THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE OF LOCUS OF CONTROL

Though the construct of locus of control has been the subject of psychological research since the late 1950s (Phares, 1957; James & Rotter, 1958; Rotter, Seeman, & Liverant, 1962; Lefcourt, 1966), interest in the study started with Rotter’s (1966) monograph, which presented the locus of control concept from a social-learning theory point of view, with an easy-scoring scale for its measurement. The idea spread rapidly, resulting in a burst of psychological and educational interest.

The performance of the students in the classroom has been of great concern to educators and psychologists for many years. Many studies examining the relationship between IQ, sex, race, and socio-economic level variables and classroom achievement have been undertaken. More recently, with increased emphasis being placed on individualised instruction, the consideration of personality factors has gained in importance. Locus of control as a personality factor has been correlated with hundreds of different variables in the last 30 years. It has also received great attention as it relates to academic achievement.

- 3 -

Locus of control is concerned with “the question of whether or not an individual believes that his own behaviour, skills or internal disposition determine what reinforcements he receives” (Rotter et al., 1972), and refers to a person’s beliefs about control over life events. Those with an internal locus of control believe that the consequences of their behaviour are under their personal control and that they are effective in controlling their destiny and determining the occurrence of reinforcement, and feel personally responsible for the things that happen to them; those with an external locus of control believe that the outcomes of their performances in life are determined by forces beyond their control (e.g., fate, chance, luck, powerful others and supernatural forces) and that they determine the occurrence of specified events. It might be described as a self appraisal of the degree to which an individual views him/herself as having a causal role in determining specific events. As Rotter (1966) pointed out, the effect of reinforcement “depends on whether or not the person perceives a causal relationship between his own behaviour and the reward” (p. 1). Nowicki & Strickland (1973) noted that this perception may differ in degree from person to person and even within the same person over time and situations. In a social learning theory, Rotter (1966) pointed out that:

“When a reinforcement is perceived by the subject as following some action of his own but not being entirely contingent upon his action, then, in our culture, it is typically perceived as the result of luck, chance, fate, as under the control of powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great complexity of the forces surrounding him. When the event is interpreted in this way by an individual, we have labelled this a belief in external control.

If the person perceives that the event is contingent upon his own behaviour or his own relatively permanent characteristics, we have termed this a belief in internal control” (p. 1).

To assess a person’s locus of control as either internally oriented or externally oriented, Rotter developed a test instrument consisting of 29 pairs of statements, one statement

- 4 -

representing an internal control view of life and the other statement representing an external control view of life. Two examples of these statements are below:

a) No matter how hard you try some people just don’t like you.

(versus)

b) People who can’t get others to like them don’t understand how to get along with others.

a) Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first.

(versus)

b) Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it.

Beliefs in internal or external locus of control were understood to be generalised expectancies that people hold regarding the potential efficacy of their behaviour (Rotter’s early theory). In general, it has been observed that individuals differ in their perception of locus of control. People are called externals when they are said to have a generalised expectancy that reinforcements are not under their control across varying situations. As Lefcourt (1966) says, in layman’s language, these people may be described as lacking self-confidence, or in Adler’s terminology, suffering from inferiority feelings. Rotter (1966, 1972) and others (Davis and Davis, 1972; Phares, 1976) later went beyond this perception of generalised expectancies and suggested that the statement of external belief serves as a defensive function for some individuals.

Some others also argued that external locus of control represents a defence of self-esteem, rather than a general expectancy (Davis & Davis, 1972; Hochreich, 1975;

Gregory, 1978; Evans, 1980). Quoting Phares (1979):

“Failing and at the same time admitting to a belief in internal control, frequently imply personal inadequacy. But failure coupled with an avowal of external belief would enable the individual to evade personal responsibility, thereby mitigating some of the unpleasant effects of the failure”.

- 5 -

Research evidences has shown that externally oriented individuals require validation by significant others regarding their behaviour, so they know whether their behaviour is appropriate or inappropriate for the current situation (Phares, 1976). Research evidence also suggests that internals are more socially competent than externals (Bledsoe &

Baber, 1978; Lefcourt, 1976). Findings also indicate a positive relationship between externality and anxiety (Bar-Tal & Bar-Zohar, 1980). In addition, externals have been found to be less trusting (Phares, 1976) and more insecure in interpersonal relationships than internals (Bledsoe & Baber, 1978). Externals also have been found to spend less time conversing with strangers than internals do (Dudley, 1977). Children with a high perception of internal locus of control tend to view their success or failure in terms of their own will, initiative or drive. On the other hand, students whose perceptions are externally oriented tend to view their success or failure as being the result of fate, luck, or circumstance.

Internally controlled individuals may be further characterised as more active in achievement-oriented endeavour and in problem-solving activities, not easily influenced by others, having high self-concepts and self-esteem, more alert to what is happening in their environment, and psychologically better adjusted (Spring & Khanna, 1982;

Friedberg, 1982). Those who are externally controlled tend to have the opposite characteristics and are further characterised as being less assertive, experiencing depression and anxiety more often, and tending to be less rational in their thinking (Traub, 1982a).

Loeb (1975) suggests that locus of control (whether internal or external in one’s personal beliefs about one’s control) is learned in childhood. Loeb reached this conclusion after observing interactions between parents and their preadolescent sons as they worked on a project together. The parents of internals tended to make more

- 6 -

suggestions and to issue fewer orders whereas the parents of externals tended to issue many orders and make few suggestions.

Scheck & Rhodes (1980) found a strong relationship between internal-external locus of control and rated competence of teachers. They concluded that instructors scoring high on internal control are much more likely to be rated high on competency than are those scoring low on internal control. Porter & Cohen (1977) determined that teachers’ locus of control was directly and consistently related to students’ achievement. Murray and Staebler (1974) reported similar findings.

After having completed a large-scale study of United States school children, Coleman (Coleman et al, 1966) emphasised the crucial role of locus of control beliefs in understanding the academic achievement of students. The authors concluded that “a pupil attitude factor, which appears to have a stronger relationship to achievement than do all the school factors together, is the extent to which an individual feels that he has some control over his own destiny” (p. 23).

Since Coleman’s report (1966) was published, a considerable number of studies have focused on investigating the relationship between the locus of control construct and academic achievement. In the following section, the relationship of these two variables will be examined in the light of the findings of some previous and recent studies. The examination of the relationship between locus of control and academic achievement will be carried out in general, as well as with the perspective of gender.

- 7 -

3.3 THE RELATIONSHIP of LOCUS OF CONTROL WITH