PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNAL Vol.5 No.3 1984

RESEARCH METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

METHOD FOR STUDYING THE LEVEL OF SUBJECTIVE CONTROL

Bazhin E. F., Golynkana E. A., Etkind A. M.

4- The tasks facing modern psychological services require the development of new methods for studying personality, aimed at describing its relationships to various aspects of social life. One of the most important socio-psychological characteristics of a person is the degree of independence, independence and activity of a person in achieving his goals, the development of a sense of personal responsibility for the events that happen to him. There is reason to believe that this generalized characteristic has a regulatory influence on many aspects of human behavior, playing an important role in the formation of interpersonal relationships, in the way of resolving crisis situations of a family and work nature, in relation to illness and therapeutic measures, etc.

The relevance of this issue determines the need to develop an experimental psychological methodology that would allow a relatively quick and effective assessment of the level of subjective control formed in the test subject over various life situations and would be suitable for use in clinical psychodiagnostics, in the context of vocational selection, family consultation, etc.

Such methods were first developed in the 60s in the USA. The most famous of them is the so-called J. B. Rotter locus of control scale, widely used in American psychology to this day. This scale is based on two fundamental principles.

1. People differ among themselves in where they localize control over events that are significant to them. There are two possible polar types of such localization, or locus of control: external and internal. In the first case, a person believes that the events that happen to him are the result of external forces - chance, other people, etc. In the second case, a person interprets significant events as the result of his own activity. Every person has a certain position on a continuum that extends from external to internal type, or locus of control.

2. The locus of control characteristic of an individual is universal in relation to any types of events and situations that he has to face. The same type of control characterizes the behavior of a given individual both in case of failures and in the sphere of achievements, and this applies to different degrees to different areas of social life. Therefore, to measure the locus of control of a given subject, it is enough to obtain one number - a one-dimensional, linear characteristic, reflecting his position on the continuum of externality - internality.

Numerous experimental works that appeared after the creation of the Rotter scale established a connection between various forms of behavior and personality parameters with internality - externality. Some of the first works were devoted to the study of the connection between the locus of control and reactions to external social control. It turned out that conformal and compliant behavior is more degree is inherent in people with an external locus. Internals 1l, unlike externals, are less inclined to submit to the pressure of others, resist when they feel that they are being manipulated, react more strongly than externals to the loss of personal freedom. People with internal loci of control work better alone. than under observation or video recording. The opposite situation is typical for externals.

Internals and externals differ in the ways of interpreting different social situations, in particular in the methods of obtaining information and in the mechanisms of their causal explanation. Internals seek information more actively and are usually more situationally aware than externals. Thus, prisoners with an internal locus of control know prison rules better. Another study found that patients with internalized locus tuberculosis knew more about their disease and were more interested in treatment options. In the same situation (description of an accident), internals attribute greater responsibility to the individuals involved in this situation. A number of other studies have also shown that internals make more dispositional attributions and avoid situational explanations of behavior to a greater extent than externals.

Studies linking internality-externality with interpersonal relationships have shown that internals are more popular, more benevolent, more self-confident, and more tolerant. Literary data indicate a connection between high internality and positive self-esteem, with greater consistency between the images of the real and ideal “I”. Internals were found to have a more active position in relation to their health than externals: they are better informed about their condition, care more about their health, and seek preventive care more often.

Numerous studies indicate a connection between external locus of control and psychopathology. Externality correlates with anxiety. A number of authors report a connection between externality and mental illness, often with schizophrenia and depression. Among hospitalized patients, externality correlates with symptom severity. Externality was associated with suicidal tendencies measured using special scales.

In a number of studies, features of the locus of control are associated with reactions to psychotherapy. Thus, internals prefer non-directive methods of psychotherapy, while externals are subjectively more satisfied with directive, behavioral methods (for example, systematic desensitization).

All this gives sufficient grounds to believe that the identification of a personal characteristic that describes the extent to which a person feels like an active subject of his own activity, and to what extent a passive object of the actions of other people and external circumstances, is justified by existing empirical research and can contribute to further study of a wide range of general problems

" Already in 1978, reviews included at least 1000 papers on locus of control.

and especially applied personality psychology. In our opinion, this characteristic fully corresponds to the theoretical concepts that have developed in Russian psychology, in which the study and formation of the conscious, active activity of the individual has always been given paramount importance.

At the same time, the second of the provisions on which the American tradition of studying locus of control is based seems to us hardly acceptable. We are talking about understanding it as a universal personality characteristic, invariant to any type of social situations.

Research shows that describing personality using generalized trans-situational characteristics is insufficient. Most people are characterized by more or less wide variability in their behavior depending on specific social situations. In psychodiagnostic terms, this means that the study of personality should be structured as a description of the individual’s interactions with these situations, which are realized in the features of their reflection and situationally variable behavior. Features of subjective control, in particular, can change for the same person depending on whether the situation seems complex or simple, pleasant or unpleasant, etc. Therefore, measuring the locus of control, apparently, is more promising to construct not as a one-dimensional trans-situational characteristic, but as a multidimensional profile, the components of which are tied to types of social situations of varying degrees of generality. This is confirmed by the results of many factor analyzes of the Rotter scale, which identify not one, but two - five factors in it, "which in itself calls into question the practice of summing all responses on the scale into a single indicator of externality - internality.

"In our work with the Russian version of the Rotter scale 2, other shortcomings were also revealed. A number of items in the Russian translation did not provide sufficient scattering. Certain difficulties for our subjects were caused by the format of the scale, which requires a choice from two alternative judgments at each item. In addition, it became obvious insufficient representativeness of the locus of control scale in relation to real life situations. The content of most of its points is related to positive achievements in the business sphere - production successes, promotions, etc. We believe, however, that the problem of locus of control relates to processes not only of achieving success. , but also avoiding failure, and covers not only industrial, but also a variety of interpersonal, in particular family, relationships.

All this necessitated the development of a new questionnaire measuring individual characteristics of subjective control over various life situations. The sources of the questionnaire items on the level of subjective control (LSC) were 3:

1. Alternative judgments of the Rotter scale, selected from it on the basis of a pilot study in psychotherapeutic groups according to the following criteria: a) sufficient variation in the choice of alternatives; b) a significant increase in the frequency of choosing internal response options as a result of group psychotherapy.

2 We are grateful to K. Muzdybaev and V. Magun (ISEP AS USSR), who provided us with an adapted translation of the Rotter scale.

3 We believe that the concept of locus of control is nothing more than an apt metaphor. The concept of the level of subjective control, which we introduce as the name of the proposed method, seems closer to psychological reality.

2. Items from a number of other questionnaires measuring internality - externality.

3. About half of the points were formulated by us. To the greatest extent, this applies to questions included in the scales of internality in family, interpersonal relationships, in relationships to failures, to illness.

In total, the questionnaire consists of 44 items.

In order to increase the reliability of the results, the questionnaire is balanced according to the following parameters: 1) in terms of internality - externality - half of the questionnaire items are formulated in such a way that people with internal USC will give a positive answer to them, and the other half is formulated in such a way that a positive answer to it will be given by people with external USC; 2) by emotional sign - an equal number of questionnaire items describe emotionally positive and emotionally negative situations; 3) in the direction of attributions - an equal number of points are formulated in the first and third person.

Unlike the Rotter scale, the questionnaire includes items measuring internality - externality in interpersonal and family relationships. Since the questionnaire is intended, in particular, for medical and psychological research, it includes items measuring SQM in relation to illness and health.

To increase the range of possible applications of the questionnaire, it is designed in two versions, differing in the format of the respondents’ responses. Option A, intended for research purposes, requires a response on a 6-point scale “-3, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3”, in which the answer “+3” means “strongly agree”, “- 3” - “completely disagree” with this point. Option B, intended for clinical psychodiagnostics, requires answers on a binary scale “agree - disagree.”

As studies conducted on normal subjects - students have shown, the answers to all points of the questionnaire have a sufficient spread: none of the halves of the scale was chosen less often than in 15% of cases. The results of filling out the questionnaire by individual subjects are converted into a standard system of units - walls and can be visually presented in the form of a profile of subjective control.

The indicators of the USC questionnaire are organized in accordance with the principle of the hierarchical structure of the activity regulation system in such a way that they include a generalized indicator of individual USC, invariant to particular situations of activity, two indicators of the average level of generality, differentiated by the emotional sign of these situations, and a number of situation-specific indicators .

1. General internality scale I„. A high score on this scale corresponds to a high level of subjective control over any significant situations. Such people believe that most of the important events in their lives were the result of their own actions, that they can control them, and therefore feel their own responsibility for these events and for the way their lives turn out in general. A low score on the I„ ​​scale corresponds to a low level of subjective control. Such subjects do not see the connection between their actions and the events of their life that are significant to them, do not consider themselves capable of controlling their development, and believe that most of them are the result of chance or the actions of other people.

2. Scale of internality in the field of achievements Id. High scores on this scale correspond to a high level of subjective control over emotionally positive events -

mi and situations. Such people believe that they themselves have achieved all the good things that have happened and are in their lives, and that they are able to successfully pursue their goals in the future. Low scores on the Id scale indicate that a person attributes his successes, achievements and joys to external circumstances - luck, good fortune or the help of other people.

3. Scale of internality in the field of failures I„. High scores on this scale indicate a developed sense of subjective control in relation to negative events and situations, which is manifested in a tendency to blame oneself for various failures, troubles and suffering. Low IQ scores indicate that the subject is inclined to attribute responsibility for such events to other people or consider them the result of bad luck.

4. Scale of internality in family relationships Isa. High Is scores mean that a person considers himself responsible for the events of his family life. Low Is indicates that the subject considers not himself, but his partners, to be the cause of significant situations that arise in his family.

5. Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations IP. High Id indicates that a person considers his actions an important factor in organizing his own production activities, in developing relationships in a team, in his advancement, etc. Low Id indicates that the subject is inclined to attribute more importance to external circumstances - leadership , workmates, good luck or bad luck.

6. Internality scale in the field of interpersonal relations Ic. A high Im indicator indicates that a person considers himself capable of controlling his informal relationships with other people, arousing respect and sympathy for himself, etc. A low Im indicator, on the contrary, indicates that he does not consider himself capable of actively forming his social circle and is inclined to consider their relationships as the result of the actions of their partners.

7. Internality Scale - in relation to health and illness Iz. High Iz scores indicate that the subject considers himself largely responsible for his health: if he is sick, he blames himself for it and believes that recovery largely depends on his actions. A person with low I considers health and illness to be the result of chance and hopes that recovery will come as a result of the actions of other people, especially doctors.

As the above studies have shown, all scales of the questionnaire have distributions close to normal. The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of the scales obtained on a sample of 84 subjects (49 men and 35 women), whose average age was 20.4 years, are given in Table. 1.

As you can see, all indicators of the USC questionnaire correlate quite strongly with the total indicator of subjective control. At the same time, indicators of internality and externality for positive and negative events moderately correlate with each other. This means that the emotional sign of the activity situation plays a significant role in the implementation of control settings. At the same time, according to our data, not only combinations of internality for success with internality for failure are possible, but also, for example, a combination of internality for success With" externality for failure or externality for success with internality for failure (for example, people who consider themselves to be the culprit

Table 1 Primary statistical characteristics and intercorrelations of scales of the USC questionnaire

R<0,01. * R<0,001.

table 2

Reliability characteristics of the USK questionnaire

despite all their failures, they may believe that they will achieve success only with the help of other people or a happy coincidence of circumstances).

Low, and in half the cases insignificant, correlations connect the indicators of situational attitudes of internality - externality. Particularly low correlations link the USC of professional activity and achievements and the USC in family relationships. Consequently, generalized, situation-invariant components of the USC cannot explain the entire dynamics of internality - externality in real behavior unfolding in specific social situations. In different situations and roles, people's activities can be regulated by different control settings. This confirms the understanding of USC as a hierarchical system of attitudes, in which generalized, situation-invariant fixed attitudes, and situationally specific attitudes, differentiated by the emotional sign of the situation (positive-negative) and its social nature (business - interpersonal relationships), play a role.

As is known, the main characteristics of psychodiagnostic questionnaires are reliability and validity [b].

The reliability of the questionnaire is characterized by two indicators: the stability over time of the results of the questionnaire conducted on the same sample, and the internal consistency of items included in the same scales (Table 2).

Stability was studied on a sample of 27 subjects with an interval between tests of 1.5 months. Internal consistency was calculated on a sample of 84 people using the Spearman-Brown formula. The vast majority of scales have acceptable reliability characteristics (for comparison, note that the stability of the Rotter scale is assessed them within the range of 0.49-0.83 depending on the testing interval, and its internal consistency is from 0.65 to 0.79 in different GZO samples]).

The characteristics of convergent validity were obtained by calculating correlations of the questionnaire scales with the Russian version of the Rotter scale. There is a very high connection between the Rotter scale and the Io scale of the USC questionnaire: r = 0.70. By-see-

In my opinion, the Rotter locus of control scale and the Io scale of the USC questionnaire really measure the same personality characteristic. Among other USC scales, relatively high correlations link Rotter's locus of control with the Id and IP scales. On the other hand, such characteristics as Is, Iz, etc. are weakly or insignificantly related to the Rotter scale (see Table 3). This is confirmed by the results of a content analysis of the Rotter questionnaire, according to which the latter best represents the area of ​​achievements in the production sector and insufficiently represents other important areas of personality functioning.

Thus, the USC questionnaire can quite accurately measure the same personality traits as the Rotter scale, and at the same time is capable of identifying those aspects of subjective control that cannot be measured using this scale.

The construct validity of the scales is demonstrated by their connections with other personality characteristics measured using the Cattell Personality Inventory and the self-assessment research method we developed - the personality differential (PD).

In table Figure 3 shows statistically significant connections between the scales of the USC questionnaire and the factors of the Cattell questionnaire. As expected, a person with low subjective control, i.e., who believes that he has little influence on what happens to him and is inclined to consider his successes and failures as a consequence of external circumstances, is emotionally unstable (factor C~), prone to non-normative behavior (factor G~), unsociable (Q 4 "), has poor self-control (factor Qy~) high tension (factor Q^). A person with a high level of subjective control, on the contrary, has emotional stability (factor C+), perseverance, determination (factor G+), sociability (factor Qs~), good self-control (factor Qs+) restraint (factor Q<~). It is essential that intelligence (a factor IN) and many factors. associated with extraversion - introversion do not correlate either with Io or with the situational characteristics of subjective control.

In general, Cattell factors associated with high scale values ​​can be characterized as indicators of self-control and social maturity of the individual; the poles of factors associated with low values ​​of subjective control describe an anxious, immature, unstable personality. This natural result can be interpreted as evidence of the validity of the USC questionnaire. At the same time, it quite fully reveals the psychological significance of the general level of subjective control.

Analysis of the connections between Cattell's factors and individual scales gives a more differentiated picture. Thus, subjective control over positive events (achievements, successes) is more correlated with ego strength (C+), self-control (Oz"*"), social extraversion (L+, Qa") than subjective control over negative events (troubles , failures). On the other hand, people who do not feel responsible for failures often turn out to be more practical and businesslike. (M~), than people with strong control in this area, which is not typical for subjective control over positive events. Apparently, in a number of cases, the tendency to explain one’s own failures and blunders by reference to circumstances plays an adaptive protective role, lowering the level of anxiety and facilitating further activity. In general, however, a mature, self-confident, emotionally stable person, according to our data, is able to explain not only his successes, but also his failures by his own actions. Anxiety is expressed both in a lack of faith in one’s own strengths, in a feeling of impossibility of achieving what one wants and in the hope that goals will be achieved by themselves or with the help of external circumstances (externality for success), and in the inability to recognize failures as the result of one’s own mistakes and in the desire to blame others for them, bad luck, objective circumstances, etc. (extep-ness towards failure).

A study of self-esteem of people with different types of subjective control showed the following (see Table 3). People with a low overall level of subjective control characterize themselves as selfish, dependent, indecisive, unfair, fussy, hostile, insecure, insincere, lacking independence, and irritable. People with a high level of subjective control consider themselves, on the contrary, to be kind, independent, decisive, fair, capable, friendly, honest, independent, calm (all connections are significant with p<<0,05). Из этих данных и матрицы интеркорреляций факторов личностного дифференциала и шкал опросника УСК ясно, что Ио сильнее всего связано с фактором силы и во вторую очередь - оценки. С фактором активности, соответствующим по своему личностно­му значению экстраверсии, уровень субъективного контроля не связан.

All this confirms the hypothesis that the level of subjective control is associated with a person’s feeling of his strength, dignity, responsibility for what is happening, with his self-esteem, with social maturity and individual independence.

When needed: allows you to assess how the person being assessed feels about the events taking place in his life, whether he considers them controllable or thinks that he has no control over them.

Questionnaire for studying the level of subjective control (USC)

Instructions: You are presented with 44 statements that describe the different ways a person interprets the most common social situations. Read each statement carefully, rate the extent to which you agree or disagree, and indicate answer form the number corresponding to your choice:

3 - completely agree
+2 - I agree
+1 - more likely to agree than to disagree
–1 - rather disagree than agree
–2 - I don’t agree
–3 - completely disagree

Try to use the full range of estimates.

Answer form
_______________________________________________
Full Name

Processing the results

Processing of testing results is carried out in several stages. The number corresponding to the choice determines the number of points received for each answer. First, with the help of keys, points are calculated on each scale (by simple summation). In this case, points for answers to questions with a “+” sign are summed up with their sign, and for questions with a “–” sign - with the opposite sign.

Keys to scales

1. Scale of general internality (Io)

2. Scale of internality in the field of achievements (ID)

3. Scale of internality in the field of failures (In)

5. Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (IP)

7. Internality scale in relation to health and illness (From)

As a result of calculating points for each of the scales, so-called “raw” points are obtained, which must be converted into standard scores (walls). To do this, use a special table.

Table for converting raw scores into standard scores

Click image for a larger view

The received assessments within the walls are entered into the table:

Final table of results

The results expressed in walls are compared with the norm (5.5 walls). An indicator above 5.5 points indicates an internal type of control in this area, below 5.5 - about an external one.

The results can also be presented as a graph or as a profile.

USC chart example

USK profile example

Interpretation of the results obtained

Psychologically, a person with high level of subjective control has emotional stability, perseverance, determination, sociability, high self-control and restraint. Man with low subjective control emotionally unstable, prone to informal behavior, uncommunicative, poor self-control and high tension.

General internality scale (Io). High rate on this scale corresponds to a high level of subjective control over any significant situations. Such people believe that most important events in their lives are the result of their own actions, that they can control them. They feel their own responsibility for these events and for how their lives turn out in general. Subjects with low level Subjective control people do not see the connection between their actions and life events that are significant to them. They do not consider themselves capable of controlling their development and believe that most events are the result of chance or the actions of other people.

Achievement Internality Scale (Id). High rate on this scale corresponds to a high level of subjective control over emotionally positive events and situations. Such people believe that they themselves have achieved everything that was and is in their lives, and that they are able to successfully achieve their goals in the future. Low rate on the scale indicates that a person attributes his successes and achievements to circumstances - luck, good fortune or the help of other people.

Internality scale in the field of failures (In). High rate on this scale reflects a developed sense of subjective control in relation to negative events and situations, which is manifested in the tendency to blame oneself for a variety of troubles and suffering. Low rate indicates that the subject is inclined to attribute responsibility for such events to other people or consider them the result of bad luck.

Internality scale in the field of family relations (Is). High rate Is means that a person considers himself responsible for the events occurring in his family life. Low rate Is indicates that the subject considers his partners responsible for situations that arise in his family.

Internality scale in the field of industrial relations (Ip). High rate on this scale indicates that a person relies mainly on himself in organizing his production activities. He believes that he can influence his relationships with colleagues, manage them and be responsible for them; thinks that his professional career and promotion depend more on himself than on other people or external forces. Low rate indicates that a person has a tendency not to take responsibility for his professional successes and failures. Such a person believes that it is not he himself, but someone else - his superiors, colleagues, luck, etc. - who determine everything that happens to him in this area.

Internality scale in the field of interpersonal relations (Im). High rate It indicates that a person considers himself able to control his formal and informal relationships with other people, to evoke respect and sympathy. Low rate , on the contrary, indicates that a person cannot actively form his social circle and is inclined to consider his interpersonal relationships the result of the activity of his partners.

Scale of internality in relation to health and illness (Iz). High rate indicate that the subject considers himself responsible for his health: if he is sick, he blames himself for it and believes that recovery largely depends on his actions. Man with low rate on this scale, he considers the disease to be the result of chance and hopes that recovery will come as a result of the actions of others, primarily doctors.

For professional diagnostics, the most informative are the results on the scale of internality in industrial relations (IP). Results on other scales make it possible to construct a multidimensional profile. Since most people are characterized by more or less wide variability in behavior depending on specific social situations, the characteristics of subjective control can also change in a person depending on whether the situation seems complex or simple, pleasant or unpleasant, etc.

The level of subjective control increases as a result of psychological correction. It should be remembered that internals prefer non-directive methods of psychological correction; and externals, as individuals with increased anxiety and prone to depression, are subjectively more satisfied with behavioral methods.

• Psychology: personality and business

Keywords:

1 -1

A person choosing a profession must be sufficiently independent and capable of taking responsibility for his choice. If in your mind independence lies in the ability to take care of yourself in everyday life, then you have only captured part of this phenomenon with your inner gaze. Being independent means setting your own goals without waiting for older people or adults in authority to do it, and being willing to admit that your shortcomings are much more to blame for your troubles than unfortunate circumstances.

Some people tend to believe in luck and circumstances, and neither friends nor useful books can convince them that everything depends on each of us. Everyone is free to make their own choice - whether to take responsibility for their own life or rely on fate. In any case, you need to study how much you tend to control your life or entrust it to circumstances, and based on these indicators, think about what profession is suitable for you.

Instructions

Questionnaire text

1. Career advancement depends more on a successful combination of circumstances than on a person’s abilities and efforts.
2. Most divorces occur because people did not want to adapt to each other.
3. Illness is a matter of chance; If you are destined to get sick, then nothing can be done.
4. People find themselves lonely because they themselves do not show interest and friendliness towards others.
5. Making my dreams come true often depends on luck.
6. It is futile to make efforts to win the sympathy of other people.
7. External circumstances - parents and wealth - influence family happiness no less than the relationship between spouses.
8. I often feel like I have little influence over what happens to me.
9. As a rule, management is more effective when it fully controls the actions of subordinates, rather than relying on their independence.
10. My grades in school often depended on random circumstances (for example, on the mood of the teacher) rather than on my own efforts.
11. When I make plans, I generally believe that I can carry them out.
12. What many people see as luck or luck is actually the result of long, focused effort.
13. I think that a healthy lifestyle can help your health more than doctors and medications.
14. If people don’t fit together, then no matter how hard they try, they still won’t be able to improve their family life.
15. The good that I do is usually appreciated by others.
16. Children grow up the way their parents raise them.
17. I think that chance or fate do not play an important role in my life.
18. I try not to plan too far ahead because a lot depends on how the circumstances turn out.
19. My grades in school depended most on my effort and level of preparedness.
20. In family conflicts, I more often feel guilty for myself than for the opposite party.
21. The life of most people depends on a combination of circumstances.
22. I prefer the kind of leadership in which you can independently determine what and how to do.
23. I think that my lifestyle is in no way the cause of my illnesses.
24. As a rule, it is an unfortunate combination of circumstances that prevents people from achieving success in their business.
25. Ultimately, the people who work in it are responsible for the poor management of an organization.
26. I often feel that I cannot change anything in the existing relationships in my family.
27. If I really want to, I can win over almost anyone.
28. The younger generation is influenced by so many different circumstances that the efforts of parents to raise them are often useless.
29. What happens to me is the work of my own hands.
30. It can be difficult to understand why leaders act this way and not otherwise.
31. A person who has not been able to achieve success in his work most likely did not try hard enough.
32. More often than not, I can get what I want from my family members.
33. The troubles and failures that happened in my life were more often the fault of other people than myself.
34. A child can always be protected from a cold if you look after him and dress him correctly.
35. In difficult circumstances, I prefer to wait until the problems resolve themselves.
36. Success is the result of hard work and depends little on chance or luck.
37. I feel that the happiness of my family depends on me more than on anyone else.
38. I've always had a hard time understanding why some people like me and others don't.
39. I always prefer to make a decision and act on my own, rather than rely on the help of other people or fate.
40. Unfortunately, a person’s merits often remain unrecognized, despite all his efforts.
41. There are situations in family life that cannot be resolved even with the strongest desire.
42. Capable people who fail to realize their potential have only themselves to blame.
43. Many of my successes were only possible thanks to the help of other people.
44. Most of the failures in my life were due to inability, ignorance or laziness and had little to do with luck or bad luck.

Key

1. Scale of general internality (Io). A high score on this scale corresponds to a high level of subjective control over any significant situations. Such people believe that most of the important events in their lives were the result of their own actions, that they can control them, and thus they feel their own responsibility for these events and for the way their lives turn out in general. A low score on the Io scale corresponds to a low level of subjective control. Such subjects do not see the connection between their actions and the events of their life that are significant to them, do not consider themselves capable of controlling their development, and believe that most of them are the result of chance or the actions of other people.

2. Scale of internality in the field of achievements (Id). High scores on this scale correspond to a high level of subjective control over emotionally positive events and situations. Such people believe that they themselves have achieved all the good things that have happened and are in their lives, that they are able to successfully pursue their goals in the future. Low scores on the Id scale indicate that a person attributes his successes, achievements and joys to external circumstances - luck, good fortune or the help of other people.

3. Scale of internality in the field of failures (In). High scores on this scale indicate a developed sense of subjective control in relation to negative events and situations, which is manifested in a tendency to blame oneself for various troubles and suffering. Low Yin scores indicate that the subject is inclined to attribute responsibility for such events to other people or consider them the result of bad luck.

4. Scale of internality in family relationships (Is). High Is scores mean that a person considers himself responsible for the events occurring in his family life. Low IS scores indicate that the subject considers not himself, but his partners, to be the cause of significant situations that arise in his family.

5. Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (IP). High IP indicators indicate that a person considers his actions an important factor in organizing his own production activities, in developing relationships in a team, in his promotion, etc. Low IP indicators indicate that the subject is inclined to attribute more importance to external circumstances - management, workmates, luck/bad luck.

6. Internality scale in the field of interpersonal relations (Im) , degree of responsibility for relationships with other people.

7. Scale of internality in the relationship between health and illness (Iz). High Iz scores indicate that the subject considers himself largely responsible for his health: if he is sick, he blames himself for it and believes that recovery largely depends on his actions. A person with low I considers health and illness to be the result of chance and hopes that recovery will come as a result of the actions of other people, especially doctors.

A person with low subjective control (believing that he has little influence on what happens to him and tending to consider his successes and failures as a consequence of external circumstances) is emotionally unstable, prone to informal behavior, unsociable, has poor self-control and high tension. A person with a high level of subjective control has emotional stability, perseverance, determination, sociability, good self-control and restraint. It is significant that intelligence and many factors associated with extroversion - introversion do not correlate with either Io or the situational characteristics of subjective control.
Subjective control over positive events (achievements, successes) is more correlated with ego strength, self-control, and social extraversion than subjective control over negative events (troubles, failures). On the other hand, people who do not feel responsible for failures often turn out to be more practical and businesslike than people with strong control in this area, which is not typical for subjective control over positive events.

1. Form for the USC test
No. _________________________________ Date __________________________
FULL NAME. ____________________________________________________________

Methodology of E. Bazhin (1984) developed on the basis of D. Rotter's locus of control scale. This experimental psychological technique is a tool for identifying indicators of the level of subjective control as a quality that characterizes a person’s tendency to attribute responsibility for the results of his activities to external forces or his own abilities and efforts.

Method for studying the level of subjective control (USK) suitable for use in clinical psychodiagnostics, vocational selection, family counseling, in schools when examining students (starting from the 9th grade), etc. Developed at the Leningrad Psychoneurological Institute named after. V. M. Bekhtereva.
Such methods were first tested in the 60s in the USA. The most famous of them is the J. Rotter locus of control scale. This scale is based on two fundamental principles.
1. People differ in how and where they localize control over events that are significant to them. There are two possible polar types of such localization: external and internal. In the first case, a person believes that the events that happen to him are the result of external forces - chance, other people, etc. In the second case, a person interprets significant events as the result of his own activity. Every person has a certain position on a continuum that extends from the external to the internal type.
2. The locus of control characteristic of an individual is universal in relation to any types of events and situations that he has to face. The same type of control characterizes the behavior of a given individual both in case of failures and in the sphere of achievements, and this applies to different degrees to different areas of social life.
Experimental work has established a connection between various forms of behavior and personality parameters with externality–internality. Conformal and compliant behavior is more characteristic of people with an external locus. Internals, unlike externals, are less inclined to submit to the pressure of others, to resist when they feel that they are being manipulated; they react more strongly than externals to the loss of personal freedom. People with internal loci of control work better alone than under supervision or video recording. The opposite is true for externalities.
Internals and externals differ in the ways of interpreting different social situations, in particular in the methods of obtaining information and in the mechanisms of their causal explanation. Internals seek information more actively and are usually more situationally aware than externals. In the same situation, internals attribute greater responsibility to the individuals participating in this situation. Internals avoid situational explanations of behavior to a greater extent than externalists.
Studies linking internality-externality with interpersonal relationships have shown that internals are more popular, more benevolent, more self-confident, and more tolerant. There is a connection between high internality and positive self-esteem, with greater consistency between the images of the real and ideal “I”. Internals were found to have a more active position in relation to their health than externals: they are better informed about their condition, care more about their health and more often seek preventive care.
Externality correlates with anxiety, depression, and mental illness.
Internals prefer non-directive methods of psychocorrection; Externals are subjectively more satisfied with behavioral methods.
The most important dynamic characteristic of a developing personality is the tendency to assume responsibility. It has been established that many problems in the education and upbringing of students are associated with “learned helplessness.” It develops in cases where a person is convinced of his inability to control and change the situation, and it becomes “obvious” to him that the reasons for what is happening lie outside the field of his activity. And this in turn leads to a decrease in self-esteem and a refusal to take active action.
The central psychological process of adolescence - the formation of self-identity - also correlates with the development of a person’s ability to attribute responsibility for the results of his activities. High levels of self-identity indicate a person’s ability to take responsibility in difficult life situations. Low levels of self-identity, characterized by the presence of various psychological problems, are associated with a tendency to attribute responsibility to external forces.
The USC questionnaire consists of 44 items. Unlike the school of J. Rotter, it includes items measuring externality-internality in interpersonal and family relationships; it also includes items measuring SQM in relation to illness and health.
To increase the range of possible applications of the questionnaire, it is designed in two versions, differing in the format of the respondents’ responses. Option A, intended for research purposes, requires an answer according to
6-point scale (–3,–2,–1,+1,+2,+3), in which the answer “+3” means “completely agree”, “–3” means “completely disagree” with this item . Option B, intended for psychodiagnostics, requires answers on a binary scale “agree - disagree.”

Instructions.“We ask you to answer each of the 44 points of the questionnaire using the answer options ¾ “agree”, “disagree”.

You answer by placing a “+” sign in the required column ¾ I agree,
“-” ¾ disagree.

Questionnaire text

1. Career advancement depends more on a successful combination of circumstances than on a person’s abilities and efforts.
2. Most divorces occur because people did not want to adapt to each other.
3. Illness is a matter of chance; If you are destined to get sick, then nothing can be done.
4. People find themselves lonely because they themselves do not show interest and friendliness towards others.
5. Making my dreams come true often depends on luck.
6. It is useless to make efforts to win the sympathy of other people.
7. External circumstances - parents and wealth - influence family happiness no less than the relationship of spouses.
8. I often feel that I have little influence on what happens to me.
9. As a rule, management turns out to be more effective when it fully controls the actions of subordinates, rather than relying on their independence.
10. My grades at school often depended on random circumstances (for example, on the teacher’s mood) rather than on my own efforts.
11. When I make plans, I generally believe that I can carry them out.
12. What many people think is luck or luck is actually the result of long, focused efforts.
13. I think that a healthy lifestyle can help your health more than doctors and medications.
14. If people don’t get along with each other, then no matter how hard they try, they still won’t be able to improve their family life.
15. The good things I do are usually appreciated by others.
16. Children grow up the way their parents raise them.
17. I think that chance or fate do not play an important role in my life.
18. I try not to plan too far ahead, because a lot depends on how circumstances turn out.
19. My grades at school depended most on my efforts and degree of preparedness.
20. In family conflicts, I more often feel guilty for myself than for the opposite party.
21. The life of most people depends on a combination of circumstances.
22. I prefer leadership in which I can independently determine what and how to do.
23. I think that my lifestyle is in no way the cause of my illnesses.
24. As a rule, it is an unfortunate combination of circumstances that prevents people from achieving success in their business.
25. In the end, the people who work in it themselves are responsible for the poor management of an organization.
26. I often feel that I cannot change anything in the existing relationships in the family.
27. If I really want to, I can win over almost anyone.
28. The younger generation is influenced by so many different circumstances that the efforts of parents to raise them often turn out to be useless.
29. What happens to me is the work of my own hands.
30. It can be difficult to understand why leaders act this way and not otherwise.
31. A person who could not succeed in his work most likely did not show enough effort.
32. Most often, I can get what I want from my family members.
33. For the troubles and failures that happened in my life, other people were more often to blame than myself.
34. A child can always be protected from a cold if you look after him and dress him correctly.
35. In difficult circumstances, I prefer to wait until problems resolve themselves.
36. Success is the result of hard work and depends little on chance or luck.
37. I feel that the happiness of my family depends on me more than anyone else.
38. It has always been difficult for me to understand why some people like me and not others.
39. I always prefer to make a decision and act on my own, rather than rely on the help of other people or fate.
40. Unfortunately, a person’s merits often remain unrecognized, despite all his efforts.
41. In family life there are situations that cannot be resolved even with the strongest desire.
42. Capable people who failed to realize their potential have only themselves to blame.
43. Many of my successes were possible only thanks to the help of other people.
44. Most of the failures in my life resulted from inability, ignorance or laziness and depended little on luck or bad luck.

Processing completed answers should be carried out according to the keys below, summing up the answers to the items in the “+” columns with their own sign and the answers to the items in the “–” columns with the opposite sign.

Key

As studies conducted on normal subjects have shown, responses to all points of the questionnaire have a sufficient spread: none of the halves of the scale was chosen less than 15% of the time. The results of filling out the questionnaire by individual subjects are converted into a standard system of units - walls and can be visually presented in the form of a profile of subjective control.
Indicators of the USC questionnaire organized in accordance with the principle of the hierarchical structure of the activity regulation system - in such a way that they include a generalized indicator of individual USC, invariant to particular situations of activity, two indicators of the average level of generality and a number of situational indicators.
1. Scale of general internality (Io). A high score on this scale corresponds to a high level of subjective control over any significant situations. Such people believe that most of the important events in their lives were the result of their own actions, that they can control them, and thus they feel their own responsibility for these events and for the way their lives turn out in general. A low score on the Io scale corresponds to a low level of subjective control. Such subjects do not see the connection between their actions and the events of their life that are significant to them, do not consider themselves capable of controlling their development, and believe that most of them are the result of chance or the actions of other people.
2. Scale of internality in the field of achievements (ID). High scores on this scale correspond to a high level of subjective control over emotionally positive events and situations. Such people believe that they themselves have achieved all the good things that have happened and are in their lives, that they are able to successfully pursue their goals in the future. Low scores on the Id scale indicate that a person attributes his successes, achievements and joys to external circumstances - luck, good fortune or the help of other people.
3. Scale of internality in the field of failures (In). High scores on this scale indicate a developed sense of subjective control in relation to negative events and situations, which is manifested in a tendency to blame oneself for various troubles and suffering. Low Yin scores indicate that the subject is inclined to attribute responsibility for such events to other people or consider them the result of bad luck.
4. Scale of internality in family relationships (Is). High Is scores mean that a person considers himself responsible for the events occurring in his family life. Low IS scores indicate that the subject considers not himself, but his partners, to be the cause of significant situations that arise in his family.
5. Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (IP). High IP indicators indicate that a person considers his actions an important factor in organizing his own production activities, in developing relationships in a team, in his promotion, etc. Low IP indicators indicate that the subject is inclined to attribute more important importance to external circumstances - management, workmates, good luck or bad luck.
6. Internality scale in the field of interpersonal relations (Im), degree of responsibility for relationships with other people.
7. Scale of internality in the relationship between health and illness (From). High Iz scores indicate that the subject considers himself largely responsible for his health: if he is sick, he blames himself for it and believes that recovery largely depends on his actions. A person with low I considers health and illness to be the result of chance and hopes that recovery will come as a result of the actions of other people, especially doctors.
The validity of the USC scales is demonstrated by their relationships with other personality characteristics, measured, in particular, using. A person with low subjective control (believing that he has little influence on what happens to him and tending to consider his successes and failures as a consequence of external circumstances) is emotionally unstable (factor –C), prone to informal behavior (factor –G), uncommunicative (factor +Q), he has poor self-control (factor –Q3) and high tension (factor +Q4). A person with a high level of subjective control has emotional stability (factor +C), perseverance, determination (factor +G), sociability (factor –Q2), good self-control (factor +Q3) and restraint (factor –Q4). It is significant that intelligence (factor B) and many factors associated with extroversion - introversion do not correlate with either Io or the situational characteristics of subjective control.
Subjective control over positive events (achievements, successes) correlates to a greater extent with ego strength (factor +C), self-control (factor +Q3), social extraversion (factors +A; –Q2) than subjective control over negative events (troubles, failures). On the other hand, people who do not feel responsible for failures often turn out to be more practical and businesslike (factor -M) than people with strong control in this area, which is not typical for subjective control over positive events.

METHOD «LEVEL OF SUBJECTIVE CONTROL"

The technique is designed to study the level of subjective control. The fundamental research method is testing. The technique is intended for teenagers and young men aged 14–17 years. The study is conducted by an educational psychologist once a year. The results of the study are intended for deputy heads of educational work, teachers, educators, curators of educational groups, class teachers, industrial training masters, and social educators. The technique is carried out in standard conditions of educational institutions (group and individual forms of testing are possible). Interpretation of the results is carried out in accordance with the key to assessing and processing research data.

This experimental psychological technique makes it possible to relatively quickly and effectively assess the level of subjective control formed in the test subject over various life situations and is suitable for use in clinical psychodiagnostics, vocational selection, family consultation, etc. Developed at the Research Institute named after. Bekhterev.

Such methods were first tested in the 60s in the USA.

The most famous of them is J. Rotter's locus of control scale. This scale is based on two fundamental principles.

1. People differ in how and where they localize control over events that are significant to them. There are two possible
polar types of such localization: external and internal. IN
In the first case, a person believes that the events happening to him are the result of the action of external forces - chance, other people and
etc. In the second case, a person interprets significant events as
the result of one's own activities. Every person has a certain position on a continuum that extends from the external to the internal type.

2. Locus of control, characteristic of an individual, is universal from
wearing to any type of events and situations that he has to face. The same type of control characterizes the behavior of a given individual both in case of failures and in the sphere of achievements, when
how this applies to different degrees to different areas of social
life.

Experimental work has established a connection between various forms of behavior and personality parameters with externality-internality. Conformal and compliant behavior is more characteristic of people with an external locus. Internals, unlike externals, are less inclined to submit to the pressure of others, to resist when they feel that they are being manipulated, and they react more strongly than externals to the loss of personal freedom. People with internal loci of control work better alone than under supervision or video recording. The opposite is true for externalities.

Internals and externals differ in the ways of interpreting different social situations, in particular in the methods of obtaining information and in the mechanisms of their causal explanation. Internals seek information more actively and are usually more situationally aware than externals. In the same situation, internals attribute greater responsibility to the individuals participating in this situation. Internals avoid situational explanations of behavior to a greater extent than externalists.

Studies linking internality-externality with interpersonal relationships have shown that internals are more popular, more benevolent, more self-confident, and exhibit greater tolerance. There is a connection between high internality and positive self-esteem, with greater consistency between the images of the real and ideal “I”. Internals were found to have a more active position in relation to their health than externals: they are better informed about their condition, care more about their health and more often seek preventive care.

Externality correlates with anxiety, depression, and mental illness.

Internals prefer non-directive methods of psychocorrection; Externals are subjectively more satisfied with behavioral methods.

All this gives sufficient grounds to believe that the identification of a personal characteristic that describes the extent to which a person feels like an active subject of his own activity, and to what extent he feels like a passive object of the actions of other people and external circumstances, is justified by existing empirical research and can contribute to further study of the problems of applied personality psychology.

The second proposition stated above, on which the American tradition of studying locus of control is based, seems hardly acceptable. Describing personality using generalized trans-situational characteristics is insufficient. Most people are characterized by more or less wide variability in their behavior depending on specific social situations. Features of subjective control, in particular, can change for the same person depending on whether the situation seems complex or simple, pleasant or unpleasant, etc. Therefore, measuring the locus of control, apparently, is more promising to construct not as a one-dimensional characteristic, but as a multidimensional profile, the components of which are tied to types of social situations of varying degrees of generality.

The USC questionnaire consists of 44 items. Unlike the school of J. Rotter, it includes items measuring externality-internality in interpersonal and family relationships; it also includes items measuring SQM in relation to illness and health.

To increase the range of possible applications of the questionnaire, it is designed in two versions that differ in the format of the test subjects’ responses. Option A, intended for research purposes, requires a response on a 6-point scale (-3, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3), in which the answer “+ 3” means “strongly agree”, “- 3” - “completely disagree” with this point. Option B, intended for psychodiagnostics, requires answers on a binary scale “agree - disagree.”

QUESTIONNAIRE TEXT

1. Career advancement depends more on a successful combination of circumstances than on a person’s abilities and efforts.

2. Most divorces happen because people didn’t want to
adapt to each other.

3. Illness is a matter of chance; if you are destined to get sick, then nothing
you can do it.

4. People find themselves lonely because they themselves do not show interest and friendliness towards others.

5. Making my dreams come true often depends on luck.

6. It is useless to make efforts to conquer
sympathy of other people.

7. External circumstances - parents and wealth - influence
on family happiness no less than the relationship between spouses.

8. I often feel like I have little influence over what happens to me.
me.

9. As a rule, management turns out to be more effective when it fully controls the actions of subordinates, rather than relying on their independence.

10. My grades at school often depended on random circumstances (for example, on the teacher’s mood) rather than on my own efforts.

11. When I make plans, I generally believe that I can carry them out.

12. What many people think is luck or luck is actually
is actually the result of long, focused efforts.

13. I think that a healthy lifestyle can help more.
health than doctors and medicines.

14. If people don’t get along with each other, then no matter how hard they try, they still won’t be able to improve their family life.

15. The good things I do are usually appreciated.
others.

16. Children grow up the way their parents raise them.

17. I think that chance or fate do not play an important role in my
life.

18. I try not to plan too far ahead, because a lot
depends on how the circumstances turn out.

19. My grades at school depended most on my efforts and
degree of preparedness.

20. In family conflicts, I often feel guilty for myself rather than for
the opposite side.

21. The life of most people depends on a combination of circumstances.

22. I prefer leadership in which I can independently determine what and how to do.

23. I think that my lifestyle is in no way
the cause of my illnesses.

24. As a rule, it is an unfortunate combination of circumstances that prevents
people to succeed in their business.

25. In the end, the people who work in it themselves are responsible for the poor management of an organization.

26. I often feel that I can’t change anything in the current situation.
family relationships.

27. If I really want to, I can win over almost anyone.

28. The younger generation is influenced by so many different circumstances that the efforts of parents to raise them often turn out to be useless.

29. What happens to me is the work of my own hands.

30. It can be difficult to understand why leaders act the way they do.
otherwise.

31. A person who could not succeed in his work most likely did not show enough effort.

32. Most often, I can get what I want from my family members.

33. In the troubles and failures that have happened in my life, more often
other people were to blame than myself.

34. A child can always be protected from a cold if you keep an eye on him
and dress it correctly.

35. In difficult circumstances, I prefer to wait until the problems resolve themselves.

36. Success is the result of hard work and depends little on
chance or luck.

37. I feel that the happiness of my family depends on me more than anyone else.

38. It has always been difficult for me to understand why some people like me and not others.

39. I always prefer to make a decision and act on my own, rather than rely on the help of other people or fate.

40. Unfortunately, a person’s merits often remain unrecognized,
despite all his efforts.

41. In family life there are situations that are impossible
allow even with the strongest desire.

42. Capable people who failed to realize their potential
We have only ourselves to blame for this.

43. Many of my successes were possible only thanks to help
other people.

44. Most of the failures in my life came from inability, not
knowledge or laziness and depended little on luck or bad luck.

Processing of completed answers should be carried out according to the keys below, summing up the answers to the items in the “+” columns with their own sign and the answers to the items in the “-” columns with the opposite sign.

As studies conducted on normal subjects have shown, responses to all points of the questionnaire have a sufficient spread: none of the halves of the scale was chosen less than 15% of the time. The results of filling out the questionnaire by individual subjects are converted into a standard system of units - walls and can be visually presented in the form of a profile of subjective control.

The indicators of the USC questionnaire are organized in accordance with the principle of the hierarchical structure of the activity regulation system - in such a way that they include a generalized indicator of individual USC, invariant to particular situations of activity, two indicators of the average level of generality and a number of situational indicators.

1. Scale general internality (I0). High rate for this
the scale corresponds to a high level of subjective control over any significant situations. Such people believe that the majority
important events in their lives were the result of their own actions, that they can control them, and thus they feel
their own responsibility for these events and for how their lives turn out in general. Low on the scale I0 corresponds to a low level of subjective control. Such subjects do not see the connection between their actions and the events of their life that are significant to them, do not consider themselves capable of controlling their development, and believe that most of them are the result of chance or the actions of other people.

2. Scale internality in the field of achievements (ID). High scores on this scale correspond to a high level of subjective
control over emotionally positive events and situations
mi. Such people believe that they themselves have achieved all the good things
what was and is in their lives, and that they are able to successfully pursue their goals in the future. Low on the scale Eid indicate that a person attributes his successes, achievements and joys to external circumstances - luck, good fortune or the help of other people.

3. Scale internality in the field of failures (Andn). High scores on this scale indicate a developed sense of subjective control.
in relation to negative events and situations, which manifests itself in a tendency to blame oneself for various troubles and suffering. Low performance In indicate that the subject is inclined to attribute responsibility for such events to other people or consider them the result of bad luck.

4. Scale internality in family relationships (IWith) . High
indicators ANDWith means that a person considers himself responsible for
events occurring in his family life. Short ANDWith indicates
to the fact that the subject considers not himself, but his partners, to be the cause of significant situations that arise in his family.

5. Scale of internality in the field of industrial relationsniy (Ip). High ANDP indicates that a person believes
their actions are an important factor in organizing their own production activities, in developing relationships in the team, in their promotion, etc. Low ANDP indicates that the subject is inclined to attribute more importance to external circumstances - management, workmates, luck - bad luck.

6. Scale internality in relation to health and illness (I3). .
High performance I3 indicate that the subject considers himself largely responsible for his health: if he is sick, then
blames himself for this and believes that recovery is largely
depends on his actions. Man with low I3 considers health and illness to be the result of chance and hopes that recovery will come
as a result of the actions of other people, especially doctors.

The validity of the USC scales is demonstrated by their relationships with other personality characteristics, measured, in particular, using the Cattell Personality Inventory.

A person with low subjective control (believing that he has little influence on what happens to him and tending to consider his successes and failures as a consequence of external circumstances) is emotionally unstable (factor - C), prone to informal behavior (factor - G), unsociable (factor + Q1 ), he has poor self-control (factor - Q3) and high tension (factor +Q4). A person with a high level of subjective control has emotional stability (factor +C), perseverance, determination (+G), sociability (factor - Q2), good self-control (factor + Q3) and restraint (factor – Q4 ) . It is important that intelligence (factor B ) and many factors associated with extraversion-introversion do not correlate with either I0 or situational characteristics of subjective control.

Subjective control over positive events (achievements, successes) is more correlated with ego strength (factor +C), self-control (factor +Q3), social extraversion (factors + A ; -Q2) than subjective control over negative events (troubles, failures). On the other hand, people who do not feel responsible for failures often turn out to be more practical and businesslike (factor -M) than people with strong control in this area, which is not typical for subjective control over positive events.

Primary statistical characteristics

and intercorrelations of scales

USK questionnaire

xp<0.05,ххр <0.01, ххх р <0.001

A study of self-esteem of people with different types of subjective control showed that people with low Io characterize themselves as selfish, dependent, indecisive, unfair, fussy, hostile, insecure, insincere, dependent, irritable. People with high SQ consider themselves to be kind, independent, decisive, fair, capable, friendly, honest, self-reliant, and unflappable. Thus, USC is associated with a person’s feeling of his strength, dignity, responsibility for what is happening, with self-respect, social maturity and personal independence.

The test is intended for individual and group examination. The use of the USC questionnaire is possible in solving a wide range of socio-psychological and medical-psychological problems. The level of subjective control increases in the process of psychocorrective influence on the individual. Therefore, it is possible to use USC to assess the effectiveness of psychological correction methods.