Relation of Personality Variables within RST to Perceived Locus of Control - Coursework Example

How do Personality Variables Inherent in Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Relate to Perceived Locus of Control? Name: Course: Instructor: Institution: Location: Date: Introduction The term ‘locus of control’ refers to the level in which individuals believe that they are in control of their lives. While an external locus of control refers to the perception of little to no control of events in one’s life, an individual with an internal locus of control believes that they have a high level of control of their lives. Extensive studies by researchers and psychologists have been carried out to reveal the factors that determine the level of control of people’s lives. While some believe that locus of control is an inherent human nature and cannot be changed, others believe that the level in which a person believes they are in control is based on the events designed to shape their mindsets. Other studies seek to relate the level of locus of control with other psychological characteristics of individuals. There also exists some of the most common personality theories designed to consolidate locus of control with more comprehensive psychological frameworks. . The Rotter scale was considered to lack an all inclusive framework of the human behavioral systems (Collins, 389). One of the theories with this comprehensive framework is the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST). RST holds that three distinct neurological systems affect the inherent personality o an individual. These are Fight, Flight, or Freeze response systems, the behavioral inhibition system, and the behavioral approach system. The behavioral approach theory and behavioral inhibition system are believed to have the highest impact on an individual’s personality. The reinforcement sensitivity theory will encompass these three main systems to evaluate how psychologists relate them to the perceived locus of control of an individual. Characteristics of Internal Locus of Control People with an internal locus of control are able to attribute their life events to several controllable factors. An internal locus of control means that a person is able to acknowledge the role they played in the circumstances of their lives. Such people are able to thus take control and change things for the better. A person with an internal locus of control will be able to characterize consequences of their actions or lack thereof to their results. Thus, they will be able to achieve a higher level of self control and improvement in their lives. People with internal locus of control are more interested in self introspection in order to form factual judgments about themselves, and how their behaviors affect them and others around them. As such, people with an internal locus of control believe that they make things happen, as opposed to having things happen to them. Due to this, people with an internal locus of control are more likely to actively take part in activities that improve their life situations. They are also more likely to make observations on factors that they could use to their advantage. They are also less likely to victimize themselves when undesirable events take place in their lives (Elliot & Thrash, 808). For instance, a person graduating is more likely to attribute his success to hid hard work and perseverance in school. However, an internal locus of control has its shortcomings. People with an internal locus of control are less likely to recognize that some of the events that take place in their lives cannot be controlled. This may lead to anxiety, emotional and/or psychological instability if things do not go according to their expectations. Such people are likely to blame themselves for things they had no control over. For instance, a person may likely find ways to blame themselves if they get into a car accident event if they were not the ones driving. They are more likely to exude an air of pride or arrogance to others. Characteristics of External Locus of Control People with an external locus of control believe that what people say or do will make them feel or be in a certain situation. Thus, they tend to believe that they are not in control of the events that have happened in their lives. They are more likely to blame others when things do not go their way. For instance, a person who has passed an examination is likely to attribute this success to the teacher setting an easy test, or the efficiency of his or her study group. On the other hand if they fail, they are more likely to attribute this to a hard exam or ineffective study group members. This may lead to a person appearing modest or humble. Having an external locus of control means a higher possibility of giving others more power over oneself than is necessary (Elliot & Thrash, 809). Thus, they will be influenced by the actions and events around them. Having an external locus of control may lead to a person developing the feeling of helplessness, as they feel they cannot control the course of their lives. However, people with an external locus of control are more likely to recognize events that are not within their control, thus avoiding blaming themselves. For instance, an earthquake victim will easily realize that natural disasters are more often than not out of human beings’ reach, much less themselves. Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Reinforcement sensitivity theory recognizes the ability to predict people’s behavior based on their sensitivity to certain types of motivations. Formulated by Gray (1970), the theory holds that an individual’s perceptions of motivation, reward or punishment are some of the key differences of formation of the behavioral systems (Heponiemi, Keltikangas-Javinen, Puttonen, & Ravaja, 947). According to Gray, there exist three main neurological systems that tend to form a framework around the differences in psychopathology and personality. These behavioral traits are some of the crucial aspects that determine the perceived level of control of an individual, thus being seen as having either an internal locus or external locus of control. These include the fight / flight / freeze system, the behavioral approach system, and the behavioral inhibition system. The Fight/Flight/Freeze System In the fight, flight or freeze systems, individuals are influenced by external factors which represent stress or threatening situations. The behaviors are therefore intended to assists the individual escape this threatening situation. Highly stressful situations often release a large amount of survival energy and emotions in order to provide an appropriate response to their situation. The fight, flight or freeze response system therefore motivates responses designed to evade a threatening situation. When this system is in control, several fight, flight or freeze response will be experienced (Hughes, Moore, Morris, & Corr, 537). The system is also sensitive to uncontrolled aversive stimuli; therefore it is sometimes regarded as the threat system. Parts of the brain assumed to be responsible for this system include the basal ganglia, prefrontal cortices, sensimotor cortices, and the motor cortex. However, gray has not regarded the fight, flight or freeze system as a major factor contributing to the behavioral psycopathy. The Behavioral Inhibition System The behavioral inhibition, or sometimes referred to as behavioral avoidance system is the system responsible for controlling aversive or unpleasant circumstances. This behavior is often geared towards inhibiting oneself to threatening situations in order to reach a point of safety. It is a neuropsychological system that is able to make predictions on the response to a stimulus and to what extent this response will affect the general behavioral traits. Individuals sensitive to this avoidance behavior often do so to avoid punishments or immediate threats. This is because in the process of responding actively to certain situations, individuals are more likely to believe that some negative consequence will follow. As a result, the individual will work hard to avoid acting upon the situation in order to avoid the ‘punishment’ associated with it. Individuals vary widely in the sensitivity of this system. Some people are not significantly affected with the behavioral inhibition system, and are thus said to have low sensitivity and affinity for avoidance behavior. People with a high affinity for this response system are more likely to assess risks before embarking to actively respond to a certain situation. For instance, a person receiving criticism from his boss in the workplace will likely produce the stress hormone that makes him feel that there is imminent threat or danger. From this point, they will likely evaluate their responses according to the negative circumstances that will follow. One option is to remain silent and receive criticism, even though the issue at hand is not their fault. The other option is to make a retort in anger to in a bid to curb the “threat.” A person with a high sensitivity to the behavioral inhibition system will likely choose the option of remaining silent because they are afraid that harsh arguments may lead to the “punishment” of being fired. The Behavioral Approach system The behavioral approach system is responsible for motivating behaviors responsive to seeking rewards. Individuals responsive to this behavior are more interested in the rewards of carrying out a certain task or action, thus the reward is the chief focus of interest. Such individuals are more likely to demonstrate an exceptional level of persistence in order to achieve the reward. Thus, it is sometimes referred to as the reward system. The cerebral cortex, stratium and thalamus are parts of the brain associated with this system, as they are responsible for regulating the levels of arousal. Individuals with a high sensitivity to this system are more likely to behave more impulsively than those with an affinity for behavioral inhibition system (Rotter, Iverant, & Crowne, 168). In a bid to achieve the goal that affords them the reward, these individuals will be less likely to exhibit avoidance behavior, as is the case with the preceding system. High Behavioral approach system is also associated with an elevated level of extraversion (an affinity for outside pleasures, and associations). They often possess a low level of anxiety, fear, moodiness, and frustration. They are therefore likely to respond positively to stressors in their lives. Behavioral approach system is sensitive to gratifications that come as soon as possible. People with high response to this system are therefore less likely to delay in actively pursuing self gratification in the form of these rewards. Behavioral Systems and Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory The two main behavioral systems, that is the behavioral inhibition system and the behavioral approach system always seem to be in the opposite ends of the spectrum. As such, these systems seem to be in competition to gain control of an individual’s behavior (Archer, 621; Carver & White, 327). The fight, flight or freeze systems is often reserved for the extreme and less frequent situations. However, each situation is unique to a particular individual, and therefore the response systems will correspond to the circumstances before they decide to take action or assume a more reserved role. It is therefore possible that a person’s locus of control will be affected by their dominant behavioral system (Biaggio 156; Haym, Ferguson & Lawrence 711). One behavioral system that is highly associated with emotional stability is the behavioral approach system. Individuals with this dominant behavior system are less likely to respond negatively to situations as compared to the more reserved counterpart. A person with a dominant is therefore less likely to experience frequent anxiety or all other symptoms associated with neuroticism. Studies have revealed that people with this behavioral trait have a higher internal locus of control (Biaggio 1985). They are therefore more likely to associate their circumstances with their personal actions and strive to take action to change them. Thus, a person exhibiting dominance in this system is more likely to be outgoing and hedonistic in nature. On the other hand, the behavioral inhibition system is associated with a high level of neuroticism. This system becomes more dominant when individuals are more interested in avoiding the aversive stimuli and undesirable life situations. A person with this behavioral system as the dominant one will be more likely to be anxious and neurotic. They typically respond negatively to undesirable situations through exhibiting a high level of frustration, and guilt. Thus, the studies revealed that people with this dominant trait are more likely to have an external locus of control. Such people will be more likely to associate their personal situations as a result of actions or events around them, rather than the events being a result of their own actions (Biaggio, 1985). Conclusion The reinforcement sensitivity theory has been extensively studied in order to establish its relationship with the internal and external locus of control. Reinforcement sensitivity theory holds that there exist three behavioral systems sensitive to an individual’s response systems. These are the fight, flight, or freeze system, the behavioral inhibition system, and the behavioral approach system. The latter two systems are in constant conflict of dominance. While the behavioral inhibition system is more likely to be exhibited by people with an affinity for aversive behavior, the behavioral approach system is more likely to be experienced in people with a high affinity for seeking pleasure and taking control. Thus, the behavioral inhibition system is more associated with people exhibiting and external locus of control, thus being more likely to experience anxiety. On the other hand, the behavioral approach system will be associated with people who have a higher internal locus of control. However, the behavioral systems should b studied further to determine the exact levels of locus of control and the behavioral systems using the BIS/BAS scale. Reference Archer, R.P. (1979). Relationships between locus of control and anxiety. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 617-626. Biaggio, A.M.B. (1985). Relationships between state-trait anxiety and locus of control – experimental studies with adults and children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 153-166. Carver, C.S. & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioural inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of How Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333. (This also appears to be available unofficially in a standard Google Scholar search.) AS3-7 Collins, B.E. (1974). Four components of the Rotter Internal-External scale: Belief in a difficult world, a just world, a predictable world, and a politically responsive world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 381-391. (This also appears to be available unofficially in a standard Google Scholar search.) Elliot, A.J. & Thrash, T.M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804- 818. (This also appears to be available unofficially in a standard Google Scholar search.) Heponiemi, T., Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L., Puttonen, S. & Ravaja, N. (2003). BIS/BAS sensitivity and self rated affects during experimentally induced stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 943-957. Heym, N., Ferguson, E. & Lawrence, C. (2008). An evaluation of the relationship between Gray’s revised RST and Eysenck’s PEN: Distinguishing BIS and FFFS in Carver and White’s BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 709-715. Hughes, K.A., Moore, R.A., Morris, P.H. & Corr, P.J. (2012). Throwing light on the dark side of personality: Reinforcement sensitivity theory and primary/secondary psychopathy in a student population. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 532-536. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 30, 1-26. Rotter, J.B., Liverant, S. and Crowne, D. (1961). The growth and extinction of expectancies in chance controlled and skilled tasks. Journal of Psychology, 52, 161-177. Read More

As such, people with an internal locus of control believe that they make things happen, as opposed to having things happen to them. Due to this, people with an internal locus of control are more likely to actively take part in activities that improve their life situations. They are also more likely to make observations on factors that they could use to their advantage. They are also less likely to victimize themselves when undesirable events take place in their lives (Elliot & Thrash, 808).

For instance, a person graduating is more likely to attribute his success to hid hard work and perseverance in school. However, an internal locus of control has its shortcomings. People with an internal locus of control are less likely to recognize that some of the events that take place in their lives cannot be controlled. This may lead to anxiety, emotional and/or psychological instability if things do not go according to their expectations. Such people are likely to blame themselves for things they had no control over.

For instance, a person may likely find ways to blame themselves if they get into a car accident event if they were not the ones driving. They are more likely to exude an air of pride or arrogance to others. Characteristics of External Locus of Control People with an external locus of control believe that what people say or do will make them feel or be in a certain situation. Thus, they tend to believe that they are not in control of the events that have happened in their lives. They are more likely to blame others when things do not go their way.

For instance, a person who has passed an examination is likely to attribute this success to the teacher setting an easy test, or the efficiency of his or her study group. On the other hand if they fail, they are more likely to attribute this to a hard exam or ineffective study group members. This may lead to a person appearing modest or humble. Having an external locus of control means a higher possibility of giving others more power over oneself than is necessary (Elliot & Thrash, 809).

Thus, they will be influenced by the actions and events around them. Having an external locus of control may lead to a person developing the feeling of helplessness, as they feel they cannot control the course of their lives. However, people with an external locus of control are more likely to recognize events that are not within their control, thus avoiding blaming themselves. For instance, an earthquake victim will easily realize that natural disasters are more often than not out of human beings’ reach, much less themselves.

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Reinforcement sensitivity theory recognizes the ability to predict people’s behavior based on their sensitivity to certain types of motivations. Formulated by Gray (1970), the theory holds that an individual’s perceptions of motivation, reward or punishment are some of the key differences of formation of the behavioral systems (Heponiemi, Keltikangas-Javinen, Puttonen, & Ravaja, 947). According to Gray, there exist three main neurological systems that tend to form a framework around the differences in psychopathology and personality.

These behavioral traits are some of the crucial aspects that determine the perceived level of control of an individual, thus being seen as having either an internal locus or external locus of control. These include the fight / flight / freeze system, the behavioral approach system, and the behavioral inhibition system. The Fight/Flight/Freeze System In the fight, flight or freeze systems, individuals are influenced by external factors which represent stress or threatening situations. The behaviors are therefore intended to assists the individual escape this threatening situation.

Highly stressful situations often release a large amount of survival energy and emotions in order to provide an appropriate response to their situation. The fight, flight or freeze response system therefore motivates responses designed to evade a threatening situation.

Read More