Mechanisms in Cognitive Learning, Contingency Learning Events, and The Pairing of Stimuli in Grooming Behavior and Mind Control: What’s the real intent behind gangstalking, electronic targeted physical assaults, and psychotronic torture
The purpose of this article is to get the reader to think about how a Targeted Individual’s self-efficacy is compromised through electronic targeted physical assaults and psychotronic torture and to think about the very real and patterned ways in which the purveyors of this form of technological control have operated historically within the power structures of male patriarchy.
The research paper, Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change (1977), presents an integrative theoretical framework to explain and predict psychological changes achieved by different modes of treatment. This theory states that psychological procedures, whatever their form, alter the level and strength of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a person’s belief that they can be successful when carrying out a particular task, say learning advanced skills required to ballroom dance or learning advanced skills in calculus. This concept was originally developed by psychologist Albert Bandura who originally proposed the concept, a personal judgment of how well or poorly a person is able to cope with a given situation based on the skills they have and the circumstances they face. I propose the purpose of electronic physical assault and psychotronic torture is specifically designed to upend a person’s self-efficacy. I have previously stated in my past posts exploring the forensic psychology behind the phenomenon of gang stalking, electronic targeted physical assaults, and the use of psychotronic torture that this phenomenon relates to a person’s internal locus of control, as well as negative effects a person’s self-efficacy. In the research study, Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change (1977), a research paper published in the field of behavioral change hypothesized that expectations of self-efficacy determine whether coping behaviors will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. Persistence in activities that are subjectively threatening, but in fact relatively safe procedures, through experiences of mastery, further the enhancement of self-efficacy and corresponding reductions in defensive behavior. In the proposed model, expectations of personal self-efficacy are derived from four principal sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. The more dependable the experiential sources, the greater are the changes in perceived self-efficacy. Likewise, a reduction in the dependability of the experiential sources, a reduction in the personal self-efficacy of the individual. A number of factors are identified as influencing the cognitive processing of efficacy information arising from enactive, vicarious, exhortative, and emotive sources. The differential power of diverse therapeutic procedures is analyzed in terms of the postulated cognitive mechanism of operation. Findings are reported from microanalyses of enactive, vicarious, and emotive modes of treatment that support the hypothesized relationship between perceived self-efficacy and behavioral changes. Possible directions for further research are discussed in the paper as well.
Since lifestyle changes are one of the side-effects of the phenomenon known as gang stalking, electronic physical assault, and psychotronic torture might very likely be an antithetical psychological experiment on the health and well-being of a fractional population of people being conducted at the hands of unscrupulous researchers. Of course, it may be part of some other type of conspiracy as well. Not enough is fully known to explore these hypotheses.
Two major divergent trends in the field of behavioral change are evidence by the difference in the treatment of dysfunctional inhibitions and defensive behaviors. On the one hand, the mechanisms by which human behavior is acquired and regulated are increasingly formulated in terms of cognitive processes. On the other hand, it is performance-based procedures that are proving to be most powerful for effecting psychological changes. If you think about how exercise can improve attitude and lessen depression thereby supporting overall health and well-being. The above-mentioned research study reported as a consequence, successful performance is replacing symbolically based experiences as the principal vehicle of change. If this is true, then the electronic physical assaults and psychotronic torture I have been enduring are antithetical to the health and well-being of a fractional portion of the American population who are reporting its effects.
To understand this better, let’s consider the cognitive locus of control. Cognitive locus of control, are treatments based on learning principles and it hypothesizes that new behaviors will be shaped automatically by its effects, through paired stimulation in which responses are directly linked to stimuli. If you remember I wrote about my experience with a contingency learning event in my personal life, the paired stimulation between my new cell phone ring and the memory recall of an enjoyable event caused a conditioned biological sexual response. It is important to remember, this event occurred during a time while I was being “treated” (more like abused) with electronic targeted physical assaults directed to my genitalia and through psychotronic torture, the lowering of my conscious state of awareness similar if one consumed alcohol or took a mind-altering drug. In the research of mind control, this event might be considered a form of Manchurian Candidate type of mind control. However, a Manchurian Candidate is a person who is not loyal to, or who harms, their own country or political party because they are under the control or influence of another country or party: Some bloggers hint that a presidential candidate might be a kind of Manchurian candidate. Theoretical formulations in the 1970s began to replace peripheral mechanisms of cognitive learning with the central processing of direct, vicarious, and symbolic sources of information.
Altering the rate of pre-existing behavior by re-enforcement was portrayed as a process wherein responses were regulated by their immediate consequences without requiring any conscious involvement of the responders. Changes in behavior produced by stimuli that either signify events to come or indicate probable response consequences also have been shown to rely heavily on cognitive representations of contingencies. People are not much affected by paired stimulation unless they recognize that the events are correlated (Dawson & Furedy, 1976; Grings, 1973). Stimuli influence the likelihood of a behavior’s being performed by virtue of their predictive function, not because the stimuli are automatically connected to responses by their having occurred together. Consider this aspect of behavioral conditioning, also known as grooming, that employs electronic targeted physical assaults to the body and mind of the individual. It has been amply documented cognitive processes play a prominent role in the acquisition and retention of new behavior patterns. Transitory experiences leave lasting effects by being coded and retained in symbols for memory representation. Because the acquisition of response information is a major aspect of learning, much human behavior is developed through modeling. So, say a retailer (or perhaps a patron) at Larry’s Liquor Store, a local retail store in my area, does not wish for me to visit this particular establishment anymore. Through lateral surveillance, physically watching me entering and exiting the store or tracking through GPS, they employ the use of electronic targeted physical assaults and psychotronic torture that can elicit behavioral change. Because transitory experiences leave lasting effects by being coded and retained in symbols for memory representation and because I don’t want to receive another electronic physical assault and psychotronic torture my behavior will be inclined to change (e.g., choose to visit another store). In research, these variables are known as the dependent and independent variables. To further clarify, Targeted Individuals who have been undergoing this type of lateral surveillance enduring electronic physical assaults and psychotronic torture have actually moved and relocated to avoid the cost of the pain and suffering by staying in their homes.
It is important to note in one research study, a larger portion of women are targeted versus men. Conservative estimates suggest that 8% of women and only 2% of men report being stalked at some point in their lives, it would appear that the subjective experience of being gang-stalked could affect around 0.66% of adult women and only 0.17% of adult men in the western world at some point in their lives. This speaks volumes of the purveyors for this form of technological control. It might be assumed that something that affects the lives of so many people would have been the subject of extensive research and study. However, this is not the case which may also appear a bit suspicious until we consider the following information.
There is also another aspect to this phenomenon. This phenomenon directly affects clairsentience. Clairsentience is not a psychic phenomenon like many people believe it to be. No, in fact, clairsentience is the ability to perceive the emotional state of another person who is not directly visible in your field of sight. This is an evolutionary adaptation that allowed our ancestors to initiate a fight or flight response when a perceived threat of real danger enters into our awareness. Dr. Nancy Zarse has discussed this in lecture three of Survival Mentality: Psychology of Staying Alive. Clairsentience is connected to “feelings” and because of its connection to feelings, it has also been considered to be empathic. In humans and in animals it is an evolutionary skill acquired adaptation that allows organisms to achieve a heightened sense of awareness about their surrounding environment during events of a perceived threat that poses a real danger. These “feelings” Dr. Zarse labeled as “sensations” which are not to be confused with the sensations delivered from electronic targeted physical assaults and psychotronic torture. These feelings or sensations are feeling fright, feeling scared, feeling fearful, happy, angry, sad, joyful, peaceful, etc. Remember words matter. So, the “sensations” of electronic targeted physical assault and psychotronic torture are not the same as the sensations we experience from emotional states. However, the sensations delivered by electronic targeted physical assault and psychotronic torture can elicit emotional states of fear and anger, and disrupt emotional states of peace and homeostasis. Because individuals feel overwhelmed during these “critical events” they become cognitively crippled by this form of abuse. As a result, they become not immediately aware of the differences between emotional states and physical sensations, and so, because they are unable to accurately articulate what they are experiencing, clinicians diagnose them as “schizophrenic” or “paranoid schizophrenic.”
Now, you might ask why would someone want to alter a person’s evolutionary acquired and layered skills of knowledge of survival? No doubt, the answers will vary depending on who you ask, but if you ask me, it may be in order to control the level of emotional response such as the sensations that come with “feelings.” The electronic targeted physical assaults and psychotronic torture thereby impacts the victim’s response and reduces or increases his or her ability to successfully defending against the endangering life-threatening event such as a physical assault or sexual assault received during a domestic violence altercation. Responses may also be self-defensive mechanisms of either self-harming behavior or behavior directed at another who is eliciting the sensations or emotions in the victim. In short, it puts the person at a very real disadvantage. If you take the time to think about how unconscionable this information is, given the fact that a person could be manipulated to enter the arms of a predator, and the fact that vulnerable groups like woman, children, black slaves, the mentally ill, and those with alternate lifestyles have been targets of violence. Historically speaking, it has seen poor, black sharecroppers, black female African slaves, mentally ill, foster children, pregnant women, and other disadvantaged groups who have been unethically and inhumanely made test subject fodder for unscrupulous research studies. Let us explore whether or not the phenomenon of gang stalking, electronic targeted physical research, and psychotronic torture violates the Belmont Report. That is IF it is an experimental research study:
1. Respect for persons: protecting the autonomy of all people and treating them with courtesy and respect and allowing for informed consent. Researchers must be truthful and conduct no deception.
2. Beneficence: the philosophy for looking out for the well-being of research participants and “Do no harm.” That is, the research should far outweigh the benefits than the risks.
3. Justice: ensuring reasonable, non-exploitative, and well-considered procedures are administered fairly and equally.
In my opinion, it violates all three principles set forth by Ethical Principles and guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects.
What’s more, the fact that we analyze myth for the purpose of understanding unconscious phantasies rooted in cultural anxieties that are pervasively held by groups, especially surrounding images of, not only female flesh, but those images that represent cultural, religious, ethnic, gender, and sexual “differences.” The fact that a larger portion of the targeted individuals is females, speaks volumes to the unconscious psychic state of the purveyors to this particular form of technological control. While during the course of being surveilled with this form of eavesdropping electronic communication technology I have been sexually assaults and physically assaulted. I have been harassed at various public locations because I believe the purveyors to this technology are in a privileged position of knowledge to my daily activities; where and when I go grocery shopping, what library I frequent (there is now only one library available to me), and what liquor stores I frequently purchase from, and so on and so forth.
Following my May 11, 2021 post entitled “Myth, Phantasy, Culture: Male counterphobic defenses against emasculation”, the intensity of the electronic targeted physical assaults and psychotronic torture increased significantly. This means that my online blogging sites are being watched by those individual purveyors of this technology. The association to the increase in the intensity of psychotronic torture over the last nine (9) days can be made through the image I posted with one of my online published articles on May 11th. It was a picture of the Renaissance artist’s sculpture known as Donatello’s “David.” At the base of Donatello’s sculpture, David has his left foot firmly planted on the severed head of Goliath. The sculpting depicts the myth from the Bible described in the Book of Samuel as a Philistine giant defeated by the young David in a single combat incident. The story signified Saul’s unfitness to rule, as Saul himself should have fought for Israel. It is an age-old struggle between “a junior man” and “a mighty warrior.” This myth most closely voices the presentation of “opposite poles” and illustrates for us the ambiances and tensions found in language and cultural social problems. It runs parallel to the Greek myth of Achilles and Agamemnon. In this conflict, both Agamemnon and Achilles are awarded a woman as a trophy of war, but when Agamemnon is forced to release his captive, Chryseis, he decides that he is entitled to Achilles’ captive, Briseis. So here we can come to an understanding regarding the unconscious phantasies of men found in the various myths of both Jewish and Greek mythology and to the social tensions they are testaments toward. We can look at Agamemnon’s game strategy of taking Achilles’ woman as a dark tit for tat in the Prisoner’s dilemma.
The Renaissance sculpting of Donatello’s “David” expresses the ambiances and tensions during a time during the history of Italy when the Duke of Milan was represented as the unfit wealthy tyrannical aristocracy, an abusive tyrant in his rule over the people of Florence. And the people of Florence who were depicted as young “David,” a poorer class of people suffering at the hands of an unfit tyrannical leader. This scenario supports my hypothesis that my family may be perceived as the “wealthy aristocracy who, unfit to rule are being punished for their abuses” and that the purveyors of this form of technological control are the Florentin “Davids”. I say this simply because of my sister’s wealth. She sports a silver Rolex, drives a Mercedes Benz, draped with Louis Vuitton, and lives in a house valued somewhere between $500,000 and $750,000. And so, the goal of these purveyors is to somehow acquire their wealth or to punish and harm certain family members within its ranks because of the cultural differences these individuals represent. This is only one of my hypotheses.
A lot of people believe my parents as well as my immediate family members are “filthy dirty pieces of shit.” Some of the people who believe this are in my extended family as well as acquaintances who know us personally. My family was attacked by an outside source. An outside source who wished to do certain individuals in my family harm. So far, my eldest two siblings have died prematurely and I believe they were being targeted like me. Similar to how Hitler targeted the Jews during the Holocaust, and how Achilles’ conflict with Agamemnon ended in Achilles’ withdrawal in fighting in battle. My family was targeted for the culture they represented by a white supremacist(s) Nazi who believed in their perceived cultural superiority and that somehow our culture represented a social blemish on the face of humanity. This belief or perception represents a cultural myth that certain groups deserved to be punished because they themselves are responsible for their own suffering like when homeless people are targeted with violence, black men, and Asian Americans.
While it may or may not be true that my parents may be “filthy, dirty, pieces of shit,” we make a similar connection to opinions held toward the homeless population. These myths believe they deserved to get beaten, or victimized because, after all, why don’t they just “get a job.” This fact doesn’t afford anyone the right to abuse and torture groups of people who represent basic cultural differences because their beliefs and lifestyles differ from the mainstream. My family has been called “country” and “Hillbilly.” This is what happens in the victim-blaming of prostitutes who, because they were born into social disadvantage, may have to make their money from selling illicit sex acts. It would be similar to a group entering Appalachia with the intent to “round up” all the poor Hillbillies, forcing them into concentration camps where they will be experimented on and treated like test fodder, test subject automata with the goal of ultimately ushering in their pre-mature death because the social stigmata they represent to society is undesirable.
Let us not forget during the Trump administration, Trump’s Department of Justice sent documents to Congress requesting the suspension of the rules for habeas corpus, which would have violated a basic tenet in US Constitutional Law, by suspending a person’s rights to a court trial. The requested order would have allowed the government to hold any person arrested during the riots, kept in jail indefinitely without appearing before a court or judge. Congress denied the request.
Let’s not forget the purveyors for this form of technological control are violating people’s basic 1st Amendment rights and 4th Amendment rights. And it’s important to acknowledge the part of “medical treatment” is to foster a safe holding environment where the patient doesn’t feel endangered for their life. This is based on a simple assumption that an ethical position is to be held by both participants who are parties to the consented agreed upon “medical treatment.” This is not “medical treatment.” This is a conspiracy rooted in a criminal alliance not too unlike the cultural myths of Achilles and Agamemnon and David and Goliath except where Achilles and David were one junior male opponent, in gang stalking with electronic targeted physical assault and psychotronic torture there is a criminal alliance between two or more men with the intention of harming a targeted human object.
Sources:
Archer, R.P. (1979). Relationships between locus of control and anxiety. In the Journal of Personality Assessment, 43(6), 617–626.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191.
Benassi, V.A., Sweeney, P.D., & Dufour, C.L. (1988). Is there a relation between locus of control orientation and depression? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(30), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.97.3.357
Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G.J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-119
Brosschot, J.F., Gebhardt, W.A., & Godaert, G.L. (1994). Internal, powerful others and chance locus of control: Relationships with personality, coping, stress and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(6), 839–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90228-3
Bunch, J.M., & Schneider, H.G. (1991). Smoking-specific locus of control. Psychological Reports, 69(3_suppl), 1075–1081. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1991.69.3f.1075
Chakhssi, F., Kraiss, J.T., Sommers-Spijkerman, M., & Bohlmeijer, E.T. (2018). The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 18(1), 211. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1739-2
Chen, G., Gully, S.M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004
Dambrun, M., Richard, M., Despres, G., Drelon, E., Gibelin, E., Gibelin, M. Loubeyre, M., Py, D., Delpy, A., Garibbo, C., Bray, E., Lac, G., & Michaux, O. (2012). Measuring happiness: From fluctuating happiness to authentic-durable happiness. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00016
Daniels, R.L., & Stevens, J.P. (1976). The interaction between the internal — External locus of control and two methods of college instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312013002103
Dawson, M.E., & Furedy, J.J. (1976). The role of awareness in human differential autonomic classical conditioning: The necessary-gate hypothesis. Psychophysiology, 13, 50–53.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
DeNeve, K.M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197–229. https://doi.org/10/1037/0033-2909.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Emmons, R.A., & McCullough, M.E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377
Farnier, J., Shankland, R., Kotsou, I., Inigo, M., Rosset, E., & Leys, C. (2021). Empowering Well-Being: Validation of a Locus of Control Scale Specific to Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, OnlineFirst, 1–30.
Garcia, M.F.M., Ramirez, M.G., & Jariego, I.M. (2002). Social support and locus of control as predictors of psychological well-being in Moroccan and Peruvian immigrant women in Spain. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(3), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0147-1767(02)00005-6
Gerger, H. Naxcimento, A.F., Locher, C., Gaag, J., & Trachsel, M. (2020). What are the key characteristics of a ‘good’ psychotherapy? Calling for ethical patient involvement. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpst.2020.00406.
Glenn, D., Golinelli, D., Rose, R.D., Roy-Byrne, P., Stein, M.D., Sullivan, G., Bystritksy, A., Sherbourne, C., & Craske, M.G. (2013). Who gets the most out of cognitive-behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders? The role of treatment dose and patient engagement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(4), 639. https://doi.org/10/1037/a0033403
Grant, A.M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(10), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.48
Grotz, M., Hapke, U., Lampert, T., & Baumeister, H. (2011). Health, Locus of Control and Health Behaviour: Results from a nationally representative survey. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 16(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2010.521570
Guay, F., Mageau, G.A., & VAllerand, R.J. (2003). On the hierarchical structure of self-determined motivation: A test of top-down, bottom-up, reciprocal, and horizontal effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 992–10004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203253297
Hayes, S.C., Strosahl, K.D., & Wilson, K.G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. Guilford Press.
Kelley, T.M., & Stack, S.A. (2000). Thought recognition, locus of control, and adolescent well-being. Adolescence, 35(139), 531.
Lester, D. (1989). Locus of control, depression, and suicidal ideation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69(3–2), 1158–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125890693-216
Lester, D., Castromayor, I.J., & Icli, T. (1991). Locus of control, depression, and suicidal ideation among American, Philippine, and Turkish students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(3), 447–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1991.9713873
Levenson, H., & Mahler, I. (1975). Attitudes toward others and components of internal-external locus of control. Psychological Reports, 36(1), 209–210. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1975.36.1.209
Lindbloom, G., & Faw, T.T. (1982). Three measures of locus of control: What do they measure? Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(1), 70–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_12
Lovibond, P.F., & Lovibond, S.H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u
Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J.K., & Sheldon, K.M. (2011). Becoming happier takes both a will and a proper way: An experimental longitudinal intervention to boost well-being. Emotion, 11(2), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022575
Malhotra, R., & Suri, S. (2017). Locus of control and well-being among college students. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(2), 231–236.
Mazzucchelli, T.G., Kane, R.T., & Rees, C.S. (2010). Behavioral activation interventions for well-being: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903569154
McCullough, M.E., Emmons, R.A., & Tsang, J.-A. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112
Ng, T.W., Sorensen, K.L., & Eby, L.T. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(8), 1057–1087. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.416
Obitz, F.W., Cooper, K., & Madeiros, D.C. (1974). General and specific perceived locus of control in heroin addicts. International Journal of the Addictions, 9(5), 757–750. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826087409057387
Oswald, L.M., Walker, G.C., Krajewski, K.J., & Reilly, E.L. (1994). General specific locus of control in cocaine abusers. Journal of Substance Abuse, 6(2), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3289(94)90205-4
Parkes, K.R. (1984). Locus of control, cognitive appraisal, coping in stressful episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.655
Pearce, C.M., & Martin, G. (1993). Locus of control as an indicator of risk for suicidal behavior among adolescents. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 88(6), 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1993.tb03482.x
Prociuk, T.J., Breen, L.J., & Lussier, R.J. (1976). Hopelessness, internal-external locus of control, and depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology. https://doi.org/10/1002/1097-4679(197604)32:2%3c299::aid-jclp2270320221%3e3.0.co;2-g
Reis, H.T., Sheldon, K.M., Gable, S.L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046167200266002
Rotter, J.B. (1954). Social Learning and clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org//10.1037/10788-000
Rotter, J.B. (166). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10/1037/h0092976
Rotter, J.B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45(4), 489–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.45.4.489
Ruble, T.L. (1976). Effects of one’s locus of control and the opportunity to participate in planning. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90007-6
Ryff, C.D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Saltzer, E.B. (1982). The weight locus of control (WLOC) scale: a specific measure for obesity research. Journal of Personality assessment, 46(6), 620–628. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4606_11
Sheridan, L., James, D., & Roth, J. (2020). The Phenomenology of Group Stalking (‘Gang-Stalking’): A Content Analysis of Subjective Experiences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7),
Shojaee, M., & French, C. (2014). The relationship between mental health components and locus of control in youth. Psychology. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.58107
Sin, N.L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 467–487. https://doi.org/10/1002/jclp.20593
Talbot, F., Nouwen, A., & Gauthier, J. (1996). Is Health locus of control a 3-factor or a 2-factor construct? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52(5), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199609)52:5%3c559::aid-jclp11%3e3.0.co;2-d
VanderZee, K.I., Buunk, B.P., & Sanderman, R. (1997). Social support, locus of control, and psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(20), 1842–1859. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01628.x
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C.P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0749-7423(2010)000016a00
Wallston, K.A., Wallston, B.S., & DeVellis, R. (1978). Development of the multidimensional health locus of control (MHLC) scales. Health Education Monographs, 6(1), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817800600107
Walker, Chris. Report: Trump’s Justice Department Wants To Suspend Habeas Corpus. HillReporter.com. Published March 21, 2020. Retrieved online May 20, 2021. https://hillreporter.com/report-trumps-justice-department-wants-to-suspend-habeas-corpus-62080
Watkins, P.C., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts, R.L. (2003). Gratitude and happiness: Development of a measure of gratitude, and relationships with subjective well-being. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(5), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.5.431
Watson, D. (1967). Relationship between locus of control and anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(1), 91–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024490
Zarse, Nancy, PsyD. (2021) Survival Mentality: Psychology of Staying Alive. Great Courses Plus. Lecture 01: “What It Means To Survive” & Lecture 02: “Developing An Internal Locus of Control” & Lecture 03: “Listening to your Instincts.”
Other writings from the author to be considered:
