Locus of Control in Online Environments: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In traditional media environments, the main type of control available to consumers is to alter their own opinions and judgments or to approach or avoid the mass media message. Most research in the consumer behavior literature studying control (Greene, Hoch and Loewenstein, Gould, Hui and Bateson, Siddarth and Chattopadhyay) has focused on what is called secondary control. Secondary control happens when consumers do not have any control over the media environment because it is a fixed one, so they exert control internally by changing their perception and preferences. In contrast, primary control occurs when people exert control directly on the environment. In online environments, primary control becomes highly relevant because consumers are given a number of choices about how to see and act upon media messages. | In traditional media environments, the main type of control available to consumers is to alter their own opinions and judgments or to approach or avoid the mass media message. Most research in the consumer behavior literature studying control (Greene, Hoch and Loewenstein, Gould, Hui and Bateson, Siddarth and Chattopadhyay) has focused on what is called secondary control. Secondary control happens when consumers do not have any control over the media environment because it is a fixed one, so they exert control internally by changing their perception and preferences. In contrast, primary control occurs when people exert control directly on the environment. In online environments, primary control becomes highly relevant because consumers are given a number of choices about how to see and act upon media messages. | ||
Because it is generally assumed that people prefer to directly control their environment (White), one would expect that people would seize this opportunity and exert control in the virtual world through a series of goal-directed, self initiated activities as well as use the internet to gather informaation to empower themselves in the physical world. At the same time, others argue that people using the internet become overtaken and absorbed by it to th the extent that they subsitute web use for other | Because it is generally assumed that people prefer to directly control their environment (White), one would expect that people would seize this opportunity and exert control in the virtual world through a series of goal-directed, self initiated activities as well as use the internet to gather informaation to empower themselves in the physical world. At the same time, others argue that people using the internet become overtaken and absorbed by it to th the extent that they subsitute web use for other "real world" activities and thus become "socially isolates" (Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler). | ||
Whether people act on or are acted upon by their own environment depends on their general expectancies as to whether their own actions will produce predictable results (Lefcourt, Rotter). Thus, web usage as a substitute for other activities is better thought as an outcome of individual differences tather than a global consequence of increased web use. In addition, control has considerable relevance to important issues involving internet police (i.e. attitudes toward government regulation) | Whether people act on or are acted upon by their own environment depends on their general expectancies as to whether their own actions will produce predictable results (Lefcourt, Rotter). Thus, web usage as a substitute for other activities is better thought as an outcome of individual differences tather than a global consequence of increased web use. In addition, control has considerable relevance to important issues involving internet police (i.e. attitudes toward government regulation) | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
We may conclude that internal locus weill be negatively correlated with beliefs that the internet content should be regulated through filter use or the government. External locus/powerful others will be positively correlated with beliefs that the government should regulate internet content. Reflecting external locus/change people’s disengagement and avoidance of problems, this construct will not correlate with these beliefs. | We may conclude that internal locus weill be negatively correlated with beliefs that the internet content should be regulated through filter use or the government. External locus/powerful others will be positively correlated with beliefs that the government should regulate internet content. Reflecting external locus/change people’s disengagement and avoidance of problems, this construct will not correlate with these beliefs. | ||
Levenson’s locus scale assesses individual differences in control expectancies that generalize across domains. But, individual differences in policy beliefs might best be assesed at the domain-specific level (Zimmerman and Zahniser) because involvement in social and policy decisions is more than general expectancies regarding whether oneself or others control events. It is a combination of a | Levenson’s locus scale assesses individual differences in control expectancies that generalize across domains. But, individual differences in policy beliefs might best be assesed at the domain-specific level (Zimmerman and Zahniser) because involvement in social and policy decisions is more than general expectancies regarding whether oneself or others control events. It is a combination of a "sense of personal competence, a desire for, and a willingness to take action in, the public domain" (Zimmerman). It involves working with others to bring about social change and accessing resources in order to master the sociopolitical environment (Zimmerman).Thus, we must assess whether internals would respond differently to filter use versus government regulation of internet content if they believe they have an influence on policy decisions. Whereas leadership competence assesses people’s beliefs about their own skills to be effective leaders, policy control assesses people’s participatory expectations. Although it is not necessary to be in power in order to believe in one own’s leadership competence and policy control, it appears that the individual must have an internal locus rather than an external locus. | ||
Although internals in general disagree with government regulation of the internet, we should compare domain specific internals with different typse of internals at the domain specific level to explore the extent to which internet policy beliefs might vary as a function of peoploe’s domain-specific beliefs in their leadership competence and policy control. For instance, those who believe in their own policy control likely endorse policies enabling the people to regulate internet content. Thus they may be the least supportive of policies enabling the government to have control over internet content. | Although internals in general disagree with government regulation of the internet, we should compare domain specific internals with different typse of internals at the domain specific level to explore the extent to which internet policy beliefs might vary as a function of peoploe’s domain-specific beliefs in their leadership competence and policy control. For instance, those who believe in their own policy control likely endorse policies enabling the people to regulate internet content. Thus they may be the least supportive of policies enabling the government to have control over internet content. | ||
| Line 48: | Line 46: | ||
'''More''' | '''More''' | ||
* [[Data sources for measuring online activity]] | * [[Data sources for measuring online activity]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Schema for institutional ecology]] | ||
* [[Locus of Control in Online Environments]] | * [[Locus of Control in Online Environments]] | ||
* [[Adamic and Glance]] | * [[Adamic and Glance]] | ||
* [[Predictability and Prediction for a Media-Experimental Cultural Market]] | * [[Predictability and Prediction for a Media-Experimental Cultural Market]] | ||
* [[Network readiness index]] | * [[Network readiness index and web index]] | ||
* [[Communication platform design characteristics (public sphere)]] | |||
* [[Criteria for the measurement of the impact of the internet in society]] | |||
* [[Shift on internet studies]] | |||
* [[Direct measures of the internet (ISP/ICT)]] | |||
| | | | ||
Latest revision as of 15:12, 9 June 2014
In traditional media environments, the main type of control available to consumers is to alter their own opinions and judgments or to approach or avoid the mass media message. Most research in the consumer behavior literature studying control (Greene, Hoch and Loewenstein, Gould, Hui and Bateson, Siddarth and Chattopadhyay) has focused on what is called secondary control. Secondary control happens when consumers do not have any control over the media environment because it is a fixed one, so they exert control internally by changing their perception and preferences. In contrast, primary control occurs when people exert control directly on the environment. In online environments, primary control becomes highly relevant because consumers are given a number of choices about how to see and act upon media messages.
Because it is generally assumed that people prefer to directly control their environment (White), one would expect that people would seize this opportunity and exert control in the virtual world through a series of goal-directed, self initiated activities as well as use the internet to gather informaation to empower themselves in the physical world. At the same time, others argue that people using the internet become overtaken and absorbed by it to th the extent that they subsitute web use for other "real world" activities and thus become "socially isolates" (Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler).
Whether people act on or are acted upon by their own environment depends on their general expectancies as to whether their own actions will produce predictable results (Lefcourt, Rotter). Thus, web usage as a substitute for other activities is better thought as an outcome of individual differences tather than a global consequence of increased web use. In addition, control has considerable relevance to important issues involving internet police (i.e. attitudes toward government regulation)
Scholars ask what activities are being replaced by internet usage. Kraut et al propose that the convenience of the internet entices people to substitute the less involving onine relationships or the more involving offline relationships. Kraut classifies them as weak and strong ties. While early scholarship suggested the opposite dynamic – that social connections are augmented (Katz and Aspden, Flaherty, Pearce and Rubin), Kraut’s opinion provided the basis for the theories developed the past decade. I argue that whether people develop strong or weak social ties, resulting in an active or passive social and political behavior depends on the user’s locus of control orientation.
Internal and External Locus of Contol
While the locus of control concept has been one of the most researched variables in the social science, little attention it has received in the consumer behavior literature. Using social learning theory as a basis, the locus of control concept reflects upon people’s general expectancies about the causes of rewards and an punishments (Rotter). Those with an internal locus expect that their actions will produce predictable outcomes and those with an external locus expect that the outcomes are due to external variables likefate, luck, or powerful others. Revised research has indicated that externals can further be divided to two types: those who believed that the world is ordered and powerful others are in control and those who believe tha the world is unordered and events are due to nonhuman forces (see Hollenback, Howell and Avolio, Phillips and Gully, Brenders, Ryff for a detailed analysis of internals and externals characteristics).
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis should be that because the internet offers the opportunity for consumers to have control over the environement, it is likely that internals are attracted to it with the dedication to master it. Externals, however have a more passive stand and less skilled.
It is also plausible that internals use information to reduce uncertainty and to accomplish tasks, ans their approach to communication is often instrumental (Lefcourt). In addition to actively seeking out information, they are also more aware of the alternatives available to them (Skinner).
Externals however use media ritualistically, indiscriminately and as an escape (Gunter, Flaherty et al). They are less motivated by freedom of choice than internals and consequently more likely to engage in experiential, nondirected behavior on the internet.
We expect therefore:
Internal locus to be positively correlated with goal-directed usage of the internet and negatively correlated with experiential usage of the internet. External locus to be negatively correlated with goal directed usage of the internet and positively correlated with experiental usage. Internal locus to be negatively corelated with web use substituting for other social activities whereas external locus to be positively correlated with web use substituting for other activities.
The empirical research that compares the two types of externals reveals some similarities between them (Levenson, Ryff, Zimmerman and Rappaport) and some differences (Levenson, Martin and Hall, Rubin and Rubin). The belief that external forces control events undermines people’s beliefs in their own self-efficacy, their environmental mastery as well as acceptance of themselves, their positive relations with others and personal growth. Both types are negatively correlated with desire for control.
It is possible that the two types of externals think and behave differently when they must predict or instigate change. Comparing different types of externals can help in the examination of the extent to which control in one area generalizes to others (e.g. internet policy beliefs, Shapiro, Schwarz and Astin). For instance, the two types may have similar web usage patterns but in terms of how the internet should be regulated, those who believe in powerful ther will likely prefer government intervention and those who believe in chance control will not have a consistent solution. In contrast, Internalls willl prefer self-regulation to any external (including government) involvement.
Hypothesis 2
We may conclude that internal locus weill be negatively correlated with beliefs that the internet content should be regulated through filter use or the government. External locus/powerful others will be positively correlated with beliefs that the government should regulate internet content. Reflecting external locus/change people’s disengagement and avoidance of problems, this construct will not correlate with these beliefs.
Levenson’s locus scale assesses individual differences in control expectancies that generalize across domains. But, individual differences in policy beliefs might best be assesed at the domain-specific level (Zimmerman and Zahniser) because involvement in social and policy decisions is more than general expectancies regarding whether oneself or others control events. It is a combination of a "sense of personal competence, a desire for, and a willingness to take action in, the public domain" (Zimmerman). It involves working with others to bring about social change and accessing resources in order to master the sociopolitical environment (Zimmerman).Thus, we must assess whether internals would respond differently to filter use versus government regulation of internet content if they believe they have an influence on policy decisions. Whereas leadership competence assesses people’s beliefs about their own skills to be effective leaders, policy control assesses people’s participatory expectations. Although it is not necessary to be in power in order to believe in one own’s leadership competence and policy control, it appears that the individual must have an internal locus rather than an external locus.
Although internals in general disagree with government regulation of the internet, we should compare domain specific internals with different typse of internals at the domain specific level to explore the extent to which internet policy beliefs might vary as a function of peoploe’s domain-specific beliefs in their leadership competence and policy control. For instance, those who believe in their own policy control likely endorse policies enabling the people to regulate internet content. Thus they may be the least supportive of policies enabling the government to have control over internet content.