Perceived control, influence, responsibility, and helplessness in situations of choiceless control.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine the feasibility of choiceless control in determining perceptions of control, influence, responsibility, and helplessness over outcomes. After reviewing and critiquing some traditional theories and research that exist in the control literature, a new conceptualization of control is presented. Based on research by Nickels et al. (2005), an extended research design was proposed and tested, which examined the separate effects of actual control, choice, and predictability. The present findings show significantly higher ratings of perceived influence under conditions in which individuals made their own choice (whether voluntary or involuntary) between options that made a difference (actual control) in a failed outcome that was predicted. Whereas perceived control ratings were significantly higher with actual control, feelings of responsibility over the outcome were significantly higher when actual control was combined with a voluntary choice. Although feelings of helplessness were not significantly affected, ratings of frustration over the outcome were significantly higher when actual control was combined with the prediction that a failed outcome would occur. The theoretical relevance of these findings is discussed, and the generalizability of the new conceptualization of control is explored in terms of its relation to positive psychology (e.g., humour) and cross-cultural research frameworks.Dept. of Psychology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2005 .P47. Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-11, Section: B, page: 6338. Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2005.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".