Editing Locus of control (section)

=={{anchor|Cross-cultural and Regional issues in locus of control}}Cross-cultural and regional issues==
The question of whether people from different [[culture]]s vary in locus of control has long been of interest to social psychologists.

[[Japanese people]] tend to be more external in locus-of-control orientation than people in the [[United States|U.S.]]; however, differences in locus of control between different countries within [[Europe]] (and between the U.S. and Europe) tend to be small.{{sfn|Berry|Poortinga|Segall| Dasen|1992}} As Berry ''et al.'' pointed out in 1992, [[ethnic group]]s within the United States have been compared on locus of control; [[African American]]s in the U.S. are more external than [[White American|whites]] when socioeconomic status is controlled.<ref>{{Cite book | doi=10.1016/B978-0-12-443203-1.50008-9 |chapter = Cross-Cultural Research with the Locus of Control Construct|title = Research with the Locus of Control Construct|pages = 209–306|year = 1984|last1 = Dyal|first1 = James A.|isbn = 978-0-12-443203-1}}</ref>{{sfn|Berry|Poortinga|Segall| Dasen|1992}} Berry ''et al.'' also pointed out in 1992 how research on other ethnic minorities in the U.S. (such as Hispanics) has been ambiguous. More on cross-cultural variations in locus of control can be found in {{harvtxt|Shiraev | Levy |2004}}. Research in this area indicates that locus of control has been a useful concept for researchers in [[cross-cultural psychology]].

On a less broad scale, Sims and Baumann explained how regions in the United States cope with natural disasters differently. The example they used was tornados. They "applied Rotter's theory to explain why more people have died in tornado[e]s in Alabama than in Illinois".{{sfn|Hock|2008}} They explain that after giving surveys to residents of four counties in both Alabama and Illinois, Alabama residents were shown to be more external in their way of thinking about events that occur in their lives. Illinois residents, however, were more internal. Because Alabama residents had a more external way of processing information, they took fewer precautions prior to the appearance of a tornado. Those in Illinois, however, were more prepared, thus leading to fewer casualties.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Sims | first1 = J. | last2 = Baumann | first2 = D. | year = 1972 | title = The tornado threat: Coping styles in the North and South | journal = Science | volume = 176 | issue = 4042| pages = 1386–1392 | doi=10.1126/science.176.4042.1386| pmid = 17834637 | bibcode = 1972Sci...176.1386S | s2cid = 28619302 }}</ref>

Later studies find that these geographic differences can be explained by differences in [[relational mobility]]. Relational mobility is a measure of how much choice individuals have in terms of whom to form relationships with, including friendships, romantic partnerships, and work relations. Relational mobility is low in cultures with a subsistence economy that requires tight cooperation and coordination, such as farming, while it is high in cultures based on [[Pastoralism|nomadic herding]] and in urban industrial cultures. 
A cross-cultural study found that the relational mobility is lowest in East Asian countries where [[Paddy rice|rice farming]] is common, and highest in South American countries.<ref name="ThomsonEtAl2018">{{cite journal |last1=Thomson |first1=Robert|display-authors=etal|title=Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=2018 |volume=115 |issue=29 |pages=7521–7526|doi=10.1073/pnas.1713191115|pmid=29959208|pmc=6055178|bibcode=2018PNAS..115.7521T |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="YukiSchug2012">{{cite book |last1=Yuki |first1=Masaki |last2=Schug |first2=Joanna |editor1-last=Gillath |editor1-first=O. |editor1-link=Omri Gillath |editor2-last=Adams |editor2-first=G. |editor3-last=Kunkel |editor3-first=A. |title=Relationship Science: Integrating Evolutionary, Neuroscience, and Sociocultural Approaches |date=2012 |publisher=American Psychological Association |pages=137–151 |chapter=Relational mobility: A socioecological approach to personal relationships|doi=10.1037/13489-007|hdl=2115/52726 |isbn=978-1-4338-1123-4 |s2cid=53496958 }}</ref>