Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe Skinner's version: 1995 (edit or 1996). But since I have not contrasted the locus, I think you're trying too hard with your "gotcha".
Skinner outlines, in 2007, her opinions on primary v secondary control in a paper replying to Morling & Evered. In fact, primary and secondary control are only modestly related to locus of control (locus would determine what cause one attributes to an event, thereby changing whether an individual thinks the event was under their control or not, but this is getting more into Perry or Rauthbaum's stuff).
In terms of how Skinner defines primary and secondary control, Primary control can be broken down into two parts: actually doing what you want (walking, for instance) or actions that facilitate this (getting a wheelchair, this type of primary control is what Heckhausen would call secondary control). Secondary control deals with accepting and adjusting to events beyond one's control. So, if you know you can't walk, you accept this, as in, you no longer fight against it cognitively, and you adjust to meet your new limitations/context. If you only do one or the other, you can end up with various stressors, etc, but that isn't too important here (acceptance without adjusting will lead to frustration because you will still try to behave as though you were in total control, adjusting without acceptance will lead to conspiracy/magical thinking). So, sure, locus, or the perceived locus, might change what an individual thinks is within their control, but is generally not necessary when talking about primary v secondary in general (and the locus for the woman described by C-big-C is patently obvious).
In Skinner's view, a loss of secondary control isn't really "possible". Or, not that it isn't possible, but it requires a change in a person's cognition that would change how they have adapted to or accept an event. This has not happened in C-big-C's scenario. This woman has lost primary control and has no secondary control strategies to compensate, so she uses primary control strategies. In Heckhousian terms, she is using facilitator primary control to achieve her primary control objectives, but there is no apparent change in her acceptance or adjustment. So, going by the Skinner/Morling/Thompson/Perry view, there is no loss in secondary control, going by the Heckhausen view, secondary control increases.
I'm still not sure how you think this relates to insecurity (or, I don't agree with you defining a loss of primary control as insecurity, though you seem to think this is acceptable). This convo is really not fun any more, and I need to stop when this happens, however, I did sort of want to throw this glib remark out there: I have studied this topic, this literal topic about primary and secondary control, under Raymond Perry. Look him up, he is one of the most prestigious control researchers in the world, currently doing groundbreaking stuff that looks at attributional retraining of people's "locus of control" (he wouldn't use that term) that has astounding results in classroom settings. The TWO major papers I did for the course, which both received over 90%, were investigating Morling & Evered vs Skinner, specifically dealing with their ideas of secondary control, with the second paper being a design of an fMRI study to verify Skinner's ideas. I know I don't do this type of thing very often, and it isn't really becoming, but honestly, you are just wrong here. Just wrong. I know, you will write out some huge reply to each sentence I posted, so, whatever. The fact remains you are trying to talk about what is a very complicated topic as though you can just gloss over it, without any care for nuance. Like I said, last word is yours, so feel free to explain why I'm mischaracterizing you or why your opinion on this is actually superior to my ill-informed one, because frankly, a lot of our discussions just seem to devolve into this type of thing and it becomes more stressful than entertaining. Its like arguing with a creationist sometimes.
Originally posted by dadudemon
TBH, you came off as being extremely ill-informed at how diversely "insecurity" is defined in psychology.
nono, you are confused, I am the one who is informed about how diversely the term insecurity is used in psychology, and how they aren't interchangeable, even though they have the same word in the term. I know, science is weird sometimes.