Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Extensions and Limitations

410 Pages·1984·4.567 MB·English

by  Herbert M. Lefcourt (Eds.)

RESEARCH WITH THE
LOCUS OF CONTROL
CONSTRUCT
Volume 3
Extensions and Limitations
EDITED BY
Herbert M. Lefcourt
Department of Psychology
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
1984
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
[Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers)
Orlando San Diego San Francisco New York London
Toronto Montreal Sydney Tokyo Sâo Paulo
COPYRIGHT © 1984, BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR
TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC
OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR ANY
INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT
PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER.
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
Orlando, Florida 32887
United Kingdom Edition published by
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD.
24/28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Research with the locus of control construct.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: v. 1. Assessment methods. 2. Develop-
ments and social problems -- v. 3- Extensions and
1 imi tat ions.
1. Control (Psychology) 2. Psychology, Applied.
I. Lefcourt, Herbert M. [DNLM: Internal-external
control. BF 632.5 R^32 1981]
BF6II.R/47 155.2 ' 32 8I-7876
ISBN 0-12-^3203-^
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
84 85 86 87 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
LIST OF
CONTRIBUTORS
Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors' contributions begin.
Kirk R. Blankstein (73), Department of Psychology, Erindale College, University
of Toronto, Mississauga, Ontario L5L 1C6, Canada
James A. Dyal (209), Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Water-
loo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada
Herbert M. Lefcourt (1, 391), Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada
Gordon E. O'Brien (7), School of Social Sciences, The Flinders University of
South Australia, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042
David W. Reid (361), Department of Psychology, York University, Downsview,
Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada
Catherine F. Sproule (309), Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peter-
borough, Ontario K9J 7B8, Canada
Paul T. P. Wong (309), Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterbor-
ough, Ontario K9J 7B8, Canada
ix
PREFACE
Part I of this volume contains three lengthy chapters that describe
in detail the large number of investigations that have been conducted
in each of three psychological domains: industrial psychology, psycho-
physiology, and cross-cultural psychology. In each of these chapters the
authors have reviewed the overabundant literature, attempting to sort
out real contributions from the usual repetitive, methodologically
weak, and inconclusive studies. In each domain, there are tempting
findings that beg for replication and extension. At the same time, much
of the literature reviewed can leave psychologists with the sense that
psychology is still an infant science. The difficulties encountered in
research are of such magnitude that one wonders if clear results are
ever attainable.
The last two chapters examine the question of the circumstances
under which locus of control is a useful construct. Thus the term limita-
tions is added to that of extensions in this volume's subtitle. As the con-
struct is applied to research, such as that pertaining to health and the
recovery from illness, we begin to learn in what cases the construct is
inappropriate in its simple unidimensional form or under what cir-
cumstances the presumably "better" internality bodes ill for the in-
dividual.
This volume, therefore, presents both (1) the extensions of use of
the locus of control construct into areas far removed from the purview
of the construct's originators and (2) the limitations of that usage that
data have revealed.
These chapters, we hope, will not discourage would-be in-
vestigators, but will alert them to the errors that can stem from overex-
tension of conceptual tools and from poor definition of intentions and
xi
XU : PREFACE
hypotheses. Clear conceptual and methodological approaches to the
study of any problem are rare and must be cherished when they are
found. But the muddling through that comprises the core of much
research must be accepted as the more common endeavor. If clarifica-
tion and highlighting of difficulties can help others muddle through,
then we will feel that these chapters have served their purpose well.
1
Herbert M. Lefcourt
INTRODUCTION
In this third and final volume of the Research with the Locus of
Control Construct series we turn our attention to a set of applications
in which the locus of control variable has been used to examine par-
ticular spheres of interest. In each case there has been some conceptual
justification for making use of the locus of control variable in that area.
The chapter by Gordon O'Brien examines the literature linking lo-
cus of control to various aspects of work and retirement. Because work
settings provide so much opportunity for assessment—from absentee-
ism to ratings of efficiency, competence, and role attainments—they
seem most appropriate areas in which social learning variables could
be used. That is, when feedback is clear, as is the case with wages or
promotions, expectancy and value variables should be powerful pre-
dictors of responses to success or failure at attaining those goals. In-
deed, a number of years ago executives' illnesses were predicted
successfully from knowledge of whether or not they had been bypassed
for promotions (French & Kahn, 1962). Dashed hopes and disbelief in
one's efficacy proved demoralizing and debilitating for these middle-
level executives. O'Brien does not report conclusive evidence linking
locus of control with work-relevant variables, though he does discuss
some studies that offer compelling data in support of that linkage. It
becomes clear in this literature that there is much unevenness among
the studies, as one might expect with field studies in general. However,
since those early findings linking an internal locus of control with union
membership (Seeman, 1966) and with recovery from business failures
RESEARCH WITH THE LOCUS Copyright © 1984 by Academic Press, Inc.
OF CONTROL CONSTRUCT (Vol. 3.) All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Extensions and Limitations ISBN: 0-12-443203-4
1
2 HERBERT M. LEFCOURT
following a natural catastrophe (Anderson, 1977), it has been difficult
not to believe that locus of control can be a valuable variable for pre-
dicting behavior in work settings.
The chapter by Kirk Blankstein was long overdue. Investigators
concerned with biofeedback and the management of bodily processes
have been making use of locus of control variables for over a decade
and have been speaking about self-control in terms that are similar to
those used in describing locus of control. Though several researchers
have found relationships between locus of control and the learning of
control over certain physiological processes (acceleration of heart rate,
for example), there have been few attempts to conceptualize the mean-
ings and ramifications of those relationships. Perhaps this is due to the
fact that for most investigators of these processes, locus of control was
rarely of more than peripheral interest, albeit an interesting low-level
correlate of physiological processes. Though primarily interested in
such processes, Blankstein has had a more persistent interest in the
locus of control literature than most of his fellow psychologists con-
cerned with biofeedback and physiological control, which acounts for
the lengthy and cogent review of the literature included in this volume.
In a sense, his chapter can stand alone as a review of the way psy-
chologists have tried to link molar variables, as are found in personality
literature, with more molecular variables, such as those pertinent to
physiological processes, with all of the foibles, oversights, and plain
errors that commonly plague such attempts.
If Blankstein's extensive review reveals many of the flaws and fail-
ings in linking molar with molecular processes, Jim Dyal's chapter can
be seen as its equivalent in drawing our attention to the weaknesses in
much of the cross-cultural research that so often seems to be influenced
more by convenience and ease than it is by theoretical constructions.
Because so many of the studies cited by Dyal offer little more than
atheoretical comparisons, one can be led to wonder if cross-cultural
psychology has anything to offer investigators concerned with the
functioning of personality. It is not until Dyal describes attempts to
examine the function of variables like locus of control in different cul-
tures that the reader's hopes become more sanguine regarding cross-
cultural research. Though a great number of studies have been re-
ported, as Dyal notes, most have led to no substantial conclusions, partly
because they are devoid of information about the cultures being com-
pared and bereft of theorizing that would help to account for the trans-
lation of a given culture's mores into the personal perceptions assessed
by personality scales. Captivating models of cross-cultural research,
represented in John Berry's work (Berry & Annis, 1974) with field de-
1. INTRODUCTION : 3
pendence, have not been adapted by researchers concerned with locus
of control and cultural differences.
The second part of this volume comprises two chapters, which,
like the final chapters by deCharms and McKinney in the first volume,
help to clarify the locus of control construct by positing limits and con-
ditions in which it functions. Both the chapter by Paul Wong and Cath-
erine Sproule and the one by Dave Reid raise arguments against
considering internality as a stable optimal state and externality as al-
ways being a deficiency or negative state. As Gurin, Gurin, Lao, and
Beattie (1969) contended over a decade ago, the maintenance of an in-
ternal locus of control could be highly detrimental for persons deprived
of opportunities for success. Given continuous failure, persons who re-
gard all outcomes as due to their own efforts would eventually have to
regard themselves as inept rather than as victims of injustice. Such de-
pressive conclusions, in turn, should lead to less initiative than would
a tendency to blame an oppressor or other external causes. This kind
of concern has led some investigators to speak of real control as op-
posed to perceived control, and it has led others to assess more specific
attributions for success versus failure, for stable versus unstable char-
acteristics, and so on.
Wong and Sproule provide an example of the latter approach. The
Trent Attribution Profile, originally published in 1978 (Wong, Waiters,
& Sproule, 1978), like the Multidimensional-Multiattributional Caus-
ality Scale (MMCS—see Lefcourt, von Baeyer, Ware, & Cox, 1979) de-
scribed in the first volume, creates subsets of attributions such that one
can speak in more specific terms than internal-external. These at-
tempts at specificity are welcome, but it should be noted that the use
of more specific attributions has yet to produce the kinds of findings
that have been obtainable by those who have relied on the more general
dimension of internal-external control.
In Reid's chapter we come again to the issue of when internal con-
trol is optimal and when it is not. Certain quandaries of life just have
to be accepted (the argument would go), and the sense of efficacy is at
best irrelevant under such circumstances. Though Reid's examples
cause one to pause and reconsider assumptions regarding the benefits
of an internal control orientation, the effects of such writings should
be to encourage more investigators to consider interactive models such
as were described in the chapters by Sandler, Reese, Spencer, and Har-
pin (1983) and Lefcourt (1983) in Volume II. In the literature reviewed
in those chapters it became clear that persons characterized as inter-
nals performed or acted well in certain conditions and poorly in others,
and that externals often revealed diametrically opposite predilections.
4 : HERBERT M. LEFCOURT
Thus the assumption that internality is always a positive asset and ex-
ternality always a deficit is obviously an overstatement and incorrect.
The more differentiated conceptions of locus of control advocated by
so many of the writers in these volumes seem essential if sense is to be
made of the many discrepancies from predictions in which internals
have been expected to fare more adequately but in fact have suffered
more than have their external counterparts.
References
Anderson, C. R. Locus of control, coping behaviors and performance in a stress setting:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 446-451.
Berry, J. W., & Annis, R. C. Ecology, culture and psychological differentiation, interna-
tional Journal of PsychoJogy, 1974, 9, 173-193.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Kahn, R. L. A programmatic approach to studying the industrial
environment and mental health. Journal of Social issues, 1962, 18, 1-48.
Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R. C., & Beattie, M. Internal-external control in the motivational
dynamics of Negro youth. Journal of Social issues, 1969, 25, 29-53.
Lefcourt, H. M. Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982.
Lefcourt, H. M. The locus of control as a moderator: Stress. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.)
Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press,
1983.
Lefcourt, H. M., von Baeyer, C. L., Ware, E. E., & Cox, D. }. The Multidimensional-Mul-
tiattributional Causality Scale: The development of a goal-specific locus of control
scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1979, 11, 286-304.
Sandler, I., Reese, F., Spencer, L., Harpin, P. Person χ environment interaction and
locus of control: Laboratory, therapy and classroom studies. In Η. M. Lefcourt (Ed.)
Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press,
1983.
Seeman, M. Alienation, membership and political knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly,
1966, 30, 353-367.
Wong, P. T. P., Watters, D. Α., & Sproule, C. F. Initial validity and reliability of the Trent
Attribution Profile as a measure of attribution schema and locus of control. Edu-
cational and PsychoJogicaJ Measurement, 1978, 38, 1129-1134.
2
Gordon E. O'Brien
LOCUS OF CONTROL, WORK,
AND RETIREMENT
Introduction
A large part of a person's life is spent working. Hence it is reason-
able to expect that work tasks, together with the organizational struc-
ture in which they are performed, should have a considerable effect on
a person's expectations and personality. Conversely, individual expec-
tancies and personality may determine behaviors that lead to changes
in organizational processes and structures. However, relatively little
research is available that is relevant to understanding the interplay be-
tween work and personality. Most research studies in organizational
psychology have been concerned with work motivation and organiza-
tional effectiveness. This chapter aims to integrate and assess what is
known about the relationship between work activities and one person-
ality variable—locus of control. Locus of control is a concept that refers
to a generalized expectancy about the extent to which reinforcements
are under internal or external control. Persons characterized as inter-
nal believe that reinforcements are determined largely by personal ef-
fort, ability, and initiative, whereas persons classified as external believe
that reinforcements are determined largely by other people, social
structures, luck, or fate. The extent to which a person believes that he
or she is internally or externally controlled has commonly been mea-
sured using Rotter's Internal-External Control Scale (Rotter's I-E Scale;
Rotter, 1966).
This scale has been used by most researchers who have studied the
RESEARCH WITH THE LOCUS Copyright © 1984 by Academic Press, Inc.
OF CONTROL CONSTRUCT (Vol. 3.) All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Extensions and Limitations ISBN: 0-12-443203-4