Gender-Specific Relationships Between Trust-Suspicion, Locus of Control, and Psychological Distress

Heretick, Donna M. L.

doi:10.1080/00223980.1981.9915274

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Still other researchers have shown that locus of control does not differ across gender (Altman & Revenson, 1985;Cooper, Burger, & Good, 1981;Heretick, 1981;Parcel & Meyer, 1978). In this study, gender differences in sport locus of control were not significant.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 79%

Development of the Children's Sport Locus of Control Scale

Tsai

Hsieh

2015

soc behav pers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We developed the Children's Sport Locus of Control Scale (CSLCS) based on Rotter's (1954) social learning theory. Participants were 750 fifth-and sixth-grade elementary school students. We developed the scale through a series of analyses, including item analysis, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, simultaneous multigroup covariance analysis, and criterionrelated validity analysis. The CSLCS comprises 12 items, of which 6 items measure ability and responsibility in the internal control dimension, and 6 items measure environment and chance in the external control dimension. The results of the analyses confirmed that this scale has good reliability, validity, and measurement invariance, and that it also satisfies all fit measures. The 6 measures of internal locus of control in the CSLCS are suited for measuring children's sport locus of control, and the measurement results will not differ across gender. Finally, we offer suggestions to future researchers.In 1966, Rotter developed the concept of locus of control from his 1954 social learning theory, in which it is stated that people learn behavior primarily by observing and imitating the actions of others, and that they increase or decrease behavior according to whether or not they are rewarded or punished, respectively, for their actions. Locus of control refers to one's belief in how much control he or she has over life events, and was described by Rotter (1966) as a problem-solving generalized expectancy. Rotter (1966) identified two types of locus of control, SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2015, 43(2), 315-326

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 79%

Development of the Children's Sport Locus of Control Scale

Tsai

Hsieh

2015

soc behav pers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also measured participants' comfort level with risk by using a seven‐point risk propensity scale (Meertens and Lion, ). Because companies are asking investors to trust them with their succession announcements, we controlled for trusting stance using a five‐point scale developed by Heretick () to measure expectancies concerning the trustworthiness of others. Investors in different parts of the United States could have more systematically mild or severe reactions, so we controlled for geographic region with dummy variables coded for the Midwest, Northeast, Pacific Northwest, South, Southeast, and West.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investor perceptions of CEO successor selection in the wake of integrity and competence failures: A policy capturing study

Connelly

Ketchen

Gangloff

et al. 2016

Strategic Management Journal

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research summary:Drawing on theory about signaling, sensemaking, and the romance of leadership, we extend inquiry on investors' perceptions of CEO succession following misconduct. Whereas past studies have treated misconduct monolithically, we examine failures of integrity and competence separately. Using a policy capturing methodology that isolates investors' decision making from potential confounds, we find that, following an integrity failure, investors perceive outside and interim successors positively but inside successors negatively. Following a competence failure, investors perceive outside successors positively but are ambivalent toward inside and interim successors. Our findings indicate that whether an act of misconduct was an integrity failure or a competence failure, and what type of successor the firm chooses, are important considerations when using CEO succession as a means to restore investor confidence.Managerial summary: Business headlines regularly feature episodes of organizational misconduct, such as product safety problems, environmental violations, employee mistreatment, and securities lawsuits, and their aftermath. In such scenarios, shareholders demand answers from the people at the top, even if those people were not directly responsible for the problem. As a result, companies often fire the CEO as a means to restore investor confidence. Does this work? It depends on the type of misconduct and who is the CEO's successor. Following a competence failure, investors welcome the appointment of an outsider, but they are indifferent to inside and interim successors. Following an integrity failure, shareholders greet outside and interim CEO successors favorably while frowning on the promotion of insiders.

show abstract

“…We also controlled for attributes of decision makers that could influence their tendencies to rely on trust or contracts. This included a control for trusting stance using the six‐item scale developed by Heretick (1981). This scale includes one item that addresses the individual's past experience with trust.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Under a cloud of suspicion: trust, distrust, and their interactive effect in interorganizational contracting

Connelly

Miller

Devers

2011

Strategic Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although considerable research has examined the role of trust in interorganizational relationship (IOR) contracting, scholars have devoted less attention to how trust and distrust jointly influence this process. We propose and test a model wherein trust, based on partner reliability, is constrained to the IOR exchange context where it develops and does not generalize to other contexts. Distrust, rooted in value incongruence, more readily generalizes across exchange contexts. Results support these predictions. In addition, our analysis shows that trust and distrust combine such that managers decrease their preferences for highly specific focal-context contracts only when in-context trust is high and distrust is low. We discuss how these findings may provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between trust-based and contract-based IOR governance.

show abstract

Gender-Specific Relationships Between Trust-Suspicion, Locus of Control, and Psychological Distress

Cited by 18 publications

References 12 publications

Development of the Children's Sport Locus of Control Scale

Development of the Children's Sport Locus of Control Scale

Investor perceptions of CEO successor selection in the wake of integrity and competence failures: A policy capturing study

Under a cloud of suspicion: trust, distrust, and their interactive effect in interorganizational contracting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About