Sex Roles, VoL 36, Nos.

1/2, 1997

Locus of Control and Affectivity by Gender

and Occupational Status: A 14 Nation Study 1
Peter B. Smith 2 and Shaun Dugan

University of Sussex
Fons Trompenaars
Centre for International Business Studies

This study investigated the extent to which reported gender differences in values
are attributable to differences in national culture and organizational seniority.
Locus of control and affectivity scores were obtained from 4599 managers and
employees in business organizations located in 14 countries. Across nations,
men and those in senior positions were more internal and less affective. Gender
effects were additional to those attributable to status. Respondents in nations
scoring higher on an index of modernity were found to be less intemaL ,4
pan-cultural factor analysis of locus of control items yielded four subscales.
Men and those in senior positions scored higher on Socio-Political Control
and Effort, but no differences were found on the Luck and Active Friendship
subscales. The results are contrasted with those obtained from single-nation
samples using student subjects.
The nature and determinants of gender differences in social behaviors have
sustained the attention of researchers for many years. However, the conclusions which emerge from such studies are necessarily bounded by the
context within which data have been collected. The present study seeks to
broaden the range of countries from which data are drawn and to attend
to variables often confounded with gender that are thought likely to affect
the gender-correlates that are found.
1We acknowledge receipt of ESRC Grant R 000 22 1552, which aided the completion of this
study, and the helpful comments of Michael Bond and John E. Williams upon an earlier
version.
2"1"owhom correspondence should be addressed at School of Socia/ Sciences, University of
Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QN, UK.
51
0360-13025/97/0100--0051512.50/0 1997 Plenum Publishing Corporalion

52

S m i t h et al.

Eagly & Wood (1991) review meta-analyses of the largely North

American literature on gender differences and document a number of reliable sex differences in a wide range of social behaviors. For example,
women tend to agree more with other people than do men (Eagly & Carli,
1981), are better at encoding and decoding non-verbal information (Eagly,
1987; Hall, 1984; Hall & Halberstadt, 1986), and are less aggressive, particularly in terms of physical aggression (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Steffen,
1986).
These results challenge the widespread view that there are few gender
differences in social behavior, a view which Eagly (1987) attributes to Maccoby & Jacklin's (1974) highly influential review of developmental gender
differences. She suggests that the finding by Maccoby & Jacklin of no clear
evidence of sex differences in nurturance or other areas of social behavior
is a function of the experimental research methods employed in the studies
they reviewed. Of particular importance to Eagly's argument is the idea
that male and female subjects share the same role in experimental studies,
that of 'subject,' whereas in naturalistic settings, men and women are differentially distributed into social roles. From this perspective, experimental
research when compared with naturalistic observation has tended to reduce
the impact of gender differences because the experimental situation will
often inhibit the expression of differences which are evident in more natural
settings.
Eagly's (1987) review of the literature on gender roles and stereotypes
(e.g., Bern, 1974; Spence & Helmreich, 1978) concludes that beliefs about
the attributes of men and women can be summarized in terms of two dimensions, which she prefers to label communal and agentic after Bakan
(1966). The communal dimension can be described as a concern for the
welfare of others, and includes caring and nurturant qualities, as well as
interpersonal sensitivity and emotional expressiveness. Other authors have
labelled this dimension as expressiveness, social orientation and femininity.
The agentic dimension is defined by attributes such as serf-assertion and
independence from others. Women are generally believed to be more communal and less agentic than men. This distinction is similar to that made
by earlier writers, including Parsons & Bales (1955) who distinguished masculinity, defined in terms of instrumentality and goal directedness, from
femininity, defined by expressiveness, supportiveness and affectivity.
The five factor model of personality (Digman, 1990), which has within
the last decade become the dominant paradigm in personality research,
offers a further useful way of conceptualizing the differences outlined by
Eagly and her colleagues. In particular, 'communal' traits seem congruent
with the 'agreeableness' domain of the five factor model, while 'agentic'
traits such as assertion and dominance are adequately subsumed by the

Locus of Control and Affectivity

53

'extraversion'/'surgency' factor. Trapnell & Wiggins (1990) note that gender

differences of around >_ .5 standard deviations have often been found using
measures of agreeableness. Moreover these differences have, in some cases,
been detected with spouse ratings as weI1 as self-reports. However, gender
differences on Big Five measures of extraversion/surgency are not generally
large or reliable. Instead, differences of > .4 standard deviations in 'neuroticism'/'negative affectivity' and depression are regularly found on various
measures of these traits (Jorm, 1987; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990).

CROSS-CULTURAL WORK ON GENDER DIFFERENCES

The great majority of the studies discussed above relied solely upon
data collected in North America. Cross-cultural studies hold great potential
for clarifying the generality of the effects noted. In reviewing the relevant
literature it is crucial to note that some studies follow the same type of
design as that employed in the North American literature, namely testing
for individual-level correlates of gender within a single national culture.
Other studies treat the national culture as the unit of analysis and examine
culture-level correlates of gender relations. Each approach has strengths
and weaknesses. Single-country individual-level studies can potentially tell
us whether the differences obtained in the USA are widely replicable, but
only where there is convincing evidence for the comparability of measures
used in different cultural samples. Multiple-country individual-level studies
based upon rating scale data can yield spurious results unless great care is
taken to control for culture-level differences in response bias (Leung &
Bond, 1989). Culture-level studies can provide a basis for hypotheses as to
why results obtained at different locations may diverge.

Individual-Level Studies
Cross-cultural researchers have been much influenced by the proposition that a cultural dimension defined as individualism-collectivism can predict differences in a wide range of social behaviors across cultures (Bond
& Smith, 1996). Members of individualistic cultures typically define their
identity in terms of personal choice and autonomy, while members of collectivist cultures define themselves more in terms of enduring commitments
to the groups in which they are members. Triandis, Leung, Villareal, &
Clack (1985) have proposed that to reduce confusion between individuallevel and culture-level analyses, we should refer to the values of those en-

54

Smith et ai.

dorsing cultural individualism as idiocentric and the values of those endorsing cultural collectivism as aUocentric.
There is a possible overlap between the concepts of agency and idioeentrism and between communalism and allocentrism. However no gender
differences in idiocentrism-allocentrism were found among Korean adults
(Cha, 1994), Japanese students (Yamaguchi, 1994), or Polish adults (Reykowski, 1994). Kashima, Yamaguchi, Kim, Choi, Gelfand et al. (1995) suggest
that this is because gender differences are not a function of idiocentrismallocentrism but of relative endorsement of the values of relatedness (Gilligan, 1982). After making data standardizations appropriate to a
multiple-country study, they found gender differences on a relatedness
measure but not on measures of idiocentrism-allocentrism among students
in Korea, Japan, Australia, Hawaii and mainland USA. This study suggests
that individual-level gender differences may indeed be replicable across cultures where appropriate measures and data-analysis procedures are used,
but existing studies have used insufficiently broad samples to determine
whether this is so.
Culture-Level Studies

Williams & Best (1982, 1990) have provided convincing evidence for
the pan-cultural generality of gender stereotypes and differences in the selfascribed identities of men and women. Their 25 nation gender stereotypes
study (Williams & Best, 1982) involved students rating each of the 300
items comprising the Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1980) in
terms of their applicability as descriptors of men and women within their
respective cultures. Analyses revealed that in each culture, adjectives associated with males were stronger and more active, (but not more favorable)
than adjectives associated with females, when scored in terms of Osgood's
factors of affective meaning. When scored to reflect Gough & Heilbrun's
15 psychological needs, pan-cultural generality was again demonstrated,
with items rated as characteristic of males scoring higher on dominance,
autonomy, aggression, exhibition, achievement and endurance, while items
associated with women scored higher on nurturance, affiliation, heterosexuality, succorance, deference and abasement.
Interestingly, further analyses showed that socioeconomic development
moderated the stereotypical strength and activity differences, which were
found to be greater in countries with lower levels of socioeconomic development. Moreover, in countries displaying larger differences between males
and females on the strength and activity dimensions, the male stereotype
was viewed more favorably.

Locus of Control and Affectivity

55

Williams & Best (1990) extended this research in a later study in which
male and female students from 14 nations described themselves and their
ideal selves on the Adjective Check List, and also completed the Kalin Sex
Role Ideology measure (Kalin & Titby, 1978). As in the previous study,
national culture moderated the gender difference findings. When scored
in terms of affective meaning, males' self and ideal self ratings tended to
be stronger and more active than those of women in most, though not all
countries. On the sex-role ideology measure cultural variables accounted
for more variance than did gender. Liberal sex-role ideology was found to
be strongest in 'modern' nations, i.e., those endorsing the values of individualism and low power distance (Hofstede, 1980), which had greater socioeconomic development and which had predominantly Christian as
opposed to Muslim populations. In most countries, however, women were
found to be less traditional than men, reinforcing previous U.S. findings
(Spence & Helmreich, 1978).
Williams & Best found that women viewed themselves more favorably
than men in economically developed nations, i.e., those scoring low on
power distance and high on individualism, where women are less confined
to domestic roles. This relationship was reversed in less economically developed nations. Furthermore the differences between men and women on
the affective meaning and strength dimensions were less pronounced in the
more developed countries, and male and female self-concepts were generally more similar.
Buss (1989) studied mate preferences across 37 nations. He found a
consistent male preference for partners who were seen as young, healthy
and beautiful, whereas women expressed a preference for partners who
were seen as ambitious, industrious and of high earning capacity. However
this consistent divergence by gender was overshadowed by much larger variations in preferences across nations (Buss & 49 co-authors, 1990).
Schwartz (1994) reports upon gender differences in values among his
samples of students and teachers from 33 nations. Men more often endorsed values related to Power, while women more often endorsed values
related to Benevolence. In some nations men also endorsed Tradition and
Conformity values more than women, and Schwartz suggests that they do
this in nations where men are most strongly associated with positions of
authority.
The work of Williams & Best, Buss and Schwartz clearly documents
the existence of culture-level gender differences, and suggests that a substantial part of these differences can be summarized in terms of the communal and agentic dimensions. While meta-analytic reviews of gender
differences in values and behavior have been largely concerned with Western data, the cross-cultural literature indicates that economic development

56

Smith et ai.

and variables associated with modernization are clear correlates of the magnitude of gender differences.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND MODERNITY

We need to consider whether or not the association between economic
development and magnitude of gender differences might be thought of as
historical coincidence. Are relatively equal gender relations found in those
nations that industrialized early because they did so? If so, does it follow
that as other nations advance economically, gender roles will also change?
It is possible that economic development might affect gender roles in a
variety of ways, such as by causing expansion of educational opportunities
and improvement of health. Both of these changes are likely to enhance
opportunities for women to move into roles previously mostly filled by men.
However, we may suppose that the most direct way in which economic
development could affect gender roles is that in industrialized cultures
women and men will have greater opportunities to take on less differentiated ,work roles. To the extent that social structures evolve so as to enhance
individuals' capacity to choose what roles they will enter, agentic or idiocentric values are likely to increase among both men and women and the
gap between the two should decrease. Hofstede (1980), Bond (1988), and
Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars (1996) all found value measures related
to individualism higher in economically advanced nations, and Hofstede's
data suggested increases in individualism over time. Yang (1988) notes that
many of the values and behaviors associated with cultural modernity are
expressions of enhanced individualism. For instance in modern societies
there is less fatalism and a greater sense of personal efficacy, more openness to change, less integration with relatives and more egalitarian attitudes. However Yang further notes that convergence of modern societies
involves only those behaviors which have specific value in adapting to the
demands of industrialized societies. Other aspects of cultural difference are
found to persist. Williams and Best's (1990) finding that gender roles were
less differentiated in nations with higher socio-economic development was
based upon an index which weighted equally 15 indicators of income, education and health. This index was also found to correlate significantly with
Hofstede's scores for individualism in the nations that they sampled.
In currently existing economically-advanced nations the freedom to
choose one's career path and influence one's promotion prospects are by
no means absolute, and continues to yield a pattern of role occupancy in
which men occupy many more of the senior roles than do women. None-

Locus of Control and Affectivity

57

theless we can predict that within nations having advanced economies there
will be smaller gender differences in values.
As Eagly has hypothesized, role occupancy will elicit gender differences in circumstances where role assignment is influenced by gender, as
is frequently the case in studies outside of the psychology laboratory. The
present study affords the opportunity to survey the values of men and
women occupying roles of greater or lesser organizational seniority within
each of the nations sampled. We may thus evaluate the degree to which
gender differences are attributable to the fact that men frequently occupy
more senior positions, versus the possibility that differences persist even
when seniority is equated. The study focuses upon gender differences in
locus of control and in affectivity. Both these variables can be related conceptually to the agentic and communal dimensions. We consider in turn
their possible relation to status and to gender.

LOCUS OF CONTROL
The locus of control construct has generated enormous interest over
the past 30 years (Lefcourt, 1981, 1982; Phares, 1976). Locus of control,
as defined by Rotter (1966), refers to individual differences in the extent
to which people perceive events as contingent upon their own behavior or
enduring characteristics (a belief in internal control) versus the extent to
which they believe that reinforcement is contingent not upon the self, but
upon external factors such as chance, fate, or powerful others (a belief in
external control). By this definition, an internally perceived locus of control
is similar to but not identical with agentic traits. Internality has to do with
control over events, whereas agency is defined in terms of the performance
of assertive or controlling behaviors (Eagly, 1987). One might thus be agentic without being internal, but it is unlikely that persons who believe in
their capacity to internally control the outcome of events will not also behave in agentic ways. We should therefore expect internality to be higher
among males.

Locus of Contro~ Status and Achievement-Related Behavior

It has often been found that an external locus of control is associated
with diminished opportunity for social advancement, lower achievement
and lower socioeconomic status. Bar-Tal & Bar-Zohar (1977) reviewed 36
studies, of which 31 reported a positive relationship between locus of control and achievement. Dyal (1984) reviews relevant cross-cultural studies.

58

Smith et al.

However, an accurate assessment of the strength of these relationships, and

the impact of moderator variables such as culture upon them will require
a meta-analysis.
There are at least two ways in which this association could be produced
(e.g., O'Brien, 1984). Lefcourt (1982) in discussing the links between
achievement-related behavior and locus of control, remarks upon the appeal to common sense which suggests that,
. . prolonged achievement effort, will occur only among individuals who believe
they can, through their own efforts, accomplish desired goals. Individuals must
entertain the hope that their efforts can be effective before they can make the
sacrifices that are prerequisites for achievement. (Lefcourt, 1982, p. 81)

An internal locus of control may facilitate selection into higher status

groups and occupations by fostering an increased sense of personal efficacy,
with associated gains in planning, effort and motivation. Additionally, social
roles linked with status may influence locus of control. In particular, the
occupation of social roles associated with diminished opportunities for advancement might encourage external rather than internal beliefs. For example, unemployed persons may become more external, since their efforts
and skills are not leading to rewards, they probably had little say in employment cessation, and the receipt of welfare benefits is not usually contingent upon effort (O'Brien, 1984).

Gender Differences in Locus of Control

Women are a disadvantaged group vis-a-vis men in the occupational
domain (Kanter, 1977). It has been common in most Western democracies
for women to constitute the majority of employees in clerical and secretarial grades, and a small minority within senior management grades. Moreover, this effect is still more pronounced in more traditional societies. We
might therefore expect that women would develop a more external locus
of control when working in environments that are less responsive to their
efforts at achieving higher status.
Directly relevant to this hypothesis is a longitudinal investigation in
which 13,000 US citizens completed a locus of control scale three times
over an eight year period (Doherty & Baldwin, 1985). Results showed that
the female group became substantially more external, while male scores as
a whole remained stable. Doherty & Baldwin suggest that over the course
of the study there had been a cultural shift, in a decade when gender role
issues became increasingly salient. According to this explanation, females
became increasingly aware of the constraints on their occupational and
other goals.

Locus of Control and Affectivity

59

Dyal (1984) reviewed the cross-cultural literature on gender differences in locus of control. Women have been found to be more external
than men in a number of studies. For instance, Parsons & Schneider (1974)
found a small overall gender effect across eight nations, as did McGinnies
et aL (1974) in five countries. Other studies reporting significant effects in
the same direction have been reported from Australia (Feather, 1967); Belgium (de Brabander & Boone, 1990); India (Aggarwal & Kumari, 1975;
Bhattacharya & Husain, 1985; Khanna & Khanna, 1979); Israel (Yuchtman
& Shapira, 1981); Taiwan (Lao, Chuang & Yang, 1977); United States (Doherty & Baldwin, 1985); and Sweden (Lee & Dengerink, 1992). Cole &
Cole (1977) found Mexican and U.S. business administration women students more internal, but this is one of very few studies reversing the overall
pattern.

Hypotheses--Locus of Control
The previous review enables us to make some clear predictions concerning relations between gender, status and locus of control:
Hypothesis 1: M e n will s c o r e m o r e i n t e r n a l l y than w o m e n ,
panculturally.
Hypothesis 2: Higher status respondents will score more internally,
panculturally.
Hypothesis 3: Gender and status differences in internality will be less
in more modem societies.

AFFECTIVITY ORIENTATION
In contrast to locus of control, the concept of affectivity, as elaborated
by Parsons & Shils (1951), has not generated an extensive research literature. The concept refers to value orientations relating to the affective content of a relationship which influences interpersonal interactions. Persons
with an affective orientation are said to be affiliative, 'natural,' and expressive in their interpersonal relations, while persons with an affectively neutral
orientation tend not to be as expressive. Parsons related these orientations
to temporal differences in how people achieve gratification--persons with
an affectively neutral orientation were said to be more likely to defer gratification in the interests of attaining objectives. These definitions suggest
that Parsons' concepts may be related to the Big Five dimensions of extraversion and agreeableness (affectivity) and conscientiousness (affective
neutrality). It was suggested earlier that agreeableness also overlaps con-

60

Smith et al.

ceptually with Bakan's dimension of communion. Barrick & Mount (1991)

report a meta-analysis showing that conscientiousness is consistently positively evaluated within organizations, and is therefore likely to lead to promotion to more senior positions. This provides a basis for predicting that
affectivity will be higher among low status persons. The study by Kashima
et al. (1995) showed that women in six nations scored higher on relatedness,
which may also be equated to affectivity. However the precise degree of
interrelation between extraversion, agreeableness, allocentrism, relatedness
and communion remains a matter for speculation. The measures available
for the present study were based upon Parsons' concepts and the hypotheses are therefore formulated in terms of relative affectivity.

Affectivity Hypotheses
Hypothesis 4: W o m e n will be m o r e a f f e c t i v e t h a n m e n ,
pan-culturaUy.
Hypothesis 5: Low status r e s p o n d e n t s will be m o r e affective,
pan-culturally.
Hypothesis 6: Gender and status differences in affectivity will be less
in modem societies.

METHOD

Subjects
The locus of control and affectivity items were administered to business-employed respondents at varying times between 1982 and 1993. The
items analyzed here were taken from a larger 79 item questionnaire (Trompenaars, 1985, 1993) which is principally concerned with measuring cultural
differences in work-related values. With the exception of samples from the
former communist bloc, respondents were mostly recruited from employees
attending short training courses addressing cross-cultural aspects of management. Questionnaires were completed before the commencement of
training.
This study uses the responses of 4,599 people from 14 countries selected from a larger database of employees from business organizations
located in 58 nations. A country sample was included in the study if there
were 15 or more respondents in each of the four ceils defined by a crosstabulation of gender and occupational status. Respondents were categorized as high status category if they r e p o r t e d being managers or

61

Locus of Control and Affectivity

Table I. Sample Sizes for Each Country by Gender and Status

Occupational Status
Lower

Higher

Country

Language Used

Female

Male

Female

Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
China
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
India
Mexico
Netherlands
Poland
Rumania
Sweden
U.K.
Ex-U.S.S.R.

French/Dutch
Portuguese
Bulgarian
Chinese
Czech
Hungarian
English
Spanish
Dutch
Polish
Rumanian
Swedish
English
Russian

57
32
17
24
73
59
16
35
93
43
18
47
110
5._.55
679

71
26
42
35
52
22
18
15
158
34
30
96
65
2_.6_6
690

23
20
33
24
67
18
41
22
62
32
86
27
264
11._.55
834

Male
147
40
33
47
84
28
207
18
755
89
61
141
604
141
2395

professionals. The remainder, predominantly secretarial, administrative and

clerical staff, were categorized as low status. No independent check was
available as to the equivalence of the cut-off point between high and low
status in different nations. However it is likely that most respondents would
have been correctly assigned by this self-report procedure. A breakdown
of the samples for each country by gender and status is shown in Table I.

Procedure
The Rotter locus of control items were translated into the languages
shown in Table I. Although the method of back-translation (e.g., Brislin,
Lonner, & Thomdike, 1973) was in many cases not utilized, the various
versions of the questionnaire were checked by bilingual company representatives, usually from personnel departments. The locus of control scale
included five filler items, which were not the same as the six used by Rotter
(1966).
The affectivity items were adapted by Trompenaars (1985) from D e a n
(1981). R e s p o n d e n t s were requested to provide their first and second
choices in response to five scenarios, two of which are reproduced below:
Example 1
H e r e are four general types of people we see around us in our daily
lives. L o o k at these descriptions carefully and decide which one you

62

Smith et ai.

would most like to resemble, then the one you would second most
like to resemble:
A)
B)
C)
D)

A person who is esteemed by others and takes a continuous

interest in human welfare in general.
A person who is enjoyed by others and takes their joys and
sorrows as they come, from day to day. *
A person who is enjoyed by others and takes a continuous interest
in the personal welfare of all those who are dear to him/her. *
A person who is approved of by others and attends to his/her
affairs conscientiously from day to day.

Example 2
Here is another list of four types of people. Of these four what type
do you most prefer to have as friends?
A)
B)
C)
D)

People who completely accept you the way you are and feel
responsible for your personal problems and welfare. *
People who do their work, attend to their affairs and leave you
free to do the same.
People who try to improve themselves and have definite aims in
life.
People who are friendly, lively and enjoy getting together to talk
or socialize. *

In the examples above, the asterisked response options denote items

that were coded as affective rather than affectively neutral. For each respondent an overall affectivity score was computed based on the number
of affectively-oriented responses, with first choices weighted twice as heavily
as second choices.
Since both the affectivity items and the Rotter items rely upon subjects
ranking a response alternative above one or more other responses, it is
possible to analyze the resulting data set at both the culture-level and the
individual-level without the need for within-subject standardization. This
procedure is required to correct for cultural differences in response bias
only when data based on ratings are used.
In addition to the variables so far presented a measure representing
national 'modernity' was required. This was constructed using one indicator from each of the areas employed by Williams & Best (1990). National
data for aggregated income per capita, life expectancy and literacy from
47 nations (Economist Book of Vital World Statistics, 1990) were factor
analyzed. The fast factor accounted for 81% of the variation among these
measures. Scores for this first factor were used as the modernity measure.

Locus of Control and Affectivity

63

Interaction terms were computed by taking the products of the modernity

measure, which was a continnous variable, with dummy variables representing the dichotomous gender and status variables, in order to test hypotheses 3 and 6.

Data Analysis
Table I shows that the sample sizes differ considerably, ranging from
755 in the Netherlands high status male cell to only 16 in the Indian lower
status female cell. The hypotheses were first tested at the culture-level. At
this level, the preferred strategy to deal with this imbalance is to use aggregated mean data within each cell. The use of aggregated data in culture-level studies is widespread (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994).

RESULTS

Country-Level Hypothesis Tests

Means and standard deviations for internality and affectivity for each
country by status and gender are shown in Tables II and III. Cronbach
alpha coefficients for the aggregated data are .81 for the 23 internality items
and .61 for the five affectivity items. The latter figure is below the level
normally regarded as acceptable. The results of hypothesis tests with this
variable therefore need to be interpreted with caution. However, the country scores for the two dependent variables were found to be substantially
correlated. External locus of control was significantly and strongly linked
to affectivity (r = .66, p < .001, 1 tail). This relationship is greater still if
correction for attenuation is applied. The data are therefore further analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance.
Table IV shows the multivariate results of the MANOVA. The results
support the hypotheses of main effects for gender (p < .005) and status
(p < .01). A significant multivariate effect is also obtained for modernity
(p = .001), but this is in the reverse direction to that which might have
been expected. However, there is no support in this study for the influence
of modernity as a moderator of the relationship between the dependent
variables and either gender or status. Nor is there support for a gender by
status interaction effect. The three way interaction was not tested.
Table V shows the univariate tests for internality. Significant main effects in the expected direction are found for gender (p = .001, ETA square
= .20) and status (t7 < .005, ETA square = .17), with male samples and

64

Smith et al.

Table II. Locus of Control Means and Standard Deviations by Country, Gender, and
Statusa
Occupational Status
Lower

Higher

Female

Male

Female

Male

Country

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
China
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
India
Mexico
Netherlands
Poland
Rumania
Sweden
U.K.
Ex-U.S.S.R.

12.14
10.34
10.59
11.96
10.99
12.15
10.56
8.91
13.18
13.55
8.17
12.96
12.88
12.41

3.55
2.76
3.30
3.18
3.59
3.05
4.26
3.67
3.51
3.35
4.29
3.69
3.49
3.56

11.59
8.15
10.31
10.19
9.46
11.86
8.41
7.50
10.10
12.10
10.68
11.69
11.97
11.23

3.57
3.45
2.99
3.74
3.20
3.11
2.59
2.85
3.58
3.29
2.62
3.72
3.67
2.93

10.96
9.80
10.14
10.88
10.07
9.08
10.57
7.49
10.46
11.64
7.46
12.70
11.55
12.79

3.76
2.91
3.48
3.18
3.52
3.24
4.00
3.19
3.28
4.55
3.52
3.82
3.77
3.69

9.31
8.57
9.79
9.99
8.70
9.14
8.11
7.32
9.32
9.56
9.48
9.74
9.52
9.23

4.34
4.14
2.85
3.42
3.71
3.43
4.23
3.02
3.52
3.75
3.55
4.00
4.04
4.38

aHigher scores indicate greater externality.

Table IlL Affective Orientation Means and Standard Deviations by Country, Gender, and
Statusa
Occupational Status
Lower
Female
Country
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
China
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
India
Mexico
Netherlands
Poland
Rumania
Sweden
U.K.
Ex-U.S.S.R.

Higher
Male

Female

Male

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

3.80
4.73
4.21
4.26
4.04
4.14
3.54
5.56
3.13
3.77
4.44
3.88
3.27
3.34

2.20
1.65
1.61
1.98
1.50
1.98
2.48
1.79
1.70
1.64
1.24
1.30
1.68
1.53

4.00
5.03
3.86
4.17
4.06
4.55
3.37
5.65
3.79
4.69
4.80
4.69
3.72
4.57

1.79
1.84
1.66
1.54
1.56
1.62
1.48
1.82
1.72
2.00
1.78
1.75
1.86
2.02

4.90
5.30
4.30
4.59
4.19
5.15
3.82
5.68
4.01
4.73
5.21
4.03
3.43
3.73

1.63
1.86
1.66
1.40
1.50
1.86
1.69
1.75
1.53
1.98
1.67
1.16
1.47
1.67

5.23
4.89
4.16
4.56
4.50
4.91
4.59
6.21
4.61
4.95
4.84
4.67
4.10
4.48

1.60
1.48
1.72
2.07
1.80
2.01
1.89
1.65
1.77
1.79
1.60
1.53
1.72
1.96

aHigher scores indicate a less affective orientation.

65

Locus of Control and Affectivity

Table I~. Locus of Control and Affectivityby Gender, Occupational Status,

and Modernity: Multivariate Tests of Significancea

Test

Wilks's

ExactF

SignificantF

Effect Size

.814
.797
.755
.975
.945
.994

5.50
6.12
7.79
0.62
1.40
0.15

.007
.004
.001
.543
.257
.862

.186
.203
.245
.025
.055
.006

Status
Gender
Modernity
Gender x Modernity
Status x Modernity
Gender x Status
aAll tests 2, 48 df.

Table V**Univariate F Tests for the Locus of Control

Variablea
"l~st
Status
Gender
Modernity
Gender Modernity
Status x Modernity
Gender x Status

F
10.20
12.25
13.78
0.08
1.57
0.06

F
ETA
Significance Square
.002
.001
.001
.776
.216
.813

.172
.200
.220
.002
.031
.001

aAll tests 1, 49 dr.

higher status samples scoring more internally. This relationship is clearly

discernible from Table II, from which it can be seen that in 12 of the 14
countries, lower status females obtain the most external scores, and higher
status males obtain the most internal scores. The relation of internality to
modernity is also significant (p = .001). Samples high in modernity score
m o r e externally on the locus of control scale. The interaction effects do
not even approach significance.
Table VI shows the univariate tests for affectivity. There is a significant
effect for status, with lower status groups scoring higher in affectivity, as
hypothesized (p < .01, ETA square = .13). The relationship between gender and affectivity is significant only at the less stringent .1 level (ETA
square = .06). Examination of Table I I I shows that in 11 of the 14 countries,
lower status females report the most affective orientation and in 7 cases,
higher status males report the most affectively neutral orientation.
Overall there is substantial support for Hypotheses I, 2 and 4, and
modest support for Hypothesis 5. The moderating effect of modernity was
not supported. T h e insubstantial effect sizes suggest that this failure is not
a function of low statistical power.

66

Smith et al.

Table VL Univariate F Tests for the Afffectivity Variable a

Test
Status
Gender
Modernity
Gender x Modernity
Status Modernity
Gender x Status

F
Significance

ETA
Square

7.40
2.87
1.11
0.49
0.02
0.07

.009
.097
.298
.487
.875
.799

.131
.055
.022
.010
.001
.001

aAll tests 1, 49 df.

Individual-Level Hypothesis Tests

A further series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were computed to test the hypotheses, using the internality and affectivity scores of
individuals, rather than cultural level data. A pan-cultural factor analysis
of the Rotter scale items also made it possible to analyze scores on four
locus of control subscales.
Pan-Cultural Factor Analysis. The larger number of responses available
for individual-level analysis makes it possible to examine different aspects
of locus of control within the overall range spanned by Rotter's rather heterogeneous items. A pan-cultural factor analysis of the internality items
was therefore conducted. Although the factor structure of the Rotter scale
has already been analyzed extensively (Dyal, 1984), this has occurred within
single nation samples. The present investigation a11ows us to examine the
structure within a diverse cross-cultural sample. The binary nature of Rotter
scale items precludes the occurrence of systematic cultural differences in
response bias. Data standardization before factor analysis is therefore not
required.
Since country samples were unequal, data were randomly discarded
until each of the 14 countries contained 90 cases. The total sample was
thereby reduced to 1,260 cases. The correlation matrix for the 23 items
was analyzed using principal components analysis. After examining factor
loadings for obliquely rotated 2, 3, 4, & 5 factor solutions, we decided that
the four factor solution was the most meaningful. Before rotation, the four
factors accounted for 14.4%, 6.6%, 5.9% and 5.6% of common variance
respectively.
As can be seen from Table VII, each of the four factors is clearly interpretable with the highest loading items within a factor cohering in a
meaningful way. The four factors were named 'Luck,' 'Socio-Political Control,' 'Effort,' and Nctive Friendship.' Factor scores for the four locus of

Locus of Control and Affectivity

67

Table VII. Factor Loadings of Rotter Items in the Pancultural Factor Analysisa
Factor
Rotter Scale Item
Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad
luck. (E) // People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they

.59

make. (I)
Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that
happen to me. ( E ) / / I t is impossible for me to believe that
chance or luck plays an important role in my life. (I)
Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or
nothing to do with it. ( I ) / / G e t t i n g a good job depends mainly
upon being in the right place at the right time. (E)
Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are
controlled by accidental happenings. ( E ) / / T h e r e is really no
such thing as luck. (I)
Who gets to be boss often depend supon who was lucky enough to
be in the right place first. (E) // Getting people to do the right
thing depends upon ability. Luck has little or nothing to do with
it. (I)
In the long run, the bad things that happen to us are balanced by
the good ones. ( E ) / / M o s t misfortunes are the result of lack of
ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three. (I)
In my ease getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
( I ) / / M a n y times we might as well decide what to do by flipping
a coin. (E)
When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them
work. ( I ) / / I t is not always wise to plan too far ahead because
many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune
anyhow. (E)
The average citizen can have an influence in governmental
decisions. ( I ) / / T h i s world is run by a few people in power and
there is not much the little guy can do about it. (E)
With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption. ( I ) / / I t is
difficult to have much control over the things politicians do
when in office. (E)
As far as world events are concerned, most of us are the victims of
forces we can neither understand, nor control. ( E ) / / B y taking
an active part in political and oscial affairs, people can control
world events. (I)
One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't
take enough interest in politics. ( I ) / / T h e r e will always be wars,
no matter how hard people try to prevent them. (E)
Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way
the do. ( E ) / / I n the long run, the people are responsible for
bad government on a national as well as on a local level. (I)
In the case of the well prepared student, there is rarely, if ever,
such a thing as an unfair test. ( I ) / / O f t e n exam questions tend
to be so unrelated to course work that studying becomes really
useless. (E)

.54

.52

.50

.50

.48

.46

.46

.70

.67

.59

.51

.47

.64

68

Smith et aL

Table VII. Continued

Factor
Rotter Scale Item
Sometimes I couldn't understand how teachers arrived at the grades
they gave. (E)//There is a direct connection between how hard
I studied and the grades I achieved (I)
In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world.
(I)//Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes
unrecognised no matter how hard he tries. (E)
The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense. (I)//
Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are
being influenced by accidental happenings. (E)
It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. (E)//
How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person
you are. (I)
No matter how hard you try, some people just don't like you. (E)//
People who can't get others to like them don't understand how
to get along with others. (I)
People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly. (I)//There's
not much point in trying too hard to please people. If they like
you, the like you. (E)

.55
.46
.43
.63
.60
.48

altems scored in external direction. (I) Internal; (E) External. Only loadings greater than .40
are shown.

control subscales were c o m p u t e d for each respondent, using the regression

m e t h o d . T h e m e a n s for these factor scores by status and g e n d e r are shown
in Table VIII.
T h e first two factors extracted, Luck and Socio-Political Control, app e a r similar to factors described in n u m e r o u s single country studies and
summarized in Dyal (1984). Factors similar to our Effort and Active Friendship dimensions have also b e e n d o c u m e n t e d , albeit less frequently, within
the literature. For example, Escovar (1981) obtained a factor labelled as
A c a d e m i c C o n t r o l f r o m a cross-cultural sample o f 402 Latin American,
U.S. Hispanic, and U.S. A n g l o students with the three highest loading items
matching those f o u n d on o u r Effort factor. A similar factor was identified
by Watson (1981). These factors correspond to the conceptual categorization o f R o t t e r items originally m a d e by Schneider & Parsons (1970). Precedents for o u r Active Friendship factor can be found in A b r a h a m s o n et al.
(1973), Little (1977), and Watson (1981).
W h y should we have o b t a i n e d four c o h e r e n t factors f r o m our pan-cultural analysis rather than the two that have tended to e m e r g e f r o m the
factoring o f R o t t e r scale items? We believe that the answer is likely to
reside in the increased sample heterogeneity o f a multiple c o u n t r y study,

69

Locus of Control and Affectivity

Table VIII. Aggregated Means and Standard Deviations on the Four Locus of

Control Factors by Gender and Statusa

Occupational Status
Lower
Factor
Luck
Sociopolitical Control
Effort
Active Friendship

Male
.61
.71
.24
.69

(.21)
(.13)
(.21)
(.25)

Higher
Female

.65
.84
.27
.73

(.23)
(.21)
(.25)
(.18)

Male
.57
.59
.12
.77

(.15)
(.12)
(.20)
(.17)

Female
.67
.71
.13
.79

(.23)
(.13)
(.26)
(.21)

aN = 56. Within each of the four gender by occupation cells, each cell entry represents
a mean or standard deviation computed so that each country is given unit weighting.

and the concomitant increase in the variance of scale items. As an illustration, our Effort factor largely reflects the extent to which effort is perceived as leading towards positive academic outcomes. Assuming that
respondents' perceptions are to some extent veridical, then the greater the
variation in objective circumstances in educational systems, the greater the
variation in responses. In a sample such as the present one, which includes
respondents from countries differing widely on important cultural variables
such as modernity, there will be much greater variation in socialization experiences than in mono-cultural studies (especially those in which the sample has been drawn from a single educational institution). Hence, what was
a weak or non-existent factor in a homogenous sample may be clearly defined in a diverse sample. Similar comments could be made about our Active Friendship factor.
Individual Level Stepwise Regressions. A series of stepwise multiple regression analyses tested the hypotheses. In addition to the regressions for
locus of control and affectivity, regressions were calculated using the four
locus of control subscales. In each regression, dummy variables representing
country were entered first. Next, occupational status was entered, followed
by gender, and then a gender by occupational status interaction term. As
gender enters the regression equations after occupational status, the possibility that a significant gender effect occurs as a consequence of a confound of gender and occupational status is minimized.
The results of the stepwise regressions are shown in Table IX. For the
Rotter scale, significant effects were again obtained for both gender and
occupational status Co < .0001). The patterning of results for the locus of
control subscales is more complex. The Luck factor yields a significant effect for gender (p < .001) but not for occupational status. The results for
Soeio-political Control and Effort show significant effects for both gender
and occupational status. However, the status effects are larger than the

70

Smith et al.

gender effects (status, p < .0001 on both factors; gender p < .001 on "soeiopoliticar' and p < .05 on "effort" factors). No significant effects were
obtained for Active Friendship. Affectivity shows significant relationships
with both status (p < .0001), and gender (p < .05). No significant interaction effects were detected on any of the six measures.
It is also of some interest to examine the relation between affectivity
scores and the locus of control subscales at the individual level. Separate
correlations were computed within each country's data set, and mean correlations were then computed, weighting data from each nation equally.
As was found at the country level, affectivity is significantly related to externality (mean r = 0.18, standard deviation around this mean, 0.15; this
mean is significantly different from zero, t = 6.5, 13df, p < 0.001). Mean
values of r for the subscales were Luck, 0.19 (SD = 0.15; p < 0.001); Socio-political control, 0.10 (SD = .12; p < 0.01); Effort, 0.09 (SD = 0.12;
p < 0.01); and Friendship, 0.02 (SD = .08; ns). Thus at the individual level
affectivity is associated weakly but significantly with most aspects of externality.

DISCUSSION

The results of our analyses reveal some clear trends. However, it is

noticeable that the effect sizes observed only account for small proportions
of the overall variation in the dependent variables.

Modernity
While the principal purpose of this paper was to explore the interrelationships of status and gender in different cultures, one of our most striking findings was obtained with the modernity index. Internal locus of
control was markedly higher in the less modern nations such as Rumania
and Mexico than it was in more modern nations such as Netherlands and
Sweden. This finding is not an artefact of the particular sampling of the
14 nations in the present study. The same pattern is found within the full
sample of 43 nations for which data are available (Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1995). However, the effect found may well be explained by the
nature of the samples upon which these studies are based. The type of
organizations in developing countries who were included in Trompenaars'
databank would be those which were most in touch with Western management theories, and which were probably in process of rapid expansion.
Their employees might well experience a high degree of internality. Or-

Locus of Control and Affectivity

71

Table IX. Stepwise Regressions Predicting Locus of Control, Locus of Control Factors, and
Affectivitya
Step and Variable
Locus of Control scale
1: Country
2: Status
3: Gender
Status
4: Gender x Status interaction
Luck factor
1: Country
2: Status
3: Gender
Status
4: Gender x Status interaction
Sociopolitical factor
1: Country
2: Status
3: Gender
Status
4: Gender x Status interaction
Effort factor
1: Country
2: Status
3: Gender
Status
4: Gender x Status interaction
Active Friendship factor
1: Country
2: Status
3: Gender
Status
4: Gender x Status interaction
Affectivity
1: Country
2: Status
3: Gender
Status
4: Gender Status interaction

R Square

R Square
change

.066
.108
.133

.066
.041
.025

.135

.002

.116
.117
.125

.116
.001
.008

.127

.002

.091
.113
.122

.091
.022
.009

.122

.000

.255
.283
.286

.255
.028
.003

.286

.000

.157
.158
.158

.157
.002
.000

.158

.000

.067
.088
.092

.067
.021
.003

.092

.000

Beta and
Significance

-.212
.163
-.179
.076

b
b
b
b
NS

-.026
.092
-.007
.089

b
NS
c
NS
NS

-.154
.097
-.134
-.024

b
b
c
b
NS

-.173
.056
-.162
.024

b
b
a
b
NS

.043
-.001
.042
.008

b
NS
NS
NS
NS

.152
-.057
.140
.018

b
b
'/
b
NS

aln the table there are two entries for status. Status is entered at step two, and remains in
the equation at step 3. N = 1043.

~p < .0001.

~p

< .001.
< .05.

ganizations in more developed economies which provided data for Trompenaars' databank were predominantly well-established large business organizations, within which middle and junior-level employees might

72

Smith et al.

experience greater externality. Our results concerning modernity and locus

of control might therefore best be read as reminding us that different subsamples within national cultures will not always reproduce differences to
be expected from broader characterizations of those cultures. Hofstede's
characterization of cultures was based upon comparisons of matched samples. Williams and Best sampled student populations. Our samples were
less well matched, but this does not detract from the tests of our principal
hypotheses, since the impact of modernity was considered separately within
our analyses.

Locus of Control
There is clear evidence from this dataset, whether analyzed at the individual or the cultural level, that locus of control scores differ according
to two fundamental social categories, gender, and status. Females and lower
status employees tend to score more externally on Rotter's locus of control
scale. Our individual level analyses show that, at least in the present sampies, the association with status is largely due to differences on Socio-political Control and Effort. The association with gender was significant on
three for the four subscales, most particularly Socio-political Control. These
findings are consistent with both theoretical predictions and the not inconsiderable body of existing research on locus of control. With regard to the
status results, our cross-sectional data does not permit any conclusions concerning causal factors generating the findings. The data does, however,
point to a phenomenon in need of explanation. Whether internal locus of
control facilitates recruitment into higher status occupations, whether locus
of control changes in line with status, or whether reciprocal causation occurs, remains open to further investigation.
The significant main effect for gender is interesting. Women at all levels lay more emphasis on luck as a causal explanation. They also tend to
have a naore external locus of control on the Rotter scale than men within
a given occupational stratum. Only in Romania was this pattern reversed.
Perhaps this gives some credence to the notion that locus of control is
determined, at least in part, by patterns of social advantage and disadvantage. According to this view, men in higher status (advantaged) occupations
should exhibit the most internal, and women in lower status (disadvantaged) occupations, the most external locus of control in accordance with
their self-perceived potential to influence the course of their lives. This is
the pattern that was obtained. Locus of control may also be taken as an
'agentic' trait, as we have previously suggested.

Locus of Control and Affectivity

73

Our results contrast with those obtained by Cooper, Burger, & Good
(1981), from their meta-analysis of gender differences in academic locus
of control among school-aged US children. They found marginally greater
internality among school-aged females. Their results suggest to us that the
patterning of gender differences in internality may differ across the lifespan,
with greater female externality emerging only in young adulthood. The rationale for this expectation is the assumption that the school and college
environment presents a more 'level playing field' for males and females
than does the adult work environment where various structural variables
favor male rather than female achievement. From this assumption it follows
that in the adult world, females, as a group, experience disproportionate
numbers of non-contingent reinforcements, as compared with males, a state
of affairs differing from that found in school and college environments. As
a result, adult females will exhibit greater externality than males. We would
expect these changes to occur before the age of 30 or so. McCrae & Costa
(1990) have convincingly argued from a firm empirical base that, at least
for US samples, personality traits remain extremely stable in adulthood.
These points, which are consistent with Eagly's social role interpretation
of gender differences, are of course merely speculative. The Cooper et al.
(1981) findings may well be culturally bounded. Certainly, the pancultural
validity of their findings has yet to be demonstrated.
The findings for internality need some further qualification. Firstly,
the samples are drawn predominantly from West and East European business organizations, a factor which constrains the types of generalizations
that can be made. However, this can be viewed as a strength, as large numbers of other studies have used student samples. Fuller samples from other
continents are desirable. Nevertheless, the non-European samples that were
included in the present investigation exhibited similar patterns to the European samples. A second limitation is that status differences were only examined within two rather broad categories. Further differentiation of status
categories would have introduced greater unreliability in categorization and
substantially reduced the number of country samples that had sufficient
cases, limiting the scope for pancultural generalizations.
The dimensionality of the Rotter scale has been frequently debated
(Dyal, 1984). It has appeared from single-country studies that the Rotter
scale does not adequately represent the various potential locus of control
domains (e.g., academic, socio-political, interpersonal, etc.) Furthermore,
the various 'facets' of the total scale are not weighted in such a way as to
equally represent these domains. As such, the overall scale is at best a
crude measure of generalized expectancies. The four factors which emerged
from our pan-cultural analysis are rather similar to the range of those which
have been found within single-country factor analyses, thereby strengthen-

74

Smith et al.

ing considerably the case for using subscale scores rather than the overall
score. A country-level analysis of the full 43-nation dataset of Rotter responses from which the present data were drawn found three related dimensions (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars, 1995).
The individual-level analysis indicated that the aspects of internality
upon which those in senior positions differed from others were the scales
made up of the items referring to Socio-Political Control and Effort in
academic settings. It is highly plausible that those at more senior levels in
organizations would experience greater internality in these domains.

Affectivity
The results involving affectivity to a large extent parallel those for internality. As expected, we have found a pancultural relationship between
affectivity and status. This association is of moderate size and appears quite
robust, especially as the affectivity variable exhibited only moderate internal
consistency. An improved measure will be required before one could be
fully confident of the relationship found. A marginal effect for gender was
also obtained, and there were no significant interactions with modernity.
The individual level analysis mirrored these findings. A further issue is that
affectivity appears at face value to be linked with two of the 'Big Five'
personality factors, namely agreeableness and conscientiousness. If this is
so, we cannot certainly suggest whether lower status samples score high on
affectivity because they are higher on communal orientation or because
they are lower on conscientiousness, or some combination of the two. This
conceptual ambiguity clouds the interpretation we can offer for this finding.
Perhaps the most salient finding from this study has been the strong
association between our measures of locus of control and affectivity at the
aggregated level, and more weakly at the individual level. This result no
doubt occurs because both variables are currently associated with gender
and status. Higher status employees tend to be both more internal and less
communal/more conscientious. Women tend to be more external and possibly more communal. There is no theoretical reason to think that women
are any less conscientious than men, nor any indication from the present
results. However there are ample reasons to think that lower status employees of either gender are both less conscientious and more communal.
As we noted earlier, Barrick and Mount (1991) confrrmed empirically that
conscientious persons tend to get promoted. It follows that wherever in
the world organizations promote people to positions of seniority on criteria
which are not gender-related, we may expect gender differences in conscientiousness/communality to be attenuated. Some other aspects of gender

75

Locus of Control and Affectivity

may persist if, as our data indicated, senior women continue to experience
less internality than senior men. Our results underline the extent and replicability of these effects across a range of cultures which differ in many
other important aspects.

REFERENCES
Abrahamson, D., Schluderman, S., & Schluderman, E. (1973). Replications of dimensions of
locus of control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 320.
Aggarwal, Y. P., & Kumari, M. (1975). A study of locus of control of boys and girls of various
levels of socioeconomic status. Kurukshetra University Research Journal (Arts and
Humanities), 9, 26-32.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Bar-Tal, D., & Bar-Zohar, Y. (1977). The relationship between perception of locus of control
and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2, 181-199.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Best, D. L., Williams, J. E., & Briggs, S. R. (1980). A further analysis of the affective meanings
associated with male and female sex-trait stereotypes. Sex Roles, 6, 735-746.
Bhattacharya, R., & Husain, M. G. (1985). Openness-closeness of environmental entity, sex
and age: Determinants of locus of control. Psychologia, 28, 166-172.
Bond, M. H. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multicultural
studies of values: The Rokeach and Chinese value surveys. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 1009-1015.
Bond, M. H., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Cross-cultural social and organizational psychology.
Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 205-235.
Brislin, R., Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New
York: Wiley.
Buss, D. M. & 49 co-authors (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of
37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5-47.
Cha, J. H. (1994). Aspects of individualism and collectivism in Korea. In U. Kim, H. C.
Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism_"
Theory, method and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cole, D. L., & Cole, S. (1977). Cotmternormative behavior and locus of control. Journal of
Social Psychology, 101, 21-28.
Cooper, H. M., Burger, J. M., & Good, "12 L. (1981). Gender differences in the academic
locus of control beliefs of young children. Journal of Pe~onality and Social Psychology,
40, 562-572.
Dean, L. R. (1961). The pattern variables: Some empirical operations. American Sociological
Review, 26, 80-90.
De Brabander, B., & Boone, C. (1990). Sex differences in perceived locus of control. Journal
of Social Psychology, 130, 271-272.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Doherty, W. J., & Baldwin, C. (1985). Shifts and stability in locus of control during the 1970's:
Divergence of the sexes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1048-1053.
Dyal, J. A. (1984). Cross-cultural research with the locus of control construct. In H. M.
Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 3): Extensions and
limitations. New York: Academic Press.

76

Smith et al.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior. A social role interpretatior~ Hillsdale,
N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as
determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence
studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1-20.
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review
of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283-308.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review
of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 30%330.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic
perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306-315.
The Economist Book of l,qtal World Statistics: A Complete Guide to the World in Figures. (1990).
London: Hutchinson.
Escovar, L. A. (1981). Dimensionality of the I-E scale: A cross-cultural comparison.
International Journal of Group Tensions, 1L 17-33.
Feather, N. T. (1967). Some personality correlates of external locus of control. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 19, 253-260.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality." The big-five factor
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1980). The adjective checklist manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1986). Smiling and gazing. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn
(Eds.), The psychology of gender. Advances through meta-analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor
(Eds.), Personality psychology." Recent trends and emerging directions. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Jorm, A. E (1987). Sex differences in neuroticism: A quantitative synthesis of published
research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 21, 501-506.
Kalin, R., & Tilby, P. (1978). Development and validation of a sex-role ideology scale.
Psychological Reports, 42, 731-738.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S.-C., Gelfand, M., & Yuki, M. (1995). Culture,
gender and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 925-937.
Khanna, P., & Khanna, J. L. (1979). Locus of control in India: A cross-cultural perspective.
International Journal of Psychology, 14, 207-214.
Lao, R. C., Chuang, C. J., & Yang, K. S. (1977). Locus of control and Chinese college students.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 299-313.
Lee, V. K., & Dengerink, H. A. (1992). Locus of control in relation to sex and nationality:
A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 288-397.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). Locus of controL" Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1981). Research with the locus of control construct Assessment methods (Vol.
1). New York: Academic Press.
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions for
cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 133-151.
Little, C. B. (1977). Dimensionality of the internal-external control scale: Some further
evidence. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 131, 329-330.

Locus of Control and Affectivity

77

Maccoby, E., & Jacldin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T, Jr. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: The Guilford
Press.
McGinnies, E., Nordholm, L. A., Ward, C. D., & Bhanthumnavin, D. L. (1974). Sex and
cultural differences in perceived locus of control in five countries. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 42, 451-455.
O'Brien, G. E. (1984). Locus of control, work, and retirement. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.),
Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 3): Extensions and limitations. New York:
Academic Press.
Parsons, O. A., & Schneider, J. M. (1974). Locus of control in university students from eastern
and western societies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 456-461.
Parsons, T, & Shils, E. A. (1951). The social syster,t New York: Free Press.
Parsons, T, & Bales, R. E (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. New York: Free
Press.
Phares, E. J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. Morristown, N J: General Learning Press.
Reykowski, J. (1994). Collectivism and individualism as dimensions of social change. In U.
Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and
collectivisrru Theory, method and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(Whole No. 609).
Schneider, J. M., & Parsons, O. A. (1970). Categories of the locus of control scale and
cross-cultural comparisons in Denmark and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1, 131-138.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values.
In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism
and collectivism." Theory, method and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, E (1995). The Rotter locus of control scale in 43
countries: A test of cultural relativity. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 377-400.
Smith, P. B., Trompenaars, E, & Dugan, S. (1996). National culture and the values of
organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231-264.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological
dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales to
include the big five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 781-790.
Trompenaars, E (1985). The organization of meaning and the meaning of organization.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Watson, J. M. (1981). A note on the dimensionality of the Rotter locus of control scale.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 33, 319-330.
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty nation study. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L (1990). Sex and Psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In U.
Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and
collectivism." Theory, method and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yang, IC S. (1988). Will modernization eliminate cross-cultural psychological differences? In
M. H. Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Yuchtman, Y. E., & Shapira, R. (1981). Sex as a status characteristic: An examination of sex
differences in locus of control. Sex Roles, 7, 149-162.