The effect of Socio-Economic – Status on Locus of control of HIV positive patients

The effect of Socio-Economic – Status on Locus of control of HIV positive patients
Chandrakant Jamadar

Abstract
The role of HIV locus of control in adaptation to HIV disease was evaluated in a sample of 400 N.G.Os medical beneficiaries with predominantly a symptomatic, early stage HIV infection. Cluster analysis yielded. Two configurations of HIV locus of control, with high levels of SES & low SES & related to a cluster where internal and powerful others control were highly endorbed. External attributions of control were highly endorsed. External attributions of control generally appeared more adaptive. Results are discussed in relation to Rotter’s social learning theory and its implications for adaptive aspects of locus of control.

Objective : Describe the impact of socio-economic states on locus of control among HIV infected men & women.

Method : A total of 400 men and women participating in a longitudinal study of the psychological effects of HIV infected individual SES by Rajiv Lochan Bhardwaj (1984) Locus of control by Dr. Rompal (1996) was evaluated

Result :-

The result showed significant correlation between socio-economic status and locus of control of HIV risk. The locus of control based model significantly predicted variance in HIV risk.

Conclusion :

This study replicated findings that SES affects HIV positive individuals.
* Asst. professor, Vijayanagar women’s first grade college, Mysore
* Asst. Professor. P.G. Studies in Psychology, Maharani Arts & Commerce College
for women’s Mysore
*** Clinical Psychologist, Chandigarh University, Chandigarh

Socio economic status refers to the hierarchical distractions between individuals or groups in societies or cultures. Anthropologist, historians and sociologist identify class as universal, although what determines class varies widely from one society to another. Even with a society, different people or groups may have very different ideas about what makes one “high” or “low” is the hierarchy (David, 1978).

The most basic class distinction between the groups is between the ‘powerful’ and ‘powerless’. Social classes with more power usually subordinate classes with less power, while attempting to comment their own power position in society. Social classes with a great deal of power are usually viewed as elites, at least within their own societies.

In the simplest societies, power is closely linked to the ability to assert ones status through physical strength; thus age, gender and physical health are often common delineators of class in rudimentary tribes. However, spiritual charisma and religious vision can be at least as important. Also, because different livelihoods are so closely intertwined in simple societies, morality often ensures that the old, the young, the weak and the sick maintain a relatively equal standard of living despite low class status.

HIV / AIDS :-
The acquired immune deficiency syndrome was first recognized in the United State of America in 1981 with an extradoinary outbreak of pneumocystis carini pneumonia and Kaposis Sarcoma in previously healthy young men. Since then the disease has been spreading alarmingly and has assumed the proportions of a global pandemic. It is now estimated that there are 22 million HIV cases worldwide with one million children being already infected with HIV. It is predicted that by AD 2000 there will be 30 to 40 million HIV cases world wide and 12 to 18 million cases of full blown AIDS with the majority of them being in the Asian continent.

The Indian scenario is equally grim. Since the reporting of the first HIV seropositive case in 1986 form Chennai and the first AIDS case in 1987 from Mumbai

Locus of control is a personality construct referring to an individual perception of the locus of events as determined internally by his/ her own behavior versus fate, luck or external circumstances.

Some researcher (McCambs, 1991) 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 we realize this executive function of thinking we can positively affect our beliefs, motivation and academic performance. “The self as agent consciously or unconsciously direct, select and regulate the use of all knowledge structures and intellectual process in support of personal goals, intentions and choices” McCombs asserts that “the degree to which one choose to be self-determining is a function of one’s realization of the source of agency and personal control” In other words, we can say to ourselves, “I choose to direct my thoughts and energies toward accomplishment. I choose not to be daunted by my anxieties or feelings of inadequacy”.

Locus of control refers to an individual’s generalized expectations concerning where control over subsequent events resides. In other words, who or what is responsible for what happens. It is analogues to, but distinct from, attributions.
According to Weiner (1962) the “attribution theory assumes that people try to determine why people do what they do, i.e., attribute causes to behavior”. There is a three stage process which underlines an attribution.

Step one : The person must perceive or possible observed the behavior
Step two : is to try and figure out if the behavior was intentional,
Step three : is to determine if the person was forced to perform that behavior.

The later occur after the fact, that is, they are explanations for events that have already happened. Expectancy, which concerns future events, is a critical aspect of locus of control. Locus of control is grounded in expectancy – value theory, which described human behavior as determined by the perceived likelihood of an event or outcome occurring contingent upon the behavior in question and the value placed on that event or outcome more specially, expectancy value theory states that if,

a) Someone values a particular outcome
b) That person believes that taking a particular action will produce that outcome
c) They are more likely to take that particular action

Julian Rotter’s original (1966) locus of control formulation classified generalized beliefs concerning who or what influences things along a bipolar dimension from internal to external control : “Internal control” is the term used to describe the belief that control of future outcomes resides, primarily in oneself while “External control” refers to the expectancy that control is outside of oneself, either in the hands of powerful other people or due to fate / chance.

Hannah Levenson (1973) offered an alternative model whereas Rotter’s conceptualization viewed locus of control as unidimensional (internal to external) Levenson’s model asserts that there are three independent dimensions :
 Internality
 Chance
 Powerful others

According to Levenson’s model, one can endorse each of these dimensions of locus of control independently and at a same time. For example, a person might simultaneously believe that both oneself and powerful others influence outcomes, but that chance does not.

Since its introduction, the locus of control construct has undergone considerable elaboration and several context – specific instruments have been developed. Health researchers in particular have embarrassed locus of control as a concept for explaining behavior. Among the most widely used health specific measures is the multidimensional health locus of control scales Waltston and Devillis, (1978). This instrument retains Lenson’s three dimensions but concerns outcomes that are specifically related to health and illness such as to staying well or becoming ill.

Locus of control, according to Rotter’s approach, can be divided into two separate source of control internal and external. People with an internal locus of control believe that they control their own destiny. They also believe that their own experience and controlled by their own skill or efforts. An example would be “The more I study, the better grades I get” (Gershaw, 1989). On the other hand, people who tend to have an external locus of control tend to attribute their experience to face, chance, or luck. Examples : External locus of control : If a student attributes either their successes or failure to having a bad day, unfair grading procedures on their teachers part or even god’s will, they can be said to have a more external locus of control. These students might say, “It doesn’t matter how hard I study the teacher just doesn’t like me, so I know I won’t get a good grade”. These students generally don’t learn from previous experiences. Since they attribute both their success and failure to luck or chance, they tend to lack persistence and not have very high levels of expectations.

Development of locus of control :-
Generally, the development of locus of control stem from family, culture and past experiences leading to rewards. Most internals have been shown to come from families that focused on effort, education and responsibility. On the other hand, most externals come from families of a low socioeconomic status where there is a lack of life control.

The history of locus of control :-
This concept was developed by Julian Rotter in the 1960s. He originally named this concept locus of control of reinforcement. Rotter actually bridged the gap between behavioural and cognitive psychology. He believed that behavior was greatly guided by the use of reinforcements. These punishments and rewards in turn shaped the way people interpreted the results of their own actions.

As everyone knows, generally in an educational setting knowledge flows from the teacher to the student. This type of environment could cause students to with draw. It is suggested that students take more of an active control in the learning process. It is also important to take into consideration whether each students has an external or internal locus of control. Knowing the location of control of your students will aid in planning the type or amount of reinforcements used in the class. Weiner’s (1982) theory applies to every teacher. If we take a look at self concept, there is a correlation between internal locus of control, and experiencing pride if a student were to do well in a class that normally is considered to be tough. On the other hand, a student does not view it as a success if they receive a good grade from a teacher who always gives high grades at the end of the quarter.

The attention theory has explained the difference in highly motivated students versus low achievers. High achievers will take the risk in order to succeed on an assignment. Low achievers avoid success because they feel that their success was based upon luck and that it would not happens again.

Internal locus of control can also be referred to as “self agency” “personal control”, “self determination”, etc. Research has found the following trends:
 Males tend to be more internal than females
 As people get older they tend to became more internal
 People higher up in organizational structures tend to be more internal (Mamin, Harris, and Case, 2001)

However, it’s important to worn people against lapsing in the overly simplistic view notion that internal is good and external is bad (two legs good, four legs bad?). There are important subtleties and complexities to be considered. For example.

Internals can be psychologically unhealthy and unstable. An internal orientation usually needs to be matched by competence, self-efficacy and opportunity so that the person is able to successfully experience the sense of personal control and responsibility. Overly internal people who lack competence, efficacy and opportunity can became neurotic, anxious and depressed. In other words, internals need to have a realistic sense of their circle of influence in order to experience ‘success’.

Externals can lead easy going, released, happy lives (Harlow, 1978).

Methodology :-
Sample : To meet the objective of the present study the data was collected at Gulbarga, Bidar & Raichur district, ICTC & NGOs. Personally interviewed the each clients by help of inventory, SES scale and locus of control scale. The testing was done in two stages, one is SES scale was administered to the total 400 respondents to categorieze them into the LSES (200) and high SES (200) taking the first the third quartile as cut off points respectively. At the second stage the locus of control were administered on the groups of high SES and LSES. The responses were scored and terminated.

Variable : The soc-economic status and gender are independent variable, dependent variables is locus of control

Objectives of the study : To know the significant impact of SES on locus of control
 To know whether high SES have external locus of control compare to low SES.
 To know the whether rural HIV +ve patients have external locus of control, where as urban have internal LOC
 To know the significant difference between male & females HIV +ve patients in locus of control

Tools used : The socio-economic –status scale developed by Bhardwaj and Chavan (1984) has been used in present study to measure social, educational, professional and economic perspective of the participants scoring was done according to manual.
The locus of control scale developed by Rampal has been used in the present study.

Statistical analysis : Appropriate statistical measures like SD and t-test is used for interpretation.

Results & Discussion
There is no human being without committing a mistake but many of us don’t accept the mistakes but try to give reasons ourselves by holding others as responsible for the mistakes done by us. Economic status of a man make him to feel or express goodness of ourselves they solder the responsibility of their conditions. Whereas people belonging to LSES solder the responsibility on god or other person responsible for their sufferings. Hence, the formulated hypothesis is that high SES have external locus of control compare to low SES HIV / AIDS patients.

Table No. 1 : Showing mean, SD, and t-value of Locus of control of high and low SES HIV/AIDS patients (N=400)
HSES LSES
Mean 48.18 54.58
SD 4.87 3.36
t-value 1.04

Table No. 1 shows the mean, SD and t-value obtained form the sample. The mean value and SD and HSES and LSES on locus of control and 48.18 and 54.58 and SDis 4.87 and 3.36 is respectively. The mean score of LSELS is greater than the high SES. But-value 1.04 is not significant. Hence, there is no significant difference between the high and low SES HIV/AIDS patient in locus of control.

Socio-economic status do not influence the locus of control of HIV / AIDS patients. Both high and low SES patients have external locus of control because they never accept there mistake which is responsible for HIV / AIDS infected.

Neither male nor female HIV / AIDS patients take upto the responsibility that it was the mistake. Due to which they are suffering from HIV / AIDS. Accordingly, they feel that other people are responsible are responsible for infection.

Hence, the formulated hypothesis is that male HIV / AIDS patients have external locus of control and female HIV / AIDS patients have internal locus of control.

Table No. 2 : Showing means SD and t-value of locus of control of male and female HIV / AIDS patients (N=400).
HSES LSES
Mean 33.66 31.3
SD 4.36 5.96
t-value 4.50**
**Significant at 0.01 level

Table No. 2 shows the mean, SD and t-value obtained from the sample. The mean value of locus of control of male is 33.66 and that of female is 31.3 and SD is 4.36 and 5.96 respectively. The t-value is 4.50 it is significant at 0.01 level. This shows, there is significant difference between the male and female HIV / AIDS patient in locus of control.

Therefore, the hypothesis that there is significant difference between locus of control of male and female.

Awareness of HIV / AIDS in urban/rural areas make people to protect themselves from this life killing disease. Irresponsibility and unfaithful towards once spouse may rest in the attack of unavoidable HIV / AIDS disease. Many people aware of causes of AIDS they never agree of accept that they are responsible for the required HIV / AIDS. No person accept the reality and truth that it is their mistake for the suffering.

Hence, the formulated hypothesis is rural HIV / AIDS patients have external locus of control were as urban have internal locus of control.

Table No. 3 : Showing mean, SD and t-value of locus of control of urban and rural HIV / AIDS patient (N=400).
HSES LSES
Mean 27 26.7
SD 3.50 3.80
t-value 0.87

Table No. 3 shows, mean scores, of urban and rural is 27 and 26.7 and SD is 380. The calculated t-value is 0.87 which is not significant. This indicate that there is no significant difference in the locus of control of urban and rural HIV / AIDS patients.
People residing in urban/rural area do not differ in the reasons. They accept the cause and affect of HIV / AIDS is from external agent only.


Summary and Conclusion
• There is no significant differences in the locus of control of high socio-economic status and low socio-economic status of HIV +ve patients.
• There is significant difference between the male and female HIV +ve patients in locus of control.
• There is no significant difference in the locus of control of urban and rural HIV +ve patients.


References :
1. Fretcher and J. Fitness (1996) knowledge structures in close relationships. Lawsence Erlbaum press, pp-183-192.
2. Marsh. H.W. et al (1986) the Rotters LOC scale, dimension journal London, pp-43-45.
3. Mearns, Jack (2004). The social / earning theory of Julian Rotter, Newyork, Plenum press, pp 122-121.
4. Neill. J.T (2005) Locus of control, a class tutorial, New York pp 4-5.
5. Pradeepkumar Josi (204) social development & social welfare Anmol Publication, New Delhi, pp – 284-293.
6. Rahadkar. W.B. (1960). A scale for measuring SES of Indian form families. Agril. Pp. 34-37.
7. Roos N.P. (1995) A study on high SES in Mumbai city, Shiva Pubication, pp 82-109.
8. Theielker. V. et . al (2004) positive reinforcement and LOC, Anmol, New Delhi- pp- 84-89.