Locus of control refers to the perception that events are determined by one's own behavior (internal control) or by such outside forces as other people or fate (external control).
Locus of control (Rotter 1966) refers to an individual's beliefs about the extent of control that they have over things that happen to them. The more anxious or depressed a person is, the more external their locus of control tends to be and a greater external locus of control is associated with a greater vulnerability to physical illness.
*
Locus of control
The "locus of control" is a personality construct referring to an individual's perception of the locus of events as determined internally by his/her belief that an outcome is directly the result of his/her behavior. This contrasts with the perception of external circumstances, by which control is in the hands of powerful others (doctors), or outcomes are due to the vagaries of fate, luck, or chance. Some research suggests that what underlies the internal locus of control is the concept of "self as agent." This means that our thoughts control our actions, and that when we apply this executive function of thinking, we can positively affect our beliefs, motivation, and performance. We can control our own destinies and we are more effective in influencing our environments in a wide variety of situations.
*
Personality
Julian Rotter's locus of control idea has initiated some studies that map stability and change in control beliefs over the life span. This research tradition goes back to learning theories that postulate the existence of generalized expectancies concerning behavior possibilities, based on reinforcement.
*
Introduction
Although the literature on the economics of happiness is relatively new, it has already attracted substantial attention both within academia and, more recently, in political discussions. This increasing attention, not least that of policymakers, raises the pressure for generating robust findings and thereby valid implications. One part of the existing literature has concentrated on exploring individual level determinants of life satisfaction, while another part analyzes country-specific determinants of satisfaction across states. Clearly, however, happiness research is still to come of age. As Diener and Seligman (2004, p.3) in their comprehensive survey of the happiness literature note, "a much more systematic approach is needed in order to provide leaders with the best possible well-being indicators." That exactly is the aim of this paper.
As noted, part of the literature explores the determinants of life satisfaction at the individual level. In this part, there is fairly broad consensus on the main determinants of well-being and they are remarkably similar across countries (Oswald 1997; Frey and Stutzer 2002; Diener and Seligman 2004; Hayo 2004). First of all, higher relative income or socio-economic status increases well-being according to virtually all studies. Second, higher levels of education also tend to be positively associated with life satisfaction. Third, being unemployed exerts a strongly negative influence on individual well-being that cannot be alleviated to any substantial degree by the social security net. Life satisfaction depends, fourth, non-linearity on age with satisfaction roughly decreasing until people reach their mid-40s after which satisfaction increases again. Fifth, social capital in its different dimensions is conducive to life satisfaction (Helliwell 2003; Bjornskov 2004). Sixth, religiosity or spirituality is often found to be a significant factor of well-being (e.g., Clark and Lelkes 2005). Finally family status is a strong predictor of individual life satisfaction. Marriage is positively associated with happiness
Comments
Post a Comment