College Students' Locus of Control in Relation to Their Socio-Family Environments

The idea of internal versus external control of reinforcement was developed from social learning theory (Rotter, 1966). This theory describes the degree to which an individual believes that reinforcements are contingent upon his or her behaviour. The concept of internal versus external control of reinforcement was developed from social learning theory. The individual's belief that reinforcements are contingent upon his or her own behaviour, capacity, or attribute is referred to as internal control. On the other hand, the individual's belief that reinforcements are not under his or her personal control but rather are under the control of chance, fate, and powerful others is referred to as external control. It is not the intention of the phrases "internal" and "external" to convey the idea that a person is only comprised of one or the other of these aspects when they are employed as "expressive short-cuts." Lefcourt suggests that "the perception of control is a process, the exercise of an expectancy regarding causation," and that the terms "internal control" and "external control" depict an individual's more common tendencies to expect events to be contingent or noncontingent upon his actions, respectively. It is necessary for the success and prosperity of a nation to possess a sufficient number of individuals who believe in the internal locus of control. It is impossible for a nation or civilization to advance if it has an excessively high percentage of people who place their faith in external forces, such as luck, chance, or influential third parties. Because of this, having a solid understanding of the factors that determine an individual's locus of control is very necessary. A person tends to establish a constant attitude that leans either toward an internal or an external locus of control depending on the experiences that he has had in the past. The primary origin of such condition of the family, the size and type of the family, the educational credentials of the parents, and the birth order, age, and gender of the person involved. This is due to the fact that the person is most affected by the structure of their family. In addition to these family structure elements, the child-rearing behaviours of the parents, as experienced by the person, are of critical relevance in the creation of differential impacts on internal vs external locus of control. Because his parents are his primary sources of socialisation, the youngster is provided with opportunities for positive reinforcement via their consistent presence in his life. Regarding this particular facet of locus of control, the psychology literature has a number of research on the topic. On the other hand, the vast majority of the research that are pertinent to this topic have typically been carried out in a cultural setting that is distinct from our own. Because of this, the purpose of the current study is to investigate the extent to which socio-familial factors like family type, family size, birth order, socio-economic status, and parental rearing behaviours can be used for interpreting the origin and growth of an internal versus an external locus of control in the Indian culture. Therefore, in this paper, attempts are made to find out and understand the various drivers to influence the social familial factors of locus of control of college students.

 To explore and understand the Socio-Familial Factors of Locus of Control of College Students in India.

It has been stated that beliefs about a person's ability to exercise internal control are firmly set by the time a person is a youngster and undergo very little change between the third and fifth grades (Crandall, Katkovsky& Crandall, 1965). Therefore, it is possible to anticipate that significant antecedents of control orientations are to be discovered in the interactions between parents and their children. Chance (1965) and Katkovsky, Crandall, and Good (1967) investigated the relationship between a child's sense of locus of control, as measured by the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire, which measures the extent to which children accept responsibility for success and failure in school-related achievement tasks, and data obtained through questioning and observing parents. The questionnaire measures the degree to which children accept responsibility for success and failure in school-related achievement tasks. The results of both investigations were quite comparable. Chance (1965) found that maternal permissiveness, early independence training, and mother's flexibility of expectations for their children were related to the internal control orientations of sons, but that none of these maternal variables were findings generally indicated that parent behaviours characterised as warm, praising, protective, and supportive were positively associated with children's belief in internal control. Correspondingly, Katkovsky, Crandall, and Good (1967) reported that girls were inclined to believe that they had caused their own failures. However, their findings indicated that boys were more likely to believe that they had caused their own failures. On the other hand, negative parental behaviours including dominance, rejection, and criticism were connected with a lower level of conviction in one's own capacity for internal control. It was also noticed that a child's sense of where control lay was substantially more tied to the actions and behaviours of their parents than it was to their parents' stated beliefs and values. There have been several more studies conducted, all of which came to similar conclusions as the ones that were presented. Shore (1968) discovered that only the father's internality towards child-rearing was connected to children's Interior – External measures. The more internal the father was regarding child-rearing, the more internal the boy was. Children who evaluated their parents as exercising more psychological control and as being less warm and welcoming on an inner level were more like to have an external orientation. In addition, he discovered that a child's sense of locus of control was more strongly tied to their impression of the behaviour of their parents than it was to their parents' opinions. On the Children's Reports of Parental Behaviour Inventory, Davis and Phares (1969) made a comparison between the most severe groups of internals and externals. Along the same lines as previous research, these authors discovered that parents of internals were rated as being more accepting, having greater positive involvement, and being less rejecting and exercising hostile control than parents of externals. Additionally, they were rated as having greater positive involvement. In addition, it was thought that the parents of internals were more reliable and consistent in their application of discipline than the parents of externals. On the other hand, when the attitudes of parents were evaluated using the Maryland Parent Attitude Survey, the same researchers discovered no significant difference between the attitudes of the parents of internals and the attitudes of the parents of externals. However, there were some interactions that were seen, and although they were too complicated to explain, they were indicative of the distinct impacts that husbands and wives had on their views about their children. Internal children had dads who encouraged indulgence, independence, and self reliance more firmly than did their mothers, while the mothers of external children strongly advocated similar childrearing ideals more strongly than did their children's fathers. Additional research has shown the same reliable patterns of findings among children, adolescents, and young adults. In a

moms to be dictatorial, aggressive, and rejecting. Using large samples of college students who had completed the Rotter I–E scale as well as the perceived Parental Questionnaire, MacDonald (1971b) found that subjects with an internal orientation described their parents as "warm (providing nourishment), consistent (providing predictability), and as a means of encouraging their children to attempt to control the reinforcements they receive on their own (achievement pressure). The subjects whose reinforcements were controlled externally described their parents as employing parenting strategies that are rather likely to give the impression that one's reinforcements are controlled externally. These strategies included over-protection, deprivation of privileges, and affective punishment " (p. 146). When compared with internal individuals, external persons have a tendency to have a more negative perception of their mothers, according to the findings of Palmer (1971). In a study on undergraduate students, Johnson and Killmann (1975) noted that perceived maternal child-rearing attitudes of overprotectiveness and restrictiveness are related to an external orientation. This was found in the context of the researchers' observation that mothers hold these attitudes. In reference to this topic, Scheck (1978) conducted research on teenage girls and discovered that internal respondents felt high levels of mother and father support, but external subjects saw uneven levels of parental discipline.

The present study is qualitative and descriptive in nature. This refers that various review of literature and book related to the topic are done to draw the inferences to obtain the final results of decided objectives. Literatures are downloaded from reputed journals and indexed in web science or Scopus. As research is qualitative then descriptive study will be elaborated from the study conducted earlier to make understand the reader about the basic concepts of the social families‘ factors. Literatures are considered from the 70th decade to explore the influence of cultural and social changes.

Internal control beliefs are found to be firmly established in infancy and rise little from third to fifth grades (Crandall, Katkovsky& Crandall, 1965). Parent-child connections are predicted to be major antecedents of control orientations. Chance (1965) and Katkovsky, Crandall, and Good (1967) explored the link between locus of control, as evaluated by the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire, and data gained by interviewing and watching parents. Both research found the same. Chance (1965) found that parental permissiveness, early independence training, and flexibility of expectations were associated parenting was favourably connected with children's internal control. Parental dominance, rejection, and criticism adversely affect internal control views. Locus of control was more connected to observed parental behaviour than stated parental opinions. Other research show similar results. Shore (1968) discovered that only the father's internality about child-rearing was connected to children's Interior – External measures. The more internal the father, the more internal the son. External children regarded their parents as more controlling and less warm and welcoming. He also discovered that children's locus of control was linked to their sense of parental behaviour, not parental opinions. Davis and Phares (1969) compared severe internals and externals on the CRPBI. Similar to previous research, these authors discovered that parents of internals were more welcoming, positively involved, and less rejecting and controlling than parents of externals. Internals' parents were also seen as more consistent disciplinarians. On the Maryland Parent Attitude Survey, these same researchers found no difference between internal and external parents' views. However, several relationships were too complicated to understand, indicating distinct impacts of husbands' and wives' views toward children. Internal children's dads supported luxury, independence, and self-reliance more than their mothers, but external children's moms did. Several more research found similar effects among adolescents and youngsters. For example, Tolor and Jalowiec (1968) found that college students evaluated their moms as dictatorial, aggressive, and rejecting. MacDonald (1971b) observed that internal-oriented college students characterised their parents as "Warm, consistent, and encouraging children to regulate their own reinforcing (achievement pressure). Their parents used strategies that convey the sense of external control, such as over-protection, loss of privileges, and emotional punishment " (p. 146). Palmer (1971) observed that external people see their moms less positively. Johnson and Killmann (1975) found that perceived maternal overprotectiveness and restrictiveness are linked to an outward orientation. Internal respondents experienced great mother and paternal support, but externals observed uneven parental discipline.

• Internal control beliefs are found to be firmly established in infancy and rise little from third to fifth grades.

• Parent-child connections are predicted to be major antecedents of control orientations.

 Loving, complimenting, protecting, and supporting parenting was favourably connected with children's internal control. parental behaviour than stated parental opinions.

• Only the father's internality about child-rearing was connected to children's Interior – External measures. The more internal the father, the more internal the son. External children regarded their parents as more controlling and less warm and welcoming.

• Parents of internals were more welcoming, positively involved, and less rejecting and controlling than parents of externals. Internals' parents were also seen as more consistent disciplinarians.

• No difference between internal and external parents' views. However, several relationships were too complicated to understand, indicating distinct impacts of husbands' and wives' views toward children. Internal children's dads supported luxury, independence, and self-reliance more than their mothers, but external children's moms did.

• Internal-oriented college students characterised their parents as "Warm, consistent, and encouraging children to regulate their own reinforcing (achievement pressure). Their parents used strategies that convey the sense of external control, such as over-protection, loss of privileges, and emotional punishment.

• Perceived maternal overprotectiveness and restrictiveness are linked to an outward orientation. Internal respondents experienced great mother and paternal support, but externals observed uneven parental discipline.

Beliefs about one's own level of internal control are found to be firmly set by the time a child is an infant and show minimal change between the third and fifth grades. It is hypothesised that strong ties between parents and children are key antecedents of control attitudes. Parenting that was characterised by love, compliments, protection, and support was shown to have a positive correlation with children's internal control. The negative effects of parental dominance, rejection, and criticism on internal control perspectives are well documented. There was a stronger correlation between locus of control and observed parental behaviour than there was between observed parental attitudes. Measures of children's interiority and exteriority could only be related to the father's own thoughts about childrearing. The more introspective a parent is, the more introspective his kid will be. Children raised apart from their parents tended to see their parents as being more authoritarian and less kind and approachable. Parents of children who were raised internally were less likely to reject their children disciplinarians. There is no distinction between the opinions of an internal and external parent. However, there were a few relationships that were too hard to comprehend, which indicated that husbands and wives had diverse influences on how they regard their children. The fathers of internal children were more likely to advocate for opulence, autonomy, and self-reliance than their mothers were, while the mothers of exterior children did so. Students at colleges with an emphasis on introspection gave their parents the following descriptions: "Warm, consistent, and encouraging youngsters to govern their own behaviour" (achievement pressure). Their parents used tactics that provide the impression that they are in charge from the outside, such as excessive protection, the removal of privileges, and emotional abuse. There is a correlation between having an external focus and having the experience of being overprotected or restricted by a mother. Internal respondents reported receiving a lot of support from both their mothers and fathers, but external respondents noticed inconsistent levels of family punishment.

1. Chance, I. E. (1965). Internal control of reinforcements and the school learning

Development, Minneapolis. 2. Crandall, V., Katkovsky, W. & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Children‘s beliefs in their own control of reinforcements in intellectual academic

Development, 38, 90 – 109. 3. Davis, W. L. & Phares, E. J. (1969). Parental antecedents of inter – external control of

24, 427 – 436.

4. Johnson, B. F. &Kilman, P. R. (1975). The relationship between parental attitudes and

Clinical Psychology, 31, 40 – 42. 5. Katkovasky, W., Crandall, V. C. & Good, S. (1967). Parental antecedents of children‘s belief in internal – external control of reinforcement in intellectual achievement situations. Child Development, 38, 766 –

776

6. Kumar, A. & Srivastava, S. N. (1985).

Locus of Control Scale. Varanasi: Kumar publication.

2015). Delhi: Mansayan.

9. McDonald, A. P. Jr. (1971). Internal – external locus of control: Parental antecedents.

Psychology, 37, 141 – 147. 10. Ojha, H. (1991). Parental Behaviour Iinventory

motivation”. Delhi: Classical Publication Company. 11. Palmer, R.D. (1971). Parental perception and perceived locus of control in psychopathology. Journal of Personality, 3, 420 – 431. 12. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

80 (Whole No. 609). 13. Scheck, Dennis, C. (1978). An exploratory investigation of the interaction effects of three child – rearing dimensions upon the development of inter – external control orientation in adolescent females. Psychology, 15, 8 – 13.

correlates of boys‟ locus of control. Paper presented at the meeting of Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, D. C. 15. Tolor, A. &Jalowiec, J. E. (1968). Body boundary, parental attitudes and internal –

and Clinical Psychology, 32, 206 – 209.

Research Scholar, University Department of Psychology, TMBU, Bhagalpur - 812007