The application of psychological principles to the improvement of performance on sports has received greater attention in these days. There are certain accepted psychological principles, which have to be applied. So that the athletes and players are able to show their best performance and consist for failure. Coaches, physical educationists and sports scientists have always expressed a great need to know more about socio psychological factors which are helpful in improving the behavioral and the motor skills of the player. It is important to know about the role of SES factors on locus of control. It is also strongly believed that participation in sports is likely to influence the personality and mental health of the sportsmen. The construct of locus of control is being increasingly emphasized in personality functioning (Lefeaurt, 1978, Phares, 1976). Since it appears to be related to or influence several classes of behaviour locus of control has been found to be predictive of different social behaviour, learning, performance more or less achievement related activities. The construct of locus of control was originally derived from Rotter‘s (1954) small learning theory. However, Rotter‘s (1966) later modification of the construct has been the focus of research interest in recent years. The dictum made in locus of control theory was between external and internal control, thus The construct locus of control distributes individual according to the degree, to which they accept personal responsibility for what happen to them in contrast to made in locus of control theory was between external and internal control, thus, their attribution of responsibility forces outside their control. At one extreme we those who fail to perceive any causal relationship between their action and the reinforcement that follow such people tend to hold responsible either luck, star, fate or chance for both that failure and success. They seldom believe on their capabilities or shortcoming and ultimately such people believe that they have littler or no control over the occurrence of reinforcement. Thus, people with external locus of control perceive no causal relationship between action and reinforcement. All the other extreme, are the persons who feel that they are responsible for all happenings in their life and other factors like fate, chance, luck or star have little or nothing to do in their life. Such internal controllers perceive their behaviour as a major determinant of the reinforcement received in any situation. They are usually bubbling with self-confidence (Psychology of sports Indian perspective Jitendra Mohan N. K. Chada and Sultana Akhatar). There are two major theories related to locus of control that give the rational explanation of the development of locus of control and its operation. The self-efficacy theory propounded by Bondur

3

regarding an activity. This theory studies how people perceive their own ability to act successfully in the world. If people feel they will be successful at an activity, they express successfulness i.e., they put more active, persistent, efforts into that activity and are more likely to succeed, and one more theory that is learned helplessness explains the long expose to the helpless situation that makes people to perceive their own outcomes to be uncontrollable. It is because learned helpless people do feel that they have control over outsides events. They act passive and persist less in activities learned helpless people resemble those in them external locus of control. They do not perceive a contingency between their efforts and their outcomes. The learned helplessness construct has been used as a model for depression. Socioeconomic culture differences is produced by environment, whether it is past of present, family constitutes the most important part of the environment. The influences of family income and social status, customs and traditions have a great role to play in determining the types of personality of an individual. His attitudes belief systems towards life as well as towards games and sports. Socioeconomic status appears to be the resultant of the position of an individual in a society by virtue of a complex. Fusion of both of them, and its status or ranking of an individual given by the society where he lives. In terms of his material belongings and cultural possessions along with the degree of respect, power and influences he wields. The study carried out by M. V. Ujjal Rani (1996) states that effects of social economic disadvantages on locus of control, the result revealed when economic factors disregarded the socially disadvantage groups is significantly more externally oriented then social non disadvantage groups.

To assess the influence of socioeconomic status on locus of control of sportsmen

1) The higher socioeconomic status leads to internal locus of control whereas, lower level of socio economic status leads to external locus of control among the sportsmen. 2) There would be no influence SES on locus of control of sportsmen.

To know the nature of socioeconomic status with locus of control of the sportsmen.

In the present study a total of 200 samples have been taken, out of which 50 sportsmen of high SES and remaining 50 from lower SES has been selected from the 100 sportsmen. The sample age ranging from 20 to 25 years. Both scales SES and locus of control were administered to collect the relevant data in order to make a detail analysis of the study.

The socioeconomic scale constructed by Dr. Rajeeva Lochan, Bharadwaj and locus of control constructed by Rompal (1989) were used.

Keeping in the view the ―t‖ test was applied to test data to assess the influence of SES on locus control of sportsperson .

It is a well-known fact that attributing success of failure in the process of learning is greatly influenced by the reward and punishment sequence. If an individual achieves success or failure according to his expectation in many situation for a longer period. This will result in the development of the internal locus of control. The development of internal locus of control once developed firmly then an individual becomes confident in his way of achievement of success. On the other hand student socio and economic status also play an important role in determining the internal or external locus of control because the very exposure to the higher or lower socio and economic status will mould and re mould the style of perception and attribution of its members. The hypothesis that there is a significant difference in locus of control of high and low SES sportsmen is

3

SES is suppressed by socio-cultural deprivation, low social dignity, maladjustment, lack of opportunities, frustrations, orthodox conservatism, helplessness and disappointment. And these factors might contribute for his acceptance of the influence of external conditions or external locus of control.

It becomes clear from the above table that, On locus of control , the sportsmen of high and low SES have scored the mean scores of 48.18 and 54.58 respectively. The higher mean scores of low SES sportsmen indicate that they are having external locus of control and the low mean score of high SES sportsmen indicate that they are having internal locus of control. The obtained ‗t‘value for these two groups is 12.13 which is highly significant at 0.01 level. The significant difference in ‗t‘ value shows that there is a significant difference of locus of control between high and low SES sportsmen. Thus, the hypothesis that there is a significant difference of locus of control between low and high SES sportsmen is confirmed. This is because, the sportsmen of high SES are rich in social and sport experiences, and having high quality education and training, scientific knowledge and exposure to the mass media make them to believe in their own potentials. And this self-confidence helps them to take intelligent decision on various occasions. The influence of all these factors helps him to believe in internal locus of control. Hence, the above-mentioned hypothesis is accepted.

Kulshreshtha S. P. and Day, P. (1972). Socio economic status scale (urban) form a national psychological corporation, Agra, 1972. Lefcourt, H. M. (1966). Internal versus external control of reinforcement. A review psychological bulletin, 65: pp. 206-20. Venkatesh Reddy (1995). Unpublished Thesis. Awaradi (1995). Unpublished Thesis. Kedarnath, B. T. (2002). Unpublished Thesis.

Physical Education Director, Govt. Commerce and Management College, Ballari, Karnataka