THE LOCUS OF CONTROL

Aim

Rotter’s Locus of Control is to measure individual’s Internal, External or in-between

locus of control.

Objective

To understand how these locus of control influence one’s attitude and behaviors.

Introduction

Locus of Control (loci)

Locus of control is the extent to which you feel you have control over events that impact
your life. Put another way, it is “a belief about whether the outcomes of our actions are
contingent on what we do (internal control orientation) or on events outside our personal control
(external control orientation),” explains psychologist Philip Zimbardo. In 1954, psychologist
Julian Rotter suggested that our behaviour was controlled by rewards and punishments. The
consequences of our actions helped determine our beliefs about the likely results of future
behaviors. Locus of control is a psychological concept that refers to how strongly people believe
they have control over the situations and experiences that affect their lives. The locus of control
idea is based on what psychologists call social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). Locus of Control
(loci) Locus of control is the extent to which you feel you have control over events that impact
your life. Put another way, it is “a belief about whether the outcomes of our actions are
contingent on what we do (internal control orientation) or on events outside our personal control
(external control orientation),” explains psychologist Philip Zimbardo. In 1954, psychologist
Julian Rotter suggested that our behaviour was controlled by rewards and punishments. The
consequences of our actions helped determine our beliefs about the likely results of future
behaviours. Locus of control is a psychological concept that refers to how strongly people
believe they have control over the situations and experiences that affect their lives. The locus of
control idea is based on what psychologists call social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).
 Social learning theory suggests that an expectation is reinforced when the expected
events or Behaviour actually occur in the future. In other words, if you expect something to
happen and it does, your expectation is reinforced, and if your expectation does not occur, your
expectation is weak. Rotter proposed that whether or not one believes they have control over the
cause’s reinforcement determines the outcome. Essentially Rotter’s definition of “control”
includes anything that you have power over. He postulated that individuals who believe that their
own behaviour or characteristics determine or cause events possess an internal locus of control.
On the other hand, people who think that reinforcement following an action is not entirely
contingent upon their own actions but instead perceived as luck, fate, chance, or other forces
beyond their control have an external locus of control. The main idea in Julian Rotter’s social
learning theory is that personality represents an interaction of the individual with his or her
environment. One cannot speak of a personality, internal to the individual that is independent of
the environment. Neither can one focus on behavior as being an automatic response to an
objective set of environmental stimuli. Rather, to understand behaviour, one must take both the
individual (i.e., his or her life history of learning and experiences) and the environment (i.e.,
those stimuli that the person is aware of and responding to) into account. Rotter describes
personality as a relatively stable set of potentials for responding to situations in a particular way.
Rotter sees personality, and therefore behaviour, as always changeable. Change the way the
person thinks, or change the environment the person is responding to, and behaviour will change.
He does not believe there is a critical period after which personality is set. But, the more life
experience one has building up certain sets of beliefs, the more effort and intervention required
for change to occur. Rotter conceives of people in an optimistic way. He sees them as being
drawn forward by their goals, seeking to maximize their reinforcement, rather than just avoiding
punishments.

Popular Theories about the Concept

How locus of control relates to other psychological theories. Two theories that are related
but differ in subtle ways include self-efficacy and attribution style. Another important theory is
personality and how it affects our locus of control.

Self-efficacy theory
 Self-efficacy a concept proposed by Albert bandura (Bandura, 2010) is the measure of
how capable an individual feels about achieving their goals. Bandura, a social psychologist,
showed that no matter how talented a person may be, if they do not believe they are capable, this
belief will have a strong effect on their ability to succeed. Individuals with high self-efficacy will
have higher levels of persistence and give up less easily than those with low levels of self-
efficacy (Schunk, 1990). Self-efficacy and locus of control are related, but they are not the same.
An individual with an internal locus of control may feel their health outcomes are caused by their
behaviour, but they may not feel capable of achieving their goal. Also locus of control includes
an appraisal of the surrounding event, whereas self-efficacy is ultimately a self-reflective
construct.

Attribution styles and locus of control

Locus of control is a theory of learning. Attribution styles is also a theory of

behaviour that includes locus of control as one of three potential causes (Weiner, 1986).
Attribution theory includes other factors – whether the cause is global or specific, stable or
unstable – in addition to whether the individual perceives that they have control over it. A global
attribution means that the person believes the cause of the event is consistent across all contexts.
A specific attribution is just the opposite: it only happens in a particular context. Whether an
outcome is stable or unstable describes if it is consistent across time or only attributable to a
single point in time. Similar to locus of control, our attribution style will affect our behaviour.

Locus of control and Personality theories

The Big Five personality traits (emotional stability, extraversion, openness,

agreeableness, and conscientiousness) have each been shown to have varying levels of impact on
outcomes in these realms. These traits have been examined for their relationship with locus of
control. In general, emotional stability (formerly known as neuroticism) and conscientiousness
have strong positive relationships with an internal locus of control. Believing that their behaviour
contributes directly to the outcome of a situation will naturally lead to hard work if the individual
also has the desire. Conversely, those with an external locus of control have been shown to have
higher levels of stress and even depression and also leads to learned helplessness. The idea of
learned helplessness and its relationship to an external locus of control was introduced by Martin
(Seligman, 1975). He advanced the hypothesis that individuals with depression have a state of
mind that reflects a type of helplessness, meaning that they don’t believe that their actions will
have any positive effect on the outcomes of their lives. This type of thinking may reflect an
external locus of control, because they have little faith in themselves.

Cultural humility and locus of control

Locus of control may be shaped by systems of injustice, like institutionalized racism

and gender discrimination. For oppressed or marginalized groups, there is an objective threat to
their ability to control the outcomes of their lives. Their perceived differences in loci of control
may reflect these systems of oppression, rather than a lack of self-determination. People from
low socio-economic background in general have lower internal locus of control as there are
environmental factor affecting their life generally.

Related Research-

A. Locus of Control, Depression, and Suicide (Rotter & Mischel)

Research found that locus of control was positively related to more autonomy, risk
taking, sense of social responsibility, tolerance, empathy and altruistic moral reasoning and less
authoritarianism. A higher sense of internal control was associated with heroism.

B. Locus of Control and Psychological Well-Being

Past studies have consistently found that locus of control is associated with
psychological well-being, but the conclusions were all based upon Rotter’s unidimensional
definition. Such include Garber (1980) who concluded that indicators of good psychological
well-being came from participants reporting lower indices of stress and depression, linking it to
high internal locus of control. Grob (2000) reported that stress is often the result of feeling
powerless in a given situation, which suggests it is linked to having an external locus of control.
According to Emmons and Diener (1989), individuals who are low in self-esteem are more likely
to believe outcomes are not under their own influence and control, and Emmons (1986)
concluded that different variables influence well-being if they affect a person’s ability to achieve
his or her. Past studies have consistently found that locus of control is associated with
psychological well-being, but the conclusions were all based upon Rotter’s unidimensional
definition. Such studies include Garber (1980) who concluded that indicators of good
psychological well-being came from participants reporting lower indices of stress and
depression, linking it to high internal locus of control. Grob (2000) reported that stress is often
the result of feeling powerless in a given situation, which suggests it is linked to having an
external locus of control. According to Emmons and Diener (1989), individuals who are low in
self-esteem are more likely to believe outcomes are not under their own influence and control,
and Emmons (1986) concluded that different variables influence well-being if they affect a
person’s ability to achieve his or her. In an interesting divergence theory cross-cultural study,
more individualistic cultures were shown to have high subjective well-being, attributing it to
high internal locus of control (Stocks, 2012). Klonowicz (2001), in trying to measure locus of
control as a determinant of subjective well-being made similar conclusions, concluding that high
internal locus of control relates to more positive affect. These studies suggest that internal and
external locus of control each have a unique relationship to psychological well-being. The results
of this study support Parkes (1985) recommendation, that the optimal definition of locus of
control involves two factors rather than one. This is especially important because recent studies
have continued to use the unidimensional definition. Stocks (2012) conducted a cross-cultural
study that correlate subjective well-being with locus of control, with higher well-being being
attributed to higher internal locus of control. Without disputing Stocks’ conclusion, it still
remains that the results cannot fully explain well-being with the exclusion of external locus of
control. Klonowicz (2001), when determining reactivity and locus of control as determinants of
subjective well-being, a similar conclusion is made that higher internal control relates to more
positive affect. If either study had viewed internal and external locus of control as separate
constructs, they would have found that it was not high internal locus of control, but low external
locus of control that affected psychological well-being results.

Concept of Locus of Control (Internal v/s External)

The concept was created by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, an individual’s “locus” (plural “loci”)
is conceptualized as internal (a conviction that one can handle one’s own life) or external (a
conviction that life is constrained by outside factors which the individual can’t impact or that
possibility or destiny controls their lives). There is a continuum, with most people lying in
between. High internal perceive themselves as having a great deal of personal control and
therefore are more inclined to take personal responsibility for their behaviour, which they see are
being a product of their own effect. High external perceives their behaviour as being caused
more by external forces or luck. Locus of control refers to an idea connected with anticipations
about the future. People with an internal locus of control accept occasions in their day-to-day
existence as controllable. To be more specific, this means that they can recognize instances
where destiny is controllable. Individual with an external locus of control would perceive the
same event differently. This individual would be more likely to blame other factors such as the
weather, their current condition, luck or fate.

Description of the Rotter’s locus of Control Test

Reliability and validity:

The split half reliability of the scale is between 0.65 and 0.79. Estimates for
reliability via the split half method correlated by Spearman Brown formula are equal to 0.73 and
test-retest samples six weeks apart are equal to 0.67. The test reported good discriminant validity.

Scoring:

The scores range from 0-1 for each item. The fillers (1, 8, 14, 19, 24, 27) are not to be
scored. The possible range of scores in the scale is 0-23. Responses 2(a), 3(b), 4(b), 5(b), 6(b),
7(a), 9(a), 10(b), 11(b), 12(b), 13(b), 15(b), 16(b), 17(a), 18(a), 20(a), 21(a), 22(b), 23(a), 25(a),
26(b), 28(b) and 29(a) are directed towards externality and carry a score of one each whereas the
Responses 2(b), 3(a), 4(a), 5(a), 6(a), 7(b), 7(b), 9(b), 10(a), 11(a), 12(a), 13(a), 15(a), 16(a),
17(b), 18(b), 20(b), 21(b), 22(a), 23(b), 25(b), 26(a), 28(a) and 29(b) are directed towards
internality and carry a score of zero each. Total score obtained by an individual on 23 significant
items in this scale represents his locus of control. Locus of Control is measured in two directions
– Internal and External. A score between 0-8 indicates a internal locus of control, a score
between 9-12 indicates an in-between locus of control and a score 13 and above indicates
external locus of control.
Procedure

Seat the participant comfortably and establish a good rapport with the Participant.
Rotter’s locus of control is a self- administering test and can be administered individually or in
groups. The scale is presented before the participant and give the following instructions: “This
test contains 29 items and each item have two options, A and B. You are expected to read choice
carefully In every items. You have to mark „tick‟ or „circle‟ either A or B. The test generally
take 20 to 30 minutes, but there is no definite time limit.” After completion of the test, score the
responses as per the scoring procedure given in manual.

Precautions-

1. Environment with less distraction should be provided to all participants so that they can
complete their test without any distraction.

2. It should be ensured that participant do not omit any item on the test.

Limitations of the Test-

1. The test does not take in account the role of cultural influence on the concept of internal v/s
external locus of control.

2. Some researchers suggest that scale though designed to be a unidimensional but scale might
have more than one factor.

3. The respondents/ participant are to some extent forced to choose only internal or external and
are not allowed to evaluate the statement independent of each other.

Misconceptions of Test-

1. Scores on the scale are determinants of behaviour. Rotter insisted that they should not been
seen as causes of behaviour but as indicators.
2 Locus of control is specific and can predict achievement in a specific situation is a
misconception hold but concept refers to generalized expectancies of reinforcements and
indicates to which people generally believe that they are in control of their lives.

3. Misconception is that scales divides people into internals and externals but Rotter insisted that
in certain situations a person might with generally high internal control may believe that outcome
of their behaviour was due to fate, chance.

4. People believe that high internal scores signify high social desirable traits and high external
scores signify socially undesirable traits but extreme scores in either direction can be
undesirable.

Extremely high external scores- Might be related to apathy and despair, with people believing
that they have no control over their environment.

Extremely high internal scores- Mean that people accept responsibility for everything that
happens to them and others.

Extremely high in-between scores- Indicating that one’s locus of control changes from internal
to external or wise versa in every situation they

Other Test Measuring Locus of Control

Many measures of locus of control have appeared since Rotter’s scale. These were
reviewed by Furnham and Steele (1993) and include those related to health psychology,
industrial and organizational psychology and those specifically for children (such as the Stanford
Preschool Internal-External Scale or three- to six-year-olds). Furnham and Steele (1993) cite data
suggesting that the most reliable, valid questionnaire for adults is the Duttweiler scale.
Duttweiler’s 28-item ICI uses a Likert-type scale in which people must state whether they would
rarely, occasionally, sometimes, frequently or usually behave as specified in each of 28
statements. The ICI assess variables pertinent to internal locus: cognitive processing, autonomy,
resistance to social influence, self-confidence and delay of gratification.
Description of Scales

The Locus of Control (LOC) scale, developed by Julian B. Rotter, is a psychological

evaluation tool used to evaluate a person's perceptions of their level of control over events and
results in their life. It is employed to divide people into two major groups: "external locus of
control" and "internal locus of control." The scales are described as follows:

Internal Locus of Control (I-SCALE)

High scorers on the internal locus of control scale are those who strongly feel that their
own decisions, actions, and efforts have a significant impact on how their lives turn out. They
frequently place the blame for their accomplishments and failures on their own skills, choices,
and labor. They frequently feel capable of handling their own affairs.

External Locus of Control (E-SCALE):

People who score highly on the external locus of control scale think that outside forces,
such luck, fate, chance, or other people's deeds, significantly affect their life's consequences.
They can feel unable to change their situation and that outcomes are dictated by factors outside
of their control. They may attribute successes and failures to luck or external factors rather than
their own actions.

People are asked to answer questions or phrases that represent their attitudes about control
on the Rotter's LOC scale, which is commonly used as a self-report questionnaire. The scale is
scored in order to assess where on the range between internal and external locus of control an
individual falls. It's crucial to remember that not all people fit neatly into one group or the other;
some people may have a mixed or moderate locus of control.

This scale has been extensively utilized in psychology to comprehend how locus of control
beliefs can affect a person's behavior, motivation, decision-making, and psychological well-
being, among other elements of their life. It has uses in organizational psychology, counseling,
teaching, and human behavior and personality research.
Administration:

Aim

The aim of Locus of Control (LOC) test is to assess an individual's belief system regarding
the control they perceive they have over events and outcomes in their life.

Materials

LOC manual, Test Booklet with answer sheet, Stationery, and Scoring key.

Scoring:

Name Age Gender Education Location Emotional State

Neha Kamble 21 Female BŚMM P.N. Doshi Confused
College
Test taker Profile

Table 1

Test takers scores

Raw score 10

Locus of Control Mixed Locus of Control

Interpretation:

According to Rotter's locus of control scale, if a person scores between the two extremes
of "internal locus of control" and "external locus of control," it may indicate that they have a
more moderate or mixed view of their ability to influence the course of their lives. It is common
to refer to this medium ground as having a "mixed" or "moderate" locus of control.
 The Participant has a moderate locus of control may feel they have some influence over
some parts of their lives, but they also recognize that outside forces are at play. Depending on the
circumstance, they are adaptable in assigning results to a combination of internal and external
variables. Depending on the particular situation, participant may change their behavior and
choices. While acknowledging that certain things are outside of their control, they may accept
personal responsibility for those they can influence. Compared to people with a strong internal or
external locus of control, those with a moderate locus of control may exhibit less intense
emotional responses to success or failure. They have a lower propensity to feel excessive pride or
guilt. Participant frequently recognize that not everything can be controlled or predicted only by
their activities. Because they are less prone to completely blame themselves for bad results or
feel helpless in the face of adversity, it is possible that participant has a healthier way of handling
stress. In the face of difficulties, people with a dual locus of control may show resilience. They
are more apt to adjust and come up with solutions that take both internal and external aspects
into account. When making decisions, people with dual loci of power may try to strike a balance
between their own initiative and outside counsel or information.

People with a moderate locus of control are frequently amenable to exploring other
viewpoints and solutions to issues. They may be more open to changing their views and
behaviors in response to new information and are less prone to have rigid thought processes.
Participant could have a tendency to feel more at ease in ambiguous and unclear situations. They
are able to deal with uncertain situations without becoming overly anxious. They might approach
working with others in a collaborative and cooperative manner. They are aware that both internal
and external influences can have an impact on group outcomes. People with a moderate locus of
control are more likely to use adaptive coping mechanisms when faced with difficulty or
setbacks. They are able to assess the situation objectively and select coping skills that are
suitable for the situation.

Extreme attribution biases are less common in these people. They are less inclined to blame
all of their accomplishments or all of their failures entirely on internal or external sources. When
possibilities present themselves, they might take small risks. They make decisions that are
neither extremely hasty nor overly impulsive. Life Satisfaction: Compared to those with severe
internal or external orientations, people with a moderate locus of control frequently report higher
levels of life satisfaction. Unexpected situations are less likely to have a negative impact on them
since they are more adaptive.

Conclusion

Locus of control is a personality variable that is widely elaborated in almost every

subfield of psychology. Despite its common usage, the construct suffers from some
methodological and theoretical problems. The scales that are used to measure the variable do not
seem to be unidimensional as the theory suggests, while the construct’s high correlation with
some other traits raise suspicions on its authenticity. Moreover, supporting experimental or
longitudinal data is almost absent and alternative theories hypothesize a causal direction that is
the opposite of the one the theory defends. As argued above, these problems seem crucial for the
studies. In spite of its shortcomings, locus of control is widely used test. It is claimed that such
relationships can be better understood in terms of other variables such as self-efficacy, which is
not only highly correlated with locus of control, Finally, belief in a just world and system
justification are also proposed as alternative mediators of the relationships in the literature. It can
be said that more experimental and longitudinal research is needed to compare the contrasting
explanations which are proposed by alternative frameworks.

People who have a mixed locus of control view their ability to shape their life
experiences in a balanced way. They acknowledge the influence of external factors while still
acknowledging their own agency. This well-rounded perspective encourages flexibility,
resilience, and teamwork. They typically display more balanced approaches to stress
management and less dramatic emotional responses to victory or failure. They are able to
flourish in situations that are unclear because they are receptive to new knowledge and flexible
in their viewpoints. They also have a higher tendency to use thoughtful decision-making and
adaptive coping mechanisms. All things considered, people with a moderate locus of control
typically have better levels of life satisfaction because they can handle life's obstacles in a
balanced and flexible manner.
 References

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans.

Bandura, A. (2010). Self-efficacy.

Duttweiler – Duttweiler’s 28-item ICI scale.

Mutlu, T., Balbag, Z., & Cemrek, F. (2010). The role of self-esteem, locus of control and big

five traits.

Rotter (1954).

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology.

Rotter & Mischel- Locus of Control, Depression, and Suicide.

Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy.