Control (management)

Control is the audit or review of a thing, matter or person, and thus a means of domination or power over someone or something. Another, namely positive, Domination and nonviolent definition of control is found for example in business controlling or psychological treatment in the Control ( see below) of an individual over his own life.

Etymologically, the word from French contrôle, contre role in older notation - to French contre, against ' and rôle, roll ', ' register ' - which was originally a "counter register for verification of information by Original Registers" designated. The word came into its current meaning in the 19th century in use.

Control of cognitive psychological perspective

Locus of Control

When Julian Rotter and his locus of control in 1966 first introduced the notion of control in psychology, it was his intention to introduce a scale, at the positive pole the achievement motivation (internal locus of control ) and at the negative pole the social externally controlled unit ( external locus of control ) was located.

If an affirming event ( reinforcement ) is perceived by a person as a result of their own actions, but not dependent on a totally of one's own actions, it is in our culture typically perceived as the result of luck, chance, fate or under the control of powerful other people standing, or. than unpredictable because of the great complexity of the influences from the environment If the result is interpreted by an individual in this manner, Rotter refers to this as an external control view ( totaled in external control).

If the person perceives the event as a dependent on their own actions or of personal, relatively enduring character traits, Rotter refers to this as internal control opinion ( was in internal control).

Rotter assumes that this variable is of great importance for the understanding of learning processes in different learning situations - and that there are fundamental differences between individuals that relate to the extent of their willingness to experience rewards than under its own control standing, even if the situation is the same. According to Rotter it depends on whether the individual thinks or believes ( was ) to have external signals or internal locus of control. Its locus of control exhibited a still ongoing powerful effect.


Bernard Weiner attacked this control theory in 1971, and differentiated the attribution of control towards personal success:

Particularly favorable emotional consequences (eg pride ) have individuals that failures external ( eg accident circumstances) and successes internal ( eg, endurance, ability ) attributions because this prevents negative self-esteem- related affects. Such attribution leads to high positive and low negative incentives for performance behavior and should move the individual to receive performance-related activities.

Furthermore, Weiner differentiates the two stages of the attribution of achievement motivation: on the first stage of the ' external locus Mißerfolgsattribution ' it was unfavorable, the failure of stable and low, variable to attributing him, while the reverse is true in the second stage of the ' internal locus Erfolgsattribution ' exactly; So there it is unfavorable, the success variable, and low, stable attributions for the success of internal.

Learned helplessness

Just one year after the Locus of Control, in 1967 made ​​Martin Seligmann with the learned helplessness an indirect but very momentous contribution to control theory:

Helplessness is to Seligman 's mental state, which is often caused when events are uncontrollable. The ultimate still influenced by behaviorist thinking concepts are voluntary reactions ( voluntary response) and independence of reaction and consequence ( response- outcome independence ).

This control is defined as the opposite of learned helplessness.

Attribute classification in humans

As Seligman won his research on dogs that could turn off power surges depending on the experimental condition, for example, with the snout or not, modified Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale 1978, the theory under the proviso of their better applicability in humans. The result is a attributionstheoretischer approach in which a differentiation between universal versus personal, general versus specific and chronic versus temporary helplessness is made:

Universally helpless make for example the incurable leukemia of his child, a father of all the levers sit in vain to move, to save the life of his child and to be rescued by others: the father believe the disease is completely independent from all his and also the efforts of others.

Personally helpless make for example the lack of success in learning a student to do all his homework, the exam-relevant material timpani and a tutor committed, and fell still in all tests. This student will attain to the conviction that he was just stupid, and give up trying to pass the exams.

This situation the authors deemed to be uncontrollable, inasmuch as the person initially believed it would alternatives exist to the status quo, which would allow for consistent implementation of a test success, even if he is not yet practiced, but then thinks independently of any effort of will which they suppose, they could the probability of good grades through their efforts still do not increase.

By each one helpless -making state 1 a more controllable state 2 (universal | personally uncontrollable, generally | specific uncontrollable and chronic | temporarily uncontrollable ) is set aside, the authors humanize the control theory and thus make them educational, clinical and developmental psychology applicable.

Control of action- psychological perspective

In Rainer Oesterreich control term in 1981 for the first time puts the center of a psychological theory. The concept of Seligman leads to implausible conclusions, according to which a person disponer about control, although common sense following the situation reveal the exact opposite. The first situation is to illustrate that in a reasonable definition of control, the goal-directedness of action a person must be taken into account, the second situation, in addition, must be observed that knowledge of a person who calls Oesterreich control competence:

The Oesterreichsche concept of control in action concerns the relationship between a targeted actors and events in an objective situation in which the agent acts. Control refers to the extent to which the targeted desired by the actor events of his actions is dependent or independent. The agent has a control expertise that is determined by his knowledge of the dependence of the desired events from their own actions.

By Oesterreich active probabilities introduces in his mathematical model of the field of action, he contradicts the cognitive psychological assumption that those structures were mapped in the field of action, which were in the head of the actor; Rather, his model of the field of fancy from objective structures, ie a network of possible actions, consequences and action probabilities that are given to actors regardless of their knowledge and opinions. His mathematical model of the field of action is to form a picture of structures that should optimally take into account the doer, when he anticipates opportunities for action, and his course of action plans, so designed his program of action. Depending on the inter-individually different action skills, there are different active probabilities of actions. That it may, for example, be that an action at an appropriately skilled person with an effective probability of 1 reaches a certain consequence, while the probability of action is for a completely inept person, however, 0. This can result in different structures of the field of action at the same material foundations of a field of action for different actors. Austria assumes that active probabilities of actions are effective to a large extent in the form of feelings.

The Oesterreichsche motivation concept is also centered around the notion of control by adopting an anthropological pursuit control, according to the traded to the future action 's sake, will therefore acted purposefully in order to continue to act in a targeted manner in the future. The control efforts consisted in the pursuit of maintaining and expanding the monitoring and control expertise that Dietrich Dörner differentiated into an epistemic and a heuristic control competence, and thus the central difference between the control of the existing one hand, and the New on the other hand determined. Since an increase in the action skill increases control, the control struts also refers to the acquisition of practical skills. In its most general form Austria understands control the adjustability of action areas and control expertise, the adequacy of the internal representation of fields of action. Austria assumes that people be regulated from the outset on the basis of the applied control striving in them, without having consciously decided on this strategy because of cultural imprints or normative considerations.