THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

As the environment around you changes, you can either attribute success and failure to things you have control over, or to forces outside your influence. Which orientation you choose has a bearing on your long-term success. This orientation is known as your "locus of control". Locus of control is concerned with “the question of whether or not an individual believes that his own behavior, skills or internal disposition determine what reinforcements he receives” (Rotter, Change, & Phares, 1972), and refers to a person’s beliefs about control over life events. Those with an internal locus of control believe that the consequences of their behavior are under their personal control and that they are effective in controlling their destiny and determining the occurrence of reinforcement, and feel personally responsible for the things that happen to them; those with an external locus of control believe that the outcomes of their performances in life are determined by forces beyond their control (e. g., fate, chance, luck, powerful others and supernatural forces) and that they determine the occurrence of specified events. As Rotter (1966) pointed out, the effect of reinforcement “depends on whether or not the person perceives a causal relationship between his own behavior and the reward” (p. 1)
As cited by Samaei (Samaei, Ramezani, & Semnani, 2012) in his study, to some researchers such as Rotter (1986), Heinrich & Gullone (2006) and Ekwall (2004) one of the researchable and important aspects of personality is the study of locus of control in individuals. According to Bal, Singh, & Singh, 2010, locus of control has been one of the psychological factors that give impact on sport performance. Locus of control has been associated with many different personalities and situational variables. The assumption upon which locus of control is based is that, the behavior of individuals in a specific situation is determined by the reinforcements they receive (Rotter J. , 1954). A locus of control orientation whether the outcomes of our actions are contingent on what we do (internal control orientation) or on events outside our personal control (external control orientation).
Recent work by Roberts (33) has shown that some people learn to become “helpless” in physical activity. These people believe that they are doomed to fail in sports and activity and that there are abilities and efforts make little difference in determining that outcome of their own involvement in sports and physical activities.
Based on what we know from previous research, it is reasonable to hypothesize that athletes may feel more in control of their destiny, or are internal, while non-athletes may feel more helpless, or external, particularly in physical activity settings. Similarly, it seems that athletes may have different attitudes about physical activity than non-athletes. Finally, it may be that some relationships exist between locus of control, attitudes toward physical activity and athletic experience.
Jung believed that our orientation to the world is a foundational aspect of our personality. Our preferred energy attitude is such an elemental part of one’s personality that the two ways of being become obvious, even the layman, when pointed out. We alternate between these two energy attitudes every day, back and forth, as needs arise and our environment dictates. Yet, Jung believed that we are at home, or feel most comfortable, in one of these worlds over the other.
Involvement in physical activity of some form consequently depends on the individual’s choice and attitudes toward physical activity.
The purpose of this study is to determine what locus of control is present in physical sports players and non-physical sports players as well as the difference of locus of control in accordance with the gender.

Statement of the Problem
This study seeks to determine the relationship between the locus of control and personality type of physical and non-physical sports players of SDCAlympics A.Y. 2014-2015. Specifically, this study aims to know the following:

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents according to: a. Age? b. Gender? c. Department? 1. What is the profile of the participants when grouped according to: d. Physical sports players? e. Non-physical sports players? 2. Is there a significant difference between physical and non-physical sports players as measured by locus of control? 3. Is there a significant difference between the personality type of the physical sports players and non-physical sports players? 4. Is there a relationship between personality type and locus of control?

Hypothesis
This study aims to answer the following hypotheses according to .05 level of significance: 1. There is no significant difference between physical and non- physical sports players as measured by locus of control. 2. There is no significant difference between the personality type of the physical and non-physical sports players. 3. There is no relationship between personality type and locus of control.

Scope and Limitations
The participants of the research were thirty-one (31) physical sports players and twenty-three (23) non-physical sports players from St. Dominic College of Asia this academic year 2014-2015. All the participants were 16-29 years old students who joined the Intramurals representing the said school. This research was intended for physical and non-physical sports player in measuring their internal and external locus of control and its relation to personality type.

Definition of Terms 1. Locus of Control – it is how a student athlete believes that an event is controlled by an internal factor (actions of what a person do) or external factor (just luck). 2. Non-physical player – a player in the Intramurals whose sports uses only strategic or critical thinking to defeat competitors. (e. g. chess, scrabble, jigsaw puzzle, sungka, domino, darts) 3. Personality Type – refers to the psychological classification of different categories of people such as introvert and extrovert. 4. Physical player – a player in the Intramurals whose sports takes physical contact and much physical effort. (e. g. basketball, badminton, volleyball) 5. SDCAlympics – the annual Intramural sports of St. Dominic College of Asia in which all departments and organizations compete to have unity and camaraderie.

METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the research method, research design, and profile of the participants, sampling technique, research instrumentation, data gathering and data analysis.
Research Method Descriptive Research is used to describe characteristics of a population or phenomenon being studied (Anastas, 1999). It does not answer questions about how/when/why the characteristics occurred. Rather, it addresses the "what" question. Descriptive research helps provide answers to the questions of who, what, when, where, and how associated with a particular research problem; a descriptive study cannot conclusively ascertain answers to why. Descriptive research is used to obtain information concerning the current status of the phenomena and to describe "what exists" with respect to variables or conditions in a situation. Many scientific disciplines, especially social sciences and psychology use this method to obtain a general overview of the subject.

Research Design
Purposive Sampling: Homogenous sampling Homogeneous sampling is a purposive sampling technique that aims to achieve a homogeneous sample; that is, a sample whose units (e.g., people, cases, etc.) share the same (or very similar) characteristics or traits (e.g., a group of people that are similar in terms of age, gender, background, occupation, etc.). A homogeneous sample is often chosen when the research question that is being address is specific to the characteristics of the particular group of interest, which is subsequently examined in detail.
Research Instrumentation The researchers utilized the following instruments in order to gather the accurate data. The researchers made use of their resourcefulness in achieving the information needed. The following instruments were utilized: 1. Rotter's Locus of Control Scale - The Locus of Control is a 29-item questionnaire developed by Rotter (1966). It measures generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. People with an internal locus of control believe that their own actions determine the rewards that they obtain, while those with an external locus of control believe that their own behavior don't matter much and that rewards in life are generally outside of their control. A low score (0-12) indicates an internal control while a high score (13-23) indicates external control. 2. Introversion scale – This introversion 18-item scale was developed by McCroskey to be distinct from measures of communication apprehension. An examination of the literature on introversion indicated that other introversion scales have included items that were tapping apprehension about communication. Items were drawn from the work of Eysenck, with items which excluded communication. This permits the measurement of introversion without the contamination of communication apprehension items and allows the examination of both introversion and communication apprehension as predictors of communication behaviors independently of each other. 3. Demographic profile – A tool that identifies several characteristics of the participants. Common characteristics in the profile include age, sex, income, household size and education.

Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers gathered their participants through purposive sampling. Before the study, the researchers wrote a letter to the dean of the School of Arts, Sciences and Education indicating their interest in having the players participate in this study.
During the selection process, the researchers provided a consent form and explain it to the participants regarding their participation in this study. All the participants who agreed to participate were gathered in a classroom which served as testing area. A total of fifty four players (54) participate in this study. They took the Rotter’s Locus of Control (a 29-item scale) to determine if they are either internal, and if they believe they can control their life or believe their decisions and life are controlled by environmental factors which they cannot influence, or by chance or fate, referred to as external. Then, they also took Introversion Scale (an 18-item scale) to distinguish if they prefer solitary activities instead of interacting with large groups, Introverted or if they thrive more when around other people, Extroverted. After gathering the data, the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software was used throughout the aspects of the research.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents a concise outline of the study, summary of the major findings of the study, the conclusions drawn and the recommendations proposed.

Summary of Findings
The following were the major findings of the study:
1. The highest percentage of respondents came from the group of 16-18 years of age. The profile of the respondents was mostly female. Most of the respondents came from the School of Arts, Sciences and Education,
2. The profile of the participants were grouped according to the type of sports they play and they are largely physical sports players.
3. There is no significant difference between the sports players’ type and the locus of control.
4. There is no significant difference between the personality type and the sports players’ type.
5. There is no significant difference between the personality type and locus of control.

Conclusions
The following conclusions were derived from the study based on the significant findings: 1. There is no significant difference between physical and non-physical players as measured by Locus of Control. 2. There is no significant difference between personality type of physical and non-physical sports players. 3. There is no relationship between personality type and locus of control.

REFERENCES
TEXTBOOKS
Anastas, J. W. (1999). Research Design for Social Work and the Human Services. New York: Columbia University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1961). Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. New York: Meridian.
Kremer, J., & Moran, A. (2008). Pure Sport: Practical Sport Psychology. Hove: Routledge.
Rotter, J. (1954). Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rotter, J. B., Change, J., & Phares, E. J. (1972). Applications of a Social Learning Theory of Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ryckman, R. M. (2008). Theories of Personality. U. S. A.: Thomson Wadsworth.

JOURNALS
Kumar, A., Pathak, N., & Thakur, G. P. (1985). Self-Esteem in Individual, Team and Non-athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 15 : 61.
McGinnies, E., Nordholm, L. A., Ward, C. D., & Bhanthumnavin, D. L. (1974). Sex and cultural differences in perceived locus of control among students in five countries. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 451-455.
McKelvie, S. J., & Huband, D. E. (1980). Locus of Control and Anxiety in College Athletes and Non-Athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 819-822.
Orbeta, N. S., & Guinto-Adviento, M. L. (2014, August 23). Boxing in the Philippines: The Fight for Survival. In P. C. Terry, Z. Li-Wei, K. YoungHo, T. Morris, & S. Hanrahan, Secrets of Asian Sport Psychology (pp. 1-22). Queensland, Australia: University of Southern Queensland.
Singh, B., Singh, O., & Singh-Bal, B. (2012). A Comparative Study of Achievement Motivation and Locus of Control of University Level Team and Individual Sports. International Journal of Education and Applied Research, 27-30
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (1997). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology. USA: Human Kinetics.

THESIS/DISSERTATION
Bal, B. S., Singh, B., & Singh, O. (2010). Achievement motivation and locus of control of university level individual and team sport players- A prognostic study. Journal of Physical Education and Sports Management, 33-36.
Crump, B. R., Hickson, J., & Laman, A. (1985). Relationship of locus of control to achievement and self-concept in education majors. Psychological Reports, 57, 1055-1060.
Darshani, R. K. (2014). A Review of Personality Types and Locus of Control as Operators of Stress and Conflict Management. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 1-8.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1.
Samaei, L., Ramezani, Z. N., & Semnani, A. S. (2012). Relationship between locus of control (internal-external) and a feeling of the loneliness between athletic and non athletic girls. European Journal of Experimenal Biology, 1862-1867.
Sherman, A. C., Higgs, G. E., & Williams, R. L. (1997). Gender differences in the locus of control construct. Psychology and Health, 12, 239-248.

WEBSITE
Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). Developments and Social Problems. Retrieved March 14, 2015, from Google Books: https://books.google.com.ph/