Describe Rotter’s Model of Locus of Control
States that in any situation we should be able to predict how someone is going to respond:
Behaviour potential = Reinforcement Value x Expectancy
- Behaviour potential is the likelihood of a specific behaviour occurring in a particular situation
- Reinforcement value is our preferences amongst the possible reinforcements available
- Expectancy is our subjective estimate of the likely outcome of the behaviour (which reinforcement is likely)
Problems with Rotter’s model of Locus of Control
- completely unworkable
- there are so many potential outcomes and expectancy of outcomes, it seems like a lot of mental processing for each situation
- if you have a completely novel situation, there is no way of knowing the potential outcomes
What is Locus of Control; Internal and External?
- suggests that we rely on generalised expectancies (learning experiences you have throughout life gives you an idea of how things react when you interact with them)
Internal locus of control
- believe that you control situations that you’re in
External locus of control
- believe that you are not in control of what happens to you
Based on your type of locus of control, it will effect your behavioural potential
(suggestion that if parents foster children to be independent, it helps develop an internal locus of control)
What is learned helplessness?
A learned association between a stimulus and a negative event
- the learner also believes the negative event to be unavoidable (even when it is not)
How did Solomon show learned helplessness? (in dogs)
Solomon, tested whether fear conditioning would influence later behaviour
- dogs were first trained to associate a tone with an electric shock
- dog was then placed in a shuttle box (two identical chambers) each with a speaker and electrical flooring
- the electric shock would occur in only one of the chambers (after the tone)
(expected the dogs to jump to the other chamber to avoid the shock)
- the dogs instead did not try to escape the shock
- since the training had caused the dogs to associate the tone with the shock, but also an inability to avoid the shock, so responded to the tone with helplessness
How did Seligman show learned helplessness? (in humans)
Group 1 - Shock training: > received shocks that could be stopped by pressing a button - Anagram training: > received solvable anagrams
Group 2 - Shock training: > G2 was yoked to G1, this means that they experienced the same effects (shocks) but had no control over them, instead the duration of the shocks was dependent on G1s success - Anagram training: > received unsolvable anagrams
Group 3
- had no training at all
Test:
- all were put in a shocking shuttle box (for the hand)
Results:
- Group 1 escaped
- Group 3 escaped
- Group 2 did not escape
G1 - were trained that they could be in control of the shocks, and also had anagram problems that they could solve, thus had developed an internal locus of control and were able to escape
G2 - learned that they did not have control over the shocks and also could not complete the anagram problems (which they gave up), thus developed an external locus of control, they learned helplessness and could not escape
G3 - had not learned anything either way, but more importantly seemed not to have learned helplessness
(if we learn that we are not in control we have learned helplessness - we stop trying)
What is contingency?
a measure of the effect of causal learning (the relationship between behaviour and reinforcement {event and outcome})
There is stronger contingency when there is a shorter intermittent period between the two, etc.
Zero Contingency
- there is no association between the behaviour and outcome
Equation for Contingency
Contingency
𝚫P = p(O/R) - p(O/no R)
Probability of the Outcome in the Presence of a Response
-
Probability of the Outcome in the Absence of a Response
What is outcome density?
- a measure of how often the outcome occurs, regardless of contingency
Effects of high vs low outcome density on normal and depressed people (Alloy and Abramson)
When faced with a high outcome density, one is more likely to judge that they are in control than those faced with a low outcome density
Depressed people seem not to feel in control in either condition
Tested by Alloy and Abramson:
- had students flip a switch and watch a light turn off and on
- the students were not in control of the light at all
- 1 high outcome density and 1 low outcome density
- participants were asked to record how much control they had over the lights turning on
(results as above)
Challenging the Alloy and Abramson experiment (Msetfi)
Msetfi repeated Alloy and Abramson’s test, but altered the ITI (inter-trial interval)
Results:
- in non-depressed individuals, a longer ITI resulted in greater judgement of control
- in depressed individuals, a longer ITI resulted in weaker judgement of control
Trial Design: - 'you may now press the button' 3sec - outcome occurs (or not) 5sec - Inter-trial Interval (ITI) 8sec (short condition) 20sec (long condition)
(the idea is that depressed people do not in fact feel helpless, they actually just don’t take into account the context, in this case a long ITI)
Participants in the short ITI condition had the chance to develop an association between the context (ITI) and the outcome (not extinguished), so competes for association to the response. So people have a belief that their control is stronger (perceive the relationship between response and outcome to be stronger)
In the long ITI condition, there was a longer period of ‘nothing’ happening, and so this association between the context and outcome was extinguished
Seligman’s theory of Learned Optimism
States that if an individual develops an internal locus of control early on (believes that they are in control of the context, and in this situation, can avoid the shocks), then they gain learned optimism, which prevents learned helplessness
In Seligman’s experiment, he found that if the dogs had learned as puppies that they could avoid the shocks, they would consistently escape
- these dogs had learned optimism
- optimistic dogs never learned to show helpless behaviour
- thus preventing learned helplessness
Avoiding Learned helplessness in humans (3 explanatory styles)
In humans, learned helplessness can be avoided, but is dependent on explanatory style:
Personal vs Circumstantial
(internal vs external)
Permanent vs Temporary
(stable vs unstable)
Pervasive vs Specific
(global vs explicit)
Personal vs Circumstantial explanatory style
internal vs external
- this is my fault
vs - this is just an unfortunate event
one of 3 explanatory styles that determine the avoidance of learned helplessness
Permanent vs Temporary explanatory style
stable vs unstable
- this negative situation will persist
vs - this negative situation will end and things will improve
one of 3 explanatory styles that determine the avoidance of learned helplessness
Pervasive vs Specific explanatory style
global vs explicit
- this negative situation has ruined my whole life
vs - this negative situation is bad but the rest of my life is good
one of 3 explanatory styles that determine the avoidance of learned helplessness
Seligman’s ABCD steps to dispute negativity
- think of an ADVERSE experience
- write down your BELIEFS on that event and the CONSEQUENCES of those pessimistic beliefs
- DISPUTE those beliefs
-
1 - Introduction to Personality46
-
2 - Behavioural Psychology24
-
3 - Learning Theory35
-
4 - Configural Learning and Generalisation15
-
5 - Concept Learning and Semantic Knowledge15
-
6 - Causal Learning17
-
8 - Social Learning30
-
9 - Intelligence and its Measurement p139
-
9 - Intelligence and its Measurement11
-
MCQs74
-
7 - The Heritability of Individual Differences17
