Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

Item

Title

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

Author

Lachman, Margie E.

Agrigoroaei, Stefan

Rickenbach, Elizabeth H.

Research Area

Development

Topic

Developmental Processes

Abstract

The concept of control in the social and behavioral sciences derives mainly from theories of motivation. Early work on control was largely descriptive, with an emphasis on individual differences in perceived control. This essay first reviews the foundational research on the development of control beliefs and their relationship to achievement and health outcomes. Next, the article summarizes more recent cutting‐edge research, which has examined trajectories of longitudinal change and the processes and mechanisms that link control beliefs with outcomes. Studies have shown that control beliefs can be a resilience factor that buffers the effects of stress and moderates social class differences in health and longevity. Suggestions for future research directions include a focus on short‐term, within‐person variability and intraindividual change processes, cultural variations in control beliefs, and the antecedents of control. The article concludes by considering some of the possible limits of a high sense of control as well as interventions to optimize control, and the policy implications of control beliefs. Future research will benefit from a biopsychosocial approach in order to understand how control beliefs develop and get under the skin to affect health and well‐being.

Related Essays

Terror Management Theory (Psychology), Alisabeth Ayars et al.

Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.

Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One's Thoughts (Psychology), Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine

Setting One's Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance (Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer

Lifecourse and Aging (Anthropology), Haim Hazan

Regulatory Focus Theory (Psychology), E. Tory Higgins

Multitasking (Communications & Media), Matthew Irwin and Zheng Wang

Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie

Childhood (Anthropology), Karen L. Kramer

Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner et al.

Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.

Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross et al.

Effortful Control (Psychology), Tracy L. Spinrad and Nancy Eisenberg

Leadership (Anthropology), Adrienne Tecza and Dominic Johnson

Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth Wilson

Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.

Identifier

etrds0209

extracted text

Making Sense of Control:
Change and Consequences
MARGIE E. LACHMAN, STEFAN AGRIGOROAEI, and ELIZABETH H. RICKENBACH

Abstract
The concept of control in the social and behavioral sciences derives mainly from
theories of motivation. Early work on control was largely descriptive, with an
emphasis on individual differences in perceived control. This essay first reviews the
foundational research on the development of control beliefs and their relationship
to achievement and health outcomes. Next, the article summarizes more recent
cutting-edge research, which has examined trajectories of longitudinal change and
the processes and mechanisms that link control beliefs with outcomes. Studies have
shown that control beliefs can be a resilience factor that buffers the effects of stress
and moderates social class differences in health and longevity. Suggestions for
future research directions include a focus on short-term, within-person variability
and intraindividual change processes, cultural variations in control beliefs, and the
antecedents of control. The article concludes by considering some of the possible
limits of a high sense of control as well as interventions to optimize control,
and the policy implications of control beliefs. Future research will benefit from a
biopsychosocial approach in order to understand how control beliefs develop and
get under the skin to affect health and well-being.

INTRODUCTION
The concept of control has its roots in theories of motivation (Weiner, 1990)
as a basic human need fueled by the positive feelings associated with the
accomplishment of goals and the satisfaction that accompanies agency, mastery, and success (deCharms, 1968; Rotter, 1966; White, 1959). The origins of
control are manifested as the infant begins to develop an understanding of
cause and effect or contingency. Parents know well the battle of whether or
when to give in to a crying baby. The babies usually win, thereby learning
something about control through the powers they hold in bringing about
desired outcomes. William James (1890) captured this in his observation that
crying children often look around to see what effects they are having on the
adults around them.
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Once there is an understanding quite early in life that one can be effective in getting people and things to meet needs, there is also an awareness
that control can be taken away or may not always be possible. At a young
age, some children learn that those around them are responsive, leading to a
sense of mastery, and others come to know that their efforts are sometimes
ignored, promoting a sense of helplessness. The loss of control and even the
anticipation or fear of losing control are associated with many negative outcomes, such as depression (Seligman, 1975), anxiety, and stress (Dickerson &
Kemeny, 2004).
Much of the research on the nature of control has focused on perceptions
of control. This work has considered how perceived control develops and
changes over time throughout the life course and its effects on achievement,
health, and well-being (Lachman, Neupert, & Agrigoroaei, 2011). It is the perception of control rather than the degree of actual control that is consistently
found to play an important role for outcomes. This approach can be traced to
early phenomenological work, suggesting that attitudes, expectancies, and
subjective interpretations of one’s circumstances are important (Thomas &
Thomas, 1928). Indeed, the notion of feeling in control has been addressed
by philosophers and social scientists as an important source of happiness.
Yet, how one faces seemingly uncontrollable circumstances is an important
indicator of maturity and adjustment.
Until recently, much of the work on the development of sense of control
had been cross-sectional, and the linkages with important outcomes such as
health have been descriptive. Thanks to studies of control using short-term
and long-term longitudinal designs and experimental paradigms, we
are beginning to gain a clearer picture of the directional pathways and
mechanisms. Recent advances show that beliefs get under the skin to make
a difference for health. We review the major contributions of research on
control beliefs for lifespan development and health. We then discuss some
unanswered questions and consider new directions for future studies and
the potential application of findings for policy.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Control is defined and measured in multiple ways. The most basic approach
captures beliefs about the likelihood of bringing about desired outcomes.
It includes beliefs about one’s own role in terms of abilities and effort as
well as the extent to which there are constraints or obstacles that may interfere with one’s goal attainment (Skinner, 1996). The measures typically are
self-assessments with questions that focus on perceptions about one’s own
control in general or within specific domains and situations.

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

3

There is solid evidence that expectancies of control make a difference, irrespective of objective circumstances. This is in line with findings from other
domains where subjective evaluations are often better predictors of outcomes
than objective indicators. This is the case, for example, for self-ratings of
health in comparison to doctor’s reports, when predicting mortality (Idler
& Benyamini, 1997).
Subjective experiences and appraisals of the situation affect behavior and
make a difference for physiological responses, providing the means for
beliefs to get under the skin to influence health. Although there is some
work that manipulates control and attempts to understand the role of actual
control, this work has been less prominent. The objective nature of control
is not often possible to assess and the same situation may be interpreted
in different ways. Thus, the majority of the studies focus on individual
differences in perceived control, and the findings show important change
patterns across the lifespan and significant associations with achievement,
health, and well-being outcomes.
DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL
During childhood, the sense of control generally increases (Skinner, 1992). It
continues to rise through early adulthood and then starts a course of decline
before leveling off in midlife age and declining in old age. These patterns
are found in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies; yet, there are
some inconsistencies, perhaps due to the use of different measures, designs,
and samples. The trajectories of change are further qualified by individual
differences within age groups. For example, control beliefs in childhood
may reflect experiences tied to social class differences, which can be perpetuated across the life course with long-term consequences for health and
well-being. Developing a sense of control, by learning to positively reframe
circumstances and persist despite adversity, may alter health trajectories in
adulthood (Chen, Miller, Lachman, Gruenewald, & Seeman, 2012).
Piecing together the full trajectory of control over the life course is not clear
cut as most studies do not include a large age range. There is some evidence
of a decline in control in early adulthood (Lachman, Rosnick, & Röcke,
2009; Mirowsky, 1995; Vargas-Lascano, Galambos, Krahn, & Lachman,
under review). Adolescents and young adults tend to have a high, perhaps
unrealistic, sense of their control and may feel invulnerable. This may lead
them to engage in risky behaviors, yet it also can be an advantage in their
expansive goal pursuit. Sense of control may be dampened somewhat after
graduating high school or college when facing the challenges and demands
of adult tasks or disappointments, or in response to other salient experiences
or environmental factors. We identified two different paths in adulthood

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

that vary as a function of parental education (Vargas-Lascano et al., under
review). Among children whose parents had a college degree, sense of
control was maintained throughout early adulthood. In contrast, children
whose parents were not college educated showed declines in their sense of
control throughout adulthood.
Throughout the adult years, experiences of both gains and losses are
sources of control beliefs. Gains in control come from acquiring experience,
developing mastery, or reaching a peak of knowledge, competence, and
expertise. In later life, the sense of competence is maintained in many
domains (e.g., work or home) due to accumulated experience or the fact that
adults select situations in which they feel efficacious and in control. Control
declines are tied to obstacles and limitations, including unexpected or
uncontrollable events and constraints that increase with age (e.g., bereavement, health conditions, loss of social roles). Beliefs in constraints increase
in the context of physical and cognitive declines and other losses associated
with aging.
Among the first to consider control in the context of aging, Langer and
Rodin (1976) manipulated control within a nursing home setting by giving
the experimental group care of a plant and the opportunity to choose the
times to attend movies. In contrast, the comparison group had their plant
cared for by the staff and was told when to attend movies. They found important increases in health and well-being for the experimental group, although
the expected effects on mortality fell short. Notably, they did not report findings for differences in perceived control. Thus, it is not clear if the treatment
group experienced increased control or if there were individual differences
in this perception. For some individuals, being told to take care of a plant
could have led to lower perceived control, especially if that is not something
they wanted to do. Another early study (Schulz & Hanusa, 1978) manipulated control by giving older adults choice as to when and how long student
volunteers would visit. Although initially there were psychological benefits,
the group who was given control showed long-term negative consequences
when the students left for summer vacation. This was one of the first demonstrations of the damaging effects of losing control.
Control over aging is to a large extent about the degree to which one
believes it is possible to delay, reduce, or avoid declines, although it is
also about opportunities for enhancement or optimization. Low control
is reflected in the belief that declines are inevitable and irreversible and
that there is not much you can do about it. This mindset has tremendous
implications for how one behaves and ultimately for happiness, health, and
longevity.

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

5

CORRELATES AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONTROL
Although there are conceptual and measurement differences in the construct
of control, there are some consistent themes about relationships with achievement and health. A sense of control makes a person happy, healthy, wealthy,
and wise (Lachman et al., 2011). Indeed, many studies have found that those
with a higher sense of control have higher psychological well-being, better
health, a greater income, and higher levels of cognitive functioning. Much of
this work, however, has been correlational, and there is not a clear sense of
directionality, causality, or underlying mechanisms, although recent studies
have shed some light.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
MECHANISMS OF CONTROL
How do control beliefs influence outcomes? Although the earliest work
focused on the notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy as a possible explanation,
more recent work demonstrates how beliefs impact actions and reactions.
Some of the mechanisms that can account for the associations between
control beliefs and aging-related outcomes have been identified in a number
of recent studies, and do not seem to be specific to one particular age
group. The mediators of the relationship between control and achievement
in the cognitive domain include strategy use, anxiety, distractibility, and
intrusive thinking (Lachman & Agrigoroaei, 2011). Those with higher
control use more effective problem-solving strategies, are less anxious, and
are more task-focused. For health, strong beliefs in control lead to more
health-promoting behaviors such as exercise, healthy diet, and preventive
care. The underlying theme is that those who feel in control are more likely
to take adaptive actions and use effective strategies to bring about desired
outcomes. Moreover, control is associated with adaptive stress and immune
responses that are protective for health. Expectancies get under the skin
(Kiecolt-Glaser, McGuire, Robles, & Glaser, 2002), and how one appraises
a situation with regard to its controllability has implications for stress.
Low controllability is a primary source of stress, which in turn can have
damaging consequences for health (Lachman, 2006). Thus, a lack of control
has physiological consequences for stress hormones, inflammation and
other biological factors related to health (Turiano, Chapman, Agrigoroaei,
Infurna, & Lachman, 2014; Turiano, Lachman, & Chapman, 2014).
CONTROL AS A RESILIENCE FACTOR
Protective psychosocial factors, such as having a higher sense of control,
can buffer the negative effects of stressors or daily challenges. In particular,

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

individuals with lower perceived constraints are less emotionally and
physically reactive to daily interpersonal stressors (e.g., argument) and
individuals with a high sense of mastery are less physically reactive to
work stressors and less emotionally reactive to network stressors (Neupert,
Almeida, & Charles, 2007).
Marmot (2002) suggested that autonomy and controllability are key factors
that account for the social gradient in health. Those in lower status jobs often
have less control over their work life and this can have damaging effects on
their health, including physiological markers of inflammation such as fibrinogen (Brunner et al., 1996). Although those in low socioeconomic status
(SES) groups typically have a lower sense of control, some do develop a high
sense of control. A strong sense of control can buffer the negative effects of
lower SES. This is promising in that it suggests that appraisals of life circumstances can make a difference and can help to counteract the deleterious
effects of low income or low education. SES differences in health and even
mortality risk can be reduced or even eliminated by a strong sense of control
(Lachman & Weaver, 1998; Turiano, Chapman, et al., 2014).
CONTROL IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
Although much of the research on control has focused on subjective assessments, there is also some interest in understanding the role of objective
circumstances by assessing perceived control in the context of manipulated control (Agrigoroaei, Polito, et al., 2013; Bollini, Walker, Hamann,
& Kestler, 2004). In some cases, participants have an illusion of control,
thinking, and behaving as if they can influence outcomes, when in fact they
cannot. We examined perceived control in relation to manipulated control
using a driving simulation paradigm (Agrigoroaei, Polito, et al., 2013).
The experimental condition with low controllability was programmed by
simulating windy and slippery conditions, so that steering and braking were
difficult. In contrast, the normal controllability condition involved regular
driving conditions. Those in the low-controllability condition reported
lower control than the normal condition, confirming that the manipulation
had the desired effect. We examined whether low controllability had consequences for a stress response measured with the salivary cortisol. The
effects of the experimental condition, however, depended on general control
beliefs. Participants who had a high general sense of control had a larger
stress response in the low-controllability condition, perhaps because it was
contrary to their typical experiences. Their heightened stress response may
be indicative of vigilance and compensation for the low control stressor and
indeed, for these individuals, there were no negative consequences of stress
for driving or cognitive performance. In daily life, those with high control

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

7

typically select into high control situations and we do not often see the
consequences of incongruent control. This work provides further support
for the importance of subjective appraisals of control.
CONTROL AND HEALTH
There is evidence that those with higher control beliefs have better health.
Recent work with longitudinal designs has helped to disentangle the cross
sectional findings. There is emerging evidence that control beliefs lead to
changes in health (Infurna, Gerstorf, & Zarit, 2011). Nevertheless, it is also
likely that those with better health feel more in control, whereas becoming
ill can lead to decreases in the sense of control (Gerstorf, Röcke, & Lachman,
2011). A high sense of control seems to have anti-inflammatory properties
(Turiano, Lachman, et al., 2014) in that the relationship between control beliefs
and health is mediated by a lower level of IL-6, a marker of inflammation.
Control beliefs are also related to mortality risk (Infurna, Ram, & Gerstorf,
2013; Turiano, Chapman, et al., 2014). Those with a lower sense of control
have a greater probability of earlier death. Although it is not possible that
death itself affects control beliefs, there are alternative possible explanations
and knowing more about the cause of death would shed additional light on
the nature of the relationship and possible mechanisms. Understanding the
time-ordered processes involving control and health may suggest appropriate targets and timing for interventions.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
How is it that the same situation is perceived as controllable by some and
not others? This fundamental distinction in perceptions or beliefs systems
makes a difference in many life domains. This is not a matter of optimism
or seeing the glass half full. Rather beliefs about controllability capture the
expected impact of one’s own agency, with implications for behavioral, physiological, and emotional responses (Bandura, 1997). Further research from a
biopsychosocial perspective is needed to understand the processes involved
as this may lead to promising insights and interventions. We provide some
suggestions for future directions.
WITHIN-PERSON VARIATION
Although much of the work on control examines differences between persons or changes over the long run, there is emerging evidence that control
fluctuates over the short run within individuals. Moreover, irrespective of
the level of control, higher stability (lower fluctuation) in control beliefs is

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

associated with lower mortality risk (Eizenman, Nesselroade, Featherman,
& Rowe, 1997) and better cognitive performance (Agrigoroaei, Neupert,
& Lachman, 2013). Of interest for future research is how to promote the
maintenance of control in the face of challenge, adversity, uncertainty, and
change. It will also be useful to understand the associations of control and
well-being in the context of daily functioning using frequent assessments
such as experience sampling with an explicit focus on intraindividual
variability and change.
CULTURAL VARIATIONS
Is a high sense of control universally beneficial? There is some evidence that
Americans are not only higher in control but also that control may be more
strongly tied to well-being, compared to other countries. Advertisers are well
aware of the appeal of being in control, as they often use the familiar dictum
“take control” to promote their products. The Pew Research Center study of
control beliefs around the world showed the United States had the largest
proportion believing they are in control of life outcomes (Lachman, 2006).
Work by Kitayama and colleagues (2010) has shown that the Japanese and
Americans on average have similar levels of control beliefs, yet they are not
as important for well-being in Japan, as they are in the United States. In Japan,
supportive social relations contributed the most to well-being rather than
control. More work is needed to explore the nature and benefits of control
across cultures and ethnic groups within and across nations to understand
the role of contextual factors.
THE OTHER SIDE OF CONTROL
Although much work points to the benefits of control, an interesting question is whether having a high sense of control can also be damaging in some
circumstances. Indeed, control may be a double-edged sword. Those who
have a high sense of control may be more likely to ignore realities of health
problems or assume they are not susceptible to aging-related changes. One
possible implication is that those with a high sense of control may ignore
symptoms or not go to the doctor regularly. Research is beginning to explore
whether those with high control are more likely to have undiagnosed or
untreated conditions, such as hypertension or diabetes.
There is a paradox in that those who feel in control often do not accept help
from others or may not want to use environmental supports even if it would
be beneficial, on the one hand. On the other hand, mobilizing support from
others or making use of assistive devices to maintain one’s well-being and
lifestyle are effective means to increased control. Further work is needed to

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

9

understand the role of control beliefs in the adoption of compensatory new
technologies (e.g., automated medication reminders, robots). The adoption
of some automated systems (e.g., self-driving cars), which turn individuals
from active agents to passive observers, may come at the expense of personal
control and the maintenance of skills.
SOURCES OF CONTROL BELIEFS
Much of the work has focused on the consequences of control beliefs, and
less is known about the etiology of individual differences in control. Bandura
(1997) suggested that a sense of control is tied to past experience and feedback
from others. Control beliefs can develop as a result of aging stereotypes about
helplessness (Levy, 2003). Thus, older adults’ lower control beliefs may reflect
the internalized negative views of aging shared by the society.
Social support engenders a sense of control. Knowing you can call on others if needed gives one a greater sense of mastery and control (Antonucci,
2001). There are indications that education influences control (Mirowsky &
Ross, 2007) by learning that one can respond in effective ways by acquiring
the skills to address problems that arise. Alternatively, it is possible that those
with a higher sense of control select into higher education. Indeed, we found
that those with higher control in high school were more likely to pursue
higher levels of education (Vargas-Lascano et al., under review). Understanding the etiology of beliefs in control will be an important avenue for future
study, with implications for promoting adaptive beliefs throughout life.
INTERVENTIONS TO OPTIMIZE CONTROL
There is some evidence that control beliefs can be changed (Lachman et al.,
2011). This has implications for understanding how we can promote control,
or accept the limits of control when appropriate. Victor Frankls’ (1963)
statement, written while in a concentration camp, captures this theme well:
“The last of human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set
of circumstances” (p. 104). If one cannot choose one’s circumstances then,
ultimately, control is about choosing how to interpret and respond to ones’
circumstances. Attitudes and beliefs can be adaptive in the face of great
adversity by providing a means to do something to deal with or accept
one’s plight or to move on. Some interventions have focused on cognitive
restructuring as a way to reframe seemingly uncontrollable circumstances
(Lachman et al., 2011). Other ways to increase control focus on increasing
choice, flexibility, support, and emotion regulation.
The work place represents a relevant context for control interventions. Marmot has shown that low control at work can be damaging for health. The job
strain model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) posits that occupations associated
with low job control and high job strain (the combination of lower control

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

and higher demands) are more stressful and thus more detrimental for health
outcomes, including a greater risk of vascular dementia (Andel et al., 2012).
There has been much interest in providing more flexible work situations.
This would entail such features as choice of work tasks and the ability to
juggle schedules. As shown by Moen and colleagues (2011), programs that
allow employees greater work-time control have benefits in terms of lower
turnover rates.
There are a number of theories that suggest ways to take control through
self-regulatory strategies. Selective Optimization with Compensation
(Freund & Baltes, 1998) and the Lifespan Theory of Control (Heckhausen,
Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010) provide frameworks for promoting control within
the context of aging-related declines in health and cognition. These involve
reducing demands, compensating for losses, and knowing when to disengage from goals in the face of limitations. Future work that examines to what
extent these strategies can be taught would be a valuable contribution. The
role of control beliefs for self-control processes involving emotion regulation
and health-promoting behaviors (e.g., exercise) is a promising avenue for
further exploration.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF CONTROL BELIEFS
Not only is an understanding of control beliefs relevant for health and
well-being outcomes across the lifespan but personal beliefs about control
also have implications for policy in a number of areas including civic
engagement and utilization of health services (Mallers, Claver, & Lares,
2014). To the extent that individuals feel a higher sense of control, they may
have greater interest in active engagement such as voting and volunteering
within their communities. Moreover, control beliefs can influence participation in self-care as well as use of health services. Therefore, a greater
understanding of factors that influence control across the lifespan may not
only be associated with greater well-being for an individual but may also
have implications for health care and policy at the societal level.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this essay was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging: #RO1AG17920.
REFERENCES
Agrigoroaei, S., Neupert, S. D., & Lachman, M. E. (2013). Maintaining a sense of
control in the context of cognitive challenge: Greater stability in control beliefs
benefits working memory. The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry,
26, 49–59. doi:10.1024/1662-9647/a000078

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

11

Agrigoroaei, S., Polito, M., Lee, A., Kranz-Graham, E., Seeman, T., & Lachman,
M. E. (2013). Cortisol response to challenge involving low controllability: The
role of control beliefs and age. Biological Psychology, 93, 138–142. doi:10.1016/
j.biopsycho.2013.01.003
Andel, R., Crowe, M., Hahn, E. A., Mortimer, J. A., Pedersen, N. L., Fratiglioni, L.,
… Gatz, M. (2012). Work-related stress may increase the risk of vascular dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60, 60–67. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.
2011.03777.x
Antonucci, T. C. (2001). Social relations: An examination of social networks, social
support, and sense of control. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the
psychology of aging (5th ed., pp. 427–453). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bollini, A. M., Walker, E. F., Hamann, S., & Kestler, L. (2004). The influence of perceived control and locus of control on the cortisol and subjective responses to
stress. Biological Psychology, 67, 245–260. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2003.11.002
Brunner, E., Smith, G. D., Marmot, M., Canner, R., Beksinska, M., & O’Brien, J.
(1996). Childhood social circumstances and psychosocial and behavioural factors
as determinants of plasma fibrinogen. Lancet, 347, 1008–1013.
Chen, E., Miller, G. E., Lachman, M. E., Gruenewald, T. L., & Seeman, T. E. (2012). Protective factors for adults from low-childhood socioeconomic circumstances: The
benefits of shift-and-persist for allostatic load. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74, 178–186.
doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e31824206fd
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A
theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin,
130, 355–391. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355
Eizenman, D. R., Nesselroade, J. R., Featherman, D. L., & Rowe, J. W. (1997). Intraindividual variability in perceived control in an older sample: The MacArthur Successful Aging studies. Psychology and Aging, 12, 489–502.
Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York,
NY: Washington Square Press.
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Selection, optimization, and compensation as
strategies of life management: Correlations with subjective indicators of successful
aging. Psychology and Aging, 13, 531–543. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.13.4.531
Gerstorf, D., Röcke, C., & Lachman, M. E. (2011). Antecedent-consequent relations
of perceived control to health and social support: Longitudinal evidence for
between-domain associations across adulthood. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 66B, 61–71. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq077
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span
development. Psychological Review, 117, 32–60. doi:10.1037/a0017668
Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of
twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 21–37.
Infurna, F. J., Gerstorf, D., & Zarit, S. H. (2011). Examining dynamic links between
perceived control and health: Longitudinal evidence for differential effects in
midlife and old age. Developmental Psychology, 47, 9–18. doi:10.1037/a0021022

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Infurna, F. J., Ram, N., & Gerstorf, D. (2013). Level and change in perceived control
predict 19-year mortality: Findings from the Americans’ Changing Lives study.
Developmental Psychology, 49, 1833–1847. doi:10.1037/a0031041
James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., McGuire, L., Robles, T. F., & Glaser, R. (2002). Psychoneuroimmunology: Psychological influences on immune function and health. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 537–547. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.70.3.537
Kitayama, S., Karasawa, M., Curhan, K. B., Ryff, C. D., & Markus, H. R. (2010).
Independence and interdependence predict health and wellbeing: Divergent patterns in the United States and Japan. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1–10. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2010.00163
Lachman, M. E. (2006). Perceived control over aging-related declines: Adaptive
beliefs and behaviors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 282–286.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00453.x
Lachman, M. E., & Agrigoroaei, S. (2011). Low perceived control as a risk factor for
episodic memory: The mediational role of anxiety and task interference. Memory
and Cognition, 40, 287–296. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0140-x
Lachman, M. E., Neupert, S. D., & Agrigoroaei, S. (2011). The relevance of control
beliefs for health and aging. In K. W. Schaie & S. L. Willis (Eds.), Handbook of
the psychology of aging (7th ed., pp. 175–190). Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic
Press.
Lachman, M. E., Rosnick, C. B., & Röcke, C. (2009). The rise and fall of control beliefs
in adulthood: Cognitive and biopsychosocial antecedents and consequences of
stability and change over 9 years. In H. B. Bosworth & C. Hertzog (Eds.), Aging and
cognition: Research methodologies and empirical advances (pp. 143–160). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social
class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 763–773. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.763
Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191–198.
Levy, B. R. (2003). Mind matters: Cognitive and physical effects of aging self-stereotypes. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58B, P203–P211. doi:10.1093/
geronb/58.4.P203
Mallers, M. H., Claver, M., & Lares, L. A. (2014). Perceived control in the lives of
older adults: The influence of Langer and Rodin’s work on gerontological theory,
policy, and practice. The Gerontologist, 54, 67–74. doi:10.1093/geront/gnt051
Marmot, M. (2002). The influence of income on health: View of an epidemiologist.
Health Affairs, 21, 31–46. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.31
Mirowsky, J. (1995). Age and the sense of control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58,
31–43.

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

13

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2007). Life course trajectories of perceived control
and their relationship to education. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1339–1382.
doi:10.1086/511800
Moen, P., Kelly, E. L., & Hill, R. (2011). Does enhancing work-time control and flexibility reduce turnover? A naturally occurring experiment. Social Problems, 58,
69–98.
Neupert, S. D., Almeida, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (2007). Age differences in reactivity
to daily stressors: The role of personal control. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences, 62B, P216–P225. doi:10.1093/geronb/62.4.P216
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.
Schulz, R., & Hanusa, B. H. (1978). Long-term effects of control and predictabilityenhancing interventions: Findings and ethical issues. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 1194–1201.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. New
York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books.
Skinner, E. A. (1992). Perceived control: Motivation, coping, and development. In
R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 91–106). Washington,
DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 549–570.
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and
programs. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Turiano, N. A., Chapman, B. P., Agrigoroaei, S., Infurna, F. J., & Lachman, M. E. (2014).
Perceived control reduces mortality risk at low, not high education levels. Health
Psychology, Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/hea0000022
Turiano, N. A., Lachman, M. E., & Chapman, B. P. (2014). Control beliefs buffer the
negative effects of low education on interleukin-6 levels. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Psychosomatic Society, San Francisco, CA.
Vargas-Lascano, D. I., Galambos, N. L., Krahn, H. J., & Lachman, M. E. (in press).
Growth in perceived control across 25 years from the late teens to midlife: The
role of personal and parents’ education. Developmental Psychology.
Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 616–622.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. doi:10.1037/h0040934

FURTHER READING
Lachman, M. E., Neupert, S. D., & Agrigoroaei, S. (2011). The relevance of control
beliefs for health and aging. In K. W. Schaie & S. L. Willis (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (7th ed., pp. 175–190). Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press.
Mallers, M. H., Claver, M., & Lares, L. A. (2014). Perceived control in the lives of
older adults: The influence of Langer and Rodin’s work on gerontological theory,
policy, and practice. The Gerontologist, 54, 67–74. doi:10.1093/geront/gnt051

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

MARGIE E. LACHMAN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Margie E. Lachman, PhD is the Minnie and Harold Fierman Professor of Psychology and Director of the Lifespan Developmental Psychology Laboratory
and the Initiative on Healthy Aging at Brandeis University. She is a fellow of
the American Psychological Association, Division 20 and the Gerontological
Society of America. She was editor of the Journal of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences (2000–2003) and has edited two volumes on midlife development.
Lachman’s research is in the area of lifespan development with a focus on
midlife and later life. With funding from the National Institute on Aging, her
current work focuses on psychosocial and behavioral factors that can protect
against, minimize, or compensate for declines in cognition and health. She
is conducting studies to examine long-term predictors of psychological and
physical health, laboratory-based experiments to identify psychological and
physiological processes involved in aging-related changes, and intervention
studies to enhance performance and promote adaptive functioning. Lachman
was a member of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Midlife Development and is currently collaborating on the second longitudinal follow-up of the original MacArthur midlife sample (MIDUS). She
has conducted intervention studies designed to enhance the sense of control
over memory and physical activity, and one of the programs for increasing
control over fall prevention won the Archstone Award for Excellence in Program Innovation from the American Public Health Association. In 2003, she
received the Distinguished Research Achievement Award from the American
Psychological Association, Division on Adult Development and Aging.
Webpages:
http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/psych/lachman/
http://www.brandeis.edu/lifespaninitiative/
http://www.brandeis.edu/facultyguide/person.html?emplid=
a2b62c935b12262ab75d8f65acb2285d91e43a91

STEFAN AGRIGOROAEI SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Stefan Agrigoroaei, PhD was a postdoctoral fellow in psychology in the
Lifespan Developmental Psychology Laboratory at Brandeis University,
Waltham, MA. His research program is in the area of health and human
development and aging. He approaches his research with an interdisciplinary, lifespan perspective. His projects focus on the contribution of
psychosocial, behavioral, and physiological factors for optimizing and
maintaining good health, and reducing health disparities. He is a member of
the American Psychological Association, Division 20 and the Gerontological
Society of America. In September 2014 he took on a new position as an

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

15

Assistant Professor in Psychology of Aging at Université catholique de
Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Webpage:
http://www.uclouvain.be/stefan.agrigoroaei
ELIZABETH H. RICKENBACH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Elizabeth H. Rickenbach, PhD was a postdoctoral research fellow in the
Lifespan Developmental Psychology Laboratory at Brandeis University. In
2012, she received her doctoral degree in Aging Studies at the University
of South Florida. She serves as Chair-Elect of the Emerging Scholars and
Professionals Organization of the Gerontological Society of America, and
postdoctoral representative to the Executive Committee of Division 20 of the
American Psychological Association. Her research is focused on using interdisciplinary methods to examine daily experiences of stress and coping in
the context of cognitive aging in middle and older adulthood, and examining risk factors for cognitive decline such as stress and sleep disruptions.
Her work utilizes multiple methods, including short-term repeated measures
designs (e.g., daily diary studies) to examine everyday factors contributing to
health and well-being, as well as longitudinal methods to examine long-term
change. In September 2014 she took on a new position as an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire.
RELATED ESSAYS
Terror Management Theory (Psychology), Alisabeth Ayars et al.
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Setting One’s Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance
(Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer
Lifecourse and Aging (Anthropology), Haim Hazan
Regulatory Focus Theory (Psychology), E. Tory Higgins
Multitasking (Communications & Media), Matthew Irwin and Zheng Wang
Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Childhood (Anthropology), Karen L. Kramer
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Effortful Control (Psychology), Tracy L. Spinrad and Nancy Eisenberg

16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Leadership (Anthropology), Adrienne Tecza and Dominic Johnson
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.



Making Sense of Control:
Change and Consequences
MARGIE E. LACHMAN, STEFAN AGRIGOROAEI, and ELIZABETH H. RICKENBACH

Abstract
The concept of control in the social and behavioral sciences derives mainly from
theories of motivation. Early work on control was largely descriptive, with an
emphasis on individual differences in perceived control. This essay first reviews the
foundational research on the development of control beliefs and their relationship
to achievement and health outcomes. Next, the article summarizes more recent
cutting-edge research, which has examined trajectories of longitudinal change and
the processes and mechanisms that link control beliefs with outcomes. Studies have
shown that control beliefs can be a resilience factor that buffers the effects of stress
and moderates social class differences in health and longevity. Suggestions for
future research directions include a focus on short-term, within-person variability
and intraindividual change processes, cultural variations in control beliefs, and the
antecedents of control. The article concludes by considering some of the possible
limits of a high sense of control as well as interventions to optimize control,
and the policy implications of control beliefs. Future research will benefit from a
biopsychosocial approach in order to understand how control beliefs develop and
get under the skin to affect health and well-being.

INTRODUCTION
The concept of control has its roots in theories of motivation (Weiner, 1990)
as a basic human need fueled by the positive feelings associated with the
accomplishment of goals and the satisfaction that accompanies agency, mastery, and success (deCharms, 1968; Rotter, 1966; White, 1959). The origins of
control are manifested as the infant begins to develop an understanding of
cause and effect or contingency. Parents know well the battle of whether or
when to give in to a crying baby. The babies usually win, thereby learning
something about control through the powers they hold in bringing about
desired outcomes. William James (1890) captured this in his observation that
crying children often look around to see what effects they are having on the
adults around them.
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Once there is an understanding quite early in life that one can be effective in getting people and things to meet needs, there is also an awareness
that control can be taken away or may not always be possible. At a young
age, some children learn that those around them are responsive, leading to a
sense of mastery, and others come to know that their efforts are sometimes
ignored, promoting a sense of helplessness. The loss of control and even the
anticipation or fear of losing control are associated with many negative outcomes, such as depression (Seligman, 1975), anxiety, and stress (Dickerson &
Kemeny, 2004).
Much of the research on the nature of control has focused on perceptions
of control. This work has considered how perceived control develops and
changes over time throughout the life course and its effects on achievement,
health, and well-being (Lachman, Neupert, & Agrigoroaei, 2011). It is the perception of control rather than the degree of actual control that is consistently
found to play an important role for outcomes. This approach can be traced to
early phenomenological work, suggesting that attitudes, expectancies, and
subjective interpretations of one’s circumstances are important (Thomas &
Thomas, 1928). Indeed, the notion of feeling in control has been addressed
by philosophers and social scientists as an important source of happiness.
Yet, how one faces seemingly uncontrollable circumstances is an important
indicator of maturity and adjustment.
Until recently, much of the work on the development of sense of control
had been cross-sectional, and the linkages with important outcomes such as
health have been descriptive. Thanks to studies of control using short-term
and long-term longitudinal designs and experimental paradigms, we
are beginning to gain a clearer picture of the directional pathways and
mechanisms. Recent advances show that beliefs get under the skin to make
a difference for health. We review the major contributions of research on
control beliefs for lifespan development and health. We then discuss some
unanswered questions and consider new directions for future studies and
the potential application of findings for policy.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Control is defined and measured in multiple ways. The most basic approach
captures beliefs about the likelihood of bringing about desired outcomes.
It includes beliefs about one’s own role in terms of abilities and effort as
well as the extent to which there are constraints or obstacles that may interfere with one’s goal attainment (Skinner, 1996). The measures typically are
self-assessments with questions that focus on perceptions about one’s own
control in general or within specific domains and situations.

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

3

There is solid evidence that expectancies of control make a difference, irrespective of objective circumstances. This is in line with findings from other
domains where subjective evaluations are often better predictors of outcomes
than objective indicators. This is the case, for example, for self-ratings of
health in comparison to doctor’s reports, when predicting mortality (Idler
& Benyamini, 1997).
Subjective experiences and appraisals of the situation affect behavior and
make a difference for physiological responses, providing the means for
beliefs to get under the skin to influence health. Although there is some
work that manipulates control and attempts to understand the role of actual
control, this work has been less prominent. The objective nature of control
is not often possible to assess and the same situation may be interpreted
in different ways. Thus, the majority of the studies focus on individual
differences in perceived control, and the findings show important change
patterns across the lifespan and significant associations with achievement,
health, and well-being outcomes.
DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL
During childhood, the sense of control generally increases (Skinner, 1992). It
continues to rise through early adulthood and then starts a course of decline
before leveling off in midlife age and declining in old age. These patterns
are found in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies; yet, there are
some inconsistencies, perhaps due to the use of different measures, designs,
and samples. The trajectories of change are further qualified by individual
differences within age groups. For example, control beliefs in childhood
may reflect experiences tied to social class differences, which can be perpetuated across the life course with long-term consequences for health and
well-being. Developing a sense of control, by learning to positively reframe
circumstances and persist despite adversity, may alter health trajectories in
adulthood (Chen, Miller, Lachman, Gruenewald, & Seeman, 2012).
Piecing together the full trajectory of control over the life course is not clear
cut as most studies do not include a large age range. There is some evidence
of a decline in control in early adulthood (Lachman, Rosnick, & Röcke,
2009; Mirowsky, 1995; Vargas-Lascano, Galambos, Krahn, & Lachman,
under review). Adolescents and young adults tend to have a high, perhaps
unrealistic, sense of their control and may feel invulnerable. This may lead
them to engage in risky behaviors, yet it also can be an advantage in their
expansive goal pursuit. Sense of control may be dampened somewhat after
graduating high school or college when facing the challenges and demands
of adult tasks or disappointments, or in response to other salient experiences
or environmental factors. We identified two different paths in adulthood

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

that vary as a function of parental education (Vargas-Lascano et al., under
review). Among children whose parents had a college degree, sense of
control was maintained throughout early adulthood. In contrast, children
whose parents were not college educated showed declines in their sense of
control throughout adulthood.
Throughout the adult years, experiences of both gains and losses are
sources of control beliefs. Gains in control come from acquiring experience,
developing mastery, or reaching a peak of knowledge, competence, and
expertise. In later life, the sense of competence is maintained in many
domains (e.g., work or home) due to accumulated experience or the fact that
adults select situations in which they feel efficacious and in control. Control
declines are tied to obstacles and limitations, including unexpected or
uncontrollable events and constraints that increase with age (e.g., bereavement, health conditions, loss of social roles). Beliefs in constraints increase
in the context of physical and cognitive declines and other losses associated
with aging.
Among the first to consider control in the context of aging, Langer and
Rodin (1976) manipulated control within a nursing home setting by giving
the experimental group care of a plant and the opportunity to choose the
times to attend movies. In contrast, the comparison group had their plant
cared for by the staff and was told when to attend movies. They found important increases in health and well-being for the experimental group, although
the expected effects on mortality fell short. Notably, they did not report findings for differences in perceived control. Thus, it is not clear if the treatment
group experienced increased control or if there were individual differences
in this perception. For some individuals, being told to take care of a plant
could have led to lower perceived control, especially if that is not something
they wanted to do. Another early study (Schulz & Hanusa, 1978) manipulated control by giving older adults choice as to when and how long student
volunteers would visit. Although initially there were psychological benefits,
the group who was given control showed long-term negative consequences
when the students left for summer vacation. This was one of the first demonstrations of the damaging effects of losing control.
Control over aging is to a large extent about the degree to which one
believes it is possible to delay, reduce, or avoid declines, although it is
also about opportunities for enhancement or optimization. Low control
is reflected in the belief that declines are inevitable and irreversible and
that there is not much you can do about it. This mindset has tremendous
implications for how one behaves and ultimately for happiness, health, and
longevity.

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

5

CORRELATES AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONTROL
Although there are conceptual and measurement differences in the construct
of control, there are some consistent themes about relationships with achievement and health. A sense of control makes a person happy, healthy, wealthy,
and wise (Lachman et al., 2011). Indeed, many studies have found that those
with a higher sense of control have higher psychological well-being, better
health, a greater income, and higher levels of cognitive functioning. Much of
this work, however, has been correlational, and there is not a clear sense of
directionality, causality, or underlying mechanisms, although recent studies
have shed some light.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
MECHANISMS OF CONTROL
How do control beliefs influence outcomes? Although the earliest work
focused on the notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy as a possible explanation,
more recent work demonstrates how beliefs impact actions and reactions.
Some of the mechanisms that can account for the associations between
control beliefs and aging-related outcomes have been identified in a number
of recent studies, and do not seem to be specific to one particular age
group. The mediators of the relationship between control and achievement
in the cognitive domain include strategy use, anxiety, distractibility, and
intrusive thinking (Lachman & Agrigoroaei, 2011). Those with higher
control use more effective problem-solving strategies, are less anxious, and
are more task-focused. For health, strong beliefs in control lead to more
health-promoting behaviors such as exercise, healthy diet, and preventive
care. The underlying theme is that those who feel in control are more likely
to take adaptive actions and use effective strategies to bring about desired
outcomes. Moreover, control is associated with adaptive stress and immune
responses that are protective for health. Expectancies get under the skin
(Kiecolt-Glaser, McGuire, Robles, & Glaser, 2002), and how one appraises
a situation with regard to its controllability has implications for stress.
Low controllability is a primary source of stress, which in turn can have
damaging consequences for health (Lachman, 2006). Thus, a lack of control
has physiological consequences for stress hormones, inflammation and
other biological factors related to health (Turiano, Chapman, Agrigoroaei,
Infurna, & Lachman, 2014; Turiano, Lachman, & Chapman, 2014).
CONTROL AS A RESILIENCE FACTOR
Protective psychosocial factors, such as having a higher sense of control,
can buffer the negative effects of stressors or daily challenges. In particular,

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

individuals with lower perceived constraints are less emotionally and
physically reactive to daily interpersonal stressors (e.g., argument) and
individuals with a high sense of mastery are less physically reactive to
work stressors and less emotionally reactive to network stressors (Neupert,
Almeida, & Charles, 2007).
Marmot (2002) suggested that autonomy and controllability are key factors
that account for the social gradient in health. Those in lower status jobs often
have less control over their work life and this can have damaging effects on
their health, including physiological markers of inflammation such as fibrinogen (Brunner et al., 1996). Although those in low socioeconomic status
(SES) groups typically have a lower sense of control, some do develop a high
sense of control. A strong sense of control can buffer the negative effects of
lower SES. This is promising in that it suggests that appraisals of life circumstances can make a difference and can help to counteract the deleterious
effects of low income or low education. SES differences in health and even
mortality risk can be reduced or even eliminated by a strong sense of control
(Lachman & Weaver, 1998; Turiano, Chapman, et al., 2014).
CONTROL IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
Although much of the research on control has focused on subjective assessments, there is also some interest in understanding the role of objective
circumstances by assessing perceived control in the context of manipulated control (Agrigoroaei, Polito, et al., 2013; Bollini, Walker, Hamann,
& Kestler, 2004). In some cases, participants have an illusion of control,
thinking, and behaving as if they can influence outcomes, when in fact they
cannot. We examined perceived control in relation to manipulated control
using a driving simulation paradigm (Agrigoroaei, Polito, et al., 2013).
The experimental condition with low controllability was programmed by
simulating windy and slippery conditions, so that steering and braking were
difficult. In contrast, the normal controllability condition involved regular
driving conditions. Those in the low-controllability condition reported
lower control than the normal condition, confirming that the manipulation
had the desired effect. We examined whether low controllability had consequences for a stress response measured with the salivary cortisol. The
effects of the experimental condition, however, depended on general control
beliefs. Participants who had a high general sense of control had a larger
stress response in the low-controllability condition, perhaps because it was
contrary to their typical experiences. Their heightened stress response may
be indicative of vigilance and compensation for the low control stressor and
indeed, for these individuals, there were no negative consequences of stress
for driving or cognitive performance. In daily life, those with high control

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

7

typically select into high control situations and we do not often see the
consequences of incongruent control. This work provides further support
for the importance of subjective appraisals of control.
CONTROL AND HEALTH
There is evidence that those with higher control beliefs have better health.
Recent work with longitudinal designs has helped to disentangle the cross
sectional findings. There is emerging evidence that control beliefs lead to
changes in health (Infurna, Gerstorf, & Zarit, 2011). Nevertheless, it is also
likely that those with better health feel more in control, whereas becoming
ill can lead to decreases in the sense of control (Gerstorf, Röcke, & Lachman,
2011). A high sense of control seems to have anti-inflammatory properties
(Turiano, Lachman, et al., 2014) in that the relationship between control beliefs
and health is mediated by a lower level of IL-6, a marker of inflammation.
Control beliefs are also related to mortality risk (Infurna, Ram, & Gerstorf,
2013; Turiano, Chapman, et al., 2014). Those with a lower sense of control
have a greater probability of earlier death. Although it is not possible that
death itself affects control beliefs, there are alternative possible explanations
and knowing more about the cause of death would shed additional light on
the nature of the relationship and possible mechanisms. Understanding the
time-ordered processes involving control and health may suggest appropriate targets and timing for interventions.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
How is it that the same situation is perceived as controllable by some and
not others? This fundamental distinction in perceptions or beliefs systems
makes a difference in many life domains. This is not a matter of optimism
or seeing the glass half full. Rather beliefs about controllability capture the
expected impact of one’s own agency, with implications for behavioral, physiological, and emotional responses (Bandura, 1997). Further research from a
biopsychosocial perspective is needed to understand the processes involved
as this may lead to promising insights and interventions. We provide some
suggestions for future directions.
WITHIN-PERSON VARIATION
Although much of the work on control examines differences between persons or changes over the long run, there is emerging evidence that control
fluctuates over the short run within individuals. Moreover, irrespective of
the level of control, higher stability (lower fluctuation) in control beliefs is

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

associated with lower mortality risk (Eizenman, Nesselroade, Featherman,
& Rowe, 1997) and better cognitive performance (Agrigoroaei, Neupert,
& Lachman, 2013). Of interest for future research is how to promote the
maintenance of control in the face of challenge, adversity, uncertainty, and
change. It will also be useful to understand the associations of control and
well-being in the context of daily functioning using frequent assessments
such as experience sampling with an explicit focus on intraindividual
variability and change.
CULTURAL VARIATIONS
Is a high sense of control universally beneficial? There is some evidence that
Americans are not only higher in control but also that control may be more
strongly tied to well-being, compared to other countries. Advertisers are well
aware of the appeal of being in control, as they often use the familiar dictum
“take control” to promote their products. The Pew Research Center study of
control beliefs around the world showed the United States had the largest
proportion believing they are in control of life outcomes (Lachman, 2006).
Work by Kitayama and colleagues (2010) has shown that the Japanese and
Americans on average have similar levels of control beliefs, yet they are not
as important for well-being in Japan, as they are in the United States. In Japan,
supportive social relations contributed the most to well-being rather than
control. More work is needed to explore the nature and benefits of control
across cultures and ethnic groups within and across nations to understand
the role of contextual factors.
THE OTHER SIDE OF CONTROL
Although much work points to the benefits of control, an interesting question is whether having a high sense of control can also be damaging in some
circumstances. Indeed, control may be a double-edged sword. Those who
have a high sense of control may be more likely to ignore realities of health
problems or assume they are not susceptible to aging-related changes. One
possible implication is that those with a high sense of control may ignore
symptoms or not go to the doctor regularly. Research is beginning to explore
whether those with high control are more likely to have undiagnosed or
untreated conditions, such as hypertension or diabetes.
There is a paradox in that those who feel in control often do not accept help
from others or may not want to use environmental supports even if it would
be beneficial, on the one hand. On the other hand, mobilizing support from
others or making use of assistive devices to maintain one’s well-being and
lifestyle are effective means to increased control. Further work is needed to

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

9

understand the role of control beliefs in the adoption of compensatory new
technologies (e.g., automated medication reminders, robots). The adoption
of some automated systems (e.g., self-driving cars), which turn individuals
from active agents to passive observers, may come at the expense of personal
control and the maintenance of skills.
SOURCES OF CONTROL BELIEFS
Much of the work has focused on the consequences of control beliefs, and
less is known about the etiology of individual differences in control. Bandura
(1997) suggested that a sense of control is tied to past experience and feedback
from others. Control beliefs can develop as a result of aging stereotypes about
helplessness (Levy, 2003). Thus, older adults’ lower control beliefs may reflect
the internalized negative views of aging shared by the society.
Social support engenders a sense of control. Knowing you can call on others if needed gives one a greater sense of mastery and control (Antonucci,
2001). There are indications that education influences control (Mirowsky &
Ross, 2007) by learning that one can respond in effective ways by acquiring
the skills to address problems that arise. Alternatively, it is possible that those
with a higher sense of control select into higher education. Indeed, we found
that those with higher control in high school were more likely to pursue
higher levels of education (Vargas-Lascano et al., under review). Understanding the etiology of beliefs in control will be an important avenue for future
study, with implications for promoting adaptive beliefs throughout life.
INTERVENTIONS TO OPTIMIZE CONTROL
There is some evidence that control beliefs can be changed (Lachman et al.,
2011). This has implications for understanding how we can promote control,
or accept the limits of control when appropriate. Victor Frankls’ (1963)
statement, written while in a concentration camp, captures this theme well:
“The last of human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set
of circumstances” (p. 104). If one cannot choose one’s circumstances then,
ultimately, control is about choosing how to interpret and respond to ones’
circumstances. Attitudes and beliefs can be adaptive in the face of great
adversity by providing a means to do something to deal with or accept
one’s plight or to move on. Some interventions have focused on cognitive
restructuring as a way to reframe seemingly uncontrollable circumstances
(Lachman et al., 2011). Other ways to increase control focus on increasing
choice, flexibility, support, and emotion regulation.
The work place represents a relevant context for control interventions. Marmot has shown that low control at work can be damaging for health. The job
strain model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) posits that occupations associated
with low job control and high job strain (the combination of lower control

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

and higher demands) are more stressful and thus more detrimental for health
outcomes, including a greater risk of vascular dementia (Andel et al., 2012).
There has been much interest in providing more flexible work situations.
This would entail such features as choice of work tasks and the ability to
juggle schedules. As shown by Moen and colleagues (2011), programs that
allow employees greater work-time control have benefits in terms of lower
turnover rates.
There are a number of theories that suggest ways to take control through
self-regulatory strategies. Selective Optimization with Compensation
(Freund & Baltes, 1998) and the Lifespan Theory of Control (Heckhausen,
Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010) provide frameworks for promoting control within
the context of aging-related declines in health and cognition. These involve
reducing demands, compensating for losses, and knowing when to disengage from goals in the face of limitations. Future work that examines to what
extent these strategies can be taught would be a valuable contribution. The
role of control beliefs for self-control processes involving emotion regulation
and health-promoting behaviors (e.g., exercise) is a promising avenue for
further exploration.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF CONTROL BELIEFS
Not only is an understanding of control beliefs relevant for health and
well-being outcomes across the lifespan but personal beliefs about control
also have implications for policy in a number of areas including civic
engagement and utilization of health services (Mallers, Claver, & Lares,
2014). To the extent that individuals feel a higher sense of control, they may
have greater interest in active engagement such as voting and volunteering
within their communities. Moreover, control beliefs can influence participation in self-care as well as use of health services. Therefore, a greater
understanding of factors that influence control across the lifespan may not
only be associated with greater well-being for an individual but may also
have implications for health care and policy at the societal level.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this essay was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging: #RO1AG17920.
REFERENCES
Agrigoroaei, S., Neupert, S. D., & Lachman, M. E. (2013). Maintaining a sense of
control in the context of cognitive challenge: Greater stability in control beliefs
benefits working memory. The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry,
26, 49–59. doi:10.1024/1662-9647/a000078

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

11

Agrigoroaei, S., Polito, M., Lee, A., Kranz-Graham, E., Seeman, T., & Lachman,
M. E. (2013). Cortisol response to challenge involving low controllability: The
role of control beliefs and age. Biological Psychology, 93, 138–142. doi:10.1016/
j.biopsycho.2013.01.003
Andel, R., Crowe, M., Hahn, E. A., Mortimer, J. A., Pedersen, N. L., Fratiglioni, L.,
… Gatz, M. (2012). Work-related stress may increase the risk of vascular dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60, 60–67. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.
2011.03777.x
Antonucci, T. C. (2001). Social relations: An examination of social networks, social
support, and sense of control. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the
psychology of aging (5th ed., pp. 427–453). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bollini, A. M., Walker, E. F., Hamann, S., & Kestler, L. (2004). The influence of perceived control and locus of control on the cortisol and subjective responses to
stress. Biological Psychology, 67, 245–260. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2003.11.002
Brunner, E., Smith, G. D., Marmot, M., Canner, R., Beksinska, M., & O’Brien, J.
(1996). Childhood social circumstances and psychosocial and behavioural factors
as determinants of plasma fibrinogen. Lancet, 347, 1008–1013.
Chen, E., Miller, G. E., Lachman, M. E., Gruenewald, T. L., & Seeman, T. E. (2012). Protective factors for adults from low-childhood socioeconomic circumstances: The
benefits of shift-and-persist for allostatic load. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74, 178–186.
doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e31824206fd
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A
theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin,
130, 355–391. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355
Eizenman, D. R., Nesselroade, J. R., Featherman, D. L., & Rowe, J. W. (1997). Intraindividual variability in perceived control in an older sample: The MacArthur Successful Aging studies. Psychology and Aging, 12, 489–502.
Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York,
NY: Washington Square Press.
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Selection, optimization, and compensation as
strategies of life management: Correlations with subjective indicators of successful
aging. Psychology and Aging, 13, 531–543. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.13.4.531
Gerstorf, D., Röcke, C., & Lachman, M. E. (2011). Antecedent-consequent relations
of perceived control to health and social support: Longitudinal evidence for
between-domain associations across adulthood. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 66B, 61–71. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq077
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span
development. Psychological Review, 117, 32–60. doi:10.1037/a0017668
Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of
twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 21–37.
Infurna, F. J., Gerstorf, D., & Zarit, S. H. (2011). Examining dynamic links between
perceived control and health: Longitudinal evidence for differential effects in
midlife and old age. Developmental Psychology, 47, 9–18. doi:10.1037/a0021022

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Infurna, F. J., Ram, N., & Gerstorf, D. (2013). Level and change in perceived control
predict 19-year mortality: Findings from the Americans’ Changing Lives study.
Developmental Psychology, 49, 1833–1847. doi:10.1037/a0031041
James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., McGuire, L., Robles, T. F., & Glaser, R. (2002). Psychoneuroimmunology: Psychological influences on immune function and health. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 537–547. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.70.3.537
Kitayama, S., Karasawa, M., Curhan, K. B., Ryff, C. D., & Markus, H. R. (2010).
Independence and interdependence predict health and wellbeing: Divergent patterns in the United States and Japan. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1–10. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2010.00163
Lachman, M. E. (2006). Perceived control over aging-related declines: Adaptive
beliefs and behaviors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 282–286.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00453.x
Lachman, M. E., & Agrigoroaei, S. (2011). Low perceived control as a risk factor for
episodic memory: The mediational role of anxiety and task interference. Memory
and Cognition, 40, 287–296. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0140-x
Lachman, M. E., Neupert, S. D., & Agrigoroaei, S. (2011). The relevance of control
beliefs for health and aging. In K. W. Schaie & S. L. Willis (Eds.), Handbook of
the psychology of aging (7th ed., pp. 175–190). Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic
Press.
Lachman, M. E., Rosnick, C. B., & Röcke, C. (2009). The rise and fall of control beliefs
in adulthood: Cognitive and biopsychosocial antecedents and consequences of
stability and change over 9 years. In H. B. Bosworth & C. Hertzog (Eds.), Aging and
cognition: Research methodologies and empirical advances (pp. 143–160). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social
class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 763–773. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.763
Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191–198.
Levy, B. R. (2003). Mind matters: Cognitive and physical effects of aging self-stereotypes. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58B, P203–P211. doi:10.1093/
geronb/58.4.P203
Mallers, M. H., Claver, M., & Lares, L. A. (2014). Perceived control in the lives of
older adults: The influence of Langer and Rodin’s work on gerontological theory,
policy, and practice. The Gerontologist, 54, 67–74. doi:10.1093/geront/gnt051
Marmot, M. (2002). The influence of income on health: View of an epidemiologist.
Health Affairs, 21, 31–46. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.31
Mirowsky, J. (1995). Age and the sense of control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58,
31–43.

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

13

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2007). Life course trajectories of perceived control
and their relationship to education. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1339–1382.
doi:10.1086/511800
Moen, P., Kelly, E. L., & Hill, R. (2011). Does enhancing work-time control and flexibility reduce turnover? A naturally occurring experiment. Social Problems, 58,
69–98.
Neupert, S. D., Almeida, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (2007). Age differences in reactivity
to daily stressors: The role of personal control. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences, 62B, P216–P225. doi:10.1093/geronb/62.4.P216
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.
Schulz, R., & Hanusa, B. H. (1978). Long-term effects of control and predictabilityenhancing interventions: Findings and ethical issues. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 1194–1201.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. New
York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books.
Skinner, E. A. (1992). Perceived control: Motivation, coping, and development. In
R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 91–106). Washington,
DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 549–570.
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and
programs. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Turiano, N. A., Chapman, B. P., Agrigoroaei, S., Infurna, F. J., & Lachman, M. E. (2014).
Perceived control reduces mortality risk at low, not high education levels. Health
Psychology, Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/hea0000022
Turiano, N. A., Lachman, M. E., & Chapman, B. P. (2014). Control beliefs buffer the
negative effects of low education on interleukin-6 levels. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Psychosomatic Society, San Francisco, CA.
Vargas-Lascano, D. I., Galambos, N. L., Krahn, H. J., & Lachman, M. E. (in press).
Growth in perceived control across 25 years from the late teens to midlife: The
role of personal and parents’ education. Developmental Psychology.
Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 616–622.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. doi:10.1037/h0040934

FURTHER READING
Lachman, M. E., Neupert, S. D., & Agrigoroaei, S. (2011). The relevance of control
beliefs for health and aging. In K. W. Schaie & S. L. Willis (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (7th ed., pp. 175–190). Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press.
Mallers, M. H., Claver, M., & Lares, L. A. (2014). Perceived control in the lives of
older adults: The influence of Langer and Rodin’s work on gerontological theory,
policy, and practice. The Gerontologist, 54, 67–74. doi:10.1093/geront/gnt051

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

MARGIE E. LACHMAN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Margie E. Lachman, PhD is the Minnie and Harold Fierman Professor of Psychology and Director of the Lifespan Developmental Psychology Laboratory
and the Initiative on Healthy Aging at Brandeis University. She is a fellow of
the American Psychological Association, Division 20 and the Gerontological
Society of America. She was editor of the Journal of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences (2000–2003) and has edited two volumes on midlife development.
Lachman’s research is in the area of lifespan development with a focus on
midlife and later life. With funding from the National Institute on Aging, her
current work focuses on psychosocial and behavioral factors that can protect
against, minimize, or compensate for declines in cognition and health. She
is conducting studies to examine long-term predictors of psychological and
physical health, laboratory-based experiments to identify psychological and
physiological processes involved in aging-related changes, and intervention
studies to enhance performance and promote adaptive functioning. Lachman
was a member of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Midlife Development and is currently collaborating on the second longitudinal follow-up of the original MacArthur midlife sample (MIDUS). She
has conducted intervention studies designed to enhance the sense of control
over memory and physical activity, and one of the programs for increasing
control over fall prevention won the Archstone Award for Excellence in Program Innovation from the American Public Health Association. In 2003, she
received the Distinguished Research Achievement Award from the American
Psychological Association, Division on Adult Development and Aging.
Webpages:
http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/psych/lachman/
http://www.brandeis.edu/lifespaninitiative/
http://www.brandeis.edu/facultyguide/person.html?emplid=
a2b62c935b12262ab75d8f65acb2285d91e43a91

STEFAN AGRIGOROAEI SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Stefan Agrigoroaei, PhD was a postdoctoral fellow in psychology in the
Lifespan Developmental Psychology Laboratory at Brandeis University,
Waltham, MA. His research program is in the area of health and human
development and aging. He approaches his research with an interdisciplinary, lifespan perspective. His projects focus on the contribution of
psychosocial, behavioral, and physiological factors for optimizing and
maintaining good health, and reducing health disparities. He is a member of
the American Psychological Association, Division 20 and the Gerontological
Society of America. In September 2014 he took on a new position as an

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

15

Assistant Professor in Psychology of Aging at Université catholique de
Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Webpage:
http://www.uclouvain.be/stefan.agrigoroaei
ELIZABETH H. RICKENBACH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Elizabeth H. Rickenbach, PhD was a postdoctoral research fellow in the
Lifespan Developmental Psychology Laboratory at Brandeis University. In
2012, she received her doctoral degree in Aging Studies at the University
of South Florida. She serves as Chair-Elect of the Emerging Scholars and
Professionals Organization of the Gerontological Society of America, and
postdoctoral representative to the Executive Committee of Division 20 of the
American Psychological Association. Her research is focused on using interdisciplinary methods to examine daily experiences of stress and coping in
the context of cognitive aging in middle and older adulthood, and examining risk factors for cognitive decline such as stress and sleep disruptions.
Her work utilizes multiple methods, including short-term repeated measures
designs (e.g., daily diary studies) to examine everyday factors contributing to
health and well-being, as well as longitudinal methods to examine long-term
change. In September 2014 she took on a new position as an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire.
RELATED ESSAYS
Terror Management Theory (Psychology), Alisabeth Ayars et al.
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Setting One’s Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance
(Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer
Lifecourse and Aging (Anthropology), Haim Hazan
Regulatory Focus Theory (Psychology), E. Tory Higgins
Multitasking (Communications & Media), Matthew Irwin and Zheng Wang
Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Childhood (Anthropology), Karen L. Kramer
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Effortful Control (Psychology), Tracy L. Spinrad and Nancy Eisenberg

16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Leadership (Anthropology), Adrienne Tecza and Dominic Johnson
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.


Making Sense of Control:
Change and Consequences
MARGIE E. LACHMAN, STEFAN AGRIGOROAEI, and ELIZABETH H. RICKENBACH

Abstract
The concept of control in the social and behavioral sciences derives mainly from
theories of motivation. Early work on control was largely descriptive, with an
emphasis on individual differences in perceived control. This essay first reviews the
foundational research on the development of control beliefs and their relationship
to achievement and health outcomes. Next, the article summarizes more recent
cutting-edge research, which has examined trajectories of longitudinal change and
the processes and mechanisms that link control beliefs with outcomes. Studies have
shown that control beliefs can be a resilience factor that buffers the effects of stress
and moderates social class differences in health and longevity. Suggestions for
future research directions include a focus on short-term, within-person variability
and intraindividual change processes, cultural variations in control beliefs, and the
antecedents of control. The article concludes by considering some of the possible
limits of a high sense of control as well as interventions to optimize control,
and the policy implications of control beliefs. Future research will benefit from a
biopsychosocial approach in order to understand how control beliefs develop and
get under the skin to affect health and well-being.

INTRODUCTION
The concept of control has its roots in theories of motivation (Weiner, 1990)
as a basic human need fueled by the positive feelings associated with the
accomplishment of goals and the satisfaction that accompanies agency, mastery, and success (deCharms, 1968; Rotter, 1966; White, 1959). The origins of
control are manifested as the infant begins to develop an understanding of
cause and effect or contingency. Parents know well the battle of whether or
when to give in to a crying baby. The babies usually win, thereby learning
something about control through the powers they hold in bringing about
desired outcomes. William James (1890) captured this in his observation that
crying children often look around to see what effects they are having on the
adults around them.
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Once there is an understanding quite early in life that one can be effective in getting people and things to meet needs, there is also an awareness
that control can be taken away or may not always be possible. At a young
age, some children learn that those around them are responsive, leading to a
sense of mastery, and others come to know that their efforts are sometimes
ignored, promoting a sense of helplessness. The loss of control and even the
anticipation or fear of losing control are associated with many negative outcomes, such as depression (Seligman, 1975), anxiety, and stress (Dickerson &
Kemeny, 2004).
Much of the research on the nature of control has focused on perceptions
of control. This work has considered how perceived control develops and
changes over time throughout the life course and its effects on achievement,
health, and well-being (Lachman, Neupert, & Agrigoroaei, 2011). It is the perception of control rather than the degree of actual control that is consistently
found to play an important role for outcomes. This approach can be traced to
early phenomenological work, suggesting that attitudes, expectancies, and
subjective interpretations of one’s circumstances are important (Thomas &
Thomas, 1928). Indeed, the notion of feeling in control has been addressed
by philosophers and social scientists as an important source of happiness.
Yet, how one faces seemingly uncontrollable circumstances is an important
indicator of maturity and adjustment.
Until recently, much of the work on the development of sense of control
had been cross-sectional, and the linkages with important outcomes such as
health have been descriptive. Thanks to studies of control using short-term
and long-term longitudinal designs and experimental paradigms, we
are beginning to gain a clearer picture of the directional pathways and
mechanisms. Recent advances show that beliefs get under the skin to make
a difference for health. We review the major contributions of research on
control beliefs for lifespan development and health. We then discuss some
unanswered questions and consider new directions for future studies and
the potential application of findings for policy.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Control is defined and measured in multiple ways. The most basic approach
captures beliefs about the likelihood of bringing about desired outcomes.
It includes beliefs about one’s own role in terms of abilities and effort as
well as the extent to which there are constraints or obstacles that may interfere with one’s goal attainment (Skinner, 1996). The measures typically are
self-assessments with questions that focus on perceptions about one’s own
control in general or within specific domains and situations.

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

3

There is solid evidence that expectancies of control make a difference, irrespective of objective circumstances. This is in line with findings from other
domains where subjective evaluations are often better predictors of outcomes
than objective indicators. This is the case, for example, for self-ratings of
health in comparison to doctor’s reports, when predicting mortality (Idler
& Benyamini, 1997).
Subjective experiences and appraisals of the situation affect behavior and
make a difference for physiological responses, providing the means for
beliefs to get under the skin to influence health. Although there is some
work that manipulates control and attempts to understand the role of actual
control, this work has been less prominent. The objective nature of control
is not often possible to assess and the same situation may be interpreted
in different ways. Thus, the majority of the studies focus on individual
differences in perceived control, and the findings show important change
patterns across the lifespan and significant associations with achievement,
health, and well-being outcomes.
DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL
During childhood, the sense of control generally increases (Skinner, 1992). It
continues to rise through early adulthood and then starts a course of decline
before leveling off in midlife age and declining in old age. These patterns
are found in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies; yet, there are
some inconsistencies, perhaps due to the use of different measures, designs,
and samples. The trajectories of change are further qualified by individual
differences within age groups. For example, control beliefs in childhood
may reflect experiences tied to social class differences, which can be perpetuated across the life course with long-term consequences for health and
well-being. Developing a sense of control, by learning to positively reframe
circumstances and persist despite adversity, may alter health trajectories in
adulthood (Chen, Miller, Lachman, Gruenewald, & Seeman, 2012).
Piecing together the full trajectory of control over the life course is not clear
cut as most studies do not include a large age range. There is some evidence
of a decline in control in early adulthood (Lachman, Rosnick, & Röcke,
2009; Mirowsky, 1995; Vargas-Lascano, Galambos, Krahn, & Lachman,
under review). Adolescents and young adults tend to have a high, perhaps
unrealistic, sense of their control and may feel invulnerable. This may lead
them to engage in risky behaviors, yet it also can be an advantage in their
expansive goal pursuit. Sense of control may be dampened somewhat after
graduating high school or college when facing the challenges and demands
of adult tasks or disappointments, or in response to other salient experiences
or environmental factors. We identified two different paths in adulthood

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

that vary as a function of parental education (Vargas-Lascano et al., under
review). Among children whose parents had a college degree, sense of
control was maintained throughout early adulthood. In contrast, children
whose parents were not college educated showed declines in their sense of
control throughout adulthood.
Throughout the adult years, experiences of both gains and losses are
sources of control beliefs. Gains in control come from acquiring experience,
developing mastery, or reaching a peak of knowledge, competence, and
expertise. In later life, the sense of competence is maintained in many
domains (e.g., work or home) due to accumulated experience or the fact that
adults select situations in which they feel efficacious and in control. Control
declines are tied to obstacles and limitations, including unexpected or
uncontrollable events and constraints that increase with age (e.g., bereavement, health conditions, loss of social roles). Beliefs in constraints increase
in the context of physical and cognitive declines and other losses associated
with aging.
Among the first to consider control in the context of aging, Langer and
Rodin (1976) manipulated control within a nursing home setting by giving
the experimental group care of a plant and the opportunity to choose the
times to attend movies. In contrast, the comparison group had their plant
cared for by the staff and was told when to attend movies. They found important increases in health and well-being for the experimental group, although
the expected effects on mortality fell short. Notably, they did not report findings for differences in perceived control. Thus, it is not clear if the treatment
group experienced increased control or if there were individual differences
in this perception. For some individuals, being told to take care of a plant
could have led to lower perceived control, especially if that is not something
they wanted to do. Another early study (Schulz & Hanusa, 1978) manipulated control by giving older adults choice as to when and how long student
volunteers would visit. Although initially there were psychological benefits,
the group who was given control showed long-term negative consequences
when the students left for summer vacation. This was one of the first demonstrations of the damaging effects of losing control.
Control over aging is to a large extent about the degree to which one
believes it is possible to delay, reduce, or avoid declines, although it is
also about opportunities for enhancement or optimization. Low control
is reflected in the belief that declines are inevitable and irreversible and
that there is not much you can do about it. This mindset has tremendous
implications for how one behaves and ultimately for happiness, health, and
longevity.

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

5

CORRELATES AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONTROL
Although there are conceptual and measurement differences in the construct
of control, there are some consistent themes about relationships with achievement and health. A sense of control makes a person happy, healthy, wealthy,
and wise (Lachman et al., 2011). Indeed, many studies have found that those
with a higher sense of control have higher psychological well-being, better
health, a greater income, and higher levels of cognitive functioning. Much of
this work, however, has been correlational, and there is not a clear sense of
directionality, causality, or underlying mechanisms, although recent studies
have shed some light.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
MECHANISMS OF CONTROL
How do control beliefs influence outcomes? Although the earliest work
focused on the notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy as a possible explanation,
more recent work demonstrates how beliefs impact actions and reactions.
Some of the mechanisms that can account for the associations between
control beliefs and aging-related outcomes have been identified in a number
of recent studies, and do not seem to be specific to one particular age
group. The mediators of the relationship between control and achievement
in the cognitive domain include strategy use, anxiety, distractibility, and
intrusive thinking (Lachman & Agrigoroaei, 2011). Those with higher
control use more effective problem-solving strategies, are less anxious, and
are more task-focused. For health, strong beliefs in control lead to more
health-promoting behaviors such as exercise, healthy diet, and preventive
care. The underlying theme is that those who feel in control are more likely
to take adaptive actions and use effective strategies to bring about desired
outcomes. Moreover, control is associated with adaptive stress and immune
responses that are protective for health. Expectancies get under the skin
(Kiecolt-Glaser, McGuire, Robles, & Glaser, 2002), and how one appraises
a situation with regard to its controllability has implications for stress.
Low controllability is a primary source of stress, which in turn can have
damaging consequences for health (Lachman, 2006). Thus, a lack of control
has physiological consequences for stress hormones, inflammation and
other biological factors related to health (Turiano, Chapman, Agrigoroaei,
Infurna, & Lachman, 2014; Turiano, Lachman, & Chapman, 2014).
CONTROL AS A RESILIENCE FACTOR
Protective psychosocial factors, such as having a higher sense of control,
can buffer the negative effects of stressors or daily challenges. In particular,

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

individuals with lower perceived constraints are less emotionally and
physically reactive to daily interpersonal stressors (e.g., argument) and
individuals with a high sense of mastery are less physically reactive to
work stressors and less emotionally reactive to network stressors (Neupert,
Almeida, & Charles, 2007).
Marmot (2002) suggested that autonomy and controllability are key factors
that account for the social gradient in health. Those in lower status jobs often
have less control over their work life and this can have damaging effects on
their health, including physiological markers of inflammation such as fibrinogen (Brunner et al., 1996). Although those in low socioeconomic status
(SES) groups typically have a lower sense of control, some do develop a high
sense of control. A strong sense of control can buffer the negative effects of
lower SES. This is promising in that it suggests that appraisals of life circumstances can make a difference and can help to counteract the deleterious
effects of low income or low education. SES differences in health and even
mortality risk can be reduced or even eliminated by a strong sense of control
(Lachman & Weaver, 1998; Turiano, Chapman, et al., 2014).
CONTROL IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
Although much of the research on control has focused on subjective assessments, there is also some interest in understanding the role of objective
circumstances by assessing perceived control in the context of manipulated control (Agrigoroaei, Polito, et al., 2013; Bollini, Walker, Hamann,
& Kestler, 2004). In some cases, participants have an illusion of control,
thinking, and behaving as if they can influence outcomes, when in fact they
cannot. We examined perceived control in relation to manipulated control
using a driving simulation paradigm (Agrigoroaei, Polito, et al., 2013).
The experimental condition with low controllability was programmed by
simulating windy and slippery conditions, so that steering and braking were
difficult. In contrast, the normal controllability condition involved regular
driving conditions. Those in the low-controllability condition reported
lower control than the normal condition, confirming that the manipulation
had the desired effect. We examined whether low controllability had consequences for a stress response measured with the salivary cortisol. The
effects of the experimental condition, however, depended on general control
beliefs. Participants who had a high general sense of control had a larger
stress response in the low-controllability condition, perhaps because it was
contrary to their typical experiences. Their heightened stress response may
be indicative of vigilance and compensation for the low control stressor and
indeed, for these individuals, there were no negative consequences of stress
for driving or cognitive performance. In daily life, those with high control

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

7

typically select into high control situations and we do not often see the
consequences of incongruent control. This work provides further support
for the importance of subjective appraisals of control.
CONTROL AND HEALTH
There is evidence that those with higher control beliefs have better health.
Recent work with longitudinal designs has helped to disentangle the cross
sectional findings. There is emerging evidence that control beliefs lead to
changes in health (Infurna, Gerstorf, & Zarit, 2011). Nevertheless, it is also
likely that those with better health feel more in control, whereas becoming
ill can lead to decreases in the sense of control (Gerstorf, Röcke, & Lachman,
2011). A high sense of control seems to have anti-inflammatory properties
(Turiano, Lachman, et al., 2014) in that the relationship between control beliefs
and health is mediated by a lower level of IL-6, a marker of inflammation.
Control beliefs are also related to mortality risk (Infurna, Ram, & Gerstorf,
2013; Turiano, Chapman, et al., 2014). Those with a lower sense of control
have a greater probability of earlier death. Although it is not possible that
death itself affects control beliefs, there are alternative possible explanations
and knowing more about the cause of death would shed additional light on
the nature of the relationship and possible mechanisms. Understanding the
time-ordered processes involving control and health may suggest appropriate targets and timing for interventions.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
How is it that the same situation is perceived as controllable by some and
not others? This fundamental distinction in perceptions or beliefs systems
makes a difference in many life domains. This is not a matter of optimism
or seeing the glass half full. Rather beliefs about controllability capture the
expected impact of one’s own agency, with implications for behavioral, physiological, and emotional responses (Bandura, 1997). Further research from a
biopsychosocial perspective is needed to understand the processes involved
as this may lead to promising insights and interventions. We provide some
suggestions for future directions.
WITHIN-PERSON VARIATION
Although much of the work on control examines differences between persons or changes over the long run, there is emerging evidence that control
fluctuates over the short run within individuals. Moreover, irrespective of
the level of control, higher stability (lower fluctuation) in control beliefs is

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

associated with lower mortality risk (Eizenman, Nesselroade, Featherman,
& Rowe, 1997) and better cognitive performance (Agrigoroaei, Neupert,
& Lachman, 2013). Of interest for future research is how to promote the
maintenance of control in the face of challenge, adversity, uncertainty, and
change. It will also be useful to understand the associations of control and
well-being in the context of daily functioning using frequent assessments
such as experience sampling with an explicit focus on intraindividual
variability and change.
CULTURAL VARIATIONS
Is a high sense of control universally beneficial? There is some evidence that
Americans are not only higher in control but also that control may be more
strongly tied to well-being, compared to other countries. Advertisers are well
aware of the appeal of being in control, as they often use the familiar dictum
“take control” to promote their products. The Pew Research Center study of
control beliefs around the world showed the United States had the largest
proportion believing they are in control of life outcomes (Lachman, 2006).
Work by Kitayama and colleagues (2010) has shown that the Japanese and
Americans on average have similar levels of control beliefs, yet they are not
as important for well-being in Japan, as they are in the United States. In Japan,
supportive social relations contributed the most to well-being rather than
control. More work is needed to explore the nature and benefits of control
across cultures and ethnic groups within and across nations to understand
the role of contextual factors.
THE OTHER SIDE OF CONTROL
Although much work points to the benefits of control, an interesting question is whether having a high sense of control can also be damaging in some
circumstances. Indeed, control may be a double-edged sword. Those who
have a high sense of control may be more likely to ignore realities of health
problems or assume they are not susceptible to aging-related changes. One
possible implication is that those with a high sense of control may ignore
symptoms or not go to the doctor regularly. Research is beginning to explore
whether those with high control are more likely to have undiagnosed or
untreated conditions, such as hypertension or diabetes.
There is a paradox in that those who feel in control often do not accept help
from others or may not want to use environmental supports even if it would
be beneficial, on the one hand. On the other hand, mobilizing support from
others or making use of assistive devices to maintain one’s well-being and
lifestyle are effective means to increased control. Further work is needed to

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

9

understand the role of control beliefs in the adoption of compensatory new
technologies (e.g., automated medication reminders, robots). The adoption
of some automated systems (e.g., self-driving cars), which turn individuals
from active agents to passive observers, may come at the expense of personal
control and the maintenance of skills.
SOURCES OF CONTROL BELIEFS
Much of the work has focused on the consequences of control beliefs, and
less is known about the etiology of individual differences in control. Bandura
(1997) suggested that a sense of control is tied to past experience and feedback
from others. Control beliefs can develop as a result of aging stereotypes about
helplessness (Levy, 2003). Thus, older adults’ lower control beliefs may reflect
the internalized negative views of aging shared by the society.
Social support engenders a sense of control. Knowing you can call on others if needed gives one a greater sense of mastery and control (Antonucci,
2001). There are indications that education influences control (Mirowsky &
Ross, 2007) by learning that one can respond in effective ways by acquiring
the skills to address problems that arise. Alternatively, it is possible that those
with a higher sense of control select into higher education. Indeed, we found
that those with higher control in high school were more likely to pursue
higher levels of education (Vargas-Lascano et al., under review). Understanding the etiology of beliefs in control will be an important avenue for future
study, with implications for promoting adaptive beliefs throughout life.
INTERVENTIONS TO OPTIMIZE CONTROL
There is some evidence that control beliefs can be changed (Lachman et al.,
2011). This has implications for understanding how we can promote control,
or accept the limits of control when appropriate. Victor Frankls’ (1963)
statement, written while in a concentration camp, captures this theme well:
“The last of human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set
of circumstances” (p. 104). If one cannot choose one’s circumstances then,
ultimately, control is about choosing how to interpret and respond to ones’
circumstances. Attitudes and beliefs can be adaptive in the face of great
adversity by providing a means to do something to deal with or accept
one’s plight or to move on. Some interventions have focused on cognitive
restructuring as a way to reframe seemingly uncontrollable circumstances
(Lachman et al., 2011). Other ways to increase control focus on increasing
choice, flexibility, support, and emotion regulation.
The work place represents a relevant context for control interventions. Marmot has shown that low control at work can be damaging for health. The job
strain model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) posits that occupations associated
with low job control and high job strain (the combination of lower control

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

and higher demands) are more stressful and thus more detrimental for health
outcomes, including a greater risk of vascular dementia (Andel et al., 2012).
There has been much interest in providing more flexible work situations.
This would entail such features as choice of work tasks and the ability to
juggle schedules. As shown by Moen and colleagues (2011), programs that
allow employees greater work-time control have benefits in terms of lower
turnover rates.
There are a number of theories that suggest ways to take control through
self-regulatory strategies. Selective Optimization with Compensation
(Freund & Baltes, 1998) and the Lifespan Theory of Control (Heckhausen,
Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010) provide frameworks for promoting control within
the context of aging-related declines in health and cognition. These involve
reducing demands, compensating for losses, and knowing when to disengage from goals in the face of limitations. Future work that examines to what
extent these strategies can be taught would be a valuable contribution. The
role of control beliefs for self-control processes involving emotion regulation
and health-promoting behaviors (e.g., exercise) is a promising avenue for
further exploration.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF CONTROL BELIEFS
Not only is an understanding of control beliefs relevant for health and
well-being outcomes across the lifespan but personal beliefs about control
also have implications for policy in a number of areas including civic
engagement and utilization of health services (Mallers, Claver, & Lares,
2014). To the extent that individuals feel a higher sense of control, they may
have greater interest in active engagement such as voting and volunteering
within their communities. Moreover, control beliefs can influence participation in self-care as well as use of health services. Therefore, a greater
understanding of factors that influence control across the lifespan may not
only be associated with greater well-being for an individual but may also
have implications for health care and policy at the societal level.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this essay was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging: #RO1AG17920.
REFERENCES
Agrigoroaei, S., Neupert, S. D., & Lachman, M. E. (2013). Maintaining a sense of
control in the context of cognitive challenge: Greater stability in control beliefs
benefits working memory. The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry,
26, 49–59. doi:10.1024/1662-9647/a000078

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

11

Agrigoroaei, S., Polito, M., Lee, A., Kranz-Graham, E., Seeman, T., & Lachman,
M. E. (2013). Cortisol response to challenge involving low controllability: The
role of control beliefs and age. Biological Psychology, 93, 138–142. doi:10.1016/
j.biopsycho.2013.01.003
Andel, R., Crowe, M., Hahn, E. A., Mortimer, J. A., Pedersen, N. L., Fratiglioni, L.,
… Gatz, M. (2012). Work-related stress may increase the risk of vascular dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60, 60–67. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.
2011.03777.x
Antonucci, T. C. (2001). Social relations: An examination of social networks, social
support, and sense of control. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the
psychology of aging (5th ed., pp. 427–453). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bollini, A. M., Walker, E. F., Hamann, S., & Kestler, L. (2004). The influence of perceived control and locus of control on the cortisol and subjective responses to
stress. Biological Psychology, 67, 245–260. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2003.11.002
Brunner, E., Smith, G. D., Marmot, M., Canner, R., Beksinska, M., & O’Brien, J.
(1996). Childhood social circumstances and psychosocial and behavioural factors
as determinants of plasma fibrinogen. Lancet, 347, 1008–1013.
Chen, E., Miller, G. E., Lachman, M. E., Gruenewald, T. L., & Seeman, T. E. (2012). Protective factors for adults from low-childhood socioeconomic circumstances: The
benefits of shift-and-persist for allostatic load. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74, 178–186.
doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e31824206fd
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A
theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin,
130, 355–391. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355
Eizenman, D. R., Nesselroade, J. R., Featherman, D. L., & Rowe, J. W. (1997). Intraindividual variability in perceived control in an older sample: The MacArthur Successful Aging studies. Psychology and Aging, 12, 489–502.
Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York,
NY: Washington Square Press.
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Selection, optimization, and compensation as
strategies of life management: Correlations with subjective indicators of successful
aging. Psychology and Aging, 13, 531–543. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.13.4.531
Gerstorf, D., Röcke, C., & Lachman, M. E. (2011). Antecedent-consequent relations
of perceived control to health and social support: Longitudinal evidence for
between-domain associations across adulthood. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 66B, 61–71. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq077
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span
development. Psychological Review, 117, 32–60. doi:10.1037/a0017668
Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of
twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 21–37.
Infurna, F. J., Gerstorf, D., & Zarit, S. H. (2011). Examining dynamic links between
perceived control and health: Longitudinal evidence for differential effects in
midlife and old age. Developmental Psychology, 47, 9–18. doi:10.1037/a0021022

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Infurna, F. J., Ram, N., & Gerstorf, D. (2013). Level and change in perceived control
predict 19-year mortality: Findings from the Americans’ Changing Lives study.
Developmental Psychology, 49, 1833–1847. doi:10.1037/a0031041
James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., McGuire, L., Robles, T. F., & Glaser, R. (2002). Psychoneuroimmunology: Psychological influences on immune function and health. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 537–547. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.70.3.537
Kitayama, S., Karasawa, M., Curhan, K. B., Ryff, C. D., & Markus, H. R. (2010).
Independence and interdependence predict health and wellbeing: Divergent patterns in the United States and Japan. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1–10. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2010.00163
Lachman, M. E. (2006). Perceived control over aging-related declines: Adaptive
beliefs and behaviors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 282–286.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00453.x
Lachman, M. E., & Agrigoroaei, S. (2011). Low perceived control as a risk factor for
episodic memory: The mediational role of anxiety and task interference. Memory
and Cognition, 40, 287–296. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0140-x
Lachman, M. E., Neupert, S. D., & Agrigoroaei, S. (2011). The relevance of control
beliefs for health and aging. In K. W. Schaie & S. L. Willis (Eds.), Handbook of
the psychology of aging (7th ed., pp. 175–190). Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic
Press.
Lachman, M. E., Rosnick, C. B., & Röcke, C. (2009). The rise and fall of control beliefs
in adulthood: Cognitive and biopsychosocial antecedents and consequences of
stability and change over 9 years. In H. B. Bosworth & C. Hertzog (Eds.), Aging and
cognition: Research methodologies and empirical advances (pp. 143–160). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social
class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 763–773. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.763
Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191–198.
Levy, B. R. (2003). Mind matters: Cognitive and physical effects of aging self-stereotypes. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58B, P203–P211. doi:10.1093/
geronb/58.4.P203
Mallers, M. H., Claver, M., & Lares, L. A. (2014). Perceived control in the lives of
older adults: The influence of Langer and Rodin’s work on gerontological theory,
policy, and practice. The Gerontologist, 54, 67–74. doi:10.1093/geront/gnt051
Marmot, M. (2002). The influence of income on health: View of an epidemiologist.
Health Affairs, 21, 31–46. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.31
Mirowsky, J. (1995). Age and the sense of control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58,
31–43.

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

13

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2007). Life course trajectories of perceived control
and their relationship to education. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1339–1382.
doi:10.1086/511800
Moen, P., Kelly, E. L., & Hill, R. (2011). Does enhancing work-time control and flexibility reduce turnover? A naturally occurring experiment. Social Problems, 58,
69–98.
Neupert, S. D., Almeida, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (2007). Age differences in reactivity
to daily stressors: The role of personal control. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences, 62B, P216–P225. doi:10.1093/geronb/62.4.P216
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.
Schulz, R., & Hanusa, B. H. (1978). Long-term effects of control and predictabilityenhancing interventions: Findings and ethical issues. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 1194–1201.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. New
York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books.
Skinner, E. A. (1992). Perceived control: Motivation, coping, and development. In
R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 91–106). Washington,
DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 549–570.
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and
programs. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Turiano, N. A., Chapman, B. P., Agrigoroaei, S., Infurna, F. J., & Lachman, M. E. (2014).
Perceived control reduces mortality risk at low, not high education levels. Health
Psychology, Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/hea0000022
Turiano, N. A., Lachman, M. E., & Chapman, B. P. (2014). Control beliefs buffer the
negative effects of low education on interleukin-6 levels. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Psychosomatic Society, San Francisco, CA.
Vargas-Lascano, D. I., Galambos, N. L., Krahn, H. J., & Lachman, M. E. (in press).
Growth in perceived control across 25 years from the late teens to midlife: The
role of personal and parents’ education. Developmental Psychology.
Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 616–622.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. doi:10.1037/h0040934

FURTHER READING
Lachman, M. E., Neupert, S. D., & Agrigoroaei, S. (2011). The relevance of control
beliefs for health and aging. In K. W. Schaie & S. L. Willis (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (7th ed., pp. 175–190). Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press.
Mallers, M. H., Claver, M., & Lares, L. A. (2014). Perceived control in the lives of
older adults: The influence of Langer and Rodin’s work on gerontological theory,
policy, and practice. The Gerontologist, 54, 67–74. doi:10.1093/geront/gnt051

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

MARGIE E. LACHMAN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Margie E. Lachman, PhD is the Minnie and Harold Fierman Professor of Psychology and Director of the Lifespan Developmental Psychology Laboratory
and the Initiative on Healthy Aging at Brandeis University. She is a fellow of
the American Psychological Association, Division 20 and the Gerontological
Society of America. She was editor of the Journal of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences (2000–2003) and has edited two volumes on midlife development.
Lachman’s research is in the area of lifespan development with a focus on
midlife and later life. With funding from the National Institute on Aging, her
current work focuses on psychosocial and behavioral factors that can protect
against, minimize, or compensate for declines in cognition and health. She
is conducting studies to examine long-term predictors of psychological and
physical health, laboratory-based experiments to identify psychological and
physiological processes involved in aging-related changes, and intervention
studies to enhance performance and promote adaptive functioning. Lachman
was a member of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Midlife Development and is currently collaborating on the second longitudinal follow-up of the original MacArthur midlife sample (MIDUS). She
has conducted intervention studies designed to enhance the sense of control
over memory and physical activity, and one of the programs for increasing
control over fall prevention won the Archstone Award for Excellence in Program Innovation from the American Public Health Association. In 2003, she
received the Distinguished Research Achievement Award from the American
Psychological Association, Division on Adult Development and Aging.
Webpages:
http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/psych/lachman/
http://www.brandeis.edu/lifespaninitiative/
http://www.brandeis.edu/facultyguide/person.html?emplid=
a2b62c935b12262ab75d8f65acb2285d91e43a91

STEFAN AGRIGOROAEI SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Stefan Agrigoroaei, PhD was a postdoctoral fellow in psychology in the
Lifespan Developmental Psychology Laboratory at Brandeis University,
Waltham, MA. His research program is in the area of health and human
development and aging. He approaches his research with an interdisciplinary, lifespan perspective. His projects focus on the contribution of
psychosocial, behavioral, and physiological factors for optimizing and
maintaining good health, and reducing health disparities. He is a member of
the American Psychological Association, Division 20 and the Gerontological
Society of America. In September 2014 he took on a new position as an

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences

15

Assistant Professor in Psychology of Aging at Université catholique de
Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Webpage:
http://www.uclouvain.be/stefan.agrigoroaei
ELIZABETH H. RICKENBACH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Elizabeth H. Rickenbach, PhD was a postdoctoral research fellow in the
Lifespan Developmental Psychology Laboratory at Brandeis University. In
2012, she received her doctoral degree in Aging Studies at the University
of South Florida. She serves as Chair-Elect of the Emerging Scholars and
Professionals Organization of the Gerontological Society of America, and
postdoctoral representative to the Executive Committee of Division 20 of the
American Psychological Association. Her research is focused on using interdisciplinary methods to examine daily experiences of stress and coping in
the context of cognitive aging in middle and older adulthood, and examining risk factors for cognitive decline such as stress and sleep disruptions.
Her work utilizes multiple methods, including short-term repeated measures
designs (e.g., daily diary studies) to examine everyday factors contributing to
health and well-being, as well as longitudinal methods to examine long-term
change. In September 2014 she took on a new position as an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire.
RELATED ESSAYS
Terror Management Theory (Psychology), Alisabeth Ayars et al.
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Setting One’s Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance
(Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer
Lifecourse and Aging (Anthropology), Haim Hazan
Regulatory Focus Theory (Psychology), E. Tory Higgins
Multitasking (Communications & Media), Matthew Irwin and Zheng Wang
Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Childhood (Anthropology), Karen L. Kramer
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Effortful Control (Psychology), Tracy L. Spinrad and Nancy Eisenberg

16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Leadership (Anthropology), Adrienne Tecza and Dominic Johnson
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.



Media

Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences