See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232442073

Locus of Control and Social Support: Interactive

Moderators of Stress

Article  in  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · August 1984

DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.378

CITATIONS READS

186 2,239

3 authors, including:

Rod A. Martin
The University of Western Ontario
96 PUBLICATIONS   10,185 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Enjoying Retirement View project

Myndplan app development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rod A. Martin on 01 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal oTPtnonality and Social Piychc Copyright 1984 by the
1984. Vol. 47. No. 2. 378-389 American Piydtolofical Aanoauoo, Inc.

Locus of Control and Social Support:

Interactive Moderators of Stress
Herbert M. Lefcourt, Rod A. Martin, and Wendy E. Saleh
University of Waterloo, Ontario

Social support has been regarded as a strong moderator of stress. Recent research
has suggested, however, that this effect is not universal, that some supports are
more effective than others, and that some persons make better use of supports than
others. In the present studies, our results corroborated previous findings that persons
with an internal locus of control derive greater benefits from social support than
do those who have a more external orientation. Furthermore, we found that the
moderating effect of social supports largely occurs among those who are less generally
affiliative and are more highly autonomous. As previous investigators have suggested,
social supports may be most beneficial to those who are more instrumental and
sparing in their approach to social interactions.

Research concerned with responses to stress
has been prominent in the psychological lit-
erature for a considerable period of time. After
the publication of Holmes and Rahe's (1967)
scale assessing the impact of life changes, this
research area expanded even further. Although
the effects of stressors on individuals' states of
well-being have been thoroughly documented,
it has been equally apparent that situations
alone can account for only a small portion of
the variance in predicting distress.
In more recent years, investigators have ex-
plored a number of individual difference vari-
ables in the hope of explaining why some peo-
ple readily succumb to the effects of stressors
while others appear to be more resilient. Ko-
basa (1979, 1982) has denned what she refers
to as "hardiness," Garmezy (1981) speaks of
"invulnerability," and Murphy and Moriarity
(1976) write of "resilience" as terms describ-
ing the resistance to stress.
These and other investigators have exam-
ined the role of a number of variables that
constitute these larger constructs. Among such
variables have been locus of control (Johnson
& Sarason, 1978; Kobasa, 1979; Lefcourt,
This research was supported by a SSHRC grant #410-
81-0276 to the first author and a SSHRC doctoral fellow-
ship to the second author. We express appreciation to Carol
Fide, who helped to conduct this investigation.
Requests for reprints should be sent to to Herbert M.
Lefcourt, Department of Psychology, University of Wa-
terloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1.
378
Miller, Ware, & Sherk, 1981), a sense of com-
mitment (Kobasa, 1982), the response to chal-
lenge (Johnson & Sarason, 1979), a sense of
humor (Martin & Lefcourt, 1983, 1984), and
social support (Silver & Wortman, 1981; Hu-
saini, 1982).
This latter factor, social support, is one of
those self-evident variables that laypersons as-
sume have an ameliorative effect on stress. The
stress-buffering effects of social support have
been well demonstrated in a number of studies
(Brown, Bhrolchain, & Harris, 1975; Eaton,
1978; Sarason, 1980). Nevertheless, in the
same way that investigators were stimulated
to search for moderators of life stress by the
findings that people varied in their responses
to given stressors, a number of writers have
been questioning whether people do not differ
in the likelihood of deriving benefits from dif-
ferent sources of social support and whether
different sources of support may not offer more
or less protection against stress. For example,
Phillips and Fischer (1981) have found that
the extent of one's social network and the
presence of family-based social support do not
necessarily help to moderate stress effects,
whereas instrumental supports and the num-
ber of non-kin confidants can have a substan-
tial effect on how stress is experienced. Schae-
fer, Coyne, and Lazarus (1981) compared the
effects of social network size and three types
of social support (tangible, emotional, and in-
formational) on psychological symptoms, mo-
rale, and ill health resulting from stressful
 MODERATORS OF STRESS
events. Network proved to be weaker than
other support variables and informational
support was associated primarily with positive
morale. On the other hand, low tangible and
emotional support were more related to
depression and negative morale. In conclusion,
these authors state that social support research
would benefit from attention to the multidi-
mensionality of support and to greater spec-
ificity in hypotheses concerning the relation
between types of support and adaptational
outcomes.
Most pertinent to the present study is an
article by Sandier and Lakey (1982). They
raised the question of whether locus of control
might influence how persons make use of po-
tential social supports. Because previous re-
search had indicated that internals were better
able to find and to make use of information
than were externals (Lefcourt, Gronnerud, &
McDonald, 1973; Wolk & DuCette, 1974),
Sandier and Lakey hypothesized that similar
differences between internals and externals
might be found in the ways that social supports
are used to alleviate the impacts of stress. In
their investigation, they found interactions be-
tween negative life events and social supports
when they made predictions of anxiety and
depression among internals but not when they
made such predictions for externals. Simple
effects revealed that both anxiety and depres-
sion following negative events were moderated
for internals by the presence of social supports.
The same was not true for externals.
The present studies represent a replication
of and expansion on the Sandier and Lakey
(1982)findings.In instances in which Sandier
and Lakey made use of the personal control
factor of Rotter's locus of control scale (Mirels,
1970), we have used the affiliation and
achievement locus of control scales from the
Multidimensional-Multiattributional Causal-
ity Scale (MMCS; Lefcourt, 1981; Lefcourt,
von Baeyer, Ware, & Cox, 1979). These scales
are used to assess the degree to which subjects
believe that they can exercise control over two
reinforcement areas that are presumably of
high value to university students. Lefcourt
(1981) argued that locus of control measures
concerning outcomes in goal areas that are
highly pertinent to particular samples should
afford greater predictive power within those
samples than more general measures that
379
sample across a variety of reinforcement areas.
Second, we have used two scales from Jack-
son's Personality Research Form (Jackson,
1967), one that focuses on persons' tendencies,
to immerse themselves in social interactions
(need affiliation) and one that focuses on the
desire to function autonomously (need auton-
omy). If Sandier and Lakey are correct, a more
discriminating and strategic use of social sup-
ports will have a more moderating effect on
stressors. Therefore, persons who are not ex-
ceptionally gregarious and can function au-
tonomously, and are thus presumably more
discriminating and instrumental in their social
interactions, should benefit more from the
moderating effects of social supports.
Our hypotheses are that the loci of control
for affiliation and for achievement and both
the affiliation and autonomy scales of the PRF
will prove to be salient in producing the mod-
erator effects of social supports. Specifically,
persons who are internal for affiliation and
achievement, low in the need for affiliation,
and high in the need for autonomy will more
commonly exhibit moderator effects from so-
cial support than will their opposites.
Study 1
Method
Subjects
Forty-six (22 male and 24 female) members of a first-
year introductory psychology course agreed to participate
in a study on life stress among university students. During
successive class sessions, subjects completed each of the
following measures:
1. College Student Recent Life Events Schedule (CSRLES;
Sandier & Lakey. 1982) This checklist is composed of
112 experiences that are considered germane to college
students. The subjects were instructed to check off the
events that had happened to them during the preceding
year and to rate the effect that each event had had on
their lives (very negative, slightly negative, slightly positive,
or very positive). We obtained a weighted negative life
events score for each subject by adding only events that
were rated as having had a negative impact, weighting
them 1 (slightly negative) or 2 (very negative).
2. Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors (ISSB,
Barrera, Sandier, & Ramsay, 1981). This is a 40-item scale
in which respondents report the frequency of receiving
supportive actions from others. Examples of such support
are "having had someone stay with you [the subject] in a
stressful situation," "having had someone watch your pos-
sessions when you were away," having had someone "pro-
vide you with a place where you could get away for a
while," and so on. The scale has been found to be internally
consistent and temporally reliable over a short time span,
380 H. LEPCOUKT, R. MARTIN, AND W. SALEH
Table 1
Intercorrelations Between Variables in Study 1
Variable 1 2 3 4
1. NLE — .10 -.03
2. SS .28*
3. N-aff
4. N-aut
5. LC-aff
6. LC-ach
7. TMD
Note. NLE = Negative Life Events; SS = Social Support; N-aff = Need for Affiliation; N-aut = Need for Autonomy;
LC-aff = Affiliation locus of control; LC-ach = Achievement locus of control; TMD = Total Mood Disturbance.
• p < .10. " p < .05. • « p < .02. •••• p < .001.
and is related to measures of social network and family
support.
3. Muiudimensional-Mullattnbulional Causality Scale
(MMCS; Lefcourt. 1981; Lefcourt, von Baeyer, Ware, &
Cox, 1979). This scale comprises two 24-item Likert scales
concerned with achievement and affiliation. The items are
balanced for success and failure and are equally divided
among four sources of outcomes: ability, effort, task or
situation constraints, and chance. Total scores reflect the
composite of endorsed external attributions minus the
composite of endorsed internal attributions. High scores,
therefore, indicate externality for the specific goal area.
Full descriptions of the scale with reliability and validity
data are included in the articles noted earlier.
4. Personality Research Form (PRF, Jackson, 1967).
The needs for affiliation and autonomy are derived from
the larger PRF and consist of 20 true-false items each.
These needs are inferred from the frequency with which
subjects endorse items indicating activity in the respective
areas. Thus doing things alone frequently and preferring
to be on one's own would indicate a need for autonomy.
There is considerable literature pertaining to the reliability
and validity of PRF scales.
5. Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, &
Droppleman, 1971) This 65-item scale consists of de-
scriptive terms that subjects rate for occurrence. The mea-
sure yields scores on five negative moods (Tension,
Depression, Anger, Fatigue, and Confusion) and one pos-
itive mood (Vigor). These six moods are highly mtercor-
related; to avoid redundancy, we conducted the analyses
using the Total Mood Disturbance score, which is computed
by summing the five negative scores and subtracting the
Vigor score. The POMS has been used extensively in the
study of moods and mood change and its reliability and
validity are well documented.
Procedure
During weekly three-hour classes, the middle hour was
devoted to participation in this study. The measures were
each administered in their typical fashion. The POMS,
however, was scored as to how the students had most typ-
ically felt during the past few months.
5 6 7
-.02 .17 .04 -.20
-.15 .07 .01 -.08
-.53***» .36»** .25* -.25*
-.19 .02 .17
.35** .18
.00
—
Results
Table 1 represents the intercorrelation ma-
trix for the variables in this study. It is evident
that neither Negative Life Events nor Social
Support are strongly related to the personality
measures. There is a slight tendency for highly
affiliative persons to report having more social
support (r = .28, p < .10), though the mag-
nitude of that relation is low. The strongest
relation obtained was between the needs for
autonomy and affiliation (r = —.53,/? < .001),
which were negatively related, as common
sense would suggest. Finally, highly affiliative
persons (high N-aff) also seem to express more
externality with regard to affiliative outcomes
(r = .36, p < .02), which suggests that inse-
curity in social relations may play some part
in gregariousness. With regard to the depen-
dent measure, Total Mood Disturbance was
unrelated to any of the predictor measures,
except for one borderline relation with N-aff
(r = -.25, p < .10).
Total Mood Disturbance, which consists of
the sum of the negative affects (tension,
depression, etc.) minus the measure of vigor,
was the primary dependent variable. In four
separate analyses, hierarchical regressions were
computed for subjects who were high or low
on each of the individual difference measures
as determined by median splits. For example,
subjects scoring as internal were treated sep-
arately from those scoring as external with
regard to affiliation. For each group, Negative
Life Events (CSRLES) was entered as the first
variable in the regression analysis, Social Sup-
port (ISSB) was entered as the second variable,
 MODERATORS OF STRESS 381

and the product of the two was entered as the
third variable. Thefirsttwo variables produce
the equivalent of main effects, whereas the
third produces the equivalent of the interaction
term in an analysis of variance (ANOVA). In
each case then, the analyses reveal whether
social support blunts the effects of negative
life events within either group (internals and
externals, for example) in producing mood
disturbance.
Table 2 presents the results for each of the
four personality variables. With regard to the
two locus of control measures, the results were
not overly impressive. When subjects were
classified by the affiliation locus of control
scale, one main effect attained significance.
Among those who were external for affiliation,
we found a strong relation between negative
life events and mood disturbance (r = .53),
F(l, 20) = 8.00, p < .025). The equivalent
among affiliation internals was negligible (r =
.03). No main effects for social support were
found in either group. On the other hand, an
interaction of borderline significance, F{1,
20) = 3.60, p < .10, was found among affili-
ation internals. As is evident in Figure 1, in-
ternals with social support responded rather
differently to negative life events than did in-
ternals with less social support.
With increasing negative experiences, so-
cially supported internals exhibited a decrease
in mood disturbance, whereas less supported
internals showed increases in mood distur-
bances. In essence, affiliation internals with
social support seemed to have thrived on po-
tential adversities, possibly converting them
into "doable" challenges, whereas less sup-
ported internals regarded negative life events
as sources of disturbance.
We found no such interaction among affil-
iation externals or, for that matter, among ei-
ther internals or externals classified by the

Table 2
Hierarchically Arranged Multiple Regression Analyses Between Stress and Moderator
Variables on Total Mood Disturbance Scores

Variable r *2A F df p r *2A F df P

Internals Externals
LC-aff*
NLE .03 .001 0.02 1,22 _ .53 .286 8.00 .20 <.O25
SS .25 .061 1.36 1,21 — .10 .000 0.00 , 19
NLEXSS _ .143 3.60 1,20 <.10 .004 0.11 , 18
LC-achb
NLE .47 .226 5.54 1, 19 <.05 .07 .005 0.12 ,23
SS .30 .012 0.28 1, 18 — .08 .004 0.10 .22
NLEXSS — .003 0.06 1, 17 — — .028 0.60 ,21 —

Low-need affil High-need affil

Need-affilc
NLE .16 .024 0.42 1, 17 — .40 .163 4.29 1,22 <.05
SS .02 .000 0.00 1, 16 — .01 .006 0.15 1,21
NLEXSS — .428 11.75 1, 15 <.OO5 — .018 0.4S 1.20 —

Low-need aut High-need aut

1
Need-auf
NLE .51 .263 7.86 1,22 <.025 .14 .019 0.33 1, 17
SS .13 .002 0.05 1,21 — -.07 .007 0.12 1, 16
NLEXSS — .062 1.84 1,20 — — .383 9.72 1, 15 <.01

Note. NLE = Negative Life Events; SS = Social Support; LC-aff = Affiliation locus of control; LC-ach = Achievement
locus of control; Need-affil = need for affiliation; Need-aut = need for autonomy.
1
For internals, score < 43, N = 24; for externals, score > 43, N = 22.
b
For internals, score < 38, N = 21; for externals, score > ii, N = 25.
c
For low-need affil, score < 13, N = 19; for high-need affil, score > 13, N = 24.
d
For low-need aut, score < 9, N = 24; for high-need aut, score > 9, N = 19.
382 H. LEPCOURT, R. MARTIN, AND W. SALEH

achievement locus of control measure. Here,
in contrast, we found one significant main ef-
fect. Among achievement internals, negative
life events had a significant impact upon mood
disturbance (r = .47), F(l, 19) = 5.54,
p < .05.
In Table 2, the regression analyses for the
needs for affiliation and autonomy are also
presented. As might have been expected, those
scoring higher in affiliative tendencies tended
to score more highly on the measure of social
support (r = .28, p < .10) and less highly on

Low Need Affiliation High Need Autonomy

too- 100

80-

60- a 60'
o
Z
Z
40-

20 20

10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
NLE NLE

Internal for Affiliation

too-

80

a 60
z
»- 40

20

10 20 '30 40

Low Social Support

High Social Support

Figure 1. Regression lines predicting Total Mood Disturbance scores (TMD) from Negative Life Events
(NLE) for low and high social support groups for Study 1.
 MODERATORS OF STRESS
mood disturbance (r = —.25, p <. 10). Despite
the curtailment of score ranges, there was a
significant main effect for negative life events
on mood disturbance (r = .40), F{1, 22) =
4.29, p < .05, among those who were highly
affiliative. On the other hand, there were no
main effects found in the analysis of mood
data obtained from those who were low in the
need for affiliation. However, as predicted, a
strong interaction between negative life events
and social supports, F[l, 15) = 11.75, p <
.005, was obtained. As is evident in Figure 1,
the interaction bears similarity to that obtained
among affiliation internals. Highly supported
persons who were low in affiliative needs
seemed to be undaunted by the occurrence of
negative life events. In contrast, less supported
low-affiliative persons exhibited rapid increases
in mood disturbance with increases in negative
life events.
The results for need for autonomy were
nearly the same as for need for affiliation. A
significant main effect and no interaction was
found among those who were less autonomous
(r = .51), 2^1, 22) = 7.86, p < .025, showing
that negative life events were associated with
greater mood disturbances regardless of social
support in this group as they were in the highly
affiliative group.
In contrast, among the more autonomous
subjects a significant interaction was found,
i^l, 15) = 9.72, p < .01, which is illustrated
in Figure 1. It is clear that the form of this
interaction is nearly identical to that obtained
from the less affiliative subject group.
Discussion
The results from this first study offer some
confirmation for our hypotheses, though cau-
tion is necessary in acceptingfindingsderived
from samples of such limited size. It seemed
evident in this sample, however, that person-
ality variables that were pertinent to inter-
personal concerns interacted more readily with
social support than did the one achievement-
focused variable (locus of control for achieve-
ment) when we predicted mood disturbance.
Apparently the moderator effects of social
support were more salient among those who
were less generally gregarious (i.e., high-need
autonomy and low-need affiliation) and more
self-attributing for outcomes in the affiliative
383
realm (i.e., internal locus of control for affil-
iation).
Study 2
Though the results from Study 1 offered
some confirmation for our hypotheses, the data
obtained with the locus of control measures
were not as strong as we had anticipated. Be-
cause the sample in thefirststudy was limited
in size, allowing for only 24 subjects to be
classified as affiliation internals (21 as achieve-
ment internals) and 22 as affiliation externals
(25 as achievement externals), we conducted
a replication study during the following se-
mester when a larger sample became available.
Subjects for the second study were drawn
from the university subject pool, which con-
sisted of students enrolled in first-year intro-
ductory psychology courses. Participation was
voluntary, although course credit was granted
for participation.
Method
Ninety-nine subjects (58 men and 41 women) were seen
individually. In the course of 1 '/> hrs, the same measures
of life stress, social support, affiliation, and achievement
locus of control and mood disturbance were obtained. The
PRF was omitted because of time constraints.
Results
Table 3 shows the interrelations among the
variables. With this larger sample the expected
zero-order correlations were obtained. Nega-
tive life events were associated with mood dis-
turbance (r = .33, p < .001), as was externality
for affiliation (r = .33, p < .001), and social
support was negatively related to mood dis-
turbance (r = -.20, p < .05). Only locus of
control for achievement was unrelated to
mood scores confirming the zero-level relation
found in the first study. The other finding of
note was that externality for affiliation was
associated with negative life events (r = .25,
p < .02), which suggests that many of the neg-
ative life events might be related to social un-
certainties, either in a causal way with social
shocks leading to external attributions for so-
cial outcomes, or in the opposite fashion with
externality for affiliation begetting the bungled
social interactions perceived as negative ex-
periences.
384 H. LEFCOURT, R. MARTIN, AND W. SALEH

Table 3
Intercorrelations Between the Variables in Study 2

Variable 1

1. NLE .06 .03 .33~

2. SS .05 .11 -.20*
3. LC-aff .16 .33"
4. LC-ach .12
5. TMD

Note. NLE = Negative Life Events; SS = Social Support; LC-aff = Affiliation locus of control; LC-ach = Achievement
locus of control; TMD = Total Mood Disturbance.
• p < .05. • • p < .02. •*• p< .001.

Hierarchical regressions were computed for
subjects classified as internal and external by
median splits for each of the two goal areas.
Table 4 shows the results for both the affiliation
and achievement scales.
It is evident that the effects of negative life
events and social support are more marked
among affiliation internals than they are
among affiliation externals. Negative life events
produced a significant main effect (r = .44),
F{1, 44) = 10.31, p < .005, and interaction,
/=X1, 42) = 5.48, p < .025) among affiliation
internals. Among affiliation externals, only a
borderline effect for social support was found
( r = - . 2 2 ) , # U , 50) = 3.11,/><.10).
As may be noted in Figure 2, the interaction
pattern between negative life events and social
supports among affiliation internals is similar
to that found in the first study. Though highly
supported affiliation internals did not show
the same decline in mood disturbance with
increasing negative life events, less supported
internals did show the same increases in dis-
turbance with increases in negative experiences
as was found earlier. It seems once again that
social support operated as a moderator variable
among affiliation internals.
In the equivalent analyses for locus of con-
trol for achievement, main effects for negative
life events were found among achievement in-
ternals (r = .31), F{\, 42) = 4.91, p < .05, and
externals (r = .33), F\l, 48) = 5.78, p < .025.
Additionally, social support produced a main
effect among externals (r = -.25), F\\, 47) =
5.62, p < .025. However, only among achieve-
ment internals did the interaction term attain
significance, F{\, 45) = 4.86, p < .05, and, as
is evident in Figure 2, the pattern of that in-
teraction is very similar to that found with
affiliation locus of control. Again, internals

Table 4
Hierarchically Arranged Multiple Regression Analyses Between Stress and Moderator
Variables on Total Mood Disturbance Scores

Internals Externals

Variable r *>A F df P r *>A F df P

LC-aff*
NLE .44 .19 10.31 1,44 < .005 .17 .03 1.48 1,51
SS -.19 .04 2.30 1,43 — -.22 .06 3.11 1,50 < .10
NLEXSS .09 5.48 1,42 <.025 .00 0.17 1,49
LC-achb

NLE .31 .09 4.91 1,47 <.05 .33 .11 5.78 1,48 <.025
SS -.14 .02 0.83 1,46 — -.25 .10 5.62 1,47 <.O25
NLEXSS — .09 4.86 1,45 <.05 — .02 1.10 1,46 —

Note. NLE = Negative Life Events; SS = Social Support; LC-aff = Affiliation locus of control; LC-ach = Achievement
locus of control.
" For internals, score < 46, N =• 46; for externals, score > 46, N = 53.
b
For internals, score < 40, N = 49; for externals, score > 40, N = 50.
 MODERATORS OF STRESS 385

bereft of social support tend to increase in
mood disturbance as negative life events in-
crease, whereas supported internals seem to
be relatively unaffected by changing frequen-
cies of negative events.
Discussion
In these first two studies, the patterns appear
to be similar with occasional exceptions.
Though the main effects vary between samples
and variables, the interactions indicating
moderator effects seem to be reliable. Only
among internals, among those who are more
autonomous, and among those who are less
gregarious, are interactions found between
negative life events and social supports. In each
case the internal with support seems resilient
in the face of stress, whereas the internal with-
out support seems to be in jeopardy.
Study 3
Though the sample size in the second study
was considerably larger than that of the first,
the number of subjects within each study is
not sufficient to allay all fears concerning the
reliability of the moderator effects that we have
witnessed. Ideally, a sample of several
hundreds of subjects would allow us to include
all variables in one regression analysis such
that we could observe three-way interactions
between our variables. Given the limitations
of our sample sizes, we have opted to examine
the reliability of the moderator effect through
replications of the basic study itself. We con-
ducted this final study during the semester
after the one in which Study 2 was completed.
Subjects for this third study were drawn
from a third-year psychology course concerned
with measurement; class members were all
honors students. Participation was required as
part of the class's exposure to different types
of measuring devices.
Method
Sixty-six subjects (17 men and 49 women) were provided
packets in which each of the measures included in the
second study were enclosed. They were given a two-week

Internal for Affiliation Internal for Achievement

too 100-

80' 80

Q 60- Q 60
2 z
•" 40-
H
40

20-
20

10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
NLE NLE

Low Social Support

High Social Support

Figure 2 Regression lines predicting Total Mood Disturbance scores (TMD) from Negative Life Events
(NLE) for low and high social support groups for Study 2.
386 H. LEFCOURT, R. MARTIN, AND W. SALEH

Table 5 and conflict than would be affiliation expec-

Intercorrelations Between the Variables tancies.
in Study 3 Table 6 shows the regression analyses for
Variable I 2 3 4 5
subjects classified as internals and externals
by median splits for each goal area. In contrast
1. NLE — .16 -.14 .06 .25* to the previous studies, classification .by affil-
2. SS -.12 -.07 .06 iation locus of control did not produce the
3. LC-aff .25* .16 same interaction between negative life events
4. LC-ach .37"
5. TMD — and social support. We found only one main
effect: Affiliation internals showed a significant
Note. NLE «= Negative Life Events; SS = Social Support; main effect (r = -44), JM(1, 31) = 7.29, p <
LC-aff = Affiliation locus of control; LC-ach = Achieve- .01, between negative life events and mood
ment locus of control; TMD = Total Mood Disturbance.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. disturbance. On the other hand, achievement
locus of control does reveal the interaction
that was found in the preceding study with
period in which to complete the measures. All personal achievement internals, F{1, 30) = 3.80, p <
identifying information was eliminated; each subject had .06). As is evident in Figure 3, the shape of
a code number by which his or her measures were rec-
ognized. the interaction is the same as was found in
the previous studies.
Results Achievement internals with social support
seem to be resilient in the face of stressors,
Table S represents the intercorrelation ma- whereas internals without social support ap-
trix for the variables. The major difference pear to be more disturbed given increasing
between this matrix and the preceding ones is numbers of negative life events. In contrast,
that in this one, achievement locus of control externals for both affiliation and achievement
was related to mood disturbance (r = .37, seem to be unpredictable on the basis of either
p < .01) within this sample, whereas affiliation negative life events or social support.
locus of control was not significantly related
to the mood measure. This may reflect the
Discussion
fact that for this more advanced student group,
achievement is the more salient goal concern, In this third study the results bear a simi-
and externality with regard to this high concern larity to the other studies, but they also reveal
area may be more indicative of current malaise distinct differences. The fact that these students

Table 6
Hierarchically Arranged Multiple Regression Analyses Between Stress and Moderator
Variables on Total Mood Disturbance Scores

Internals Externals

Variable r F df P r *»A F df p

LC-aff'
NLE .44 .19 7.29 1 ,31 <.01 • .06 .00 0.13 1 ,31 —
SS -.03 .00 0.10 1,30 .15 .02 0.58 1 ,30 —
NLEXSS .03 1.08 1,29 .02 0.57 1,29 —
LC-achb
NLE .27 .07 2.50 1 ,32 .12 .21 .04 1.36 1,30 —
SS .08 .00 0.10 1 ,31 — .01 .00 0.07 1,29 —
NLEXSS — .10 3.80 1 ,30 .06 — .00 0.03 1 ,28 —

Note. NLE = Negative Life Events; SS = Social Support; LC-aff = Affiliation locus of control; LC-ach = Achievement
locus of control.
* For internals, score < 44, N = 33; for externals, score > 44, N = 33.
b
For internals, score < 42, N = 34; for externals, score > 42, N = 32.
 MODERATORS OF STRESS
were more advanced and were engaged in an
honors course that had portents for career
choices meant that these students were likely
to be more serious about both their coursework
and their career goals than were the less ad-
vanced students who participated in the first
two studies. Consequently, achievement locus
of control proved to be more important than
affiliation locus of control in predicting mood
states; that is, the sense of well-being of these
advanced students seemed to be more contin-
gent on their beliefs regarding achievement,
perhaps because of the greater salience of this
goal area at this point in their lives. The sim-
ilarity to the preceding studies inheres in the
interaction obtained between social support
and negative life events among achievement
internals. Once again, unsupported internals
showed elevated mood disturbances as negative
life events increased, whereas socially sup-
ported internals exhibited minimal effects
from such events.
Internal for Achievement
100
80-
60H
40
20
10 20 30 40
N LE
Low Social Support
High Social Support
Figure 3. Regression lines predicting Total Mood Distur-
bance scores (TMD) from Negative Life Events (NLE) for
low and high social support groups for Study 3.
387
General Discussion
Our results tend to corroborate those that
Sandier and Lakey (1982) obtained using the
locus of control variable. In addition, those
who seem to be less generally sociable or more
autonomous appear to benefit the most from
the presence of social supports. Though the
results were neither uniform nor of a very high
magnitude in every case, therelationsbetween
negative life events and mood disturbance were
substantially reduced by social support for
those who were internal for affiliation, internal
for achievement, less generally affiliative, and
more highly autonomous. In no instance did
their opposites seem to receive the same degree
of benefit from social support. We could also
arguefromour data that social support is more
necessary for those who are presumably more
instrumental in their social interactions (i.e.,
internals, low-need affiliation and high-need
autonomy) because negative life events had
strong effects on mood disturbance among
those subjects when they did not have access
to social support. Whether such persons have
greater need of social support than do others
or whether they make better use of support as
we have hypothesized is not clearly answerable
with the current data. However, if need for
affiliation reflects need for social support, ev-
idence from the first study in which need for
affiliation was associated with externality for
affiliation (r = .36, p < .02) offers some support
for the latter alternative; that is, that internals
express less need of but show better effects
from having social support than do externals
who show more need of but obtain fewer ben-
efits from such support.
With specific reference to locus of control,
the currentfindingsalong with those of Sandier
and Lakey (1982) may help to explain some
of the discrepancies with research generated
within the learned helplessness framework.
Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, and von Baeyer
(1979) and Metalsky, Abramson, Seligman,
Semmel, and Peterson (1982) contended that
internal-global-stable attributions result in
depression when negative outcomes are ex-
perienced. In contrast, Lefcourt (1982), after
reviewing the literature concerned with locus
of control and stress, concluded that internality
more often seems to have a moderating effect
on the relation between stress and mood dis-
388 H. LEFCOURT, R. MARTIN, AND W. SALEH
turbances. In our research, it is evident that
internals devoid of social support bear simi-
larity to those internals who have been used
in helplessness investigations. Though we have
no evidence to support the hypothesis from
our data, those who are more global and stable
in their self-blaming tendencies might also be
those who do not have the benefit of social
supports when they are needed. It is tempting
to believe that the more instrumental use of
social supports would provide one with social
comparisons, perspective taking, and advice,
which in turn could lessen the tendency to be
self-blaming for failure (ie., making internal-
stable-global attributions) with its accompa-
nying dysphoric moods. Internals who use
supports in this manner would then be less
prone to depression in the face of adverse cir-
cumstances. In essence, internality can be ex-
pected to predict depressive tendencies on the
one hand and resilience on the other, and it
may be the access to social supports that de-
termines the direction of the relations. The
exact linkages between locus of control, help-
lessness attributions, and social supports await
further investigation. However, the present
data do suggest that social support plays a ma-
jor role in determining how internals respond
to stress.
When examining the main effects for neg-
ative life events throughout these three studies,
one may conclude that contrary to the findings
of earlier researchers (Johnson & Sarason,
1978; Kobasa, 1979), locus of control per se
may not always operate as a reliable stress
moderator. Although the differences between
subjects classified by the achievement locus of
control scale are not very large with regard to
the negative-life-event-mood-disturbance re-
lation, the important fact is that the results
do not support the hypothesized direct mod-
erator effects of locus of control. The differ-
ences between subjects classified with regard
to affiliation locus of control, on the other
hand, almost suggest the opposite. In two of
the three studies, internals were found to have
higher magnitude relations between stress and
mood disturbance than externals. The reversals
and uncertainties generated by these data mir-
ror conclusions drawn by Lefcourt (1982)
when he attempted to summarize the findings
from previous investigations:
It is obvious . . . that locus of control does play some
role in affecting the ways in which people cope with their
experiences. However, that role is complex, interacting as
it does with other variables such as time of life stress,
social support, and no doubt other variables as well,
(p. 110)
As our currentfindingssuggest, the interaction
with social support is one of the more reliable
findings that may help to clarify the role that
locus of control plays in determining how per-
sons react to negative life experiences. Though
it is a powerful predictor in interaction with
personality variables, social support produced
only one significant main effect in all 16 of
the analyses, which indicates that the presence
of social support did not have an all-pervasive
effect on mood disturbance. Only among those
persons who we suspect are more instrumental
and purposeful in their social relations was
the moderator effect found.
Research concerned with stress is apparently
becoming more complex. Although studies of
the effects of life stress per se once held center
stage, research into the functioning of mod-
erators has more recently attained prominence.
Now it seems that a more interactive and com-
plex model is becoming more salient. Processes
such as the receipt of social support are not
found to have universal ameliorating effects.
In fact, some researchers such as Kobasa
(1982) have found that social supports can
increase the impact of stressors in certain
groups such as lawyers. As Kobasa noted, so-
cial interactions among lawyers may be a "way
of avoiding the solution of those problems
brought on by stressful life events, and pre-
venting the development of commitment"
(1982, p. 716). Social supports, then, may have
different meanings for persons with differing
orientations toward their work and their social
interactions.
In the studies described in this article, it is
equally obvious that locus of control by itself
does not produce consistent ameliorating ef-
fects. Only in interaction with measures of
social support do we witness a reliable mod-
eration of stress effects. Conceivably, it is the
more internal individuals who, by regarding
themselves as responsible for their disappoint-
ments, draw more useful information from
and succor close companionships. If failures
were experienced by persons who held them-
selves responsible for those events, emotional
distress would be likely unless guilt feelings
could be assuaged. Our guess is that social
support with its implied provision of alter-
 MODERATORS OF STRESS
native perspectives and opportunities for reat-
tributions of blame and shared fate may be
the very balm that serves to protect the more
solitary adventurers who regard themselves as
the agents of their own experiences.
Finally, we conclude with the obvious point
to be drawn from these investigations: Inter-
actions between personal proclivities and mi-
lieu characteristics should always provide bet-
ter predictions of criteria such as mood dis-
turbance than should simpler, unifactor
models.
References
Barrera, M., Sandier, I. N., & Ramsay, T. B. (1981). Pre-
liminary development of a scale of social support Studies
on college students. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 9, 435-447.
Brown, G. W., Bhrolchain, M. N., & Harris, T. (1975).
Social class and psychiatric disturbance among women
in an urban population. Sociology, 5, 225-254.
Eaton, N. W. (1978). Life events, social supports, and
psychiatric symptoms: A reanalysis of the New Haven
data. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 230-
234.
Garmezy, N. (1981). Children under stress: Perspectives
on antecedents and correlates of vulnerability and re-
sistance to psychopathology. In A. I. Rabin, J. Aronoff,
A. M. Barclay, & R. A. Zucker (Eds.), Further explo- Murphy, L. B., & Mortality, A. (1976). Vulnerability, cop-
rations in personality (pp. 196-270). New York: Wiley.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social read- Phillips, S. L., & Fischer, C. S. (1981). Measuring social
justment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Re-
search, 11, 213-218.
Husaini, B. A. (Ed.) (1982). Stress and psychiatric symp-
toms: Personality and social support as buffers [Special Sandier, I. N., & Lakey, B. (1982). Locus of control as a
issue]. Journal of Community Psychology, iO(4).
Jackson, D. N. (1967). Personality Research Form. Goshen,
NY: Research Psychologists Press.
Johnson, J. G., & Sarason, I. G. (1978). Life stress, depres-
sion and anxiety: Internal-external control as a mod-
erator variable. Journal ofPsychosomatic Research, 22,
205-208.
Johnson, J. H. & Sarason, I. G. (1979). Moderator variables
in life stress research. In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger
(Eds.), Stress and anxiety. Vol. 6 (pp. 151-167). Wash-
ington, DC: Hemisphere.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and
health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal ofPersonality
and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11.
Kobasa, S. C. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress
resistance.among lawyers. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 707-717.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1981). The construction and development
of the muln'dimensional-multiattributional causality Wolk, S., & DuCette, J. (1974). Intentional performance
scales. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the Locus
of Control Construct (Vol. 1, pp. 245-277). New York:
Academic Press.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). Locus of control: Current trends
in theory and research, second edition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
View publication stats
389
Lefcourt, H. M., Gronnerud, P., & McDonald, P. (1973).
Cognitive activity and hypothesis formation during a
double entendre word association test as a function of
locus of control and field dependence. Canadian Journal
of Behavioral Science, 5, 161-173.
Lefcourt, H. M., Miller, R. S., Ware, E E., & Sherk, D.
(1981). Locus of control as a modifier of the relationship
between stressors and moods. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 41. 357-369.
Lefcourt, H. M., von Baeyer, C. L., Ware, E. E., & Cox,
D. J. (1979). The multidimensional-multiattributional
causality scale. Canadian Journal ofBehavioral Science,
11, 286-304.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). The sense of
humor as a moderator of the relation between stressors
and moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45, 1313-1324.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1984). The Situational
Humor Response Questionnaire: A quantitative measure
of the sense of humor. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 47. 145-155.
McNair, D. M., Loir, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971).
The profile of mood states San Diego: Educational and
Industrial Testing Service.
Metalsky, G. I., Abramson, L. Y, Seligman, M. E. P.,
Semmel, A., & Peterson, C. (1982). Attribution styles
and life events in the classroom: Vulnerability and in-
vulnerability to depressive mood reactions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 43, 612-617.
Mirels, H. L. (1970). Dimensions of internal versus external
control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
34, 226-228.
ing, and growth from infancy to adolescence. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
support networks in general populations. In B. S. Doh-
renwend & B. P. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events
and their contexts (pp. 223-233). NY: Prodist
stress moderator. The role of control perceptions and
social support. American Journal of Community Psy-
chology, 10, 65-80.
Sarason, I. G. (1980). Life stress, self-preoccupation, and
social supports. In I. G. Sarason and C. D. Spielberger
(Eds.), Stress and anxiety, Vol. 7. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Schaefer, C , Coyne, J. C , & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The
health related functions of social support Journal of
Behavioral Medicine. 4, 381-406.
Seligman, M. E. P., Abramson, L. Y, Semmel, A., & von
Baeyer, C. (1979). Depressive attributional style. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 242-247.
Silver, R. I., & Wortman, C. B. (1981). Coping with un-
desirable life events. In J. Garber & M. E. P. Seligman
(Eds.), Human Helplessness. Theory and application (pp.
279-340). New York: Academic Press.
and incidental learning as a function of personality and
task directions. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 29, 90-101.
Received October 14, 1982
Revision received March 18, 1983 •