LOCUS OF CONTROL ORIENTATION AND LEVEL - Drake University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

controlled by forces outside of himself and may occur independently of his own actions (p. 1). Rotter (1966) further explained that what is important to note is that the effects of reinforcement are not a given for all individuals but are dependent upon how they perceive the reward as a result of the intended behavior. This perception was classified by Rotter as a generalized expectancy of either intern& or external control. A generalized expectancy is an individual's "consistent beliefs which influence behavior in various situations" (Wallston, Maides & Wallston, 1976, p. 21 6). Rotter described the generalized expectancy of external control as: When reinforcement is perceived by4he subject as following some action of his own but not being entirely contingent upon his actions, then, in our culture, it is typically perceived as luck, chance, fate as under the control of power others, or as unpredictable because of the great complexity of the forces surrounding him (p. 1). Rotter describes the generalized expectancy of internd control " . . .if the person perceives that the event is contingent upon his own behavior or his own relatively permanent characteristics" (p. 1). He stated: "A perception of causal relationship need not be all or none but can Vary in degree" (R~tkr, P a 1). Ratter developed the Rotter I-E (internal/externd) LOC scale that nwasures a person ' s control orientation.
Since the advent of Itotter's I-E LOC scale, researchers have related this concept to a variety of populations and human behaviors. Along with this trend has been the development of more specialized tools to measure LOC in relation to specific human experience (Lefcoun, 1982). Lefcoun extensively summarized and evaluated the work that had been done regarding this concept of LOC since Rotter's (1966) abstract. Lefcourt concluded that despite the many criticisms of Rotter's I-E scale, the research using this tool and tools developed from it are adequate and have yielded important data documenting a unique understanding of the effects of control perception. Lefcourt (1982) advocated continued discovery of the LOC concept using the current toois while encouraging an effort to develop tools that would measure the LOC concept in more specific domains of human behavior. One tool recommended by Lefcourt was the Health Locus of Control (HLC) scales (Wallston et al., 1976). Rock, Meyerowitz, Maisto and Wallston (1987) described this tool as "one of the more widely used and psychometrically sound examples of these sales" (p. 185). This 1 l-item Likert-type scale was designed to discover information about how the generalized expectancies of control affect a permn's health-related beliefs (Wallston et d., 1978). The scales classify the individual into one of two categories. The first category is labeled "health- externals," those who believe that determinants of theit health status are such things as luck, fate, chance or powerful others. The other classification is "health-internals," those who believe that health is determined by personal behavior (Wallston et al., 1976).
Page 1 and 2: LOCUS OF CONTROL ORIENTATION AND LE
Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACT The pupse of this study wa
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page . . ABSTRACT
Page 7 and 8: CHAPTER I DIMENSIONS OF THE PROBLEM
Page 9 and 10: One factor that is often referred t
Page 11 and 12: ' a as their effects" (p. 52). Nurs
Page 13 and 14: nurses meet the goal of providing t
Page 15: ~rsonnel/nursing can use to increas
Page 19 and 20: pain as it reaches the brain. This
Page 21 and 22: Epidurd analgesia involves placemen
Page 23: and severe tension headaches and 14
Page 26 and 27: from traditional interventions to t
Page 28 and 29: 3. experienced a recovery period wi
Page 30 and 31: than previous scaling techniques. M
Page 32 and 33: Low positive correlations with appr
Page 34 and 35: scores for postoperative day one an
Page 36 and 37: Period studied Day one Internal Cha
Page 38 and 39: Table 6. ANOVA: FIRST 48 HOURS Comp
Page 40 and 41: the pain stimuli would be less susc
Page 42 and 43: Another explanation for why the hyp
Page 44 and 45: domain of the acute pain experience
Page 46 and 47: Orem cautioned nurses that this int
Page 48 and 49: REFERENCES Abramson, L-, Seligmm, M
Page 50 and 51: Melzack, R. & Wall, P. The challeng
Page 52 and 53: Spielberger, C., Gorsuch, R., & Lus
Page 54 and 55: Nursing Epidural Flow Sheet Il CODt
Page 56 and 57: MAR KEY FRN MEDS: T - TIME ADMlNlST
Page 58 and 59: NURSING EPIDV%Ii LATHEIER PROTOC~ I
Page 60 and 61: Appendix C: Multidimensional HeaIth
Page 62: Appendix D: Demographic Data Collec
Page 65 and 66: June 25, 7992 Jul ianne Sarcone 481
Page 67 and 68:
VANDERI3f L'I' UNIVERSITY NASIIVILL
Page 69 and 70:
our work on using the Value Survey
Page 71 and 72:
Appendix G: Consent Letter
show all

LOCUS OF CONTROL ORIENTATION AND LEVEL - Drake University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?