No description available.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Delaware, 2007. / Principal faculty advisor: Robert Eisenberger, Dept. of Psychology. Includes bibliographical references.

The purpose of this study was to identify events that give a sense of control (decisional, behavioral, and cognitive) to clients during hospitalization, and to identify commonalities among patients related to the importance attached to selected hospitalization events and a sense of control. Bandura's social learning theory provided the conceptual framework for the study.A non probability convenience sampling of 45 adult patients hospitalized for the treatment of genitourinary, gastrointestinal, thyroid disease, or cancer of any origin, completed the instruments which measure client control: The Client Control Q Set (CCQS;) and, The Health Opinion Survey (HOS.) A semi-structured interview validated the CCQS and a background data form provided demographic information. Q factor analysis was used to identify factors of client control. The emerging factors were analyzed in relationship to the results of the HOS and patient demographic information. Subjects' human rights were protected.This study was a modified replication of Dennis' (1985) investigation to determine if a sense of control was important to hospitalized patients. The investigation supported Dennis' (1985) findings that cognitive control over diagnostic tests, surgery, treatment and illness care was important to hospitalized patients. Another important dimension of control was identified through behavioral means involving the environment. Health Opinion Survey scores identified a need to be actively involved in the health care process by patients who also desired cognitive control over diagnosis, surgery, and tests. Also, commonalities of occupation, sex, age, and diagnosis emerged among patients who identified a need for cognitive control. Likenesses emerged in nonprofessional females between the age of 21-40 receiving treatment for gastrointestinal disease.The study supported the assumption that patients do desire a senseof control during hospitalization and also supported the need to recognize other patients may not desire a sense of control. It is important to recognize the difference and respond appropriately to individual patients. The study revealed the need for nurses to facilitate a flow of information to patients regarding diagnosis, surgery and impending tests. / School of Nursing

Thesis (M.A.)--York University, 1999. Graduate Programme in Psychology. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 135-148). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pMQ39211.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--York University, 1998. Graduate Programme in Psychology. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 181-[194]). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNQ27326.

Formal controls are essential for well-functioning organizations, but research finds that they can negatively impact controlled individuals’ (agents) behavior. Specifically, controls can reduce agents’ intrinsic motivation to exert effort for employers (principals). In this dissertation, I investigate how agents’ beliefs about the intentionality of control influence their response to it. Further, I examine whether principals anticipate agents’ responses and adjust their risk-taking behavior accordingly. Using three interactive experiments, I examine the effects of control intentionality on agents’ effort and principals’ risk-taking. In the first experiment, I focus on the effects of intentions and control, without permitting principals to transfer resources to agents. In the second and third experiments, principals take risk by entrusting resources to agents. Further, in the third experiment, I investigate the beliefs that influence participants’ actions. In each experiment, I manipulate agents’ beliefs about control intentionality by varying the control source across three conditions. In the first condition, principals endogenously impose control, which can clearly be perceived as a distrusting signal. In the second condition, control is imposed exogenously by a computer and therefore cannot be interpreted negatively. In the third condition, the control source is unclear to the agent, such that it may be imposed by the principal or computer. I find that intentionality influences agents’ response to control. Specifically, in the first experiment, when control is imposed exogenously, agents exert high effort. However, agents’ effort diminishes when control can be interpreted as a negative signal, even if the source is ambiguous. Moreover, when the principal unambiguously imposes control, agents exert less effort than if no control is imposed. The second experiment reveals that this dysfunctional effect of intentional control persists when principals entrust resources to agents. Despite these negative effects, principals prefer to impose control. However, principals appear to accurately predict how control intentionality affects agents and take more risk when they have chosen not to impose control or when it is imposed by an exogenous or ambiguous source than when they have intentionally imposed it. Results from the second and third experiments indicate that principals’ risk-taking is influenced by their beliefs about agent opportunism. / text

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.