Copyright by Michael David Rudd 1984 To Loretta, who makes it all worthwhile PERCEIVED LOCUS OF CONTROL AS AN EXPLANATORY MODEL FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS RESULTANT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS: AN ELABORATION OF LAZARUS' APPROACH BY MICHAEL DAVID RUDD, B.A. THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the of Degree MASTER OF ARTS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN December, 1984 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to convey a special thanks to Dr. Charles J. Holahan and Dr. Ira Iscoe. Their help and guidance has aided in making this a truly rewarding experience. The task of formatting this thesis was greatly eased by use of automated document processing. The Scribe document formatter was conceived of and created by Brian Reid. The current version has been maintained and enhanced by Unilogic, Ltd. The Scribe format definitions for thesis format for The University of Texas at Austin were proper developed by Richard Cohen. Michael David Rudd The University of Texas at Austin December, 1984 V TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements v Table of Contents vi Chapter 1. Towards a Working Definition of Stress 1 1.1. The 1 Biological Perspective 1.2. A Cognitive-Phenomenological Approach 4 the 7 Chapter 2. Development of Proposed Model 2.1. Internal-External Locus of Control 8 Defining 2.2. Fundamental 11 Hypotheses 2.2.1. 15 Supporting Research 2.3. Model: Theoretical and Piecing Together the Ancestry Supporting Research 18 2.4. 26 Situation-Specific Hypotheses 3. The Model to Recent Literature 32 Chapter Applied 4. Method 36 Chapter 4.1. Subjects 36 4.2. Measures 37 VI 5. Results 40 Chapter 5.1. Frequency Distribution 40 5.2. Correlations 41 5.3. 45 Multiple Regressions 5.4. Path 46 Analysi s 5.5. Additional Analysis 48 6. Conclusions 55 Chapter Appendix A. Hassles and Life Events Questionniare 56 References 58 LIST OF TABLES Table 5-1: Frequency Distribution of Moderate and Extreme 42 Perceptions of Control Table 5-2: Correlations Among Components of the Proposed 44 Model in Hassle and Life Event Situations Table 5-3: Step-wise Regression 47 Table 5-4: Beta Coefficients and Coefficients of 49 Determination for Selected Path Variables VIII LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: The Four Basic Variations of Stress 3 Figure 1-2: A Transactional View of Person-Environment 6 Interact!' on Figure 2-1: A Continuum of Individual Control 13 Figure 2-2: Expected Relationship Between Distress and 14 Perceived Control Figure 2-3: Representation of a Stressful Encounter 20 Figure 2-4: Possible Actions During External Control 28 Figure During 2-5: Possible Actions Internal Control 30 Figure 2-6: Possible Actions During Moderate Control 31 Figure 5-1: Diagram: Path Hassles 50 Figure 5-2: Diagram: Path Life Events 51 Figure 5-3: Distress as a Function of Perceived Control: 53 Hassles Figure 5-4: Distress as a Function of Perceived Control: 54 Life Events IX 1 Chapter Towards a Working Definition of Stress The overriding importance of stress in our daily lives is unquestionable. Nevertheless, efforts to study, understand and control stress have suffered from an unyielding obstacle defining the term. What is stress? How do we define, measure, or quantify it? There are a vast number of definitions and approaches to stress. However, in an effort to organize the voluminous material at hand, we will look at from stress two perspectives: biological and cognitive-phenomenological. 1.1 The Biological Perspective From of a biological or physiological point view, the work of Selye(l946) and Mason(l97l) predominates. They regard stress as a "nonspecific response of the body to any demand"(Selye 1980,p.127). The response is nonspecific in the sense that stress increases the demand for functions to re-establish generalized adaptive body "normalcy". Selye(1980) noted that stress is an inescapable phenomenon and "complete freedom from stress is death"(p.l2B). In addition, he identified four basic variations of stress: 1 or eustress, pleasant curative stress; distress, unpleasant of disease-producing stress; hyperstress, overstress; and hypostress, understress(Refer to Figure 1:1). These concepts are not restricted to the physiological view of stress, but become useful takes when one a cognitive-phenomenological approach. Eng 1e(1953, p.22) provides a more complete definition of stress, including not only environmental demands but the internal milieu as well: stress refers to all whether originating in the processes, external environment or within the which impose a demand or person, requirement upon the organism. This definition approaches stress from a holistic perspective, emphasizing the importance of cognitive processes and, therefore, individual differences in experiencing and coping with stress. In described contrast to the linear stimulus-response relationship by Selye(l946), the cognitive-phenomenological position offers a more complex approach. transactional Stress Figure 1-1: The Four Basic Variations of 1.2 A Cognitive-Phenomenological Approach In an effort to disclose the shortcomings of the biological model proposed by Selye and others, Coyne and Lazarus(l9Bo) have provided a succinct review of the cognitive-phenomenological model of stress. More specifically, they emphasize the manner in which an individua 1 apprai ses what is being experienced and utilizes this information in and formulating coping responses altering the ongoing course of events. The appraisal of the significance of an ongoing relationship with the environment results in coping processes consistent with This notion will be discussed in "personal agendas". of appraisal more detail in later chapters. The concepts of individual appraisal of events and personal agendas emphasize the importance of individual differences in experiencing stress, subsequent coping processes and failure. In adaptational other words, past experiences are different for all people and, therefore, personal agendas or coping reportoires vary. Other important variables within this construct include: and learned intrinsic motivation, creativity, flexibility, helplessness. In addition to the original appraisal of the event, the effects of coping are appraised and reacted to as a "continuous flow of psychological, physiological processes events"(p.l4s). social and and In other words, stress is inherent in the continuous of process appraisal and reappraisal. It is simply the consequence of individual-environment interaction. The at hand makes an effort to reduce person or with this stress. The works of Lazarus and his cope colleagues strongly support these suppositions. For a review, one can refer to the following investigations: Lazarus et al. 1962, Lazarus, Averill and Opton 1970, and Lazarus 1966, 1976, 1978a, 1978b. To summarize the approach of Coyne and Lazarus, it is proposed extensive that a stressful appraisal or experience involves psycholgical mediation and reciprocal feedback loops; not the simple linear stimulus- response relationship suggested by the biological model. In essence, stress is viewed as a complex, transactional, process-oriented This is the view of for phenomenon(Refer to Figure 1:2). stress adopted the present investigation. In the words of Coyne and Lazarus(l9Bo, p.145): rubric somewhat different though processes person- psychological stress is now viewed as a general for related of the environment transaction, in which demands tax or exceed the resources of the person. Such stress is neither simply an environmental stimulus, a characteristic of the person, nor a but a balance between demands and the to deal with response, power them without unreasonable or destructive costs. With reference to the four variations of stress recognized by stress more Selye(l946), psychological can be appropriately characterized as psychological distress. of Person-Environment Interaction Figure 1-2: A Transactional View 2 Chapter Development of the Proposed Model In developing a locus of control model for stress, the influences have been threefold: 1. the notion of 1966 and of cognitive appraisal events(Lazarus 1968; Lazarus, Averill and Opton 1970; and Lazarus and Launier 1978), 2. cognitive evaluation theory(Deci and Ryan 1980), 3. and social 1955 and learning theory(Rotter 1954, 1960). In the literature on learned addition, helpiessness(Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale 1978; and Miller and Norman 1979) and intrinsic motivation(Deci and Ryan 1980, 1983 and in press) has had a significant affect. The underlying assumption of this model follows that of most theories in organismic psychology: that the nature of a living organism is to act on the environment in accordance with its capacities and, through this activity, to develop an increasingly elaborated and unified internal structure that represents organism its envi ronment(Blasi 1976, in Deci the and and Ryan-in press). In order to maintain structure and coherence, the basic infrastructure 7 8 of the model will be presented first; followed by the more detailed and aspects a general summary. 2.1 Internal-External Locus of Control Defining At the heart of this paradigm is Rotter 1 s( 1966) notion of internal and external locus of control. It has been long recognized that reinforcement or reward plays an integral part in the acquisition and performance of certain skills and knowledge. However, what one person views as a reward may be perceived differently by another. Rotter has pointed out that one of the determinants of this phenomenon i s: the degree to which the individual perceives that the reward follows from, or is contingent his own behavior or attributes upon, versus the degree to which he feels the reward is controlled by forces outside of himself and may occur independently of his own actions(p.l). Rotter that the relative As a result of this observation, hypothesized impact of a reinforcement was dependent upon an individual's perception of the reward as contingent or noncontingent on his or her own behavior or attributes. Ultimately, he derived the notion of internal and external control Internal control has been defined as the perception . that “the event is contingent upon one's behavior or relatively permanent character!'stics"(p. 1). contrast, In external control has been described as the perception that: reinforcement is not a entirely contingent upon one's own actions, but is the result of chance, fate, is under the control of powerful others, or is unpredictable because of the great complexity of the surrounding forces(p.l). Implicit within this argument for the divergent effects of internal and external control is the theoretical construct known as social learning theory. As a review, social learning theory(Rotter 1954, 1955 and 1960) states that a reinforcement strengthens an expectancy that a particular behavior or event will be followed by the reinforcement in the future. Rotter(l966) hypothesized that a perception of internal control over the reinforcement would increase an expectancy to a greater degree than the perception of external control. This is what he found. Rotter also predicted and found that individuals differ in the degree to which they attribute reinforcement to their own actions. Finally, he discovered that a positive or negative reinforcement will strengthen or weaken potential for the overt behavior to recur in the same or similar situations. This finding is somewhat intuitive and brings into focus the notion of "behavior generalization". In other words, it is entirely possible that an individual might apply a routinely successful coping strategy to a situation never before encountered, yet similar to ones previously experienced. For example, an individual might have a particular support network to rely on when having problems home, but at this network may be inappropriate or ineffective when the problem concerns work. Although home and work atmospheres differ markedly, they As are similar in that they both involve group processes. a result, it is plausible to assume that an effort might be made to generalize a particular coping strategy from one situation to the other. This notion of behavior generalization is important to the theoretical posture of this investigation and will be referred to again in future chapters. It should be noted that implicit within Rotter's work is the assumption that there are not only state or situational differences, but trait incongruencies in indiviual tendancies to attribute control to internal or external forces. Consequently, he developed the I- E(internal-external) scale to measure such dispositional characteristics. Naturally, his work was highly supportive of the scale. Subsequent findings have been quite inconsistent, neither nor his a see Averill confirming disputing claims(for review 1972). Factor analysis of Rotter's scale has not helped to answer the many raised Neither questions concerning its general validity. Mirels (1970) nor Abramowitz(l973) found clear and distinct internal-external factor structures in Rotter's scale. These findings are instrumental in establishing a receptive atmosphere for viewing locus of control as existing along a continuum rather than as two distinct and polarized constructs. 2.2 Fundamental Hypotheses Rotter is not alone in his support for the predictions stated above. As a whole, this research stimulated the fundamental hypotheses of the proposed model. The basic infrastructure of this paradigm is the dependent upon following hypotheses: 1. In addition to Rotter's original formulation of an internal and external locus of control, a moderate locus of control is proposed. In other words, perceived individual control can be viewed as existing along a continuum; ranging from external to moderate to internal(Refer to Figure 2:1). 2. The individual attributions made concerning responsibility for the outcome of the event in each case(external, moderate, internal) others(chance or fate), are: directed towards ambiguous, and oneself; respectively. In other words, the perception of external control is marked by attributing responsibility for the outcome of the event to chance, fate, or others. Likewise, the perception of internal control is character!'zed by attributing responsibility for the outcome of the event to oneself. In a similar fashion, moderate control is marked by an ambiguous attribution. It is important to note that situations vary greatly and, as a result, individual perceptions of control vary in accordance with situational cues. 3. Reduced levels of psychological distress serve as the reinforcement which future strengthens expectancies concerning a particular situation. 4. Future expectancies for the outcome in the same or similar situations are stronger in light of perceived internal control and are highly visible in the form of coping strategies and adaptive behavior. 5. Expectancies may generalize from a specific situation to a series of related or similar events. For example, an individual may expect a particular situation to be relatively stress-free since it is similar to one that has been encountered numerous times. However, the situation may be found to be exceedingly stressful as a result of some Such unexpected nuances. generalized expectancies account, in part, for the ambiguous attribution under perceived moderate locus of control. 6. There exist individual differences in general tendencies to perceive various events and outcomes as under external, internal, or moderate locus of control. 7. In general, psychological distress will be greatest under perceived external or moderate control over events. In contrast, psychological distress will be minimal under perceived internal control. Figure 2:2 more clearly illustrates the expected relationship. The detailed and follow more situation-specific hypotheses will the next section. In the following the term "outcome" is used in pages, conjunction with the various levels of perceived control and their respective attributions. Outcome is used in reference to perceived levels of psychological distress. Since reduced levels of distress serve as the reinforcement which strengthens expectancies, perceived control over the reinforcement is of primary concern. Whether this implies control over the event itself is a moot point. Control over the reinforcement is manifested by appropriate coping strategies and adaptive behavior during the encounter. This logic follows that of control" is Rotter 1 5(1966) original work. For convenience, "perceived utilized in reference to levels of psychological distress during and after the event; not the event itself. In summary, perceived control is to levels only important with respect of psychological distress experienced. Figure 2-1: A Continuum of Individual Control Figure 2-2: Expected Relationship Between Distress and Perceived Control 2.2.1 Supporting Research Rotter of internal and external control is not 1 5(1966) concept new. Related concepts and observations are quite prevalent in the literature. These to Rotter's notion and investigations give credence help legitimize the hypotheses stated above. For example, and Goodnow and have shown Postman(l9ss) and Goodnow Pettigrew(l9ss) simple learning theory to be inadequate when the subject does not believe the reinforcement to be contingent upon his own behavior. Likewise, Wyckoff and Sidowsky(l9ss) and Cohen(l96o) observed changes in subject behavior tasks involve skill. The became concerning thought to subjects intensely serious, competitive, and determined. Also, failure on a particular task had a greater negative impact when the involvement of skill was implied. In a similar manner, Feather(l9s9) hypothesized that motivation tended to decrease in chance tasks when contrasted to skill tasks. Finally, the work of: McClelland, Atkinson, Clark and Lowell(1953); Atkinson(l9sB); Crandell(l963) and has shown individuals high in achievement motivation to have a strong and significant belief in their own skill and competence. As a result, these individuals belived they could, and actually did, affect the outcome of a particular event. In summary, the research points toward the existence of a in the social It is that mediating variable learning process. possible this variable is perceived control over an event and the outcome. The proposed moderate level of control represents an others extrapolation from the work of Rotter and the many previously reviewed. A moderate level of control is defined as the perception that the outcome of a situation can be dependent upon one's behavior or attributes, but is highly inconsistent depending on the circumstances. Consequently, the attribution of responsibility for the outcome is somewhat ambiguous. As stated previously, this hypothesis is a of individual control consequence viewing perceived as existing along a continuum(Refer to Figure 2:1). However, a primary influence in the development of this concept was the observation that expectancies generalized from a specific situation to a series of related or similar events(Rotter 1954, 1955, 1957). example, an 1960 and James For individual may have the feeling that he or she simply has "too many things to do". In an effort to effectively cope with the situation, one might develop and follow a very rigorous time schedule. Although this coping strategy addresses the need to devote certain amounts of time to specific tasks, it does not deal with concerns regarding general quality of performance. In other words, each task may be completed general but be at minimum. It would be quality of performance will a probably to reduce the number of commitments in order to enhance the necessary The situations described are general quality of performance. very different In similar yet require very coping strategies. summary, it should be apparent that an effort to generalize a specific coping to a series of related events could prove both inadequate and strategy ineffective. It is hypothesized that such unsuccessful generalizations confusion result in frustration, and, ultimately, support for an ambiguous attribution of responsibility for the outcome of the event. Furthermore, it is proposed that such inadequate generalizations result of The in relatively high levels psychological distress. proposed attributions made in each case of perceived control are simply implicit with the definitions. Finally, it should be noted that this notion of a moderate level of control and, therefore, an ambiguous attribution is very similar to Sel1s(1970) definition of general stress. He believed stress to be the result of an individual being forced to respond when he had no adequate response available. Similarly, moderate control can involve unsuccessful generalizations from previous experiences. The that formed in the of hypothesis expectancies light perceived internal control are substantially stronger than under other conditions James and Rotter is supported quite well(Phares 1957; 1958; Rotter, Liverant and Crowne 1961; Holden and Rotter 1962; and Blackman 1962). The assumption that such expectancies should be visible via coping strategies and adaptive behavior is also an extrapolation. However, this proposal is indirectly supported by the work or Phares(l962). He that: concluded subjects who feel they have control of the situation are likely to exhibit perceptual behavior that will better enable them to cope with potentially threatening situations than subjects who feel chance or other noncontrol lable forces determine whether or not their behavior will be successful(p.l4s). The postulate that there exists dispositional qualities in individuals with respect to internal and external attributions of control is the result of Rotter and simply 1 5(1966) development validation of the I-E scale. The idea that psychological distress is least when perceived control is internal is well supported(Baum 1980 and Johnson and Sarason the belief that distress is 1975). Similarly, relatively high under a moderate or external locus of control is simply an extrapolation from this work. In summary, these hypotheses not only serve as a starting point for future research but stimulate situation- specific hypotheses as well(i.e. with respect to the three levels of proposed control). addition, In the relative influence of a number of variables should be questioned. Such variables include: intrinsic learned and recall motivation, creativity, flexibility, helplessness, ability. However, it is first necessary to outline the general model and its theoretical ancestors. being proposed Theoretical and 2.3 Piecing Together the Model: Ancestry Supporting Research In general, it is believed that the following process is indicative of stressful events; regardless of perceived locus of control: 1. the appraisal of an event or situation as stressful, 2. attribution of responsibility for the outcome, 3. action the part of the individual involved on 4. and the strengthening or weakening of future to expectancies(Refer Figure 2:3). With respect to figure 2:3, a few terms should be clarified before any further discussion. The notion of attribution has been discussed previously. Actions can be direct or indirect. Direct actions involve coping strategies and adaptive behavior. Indirect actions include such cognitive processes as rationalization and intellectualization. In addition, actions can be familiar or unfamiliar depending upon the situation. Familiar implies the specific situation has been encountered before and individual expectancies are adequate to take action. It is proposed that during an unfamiliar encounter effort may be made an to generalize or adapt familiar actions, or expectancies, to the new situation. The effectiveness of the action is evaluated by the individual involved. Distress is reduced if a specific action is effective. In contrast, distress remains unchanged or is enhanced if an action if ineffective. Finally, it is postulated that if stress is reduced, expectancies are strengthened and vice versa. Effectiveness of the action is evaluated by the individual involved. It is important to note that the from the at which an action has been taken process point is more or less descriptive. Once an action has been taken, it will be evaluated in terms of its effectiveness, stress will be experienced, and expectancies will be formulated. These expectancies will eventually "feedback" to affect future appraisals and, therefore, actions. This notion of a feedback influence is similar to Lazarus' concept of a stressful encounter can be as a reappraisal. In summary, represented continual process of appraisal, attribution, action, distress, the formulation of expectancies, reappraisal. and Figure 2-3: Representation of a Stressful Encounter There is substantial support for this proposal and it will be presented in conjunction with the situation-specific hypotheses. In addition, various steps of the general model will be discussed more thoroughly. Finally, the role of some crucial personality variables such as motivation, creativity, flexibility and learned helplessness will be analyzed. However, it would be most benefical to first review the theoretical ancestors of this model and, hence, clarify its various components. The notion of appraisal, more appropriately referred to as cognitive appraisal, is by no means new. Lazarus first elucidated the concept in 1966 and his work, as well as that of his colleagues, abounds with the term(Lazarus et al. 1962; Lazarus, Averill and Opton 1970; Coyne and Lazarus 1980; and Lazarus 1966, 1976, 1978a, 1978b). In more detail, Lazarus has described three forms of appraisal: primary, secondary and reappraisal. Primary appraisal is defined as the cognitive process of evaluating the significance of an encounter for Three of identified: one's well-being. types primary appraisal are irrelevant, in which the event is ignored; benign positive, in which the outcome is positive or desirable; and stressful, which poses a threat or challenge to the individual. In summary, the principal question an individual asks himself in the process of primary appraisal is: Am I okay or in trouble? In contrast to primary appraisal, secondary appraisal describes ongoing judgments concerning coping resources, available options, and constraints on possible avenues of response. In addition, it is believed that the individual evaluates various coping strategies with respect to their costs and probability of success. Quite simply, the individual asks himself: What can Ido about this situation? Finally, Lazarus describes reappraisal as the constant changes in individual judgments concerning the event. These changes are the result of considering new information or insight due to the fluctuating person- environment relatioship. In essence, reappraisal serves as a feedback loop to the ongoing process of appraisal. In summary, Lazarus has proposed a continual process of appraisal-reappraisal during a stressful encounter. Lazarus' idea of appraisal-reappraisal is not being disputed here. Rather, it is eagerly accepted. His argument is well supported by the aforementioned research. However, I do believe his explanation some of the vital of the between the initial neglects components process step of appraisal subsequent reappraisal(Refer Figure 2:3). and to More I have idea of attribution of responsibility specifically, proposed the for the outcome and emphasized the relative importance of expectancies and social in this network. In summary, I believe learning theory Lazarus' falls short in cognitive and overt conception explaining the of stressful encounter. The notion of attribution and, a proceses the levels of control are the result of subsequently, proposed perceived the work of Deci and Ryan(l9Bo, 1983 and in in reviewing press) conjunction with that of Rotter(l966). Deci and Ryan(l9Bo, 1983 and in press) are primarily concerned with the effects of environmental events on intrinsic motivation. They have coined the phrase "cognitive evaluation theory" to describe their approach. In general, cognitive evaluation theory emphasizes that effects of environmental events depend on the manner in which those events are experienced and evaluated by the person. They have identified three categories of environmental events: informational, controlling, and noncontingent. Informational events provide the individual with a wide range of choices and possible actions. In addition, these events are characterized by high motivation, enhanced creativity, great flexibility and smooth recall from previous experiences(deCharms 1980; Deci and Ryan 1980; Deci 1971; Lepper and Greene Friedman and Zeevi Amabile and 1975; Kruglanski, 1971; 1982; McGraw and McCullers 1979). In contrast, noncontingent events are marked by amotivation, helplessness, a lack of creativity and recall flexibility, and relative inability to prior experiences. Finally, in controlling events, individual patterns of behavior are dependent on implicit or explicit contingencies and are differentiated by decreases in motivation (Ryan, Mims and Koestner 1983; Harackiewicz 1979; Ryan 1982; Pittman, Davey, Alafat, Wetherill and Kramer 1980; and Haddad 1980). In accordance with the work of Rotter( 1966), Deci and Ryan have that informational and controlling events are character!zed postualted­ by an internal locus of control. In contrast, noncontingent events maintain an external locus of control. I am in and agreement with Deci Ryan that there exists three categories of environmental events. However, I am proposing that a moderate locus of control would be more for appropriate controlling events than an internal locus of control. Consequently, under stressful appraisal, there would exist three types of environmental events: 1. those conducive to perceived external control, 2. those favoring perceived internal control, 3. and those promoting a moderate level of perceived control. It should be noted at this time that, outside of the event itself, there are without question certain personality traits which influence the perceived level of control. Deci and Ryan's notion that behavior during controlling events is dependent on implicit or explicit contingencies agrees with my concept During controlling of moderate control. events an individual feels pressured to think, feel, or behave in a specific manner. I have defined moderate control as the perception that the outcome of a situation can be dependent upon one's behavior or attributes, but is the circumstances. the highly inconsistent depending on Hence, ambiguous attribution. This follows quite well with the assumption that one feels pressured to think, feel, or behave in certain ways, but is still somewhat independent in his actions—an ambiguous situation. In summary, I propose that during a stressful appraisal one of three possible situations can occur; characterized by either external, internal or a moderate level of perceived control. Furthermore, the attributions appropriate are others, oneself, and ambiguous; respectively. Therefore, it should be clear that I disagree with Deci and Ryan on one basic point—controlling events are marked by a perceived moderate level of control and an ambiguous attribution, not internal control. The general model proposed earlier should now be more clear. Situation-specific hypotheses will follow in the next section so as to further clarify the model. Deci and Ryan(l9Bo, 1983 and in press) have also described three personality orientations. They emphasize individual differences in tendencies to perceive various events as either informational, controlling, or noncontingent. As is evidenced by earlier reference to such motivation, creativity, helplessness, and flexibility; personality characteristics obviously play a crucial role in determining individual perception of various events. Nevertheless, the purpose of this paper is simply to present the proposed model and validate its fundamental claims. At present, possible personality orientations will only be alluded to in a superficial manner. It is necessary to first lay the theoretical foundation before investigating the more detailed aspects of the model. Future research hold promise for a more detailed investigation of this fascinating area. 2.4 Situation-Specific Hypotheses As a result of the stress in the general model presented preceding section, there are a number of situation-specific hypotheses to be reviewed. Although the underlying process is proposed to be the same regardless of perceived level of control, the precise situations can be quite different. More specifically, the actions taken in each case and the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of those actions are in stark contrast to one another. In all cases there is a stressful appraisal and an appropriate attribution depending upon perceived level of control. In general, it is hypothesized that: 1. perceived external control will be marked by a greater of learned frequency helplessness, amotivation, passivity, and relatively high levels of psychological distress; 2. perceived internal control will be distinguished by high motivation, creativity, flexibility, easy recall form previous experiences, and the lowest levels of psychological distress; 3. and perceived moderate control will be character!'zed by decreased motivation, feelings of ambiguity, and relatively high levels of distress. In an effort to condense the wide array of possible event sequences under each level of perceived control, the three situation-specific hypotheses are being presented in outline form with an accompanying flow-chart. The following actions are possible during perceived external control(Refer to Figure 2:4): 1. Indirect action in the form of rationalization or intellectualization. Such action will be effective in that psychological distress will be reduced. Reduced distress serves as a reinforcement to future expectancies. As a the internal control result, individual recognizes over the present event and any future encounters. 2. The individual simply accepts the situation and takes no action. This situation is character!'zed by amotivation and passivity(Efran 1963; Franklin 1963; Rotter and Mulry 1965; Crowne and Liverant 1963; Strickland 1962; Getter 1962; and Gore 1962). Ultimately, these circumstances lead to the development of "universal learned helpiessness"(Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale 1978; Miller and Norman 1962). This action is effective in that distress is reduced to manageable levels, but at high individual costs. 3. Direct action is taken. The action is effective in that distress is reduced. Future expectancies are formulated such that any further encounters with this situation will result in a perception of internal control. 4. Direct action is taken by the individual. More specifically, attempts are made to generalize adaptive behavior from more familiar situations. These actions are ineffective and distress remains stable or is enhanced. Efforts to with cope the situation continue to be ineffective and, ultimately, universal learned helplessness is the result. Once again, the perception of helplessness is effective in that distress is reduced to manageable levels. However, this is accomplished at extremely high costs to the individual. The actions are possible during perceived internal following control(Refer to Figure 2:5): 1. Direct action is taken in the form of coping strategies and adaptive behavior. This is the most probable response due to the strong expectancies(Rotter 1966, and Phares 1962), high motivation, creativity, flexibility, and easy recall from prior experiences(deCharms 1980; Deci and Ryan 1980; Deci 1971; Lepper and Greene 1975; Kruglanski, Friedman and Zeevi 1971; Amabile 1982; and McGraw and McCullers 1979). Such action is effective in that distress is reduced. In summary, this process strengthens future expectancies. Figure 2-4: Possible Actions During External Control 2. No action is taken. Not a very likely situation, but anything is possible. This would be ineffective and, ultimately, the individual would develop the perception of "personal helplessness" with regard learned to the situation(Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale 1978; Miller and Norman 1979). This is effective in that distress is reduced but the to manageable levels at high costs to individual. 3. Direct action is taken. The action is continually ineffective in reducing levels of distress. Ultimately, the individual develops "universal learned helplessness" and perception concerning the particular event is changed to external control. In this is effective in summary, process reducing stress but at high costs to the individual. The following actions are possible during perceived moderate to control(Refer Figure 2:6): 1. Direct action is taken in the form of attempts to generalize or adapt other coping strategies to the present situation. This is effective in that stress is reduced. As a result, future expectancies concerning ability to cope with this particular strengthened. Furthermore, perceived event are control internal. changes to 2. Direct action is taken. This is continually ineffective and the present level of distress remains the same or is enhanced. As a result, the amiguous attribution remains. If distress becomes so great that it is unmanageable, the individual may develop "universal learned helplessness" and change perception to external control. Figure 2-5: Possible Actions During Internal Control Figure 2-6: Possible Actions During Moderate Control 3 Chapter The Model Applied to Recent Literature In addition to the research previously mentioned, recent stress literature enhances the attractiveness of the proposed model(Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer and Lazarus 1981). More specifically, Lazarus and his colleagues compared two methods of stress measurement: daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Their findings coincide remarkably well with what I would predict utilizing the locus of control model of psychological distress. However, before reviewing the results in more detail, it is first necessary to define and comment on the terms mentioned above. As a of the Holmes and Social consequence Rahe(l967) Readjustment Scale, the predominate focus of attention in stress literature has been on the influence and impact of major life events(e.g divorce, death of a spouse, changing jobs) on individual levels of stress and general health(for a review see Dohrenwend and Dohrenwend 1974). Nevertheless, Lazarus and his colleagues are advocating a position which is in stark contrast to that supported by the majority of 32 the stress literature. They have proposed that relatively minor stresses and pleasures that characterize everday life play the crucial role in of and determining individual levels stress general health(Coyne et al. 1979; Kanner and Coyne 1979; Lazarus 1980; Lazarus and Cohen 1977; Lazarus et al. 1980). Furthermore, they have labeled these positive and negative common occurences as uplifts and hassles; respectively. specifically, "irritating, More hassles are the frustrating, distressing demands that to some degree characterize everyday transaction with the environment". For example, traffic jams, losing things, arguments, bad weather, and financial problems are all included under the rubric of daily hassles. Hassles are, by definition, situations with which we have trouble dealing. In contrast, daily uplifts are positive experiences such as the pleasure derived from a successful relationship, relief from hearing good news, or the satisfaction on an exam. In Lazarus and felt after doing well summary, his colleagues compared daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events in their ability to predict psychological symptoms. As initially proposed, Lazarus et a1.(1981) found hassles to be a much better predictor of psychological symptoms than major life events. The correlation between hassles frequency and psychological symptoms was significantly high for the total sample(r=o.6o, P<0.0001). In addition, uplifits were negatively correlated with negative affect for men(r=-0.18, n.s.). In other words, men did not perceive uplifts as being stressful. In general, Lazarus and his colleagues concluded that daily hassles provide a more "direct and broader estimate of stress than major life events". Although a major life change can, in itself, create of the hassles a sequence hassles; findings reviewed here suggest that contribute to psychological symptoms independent of major life events. For a review of the possible relationships between hassles and major life events see: Hinkle 1974 and Kaplan 1979. Once within this discussion the relative again, implicit on importance of daily hassles in determining individual levels of stress is the significance of personality variables. By definition, hassles are situations with which we have trouble coping. Therefore, it is understandable that while some hassles are situationally determined(e.g. traffic jams and unexpected company) others occur because of differences in individual abilty to deal with certain situations(e.g shyness when interacting with other people). Ultimately, any successful stress theory will have to differentiate between the situational and individual components of a stressful encounter. The present model represents an effort to stimulate such research. However, at this time no attempt is being made to uncover "trait components" of attribution. Rather, it is simply an accepted fact that some individuals will be more likely to perceive a greater number of events as being under internal control than others; and vice versa(Rotter, 1966). the of As previously stated, findings Lazarus et al.(1981) agree with the predictions made utilizing the proposed locus of control model of stress. More specifically, it is hypothesized that a moderate locus of control is characterized by ambiguity and relatively high levels of distress. psychological By definition, hassles resemble the situation present during a perceived moderate level of control. In other words, the individual knows he can influence the situation, but has difficulty doing so an ambiguous encounter. By equating the concept of hassles with that of perceived moderate control, the findings of Lazarus et al. support the proposed model. In other words, hassles were marked by the relatively high levels of stress and this is what is expected to occur during perceived moderate control. Although it needs to be proven that during a hassle situation one perceives a moderate locus of control, the it is that argument seems highly plausible. In summary, hypothesized a moderate or external locus of control would be character!'zed by relatively high of distress; levels followed internal control with somewhat lower levels of distress. In addition a greater frequency of hassles than life events would be marked by a perceived moderate level of control. This takes fresh to old proposed model a approach an problem stress. Furthermore, this model does not simply recount observations, but attempts to explain such observations. Hopefully, such a paradigm will stimulate rigorous and extensive investigation. Chapter 4 Method The of purpose the present investigation was rather simple; to validate the existence of individual perceptions of moderate control and examine the relationship between appraisal, attribution or feelings of control, and psychological distress. Hopefully, such an analysis will support the proposed model. 4.1 Subjects Thirty male and forty-five female subjects responded to a Hassles and Life Events Questionnaire. All were students and active participants in the University of Texas-Psychology 301 subject pool. Ages ranged from: 18 to 20 (n=sB), 21 to 25 (n=l2), and above 25 (n=s). In addition, the ethnic breakdown was as follows: Black (n=6), White four (n=ss), Mexican-American (n=6), Oriental (n=4), and subjects who chose not to classify themselves. 36 4.2 Measures Each subject completed a Hassles and Life Events Questionnaire developed by experimenter(See Appendix). A of background the minimum information was appropriate since all subjects were participants in the 301 More answered Psychology subject pool. specifically, subjects questions regarding sex, age, and ethnic background. The questionnaire was divided into two sections; one dealing specifically with life events and the other with hassles. In more detail, each subject was presented five hassles life questions concerning and five pertaining to major The hassle and life event situations events(see Appendix). specific utilized were taken from some recent work of Holahan and Hoiahan(l9B3). It should be noted that the life events presented for appraisal have often been referred to as "negative life events". These negative life changes were used because research has shown negative events to be more distress than and Mirowsky 1979; Vinokur and Selzer 1975). In essence, it is hoped that a stronger and more clearly defined relationship will result. strongly related to personal general life changes(Ross In addition to questions asking if the particular event had and occurred, subects answered questions regarding: primary secondary appraisal, effectiveness of action, familiarity of action, control over the situation, and distress experienced. Answers were in the form of a seven point Likert-type response scale. Scale scores were calculated for each of the following areas: primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, effectiveness, familiarity, perception of control, and distress experienced. They were calculated by simply summing individual responses and dividing by the number of responses given. In summary, twelve scale scores were calculated for each subject; six pertaining to and negative life events six dealing with hassles. Internal consistencies for the scales were relatively high for some and poor for others. More specifically, the Cronbach alphas for each scale were as follows. For hassles: primary appraisal—o.67 secondary appraisal—o.6s effectiveness—o.66 familiarity—0.45 perception of control—o.47 distress experienced—o.67 For negative life events: primary appraisal—o.s6 secondary appraisal—o.64 effectiveness 0.58 — familiarity0.31 perception of control—o.sl distress experienced—o.so Although some of these alpha values are low, it is understandable if the small number of items per scale(n=s) and sample population size are taken into consideration. In the scales of general, primary concern(i.e. primary and secondary appraisal, perceived control, distress experienced) acceptable important are at levels. It is to note that the and scales concerning effectiveness of action familiarity are not instrumental in the proposed model because they are descriptive in nature. In other words, they are not an integral part of the cognitive process which precedes action. This was alluded to earlier in the text. Reference can be made to chapter two for further clarification. In summary, the questionnaire was administered to seventy-five subjects in a university classroom. Approximately forty-five minutes were required to complete the instrument. 5 Chapter Results In keeping with the initial purpose of this investigation—to validate the existence of a moderate locus of control and examine the relationship between appraisal, attribution, and distress—only findings relevant this to objective will be presented. Indeed, the data set amassed is much richer than this preliminary analysis indicates. Nevertheless, future research holds promise of more detailed and sophisticated analysis. Distribution Frequency As stated previously, subjects analyzed the situation presented and responded on a seven point Likert-type scale(See Appendix). In order to obtain a frequency distribution of responses regarding perceptions of control, answers were recoded to represent external, moderate, and internal ranges. More specifically, responses in the of one to two were recoded as external; in the of range responses range three to five as moderate, and those in the range of six to seven as internal. Since the distribution of extreme versus moderate feelings of 40 control is of primary interest, internal and external perceptions are under of grouped together in heading of "extreme perceptions control". Table 1 shows the distribution obtained. In both the hassle and life sections of the event questionnaire perceptions of moderate control predominated, although they were more frequent in hassle situations. In more detail, of the possible 375 situations appraised in each section of the questionnaire(i.e. 5 situations per section per subject); 209 hassle situations and 179 life events were character!"zed as being under moderate control. In the modal in both hassle and summary, response negative life event situations indicated moderate control. Taken alone, this simple frequency distribution emphasizes the need for a re­evaluation of the simple internal-external locus of control dichotomy. The proposed alternative is to view locus of control as existing along a continuum from external to moderate to interanl control. 5.2 Correlations Correlations among the various components of the model primary aprraisal, secondary appraisal, effectiveness of action, familiarity with situation, perceptions of control, and distress—are presented in Table 2. The findings almost identical in both hassle and life are event conditions. In more detail, primary appraisal is negatively related to the following: secondary appraisal, effectiveness of action, and feelings of specifically, it is logical to assume control. More that the more threatening a situation appears to be(primary appraisal) Table 5-1: Frequency Distribution of Moderate and Extreme Perceptions of Control PERCEPTIONS OF CONTROL Condition Moderate Extreme Hassles 209 166 Life Events 179 196 the less able or prepared(secondary appraisal) an individual will feel in coping with that situation and vice versa. Similarly, it is plausible that the more threatening the situation, the less effective the action, and the less likely one is to sense control over the situation. The contrasting reciprocal relationship follows the same logical sequence and, as with all correlational analyses, is equally possible. A moderately positive relationship exists between primary appraisal and familiarity with the situation. Of great interest is the correlation between extremely high positive primary appraisal and distress experienced. It is not surpising to find greater perceived distress when the situation is assessed as more threatening and vice versa. These relationships are the same for both conditions and are expected when utilizing the proposed model. As be found to be would expected, secondary appraisal was positively correlated with both effectiveness of action and feelings of control. In other words, the more prepared an individual was to cope with the situation, the more effective the action, and the greater the perceived again, reciprocal relationship possible. control. Once the is No relationship was delineated between secondary appraisal and familiarity with the situation. Finally, a high negative correlation was realized between secondary appraisal and distress(i.e. the less able to deal with the circumstances, the greater the distress and vice versa). Once again, these relationships are identical for both hassle are and life event situations and expected when utilizing the proposed model. A few additional relationships were observed that are of some interest. In both situations, effectiveness of action was negatively correlated with distress and positively correlated with feelings of control. In addition, feelings of control were negatively related to distress experienced in both hassle and life event situations. In summary, all the correlations discussed are highly significant and expected with respect to the proposed model of stress. 44 Table 5-2: Correlations Among Components of Proposed Model the in Hassle and Life Event Situations Hassles: Sa -.50*** Eff -.27** .69*** Con -.40*** 74*** .63*** . Fam .27** -.10 .03 -.08 Dis .81*** -.58*** -.43*** 54*** .15 Pa Sa Eff Con Fam Dis Life Events: Sa -.52*** Eff -.32** .66*** Con -.45*** 52*** .56*** , Fam .09 .10 .04 -.02 Dis .74*** -.53*** -.27** -.42*** 12 . Pa Sa Eff Con Fam Dis Legend: Pa=Primary Appraisal Sa=Secondary Appraisal Eff=Effectiveness of Action ***p=. 001 Con=Control **p=. 01 Fam=Familiarity *p=. 05 Dis=Distress Multiple Regressions Multiple regression analyses were performed utilizing psychological distress as the dependent variable and appraisal, effectiveness of action, feelings of control, and familiarity with situation as predictors. With respect to the variables of primary concern(primary-secondary appraisal and feelings of control), the multiple R l s were highly significant in both the hassle and life event equations. More specifically, the multiple R was .76 utilizing primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, control to predict psychological and distress resultant from life events(R2=.57, df=3,7l, p<.001). Likewise, the multiple R was .85 using the correspond!'ng variables to predict distress in hassle situations(R2=.72, df=3,7l, p<.001). In both stiuations, the addition of effectiveness of action and familiarity with the situatiion as predictor variables added insignificantly to the equation. This was to be expected. These variables are simply descriptive variables in the overall model, not and distress. vital cognitive processes determining action subsequent Step-wise regression further emphasized the importance of appraisal(primary-secondary) predicting in and control in distress both conditions. Table 3 presents the findings. When entered as a first step, effectiveness of action and familiarity with the situation contributed significantly to the prediction equation in both the hassle 46 and life event conditions. The multiple R was .30 for the first step of the life event equation(R2=.09, df=2,72, p<.os). Similarly, the multiple R for hassle situations was .46 on the first step (R2=.21, df=2,72, p<.001). In both instances, appraisal and control added as a second step contributed significantly to the prediction equation. With hassles the multiple R was .86(R 2=.73, df= 5,69, p<.001). The multiple R .77 with was life events(R2=.60, df=5,69, p< 001). . 5.4 Path Analysis Path analysis was performed in order to further validate the sequential cognitive-phenomenological model proposed. Table 4 presents the beta coefficients and coefficients of determination for the designated path variables in both the hassle and life event conditions. addition, figures provide corresponding path In 5:1 and 5:2 the diagrams. As evidenced in hassles situations, the beta coefficient is for the direct effect of significant secondary appraisal in predicting attribution or feelings of control. The indirect cumulative effect of and attribution is secondary primary appraisal for predicting highly significant, accounting for 54% of the variance. However, it should be noted that residual and should be taken paths are large(.6B) into consideration in future analyses of the model. With psychological distress from hassles as the dependent variable, the beta coefficients for primary appraisal and control are Table 5-3: Step-wise Regression Life Events: step r a F b effectiveness of action/ familiarity with situation 1 .30 3.57* Primary/ secondary apprai­sal/feelings of control 2 .77 20.08*** Hassles: effectiveness of action/ familiarity with situation 1 .46 9.81*** p rimary/ secondary apprai­sal/feelings of control 2 .86 37.87*** a Multiple R ***p=.001 F **p=.01 *p=.05 significant. Once again, the indirect cumulative effect of primary-secondary appraisal and attribution in predicting psychological distress is highly significant, accounting for 72% of the variance. It is important to note the moderate size of residual paths(.s3) and the need for future research to focus on possible weaknesses in the model. The findings are nearly identical for life event situations. Both and primary secondary appraisal beta weights were significant in predicting attribtution. Also, indirect cumulative effects of both variables were highly significant in predicting feelings of control(R2=.31). However, residual paths were somewhat large(.B3) and should be evaluated in the future. Finally, the beta coefficient for primary appraisal was significant for predicting distress and that of attribution approached significance. The cumulative effects of the three variables for distress predicting were highly significant (R 2=.57). The residual paths were moderate at .66. 5.5 Additional Analysis In addition to the previous analyses, simle plots were run for distress as a function of perceived control in both conditions(Refer to Figures 5:1 & 5:2). As is evidenced by the regression lines(solid) and confidence intervals (dotted) drawn within the plots, the trend is highly Although predicted more a curvilinear trend, linear. I had of it is possible that more precise measurement could uncover such a Table 5-4: Beta Coefficients and Coefficients of Determination for Selected Path Variables Predictors Dependent Variable att sa pa R 2 Hassles: Attribution Distress -.20* .71*** -.08 -.04 .69*** .54 .72 Attribution .39*** -.25* .31 Life Events: Distress -.19* -.05 .62*** .57 Legend: ***p=.001 att=Attribution **p=.01 sa=Secondary Appraisal *p=.05 pa-Primary Appraisal Figure 5-1: Path Diagram: Hassles Path Diagram: Life Events Figure 5-2: the Perceptions of internal control are marked by the lowest levels of distress; followed by external and moderate levels of control. In addition, a high frequency of hassles situations were characterized as being under moderate control. I strongly believe that with more precise measures distess control, relationship will more relationship. Nevertheless, general relationship is clear. of and the be similar to that predicted. 53 Figure 5-3: Distress as a Function of Perceived Control: Hassles Figure 5-4: Distress as a Function of Perceived Control: Life Events Chapter 6 Conclusions Rather the recount what has already been discussed throughout this few investigation, a summary comments will suffice. In general, the two hypotheses of this initial study have been confirmed: 1. the need to re-evaluate the simple internal-external locus of control and dichotomy originally proposed by Rotter(l966) view control possibly as existing along a continuum, 2. and the validation of the proposed sequential model. The next in the is to logical step investigating proposed model develop an instrument to access the three levels of perceived control and their attributes. this initial will correspond]'ng Hopefully, investigation result in rigorous and challenging research with respect to the sequential model offered. In conclusion, this first step has proven fruitful. Neverthelss, only continued effort will bring this model into the realm of true scientific structure. 55 Appendix A. Hassles and Life Events Questionniare The following are the situational questions presented in the life events section of the questionnaire: 1. In the past year, have you been faced with the death of a close friend or family member? 2. In the past year, have you moved to a new location? 3. In the past year, have you experienced a serious illness or injury? 4. In the past year, have you had an alcohol or drug problem? 5. In the past year, have you had serious problems with your parents? Subjects were asked if the particular event had occurred and, if not, they were asked to imagine that it had and answer the following each situation: questions regarding When faced with this situation, how harmful or threatening did you feel it was?(primary appraisal) When faced with this situation, how able or prepared did you feel to deal with it?( secondary appraisal) 56 How effective were efforts to deal with this your situation?(effectiveness of action) - What level of control did you feel you had over the situation?(attribution feelings of control) or How often in the past have you encountered this si tuati on?(familiarity) How distressing was this si tuation?(distress) All of these follow-up questions were answered on a seven point Likert-type scale. In summary, the intial situation question was presented; followed by the occurence and secondary evaluation questions. The hassles section of the questionnaire was identical to the life events section except for the specific situations presented to the subject. In this section, the situational questions were as follows: 1. In the past month, has a family members of yours been ill? 2. In the past month, have you been lonely? do? 3. In the past month, have you had too many things to 4. In the past month, have you not had enough personal energy? 5. In the past month, have you had difficulties with friends? References Abramowitz, Stephen I. Internal-External Control and Social Political Activism: A Test of the Dimensionality of Rotter's Internal- External Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 196-201. 1973, 40(2), Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., and Teasdale, J.D. Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique Journal of and Reformulation. Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 49-74. Amabile, T.M. A Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 43, 997-103. Amabile, T.M. The Detrimental Effects of Competition in a Field Setting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1982, 8, 573-578. Atkinson, J.R. Motives in Fantasy Action and Society. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1958. Averill, J.R. Personal Control Over Aversive Stimuli and Its Relationship to Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, Stress. 286-303. Blackman, S. Some Factors Affecting the Perception of Events as Chance Determined. Journal 197-202. of Psychology, 1962, 54, Cohen, J. Chance, Skill, and Luck. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1960. Coyne, J., Kanner, A., and Hulley, L. A Test of the Shoelace Hypothesis. 1979. A paper presented at Meeting of Western Psychological Associaltion. Coyne, J. and Lazarus, R.S. Cognitive Style, Stress Perception and Coping. In Handbook on Stress and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980. 58 Crandall, V.J. Achievement. In Harold W. Stevenson et al. (Eds.), National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook: Part I. Chicago: University Press, 1963. Crowne, D.P. Conformity Under Varying Conditions of Personal Commitment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 547-555. deCharms, R. The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1968. Deci, E.L. The Effects of Externally-mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 18, 105-115. Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M. The Empirical Exploration of Intrinsically Motivated Processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology. Academic, Social New York: 1980. Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M. The General Causality Orientation Scale: Self-determination in Personality. 1983. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Rochester. Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum, in press. Dohrenwend, B.S. and Dohrenwend, B.P. Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects In Dohrenwend, 8.5., and Dohrenwend, B.P. . Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects. New York: Wiley, 1974. (Eds.), Efran, J.S. Some Personality Determinants of Memory for Success and Failure. 1963. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation-Ohio State University. Engle, E. Homeostasis, Behavioral Adjustment and the Concept of Health and Disease. In R.R. Grinker (Ed.), Mid-Century Psychiatry. Sprinfield, Press, 111.: Thomas 1953. Feather, N.T. subjective Probability and Decision Under Uncertainty. 150-164. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, Franklin, R.D. Youth's Expectancies About Interanl Versus External Control of Reinforcement Related to N Variables. 1963. Unpublished doctoral dissertation-Purdue University. of the Reinforcement in Verbal Getter, H. Variables Affecting the Value Conditioning. 1962. Unpublished doctoral dissertation-Ohio State University. Goodnow, J.J., and Pettigrew, T.F. Effects of Prior Patterns of Experience Upon Strategies and Learning Sets. Journal or Experimental Psychology, 1955, 49, 381-389. and L. Goodnow, J.J., Postman, Probability Learning in a Problem-solving Situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955, 49, 16-22. Gore, P.M. Individual Differences in the Prediction of Subject Compliance to Experimenter Bias. 1962. Unpublished doctoral dissertation-Ohio State University. Harackiewicz, J.M. The Effects of Reward Contingency and Performance Feedback on Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1352-1363. Hinkle, L.E. The Concept of Stress in the Biological and Social Sciences. International Journal of Psychiatric Medicine, 1974, 5, 355-357. Holahan, C.J., and Holahan, C.K. The Relationship of Life Stress and Self-Efficacy to Psychological Adjustiment in Aging. 1983. Project report to The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health. Holden, K.8., and Rotter, J.B. A Nonverbal Measure of Extinction in Skill and Chance Situations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 63, 519-520. Holmes, T.H., and Rahe, R.H. The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1967, 4, 189-194. James, W.H. Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement as a . Basic Variable in Learning Theory. 1957. Unpublished doctoral dissertation-Ohio State University. James, W.H., and Rotter, J.B. Partial and 100% Reinforcement Under Chance and Skill Conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 55, 397-403. Kanner, A., and Coyne, L. Uplifts, Hassles, and a Little Androgyny. 1979. the of the Western Paper presented at Meeting Psychological Association —San California. Diego, Kaplan, H.D. Social Psychology of Disease. In H.G. Freeman, S. Levine and L.F. Reeder (Eds.), Handbook of Medical Sociology. Englewood Cliff, N.J>: Prentice-Hall, 1979. 3rd edition. Extrinsic Kruglanski, A.W., Friedman, 1., and Zeevi, G. The Effects of Incentie on Some Qualitative Aspects of Task Performance. Journal of Personality, 1971, 39, 606-617. R.S. and others. A Produced by a Motion Picture Film. Lazarus, Laboratory Study of Psychological Stress Psychological Monographs, 1962, 34. 31(553), Lazarus, R.S. Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Lazarus, R.S., Averill, J.R., and Opton, E.M. Toward a Cognitive Theory of Emotion. In M. Arnold, (Ed.), Feelings and Emotions. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Lazarus, R.S. Patterns of Adjustment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976. 3rd edition. Lazarus, R.S., and Cohen, J.B. Environmental Stress. In I. Altman and J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human Behavior and the Environment: Current Theory and Research. New York: Plenum, 1977. Lazarus, R.S., and Launier, R. Stress Related Transactions Between Person and Environment. In L.A. Pervin and M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectives in Interactional Psychology. New York: Plenum, 1978. Lazarus, R.S., and Cohen, J.8., Folkman, S., Kanner, A., and Schaefer, C. Stress and Some Unresolved Issues. Psychological Adaptations: In H. Selye (Ed.), Selye's Guide to Stress Research. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1980. Lazarus, R.S. Journal of Human Stress, 1978a, 4, 35-40. . Lazarus, R.S. The Stress and Coping Paradigm. 1978b. Presented at conference entitled The Critical Evaluation of Behavioral Paradigms for Psychiatric Science, Glendon Beach, Oregon. Lepper, M.R., and Green, D. Turning Play into Work: Effects of Adult Surveillance and Extrinsic Rewards on Children's Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 479-486. Mason, J.W. A Reevaluation of the Concept of Non-specificity in Stress Theory. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 1971, 8, 323-333. McClelland, D., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A., and Lowell, E.L. The 1953. Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, McGraw, K.0., and McCullers, J.C. Evidence of a Detrimental Effects of Extrinsic Incentive on Breaking a Mental Journal of Set. Experimental Psychology, 1979, 15, 285-294. Miller, 1.W., and Norman, W.H. Learned Helplessness in Humans: A Review and Attribution-Theory Model. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86, 93-118. Mirels, Herbert L. Dimensions of Internal versus External Control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40(1), 226-228. Phares, E.J. Expectancy Changes in Skill and Chance Situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 339-342. Phares, E.J. Perceptual Threshold Decrements as a Function of Skill and Chance Journal of 399-407. Expectancies. Psychology, 1962, 53, and Pittman, T.S., Davey, M.E., Alafat, K.A., Wetherill, K.V., Kramer, N.A. Informational Versus Controlling Verbal Rewards. . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1980, 6, 228-233. Ross, C.E., and Mirowsky, T. A Comparison of Life-event-weighting Schemes: indices. Change, Undesirability, andEffect-proportional Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1979, 20 , 166-177. J.B. Social N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954. Rotter, Learning and Clincial Psychology. Englewood-Cliff, Rotter, J.B. The Role of the Psychological Situation in Determining the Direction of Human Behavior. In M.R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska: University Press, 1955. Rotter, J.B. Some Implications of a Social Learning Theory for the Prediction of Goal Directed Behavior from Testing Procedures. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 301-316. Rotter, J.8., Liverant, S., and Crowne, D.P. The Growth and Extinction of Expectancies in Chance Controlled and Ski 11edTests. Journal of 161-177. Psychology, 1961, 52, Rotter, J.B. and Mulry, R.C. Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement and Decision Time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 598-604. Generalized for Internal Versus External Rotter, J.B. Expectancies Control of Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80, 1-28. Ryan, R.M. Control and Infromation in the Intrapersonal Sphere: An Extension of Cognitive Evaluation Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 43, 450-461. and The of Reward and Ryan, R.M., Mims, V., Koestner, R. Relationship Contingency Interpersonal Context to Intrinsic Motivation: A Review and Test Using Cognitive Evaluation Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 45, 736-750. Sells, S.B. On the Nature of Stress. In J.E. McGrath (Ed.), Social and Psychological Factors in Stress. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Selye, H. The General Adaptation Syndrome and the Diseases of Adaptation. Clinical Endocrinology, 1946, 6, 117-230. Journal of The Stress In I.L. Selye, H. Concept Today. Kutash, and Schlesinger, L.B. (Eds.), Handbook on Stress and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980. Strickland, B.R. The Relationship of Awareness to Verbal Conditioning and Extinction. 1962. Unpublished doctoral dissertation-Ohio State University. Vinokur, A., and Selzer, M.L. Desirable Versus Undesirable Life Events: Their Relationship to Stress and Mental Distress. Journal of 329-337. Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, Wyckoff, L.8., and Sidowski, J.G. Probability Discrimination in Motor Tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955, 50, 225-231. The vita has been removed from the digitized version of this document.