be used to identify anxious, maladjusted adolescents with an external locus of control. This will help to provide them with timely assistance before the state of prolonged stress leads them to commit illegal acts or suicide attempts. There is evidence of a greater tendency of externals to deceive and commit immoral acts. The connection between the level of subjective control and the behavior of adolescents and young people in criminogenic and post-criminogenic situations is also considered.

In management psychology, the differences between internal and external personalities can be used; they can turn out to be significant from the point of view of their professional activity. For example, externals are characterized by greater susceptibility to manipulation, they are more compliant and sensitive to the opinions and assessments of others. In general, externalizing individuals appear to be good performers who work effectively under the control of other people. Internals, unlike externals, work more productively not in a team, but alone. They are more active in searching for information. In addition, internal personalities cope better with work that requires initiative. They are more decisive, self-confident, principled in interpersonal relationships, and are not afraid to take risks. Research shows that internal leaders are able to successfully exercise directive leadership. Internal and external personalities also differ in other features, for example, self-esteem. People with an internal locus of control think of themselves as kind, sociable, friendly, determined, calm, honest, and self-sufficient. And people with an external locus of control consider themselves dependent, irritable, dependent, selfish, indecisive, unsure of themselves, and hostile to the environment.

The identification of a personal characteristic that describes the extent to which a person feels like an active subject of his own activity, and to what extent he feels like a passive object of the actions of other people and external circumstances, is justified by existing empirical research and can contribute to further study of a wide range of problems in general and especially applied personality psychology Moreover, the subject of psychological analysis is increasingly becoming the subject of various forms of voluntary activity of the individual, his everyday consciousness, types of explanation of the world around him, worldviews, and a person’s attitude towards his destiny.

Variants of this test have been developed for adults, schoolchildren and even preschoolers. There is also a version for national minorities. All of these options underwent thorough psychometric testing during their creation. For the original version, reliability testing was carried out by splitting the test and repeating it after 2 months. This check showed that the test is quite reliable. The same can be said about its validity.

So, according to research, people with a predominance of internal locus of control are more self-confident, calm, positive, they have easier interpersonal relationships, and they are more independent. People with an external locus of control are characterized by increased anxiety, less tolerance towards others, and less popularity and conformity.

Internal structure

The questionnaire consists of 29 pairs of statements, the statements in each pair describe polar options of attitude towards the situation. In each pair you need to choose only one. 6 items out of 29 are empty, so the maximum score for each scale can be 23.

Interpretation

Scoring

For each match with the key, 1 point is awarded on the corresponding scale.

It is easy to notice that the scale points are inverse to each other, and their values ​​always add up to 23 points.