Perceived control


Perceived control can be defined as the belief that one sees he or she has control over their inside state, behaviors and the place or people or things or feelings or activities surrounding a person. There are two important dimensions: whether the object of control is in the past or the future and whether the object of control is over :wikt:outcome|outcome, behavior, or process.

History

The cognitive revolution which was completed around the 1940s changed Psychology. Being influenced by the idea of Pavlov and other physiologists, scientists turned their interest in direction of the observable. Away from subjectivity, the objective investigation of behavior became trustworthy and allocable. This revolution helped developing fields of the study of perceived control. Goal seeking and human motivation became important in many theories.
In 1959, White introduced a theory called "effectance motivation", in which human drive for control is explained through an innate need to be able to handle a situation and the obtainment of control over the environment.
In 1966 Julian Rotter published his Publication:"Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement.” in which he used the term "perceived control" for the very first time. His work influenced multiple disciplines such as psychology, sociology, economics and health care. After his publication, the scientific work on his concept of perceived internal control differed mostly into two branches. One believed perceived control to be a fixed personality trait, and therefore refers to concepts like self efficacy and competence, the other spoke about perceived control as a cognitive process, influenced from environmental clues that could be manipulated systematically. This relates to concepts as illusion of control, learned helplessness and mindfullness.
“A series of studies provide strong support for the hypotheses that the individual who has a strong belief that he can control his own destiny is likely to be alert to those aspects of the environment, which provide useful information for his future behavior; take steps to improve his environmental condition; place greater value on skill or achievement of reinforcements and be generally more concerned with his ability, particularly his failures; and be resistive to subtle attempts to influence him.” Rotter 1966
From this perspective perceived control can either be seen as a personality trait or a cognitive processing, which in either case enhances functioning and survival.

Historical research

In the year 1975, Martin E.P. Seligman coined the term "learned helplessness". In Terms of perceived control, Seligman's term of "learned helplessness" described that the perceived control of a situation leads to a specific outcome of behavior. Seligman confronted dogs with a situation accompanied by a total lack of perceived control, which ultimately lead the dogs to give into the situation. They learned passiveness, helplessness. Seligman transferred his experiments to humans, speculating that perceived control is related to the development of, for instance, depression.
Research by Schulz and Hansua on Perceived Control focuses on the causal relationships between one's own control and his psychological and physiological well-being and not only on the correlation of these factors. In a study done in 1978, pensioners living in a retirement home participants were about to gain control or lose control. They could either decide themselves when they wanted students to visit them or had no influence on scheduling the student's visit. The results show that pensioners who have control over when they will be having visitors felt better and were healthier than pensioners in the "no influence"-group. This study describes perceived control as a cognitive process that manipulates the person's health and motivation.
Therefore, self-efficacy is an important factor influencing the effectiveness of perceived control. Blittner, Goldberg and Merbaum reasoned in 1978 that only if the person believes in his/her abilities and success, he/she can perform better or change behavior.
A study by Sastry and Ross in 1998 concluded that there are cultural differences on perceived control, too. According to the researchers, perceived control is seen as more important by people living in Western Countries than by Asians. Additionally, Asians do not make an association between perceived control and mental well-being. This difference is explained by different focuses of the cultures. Western Culture appreciates individualism and personal success which leads the people to feel the urge of controlling the own process and performance. People are more likely to understand perceived control as a personality trait.

Scientific models

Two Process Model of Perceived Control

The Two Process Model of Perceived Control was first proposed by Rothbaum, Weisz and Snyder. According to the Two-Process Model People attempt to gain control not only by bringing the environment into line with their wishes but also by bringing themselves into line with environmental forces.
Four manifestations of secondary control are considered:
  1. Attributions to severely, limited ability can serve to enhance predictive control and to protect against disappointment.
  2. Attributions to chance can reflect illusory control since people often construe chance as a personal characteristic akin to an ability.
  3. Attributions to powerful others permit vicarious control when the individual identifies with these others.
  4. All of the preceding attributions may foster interpretive control, in which the individual seeks to understand and derive meaning from otherwise uncontrollable events in order to accept them.
Four Factor Model of Perceived Control
In December 1989 Fred B. Bryant published his research, introducing his “Four-Factor Model of Perceived Control”. He referred to the Two-Process Model of Perceived Control proposed by Rothbaum et al. which states that people’s controlling responses are classified as either attempts to change the world or attempts to change oneself to fit in with the world. Bryant added two more factors to that model; positive and negative experience. He explained that perceived control results from a self-evaluation of one’s ability to:
Avoiding, according to Bryant is defined as “The perceived ability to avoid negative outcomes”. It is dependent on the 1. The degree of personal control over bad things, 2. The Frequency of bad things occurring and 3. The Likelihood of bad things occurring.
Coping, according to Bryant is defined as “The perceived ability to cope with negative outcomes”. It is dependent on 1. The ability to cope with bad things, 2. How much one is bothered by bad things and 3. How long bad things affect one’s feelings.
Obtaining, according to Bryant is defined as “The perceived ability to obtain positive outcomes”. It is dependent on 1. The degree of personal control over good things, 2. The personal responsibility for good things, 3. The frequency of good things to occur and 4. The likelihood of good things to occur.
In a study conducted by Wallston et al. it was stated that perceived control can influence health in two conscious forms: health behavior and health status. Furthermore, it can also affect it in an unconscious way by impacting the physiological processes directly, as proven by Rodin. He states that internal events such as unpredictability and loss of control can affect catecholamine, neurohormonal and immune changes.
Wallston et al. go on explaining that there is also a connection between the locus of control and perceived control on health outcomes. Locus of control, a concept developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, says that a person can attribute certain events in their life internally, as they themselves being responsible for them, or externally, as outside sources being accountable for them. The study by Kaplan, Atkins, and Reinsch dealt with these ideas. They wanted to see if individual differences in loci of control can predict the amount of exercise tolerance and health status criteria in pulmonary disease patients. The results showed that for health internals, the more efficient and in control they felt, the higher their exercise tolerance and in turn the better their overall health status was. On the other hand, there was no relationship between efficiency beliefs and outcomes in the case of health externals.
There have also been several studies about the relationship between perceived control and cancer. A cancer diagnosis can greatly reduce the Perceived Control a patient beliefs to have. This loss of perceived control has been found to correlate with greater psychological distress.