Locus of Control

By Gillian Fournier
~ Less than a minute read

The extent to which people believe they have power over events in their
lives. A person with an internal locus of control believes that he or she can
influence events and their outcomes, while someone with an external locus
of control blames outside forces for everything.
This concept was brought to light in the 1950’s by Julian Rotter. The
underlying question regarding the locus of control is this…do I control my life
or does something else (like a God) control it? This simple idea has profound
significance as it influences peoples’ beliefs very strongly. Do you believe in
God? Are you an agnostic? Why? Do I just have good luck? If I make all the
right decisions does that mean I can make my life be exactly how I envision
it? These are all questions that might arise from that simple premise.

I think this page has some excellent insights about the locus of control and
how it relates to psychological well
being: http://wilderdom.com/psychology/loc/LocusOfControlWhatIs.html

Psychology
Class tutorial
What is Locus of James Neill
Last updated:
Related constructs Control? 06 Dec 2006

 What is Locus of Control?

 Is an internal locus of control
desirable?
 Links
 References
What is Locus of Control?
Within psychology, Locus of Control is considered to be an important
aspect of personality. The concept was developed originally Julian Rotter
in the 1950s (Rotter, 1966).
Locus of Control refers to an individual's perception about the underlying
main causes of events in his/her life. Or, more simply:
Do you believe that your destiny is controlled by yourself or by external
forces (such as fate, god, or powerful others)?

The full name Rotter gave the construct was Locus of Control of
Reinforcement. In giving it this name, Rotter was bridging behavioural
and cognitive psychology. Rotter's view was that behaviour was largely
guided by "reinforcements" (rewards and punishments) and that through
contingencies such as rewards and punishments, individuals come to
hold beliefs about what causes their actions. These beliefs, in turn,
guide what kinds of attitudes and behaviours people adopt. This
understanding of Locus of Control is consistent, for example, with Philip
Zimbardo (a famous psychologist):
A locus of control orientation 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)." (Zimbardo, 1985, p.
275)

Thus, locus of control is conceptualised as referring to a unidimensional

continuum, ranging from external to internal:

External Locus of Internal Locus of

Control Control
Individual believes that Individual believes that
his/her behaviour is guided his/her behaviour is guided
by fate, luck, or other by his/her personal
external circumstances decisions and efforts.

Is an internal locus of control desirable?

In general, it seems to be psychologically healthy to perceive that one
has control over those things which one is capable of influencing.
In simplistic terms, a more internal locus of control is generally seen as
desirable. Having an Internal locus of control can also be referred to as
"self-agency", "personal control", "self-determination", etc. Research
has found the following trends:
  Males tend to be more internal than females
 As people get older they tend to become more internal
 People higher up in organisational structures tend to be more internal
(Mamlin, Harris, & Case, 2001)

However, its important to warn people against lapsing in the overly

simplistic view notion that internal is good and external is bad (two legs
good, four legs bad?). There are important subtleties and complexities
to be considered. For example:
 Internals can be psychologically unhealthy and unstable. An internal
orientation usually needs to be matched by competence, self-efficacy and
opportunity so that the person is able to successfully experience the sense
of personal control and responsibility. Overly internal people who lack
competence, efficacy and opportunity can become neurotic, anxious and
depressed. In other words, internals need to have a realistic sense of their
circle of influence in order to experience 'success'.
 Externals can lead easy-going, relaxed, happy lives.

Despite these cautions, psychological research has found that people

with a more internal locus of control seem to be better off, e.g., they
tend to be more achievement oriented and to get better paid jobs.
However, thought regarding causality is needed here too. Do
environmental circumstances (such as privilege and disadvantage) cause
LOC beliefs or do the beliefs cause the situation?
Sometimes Locus of Control is seen as a stable, underlying personality construct,
but this may be misleading, since the theory and research indicates that that
locus of control is largely learned. There is evidence that, at least to some
extent, LOC is a response to circumstances. Some psychological and educational
interventions have been found to produce shifts towards internal locus of control
(e.g., outdoor education programs; Hans, 2000; Hattie, Marsh, Neill & Richards,
1997).

Links
 Locus of Control (Rotter, 1954) - James Neill
 Locus of Control - Gale Encyclopedia of Childhood & Adolescence
 Locus of Control - WikEd
 Taking Control of Our Lives: The Far Reaching Effects of Locus of Control -
web-based tutorial
 Psychology Lab on Motivation and Locus of Control - web-based tutorial
 More Locus of Control links

References
Hans, T. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effects of adventure
programming on locus of control. Journal of Contemporary
Psychotherapy, 30(1),33-60.
Hattie, J. A., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T. & Richards, G. E.
(1997). Adventure Education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class
experiences that have a lasting effect. Review of Educational Research,
67, 43-87.
Mamlin, N., Harris, K. R., Case, L. P. (2001). A Methodological Analysis
of Research on Locus of Control and Learning Disabilities: Rethinking a
Common Assumption. Journal of Special Education, Winter.
Marsh, H. W. & Richards, G. E. (1986). The Rotter Locus of Control
Scale: The comparison of alternative response formats and implications
for reliability, validity and dimensionality. Journal of Research in
Personality, 20, 509-558.
Marsh, H. W. & Richards, G. E. (1987). The multidimensionality of the
Rotter I-E Scale and its higher order structure: An application of
confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 39-
69.
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80, Whole No. 609.
Wikipedia. Locus of control.

Taking Control of Our

Lives:
The Far-Reaching Effects of Locus of
Control
By Mandy Grantz, Amy Mackey, Yvette Otterman, &
Michael Wise

Welcome to our locus of control web tutorial! In your journey through

this website we hope you gain a better understanding of locus of control and
how it applies to the world around you. Within our subtopic pages, you will
notice selected topics are linked to external sites. You can visit any or all of
these sites that interest you. They are not necessary to understand the content
of the pages, rather their purpose is to enhance your understanding of the
ideas explored. We suggest that you visit the overview section first to acquire
a general conception of what locus of control is and its far-reaching effects.
Then, simply follow your curiosity!

In the subtopic of education, you will learn how a student's locus of

control relates to his or her academic success, as measured by study time and
grades. Depending upon students' locus of control orientations, it has been
found that they respond to positive and negative feedback differently. A
promising method of increasing a student's internal locus of control,
attribution training, is also discussed. This section further investigates how
locus of control surfaces in learning disabled and adult students.

When you explore the subtopic of health, you will realize that numerous
health behaviors are influenced by one's locus of control. Health locus of
control beliefs have been demonstrated to originate from prior experiences
and reinforced behaviors. Upbringing, socioeconomic status, age, and
attributions made from encounters with the health problems of others are
variables that can be investigated in this section.

The final subtopic deals with how culture relates to, or possibly
influences, locus of control. A great deal of research exists which supports the
claim that the culture of an individual may impact his or her degree of
internality or externality. A range of this kind of research will be examined, as
well as some opposing findings, which reveal that culture does not have an
impact upon one's perceived control. Alternative influences that are believed
to have a greater impact will be introduced.

Is your locus of control internal or external? Your perception of where control

lies can have an impact on your viewpoint and the way you interact with your
environment. This lesson explores the differences between internal and
external lotus of control and how each impacts organizational behavior.

Locus of Control
Control: an easy word to understand yet a challenging word to actually deal
with. We have people that think they control everything, others that think they
are controlled by the world around them and pretty much everything in
between. Control can be defined as the power to determine outcomes by
directly influencing actions, people and events. When we look at it that way,
we can begin to see that there is no way to control everything in our lives. I'm
not saying we cannot control anything, but put in the context of that
definition, we have to step back and really analyze what we can and cannot
control.

The word 'control' becomes even more interesting when we have the
word locus, before it. You see, locus is defined as a position, point or place, or
more specifically, a location where something occurs. A person's locus of
control may be internal or external.

Internal vs. External Locus of Control

People who base their success on their own work and believe they control
their life have an internal locus of control. In contrast, people who attribute
their success or failure to outside influences have an external locus of
control.

For example, let's say you're a person with an internal locus of control and you
get a promotion at work or achieve some other type of success. You will
probably attribute that positive end result to the work you put in. In other
words, your success was a direct result of your hard work.

If, on the other hand, you have an external locus of control, you might
attribute that promotion or success to external or environmental factors, such
as luck, fate, timing, other people or some type of divine intervention.

Let's use the same example and say that you were denied a promotion. If your
locus of control is internal, you would find a way to blame yourself for the
perceived failure. If your locus of control is external, it would be easy, even
natural, to blame outside sources beyond your control.

The Benefits and Drawbacks

Individuals who identify with an internal locus of control tend to take more
responsibility for their actions, whether those actions or the end results are
good or bad. They do not accept outside influence for the outcomes, no
matter what that is. If, for example, this person did not get back to work in
time from lunch, they would think they should have eaten in the office or not
gone to lunch altogether. The results of the action are theirs and theirs alone
to bear.

On the other hand, a person who identifies with an external locus of control
looks at everything around them as part of the success or failure. In many
ways, they believe in the team aspect more than those that focus on the
internal locus of control, as they will always praise those around them for a
job well done, even if they had nothing to do with it at all. They are team
players.

There are drawbacks to both of these viewpoints, though. An internally-

focused person will be hard on themselves and constantly analyze what they
did wrong. That perspective almost forces these individuals to be hard
charging, driven individuals that at times can assume a take-no-prisoners
attitude. Conversely, those that have an external focus may come off as
someone who just does not accept responsibility. While they are and can be
team players, if the result is not a positive one, they will be the first to
complain that something outside their personal control attributed to the
shortfall.
he extent to which people believe they have power over events in their lives. A person with
an internal locus of control believes that he or she can influence events and their
outcomes, while someone with an external locus of controlblames outside forces for
everything.
Internal locus of control
internal locus of control is a personal trait that every successful person has.
People who have internal locus of control feel responsible for the outcomes they get in
their lives.

A person who has internal locus of control will never say something like "I failed because
the exam was hard" but instead he takes responsibility by asking himself questions such
as "what was the wrong thing i did" and "how can i prevent that from happening the next
time"

The person who has internal locus of control never says something like "i didn't find work
because of the high unemployment rate at the country i live in" but instead tries to find out
how can he improve his chances of getting a better job.

In short the person with internal locus of control does not claim that the word is a rosy
place as he knows that things might be unfair sometimes but instead he focuses on
solutions that he can come up with rather than blaming other factors for his failures.

External locus of control

The person who has external locus of control is the opposite of the one who has
internal locus of control.

That person believes that the whole world is plotting against him, that luck exists and that
life is unfair.

The main reason that person believes in luck is to explain how are there people around
him succeeding while he can't. A brilliant plan that he comes up with to protect his ego and
self worth.

The person who has external locus of control always blames other factors for his failures
such as god's will, bad economy or lack of luck. If you feel that you have external locus of
control then you must do your best to get over that self defeating thinking patternbefore
it ruins your life.

Internal Vs external locus of control

There is no doubt that people who have internal locus of control keep moving from a
success to anther while those who have external locus keep trying to find explanations for
their failures.

I am not asking you to believe that life is simple or that things can't be tough sometimes
but all i am asking you is to shift your focus from the things that might have caused your
failure to the things that might lead you to future success.

2knowmyself is not a simple article website nor it’s a place where you will find shallow
fixes, but it’s a place where you will find effective techniques that are backed by
psychology and that are presented in obvious and understandable format. If you think that
this is some kind of marketing hype then see what other visitors say about
2knowmyself.The book How to make someone fall in love with you was released by
2knowmyself.com; the book will dramatically increase your chance of letting someone fall
in love with you.

want to know more?

How to think positively

ok,but what if the external conditions were really unfavorable

How to get rid of limiting beliefs?

hmmm, but don't that contradict with religious beliefs ?

How to get over anyone in few days (book)

How to make anyone fall in love with me fast (book)

How to end Depression instantly (book)

How to control people's minds (Course)

How to develop rock solid self confidence fast (course)

Rotter's (1954) Locus of Control is a personality theoretical paradigm which people

use to explain their circumstances. Locus (location) of control basically means that
cause for something comes from, either, within a person's own control, or from the
control of environmental factors. People with a tendency to refer to their internal
locus of control tap on their own abilities, self-efficacy and self-esteem as causative
agents of change.

In contrast, people who blame the government, their...

Motivation
"Ability is what you're capable of doing.

Motivation determines what you do.

Attitude determines how well you do it." by Lou Holtz

Objectives
* Define motivation
* Identify and list characteristics of motivation
* List methods for improving motivation

As you read the textbook chapter on Locus of Control and Motivation, take note of what
motivates you and how you can improve your motivation to learn. Motivation is what drives
or inspires you to achieve your goals or behave in a certain manner. It is the 'why' you do
something.

There are two kinds of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic. With intrinsic motivation you are
motivated to do something because you derive a sense of pleasure or satisfaction from
completing the task. Your participation in the activity may bring you pleasure (e.g.
gardening), you may dream it is important (e.g. earn an A.A. degree), or simply because you
feel it is will benefit others (e.g. volunteer). You may also be motivated by extrinsic sources.
These are sources outside of your such as feeling compelled by others to achieve something
(e.g. parents/spouse desires for you to earn all A's) , act in a certain manner to please a
family member, or because you have been told to.

Ways which may help you improve your intrinsic motivation

(a) Make your goals challenging and personal,

(b) Engage your curiosity and sense of wonder,

(c) Choose for yourself to engage in an activity, and

(d) Believe that your work will have an effect in your life

Show/hide comprehension question...

Locus of Control
Objectives
* Define locus of control
* Identify and list external and internal locus of control characteristics
* Write a summary comparison of internal and external locus of control

Locus control is different than motivation (why you do something). Locus of control is
related to to where you conceptually place the responsibility, choice,and control for what
you achieve and what occurs in your life. Reflect on what you just read about motivation. Do
you understand the difference between motivation (why) to do something and your locus of
control (responsibility/control/choice)? If not, return to the previous page and review again
what is meant by motivation.

The decision to place the responsibility for your success and failures is not usually
something that you are consciously aware of. Yet, it is very important for you to reflect on
and identify your general locus of control for it can:

 strongly influences your motivation

 sense of self direction
 feeling of control over what you do and accomplish

There are two types of locus of control, internal or external. An external locus of
control supports a belief that one is helpless, without blame, and not in control of one's
successes and failures. An individual with external locus of control blames their failure is to
outside sources such as: "I did not do well in class because the instructor was terrible" or
"The project that I had to complete did not meet expectations because I didn't have
information on how to "_____".

While a student with an internal locus of control will attribute their success and failures to
their own efforts. In the first example, a student with an internal locus of control would feel
that they were in control of what grade they earned. "I didn't do well in class but it was
because I did not give the class the time and effort needed. When I realized I didn't feel the
professor presented the information well in his/her lectures, I should have: (a) done some
extra reading, (b) made notes for each of the chapters, and (c) met with the instructor to
discuss questions I had about the lectures."

Key attributes of internal locus of control include:

 You are in control of your success and failures
 Positive attitude
 Accepting responsible for your actions, achievements, and failures
 Understanding that your success and failures comes from your own effort

In the second example, an employee with an internal locus of control would feel that their
failure to perform was due to their lack of initiative (effort) to obtain the information they
needed. For example: "When I realized that more information/training/knowledge was
required, I should have gone to my boss for guidance, or gotten the information through
research or from fellow team members."

NOTE: Understanding internal and external locus of control is frequently very challenging.
The next few pages will provide you with activities to assist you in understanding these
concepts. Please complete them all for you will be expected to be able to: (1) define the two
terms and, (2) using a scenario, you will be expected to explain how an individual is
exhibiting internal/external locus of control.

Show/hide comprehension question...

Show/hide comprehension question...

Personal Responsibility And Locus Of Control

A. TOM HORVATH, PH.D., ABPP, KAUSHIK MISRA, PH.D., AMY K. EPNER, PH.D., AND GALEN MORGAN
COOPER, PH.D.AUG 26, 2013 UPDATED MAR 14, 2016
In the previous section, we reviewed four different models of personal responsibility
for causing and solving problems.
This issue of personal responsibility for problems and their solutions brings to the
surface deeper, underlying issues. In particular, it reveals whether we see ourselves
as the actor, or the director, of our own lives.

Throughout this series on addiction, we've suggested that each person is free to
choose between and among the various theoretical models of addiction. Ideally,
people in recovery will pick some combination of models that best fits their needs
and circumstances. In this way, they can successfully solve their addiction problem.
However, these choices are largely governed by a stable personality characteristic
called "locus of control." Simply stated, this personality characteristic describes
people's sense of control over their own lives. People's understanding of their ability
to control their own lives will greatly influence which types of recovery models are
most suitable for them.
When people have an internal locus of control, they expect they will determine their
own futures because of their own actions. If we were to imagine life as a sort of
theatrical play, these people would consider themselves the directors of their own
lives. Conversely, when people have an external locus of control they do not expect
to have control over their futures. Things just happen to them. From this perspective,
they have no control or influence over their lives. Continuing with our analogy of life
as a theatrical play, these folks would consider themselves mere actors in their own
lives.
Locus of control describes people's sense of control over their lives. It also describes
the way people understand the problems they experience. In a related manner, it
somewhat predicts how they will attempt to solve these problems. For example, if I
possess an internal locus of control, I believe problems are my own doing (since I
am the director of my life). I also believe that I must solve my own problems (since I
created them).

Locus of control is a relatively stable and enduring aspect of personality (as are most
personality characteristics). It is so stable that we "take it for granted." We are
unaware of the way our particular locus of control colors our understanding of a
problem. Nonetheless, it greatly affects our approach to solving problems. Locus of
control can change, but it changes slowly, over many years.

Since locus of control is rather stable and influences our approach to problems, it
becomes highly relevant to recovery from addiction. An approach to recovery that
conflicts with your own locus of control is almost certain to fail. Therefore, find (or
create) an approach to recovery that best matches your own position on the locus of
control continuum (ranging from external to internal). If you would like, you
could take a test to measure your locus of control.
You can more simply determine this by evaluating your own attitudes toward
recovery. Do you see yourself as the person who must find a solution to your
addiction problem? Or, do you see the solution primarily coming from others? If you
have a strong internal locus of control, you will feel more comfortable with
a compensatory model, or a moral model. Conversely, if you have a strong external
locus of control, you will naturally resonate with an enlightenment model or medical
model.
These sharp distinctions between an internal and external locus of control helps us
to define this personality characteristic. However, nobody exhibits a purely internal or
external locus of control. Most of us lean in one direction or the other. The point is to
become aware of which direction you lean. This way you can more easily align your
recovery efforts to your own personality and preferences.
Personal Responsibility And Locus Of Control

A. TOM HORVATH, PH.D., ABPP, KAUSHIK MISRA, PH.D., AMY K. EPNER, PH.D., AND GALEN MORGAN
COOPER, PH.D.AUG 26, 2013 UPDATED MAR 14, 2016
In the previous section, we reviewed four different models of personal responsibility
for causing and solving problems.
This issue of personal responsibility for problems and their solutions brings to the
surface deeper, underlying issues. In particular, it reveals whether we see ourselves
as the actor, or the director, of our own lives.

Throughout this series on addiction, we've suggested that each person is free to
choose between and among the various theoretical models of addiction. Ideally,
people in recovery will pick some combination of models that best fits their needs
and circumstances. In this way, they can successfully solve their addiction problem.
However, these choices are largely governed by a stable personality characteristic
called "locus of control." Simply stated, this personality characteristic describes
people's sense of control over their own lives. People's understanding of their ability
to control their own lives will greatly influence which types of recovery models are
most suitable for them.
When people have an internal locus of control, they expect they will determine their
own futures because of their own actions. If we were to imagine life as a sort of
theatrical play, these people would consider themselves the directors of their own
lives. Conversely, when people have an external locus of control they do not expect
to have control over their futures. Things just happen to them. From this perspective,
they have no control or influence over their lives. Continuing with our analogy of life
as a theatrical play, these folks would consider themselves mere actors in their own
lives.
Locus of control describes people's sense of control over their lives. It also describes
the way people understand the problems they experience. In a related manner, it
somewhat predicts how they will attempt to solve these problems. For example, if I
possess an internal locus of control, I believe problems are my own doing (since I
am the director of my life). I also believe that I must solve my own problems (since I
created them).

Locus of control is a relatively stable and enduring aspect of personality (as are most
personality characteristics). It is so stable that we "take it for granted." We are
unaware of the way our particular locus of control colors our understanding of a
problem. Nonetheless, it greatly affects our approach to solving problems. Locus of
control can change, but it changes slowly, over many years.

Since locus of control is rather stable and influences our approach to problems, it
becomes highly relevant to recovery from addiction. An approach to recovery that
conflicts with your own locus of control is almost certain to fail. Therefore, find (or
create) an approach to recovery that best matches your own position on the locus of
control continuum (ranging from external to internal). If you would like, you
could take a test to measure your locus of control.
You can more simply determine this by evaluating your own attitudes toward
recovery. Do you see yourself as the person who must find a solution to your
addiction problem? Or, do you see the solution primarily coming from others? If you
have a strong internal locus of control, you will feel more comfortable with
a compensatory model, or a moral model. Conversely, if you have a strong external
locus of control, you will naturally resonate with an enlightenment model or medical
model.
These sharp distinctions between an internal and external locus of control helps us
to define this personality characteristic. However, nobody exhibits a purely internal or
external locus of control. Most of us lean in one direction or the other. The point is to
become aware of which direction you lean. This way you can more easily align your
recovery efforts to your own personality and preferences.
The Social Learning Theory of

Julian B. Rotter
 (1916 - 2014)

Biographical Note

Julian B. Rotter was born in October 1916 in Brooklyn, NY, the third son of Jewish
immigrant parents. Rotter's father ran a successful business until the Great
Depression. The Depression powerfully influenced Rotter to be aware of social
injustice and the effects of the situational environment on people. Rotter's interest
in psychology began when he was in high school and read books by Freud and
Adler. Rotter attended Brooklyn College, where he began attending seminars given
by Adler and meetings of his Society of Individual Psychology in Adler's home.

After graduation, Rotter attended the University of Iowa, where he took classes
with Kurt Lewin. Rotter minored in speech pathology and studied with the
semanticist Wendell Johnson, whose ideas had an enduring influence on Rotter's
thinking about the use and misuse of language in psychological science. Upon
finishing his master's degree, Rotter took an internship in clinical psychology --
one of the few available at the time -- at Worcester State Hospital in Massachusetts.
In 1939, Rotter started his Ph.D. work at Indiana University, one of the few
programs to offer a doctorate in clinical psychology. There, he completed his
dissertation on level of aspiration and graduated in 1941. By earning his Ph.D. in
clinical psychology after having done a predoctoral internship, Rotter became one
of the very first clinical psychologists trained in what is now the traditional mode.

After service in the Army and Air Force during World War II, Rotter took an
academic position at Ohio State University. It was here that he embarked on his
major accomplishment, social learning theory, which integrated learning theory
with personality theory. He published Social Learning and Clinical Psychology in
1954. Rotter also held strong beliefs about how clinical psychologists should be
educated. He was an active participant in the 1949 Boulder Conference, which
defined the training model for doctoral level clinical psychologists. He spoke
persuasively that psychologists must be trained in psychology departments, not
under the supervision of psychiatrists. His ideas are still influential today (Herbert,
2002).

In 1963, Rotter left Ohio State to become the director of the clinical psychology
training program at the University of Connecticut. After his retirement, he
remained professor emeritus there.

Rotter served as president of the American Psychological Association's divisions of

Social and Personality Psychology and Clinical Psychology. In 1989, he was given
the American Psychological Association's Distinguished Scientific Contribution
award.

Rotter was married to Clara Barnes, whom he had met at Worcester State, from
1941 until her death in 1985. They had two children. He later married psychologist
Dorothy Hochreich. Rotter died January 6, 2014, at the age of 97 at his home in
Connecticut.
[The above information is based on a biographical essay written by Julian Rotter: Rotter, J. B. (1993).
Expectancies. In C. E. Walker (Ed.), The history of clinical psychology in autobiography (vol. II) (pp. 273-284).
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Photos courtesy of University of Connecticut.]

Overview of Theory

When Rotter developed his social learning theory, the dominant perspective in
clinical psychology at the time was Freud's psychoanalysis, which focused on
people's deep-seated instinctual motives as determining behavior. Individuals were
seen as being naive to their unconscious impulses, and treatment required long-
term analysis of childhood experience. Even learning approaches at the time were
dominated by drive theory, which held that people are motivated by
physiologically-based impulses that press the individual to satisfy them. In
developing social learning theory, Rotter departed from instinct-based
psychoanalysis and drive-based behaviorism. He believed that a psychological
theory should have a psychological motivational principle. Rotter chose
the empirical law of effect as his motivating factor. The law of effect states that
people are motivated to seek out positive stimulation, or reinforcement, and to
avoid unpleasant stimulation. Rotter combined behaviorism and the study of
personality, without relying on physiological instincts or drives as a motive force.

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 behavior, 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 behavior, as always changeable. Change the
way the person thinks, or change the environment the person is responding to, and
behavior 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
punishment.

Rotter has four main components to his social learning theory model predicting
behavior. These are behavior potential, expectancy, reinforcement value, and the
psychological situation.

Behavior Potential. Behavior potential is the likelihood of engaging in a particular

behavior in a specific situation. In other words, what is the probability that the
person will exhibit a particular behavior in a situation? In any given situation, there
are multiple behaviors one can engage in. For each possible behavior, there is a
behavior potential. The individual will exhibit whichever behavior has the highest
potential.

Expectancy. Expectancy is the subjective probability that a given behavior will

lead to a particular outcome, or reinforcer. How likely is it that the behavior will
lead to the outcome? Having high or strong expectancies means the individual is
confident the behavior will result in the outcome. Having low expectancies means
the individual believes it is unlikely that his or her behavior will result in
reinforcement. If the outcomes are equally desirable, we will engage in the
behavior that has the greatest likelihood of paying off (i.e., has the highest
expectancy). To have a high expectancy, people must believe both (a) that they
have the capacity to enact the behavior effectively and (b) that that behavior will
result in reinforcement.

Expectancies are formed based on past experience. The more often a behavior has
led to reinforcement in the past, the stronger the person's expectancy that the
behavior will achieve that outcome now. In addition, people do not need to have
direct experience with reinforcement of a particular behavior. Rotter wrote that our
observations of the outcomes of others' behaviors affect our own expectancies. If
we see someone else being punished for a particular behavior, we don't have to
experience punishment personally to form an expectancy that this behavior is
likely to be punished.

It is important to note that expectancy is a subjective probability, because one

common source of pathology is irrational expectancies. There may be no
relationship whatsoever between the person's subjective assessment of how likely a
reinforcement will be and the actual, objective probability of the reinforcer's
occurring. People can either over- or underestimate this likelihood, and both
distortions can potentially be problematic.

Reinforcement Value. Reinforcement is another name for the outcomes of our

behavior. Reinforcement value refers to the desirability of these outcomes. Things
we want to happen, that we are attracted to, have a high reinforcement value.
Things we don't want to happen, that we wish to avoid, have a low reinforcement
value. If the likelihood of achieving reinforcement is the same (i.e., expectancies
are equal), we will exhibit the behavior with the greatest reinforcement value, the
one directed toward the outcome we prefer most. As the name social learning
theory suggests, the social environment is of primary importance in shaping our
behavior. Social outcomes, such as approval, love or rejection, are powerful
influences on our behavior. For people, the most important reinforcers are often
social reinforcers.

As with expectancy, reinforcement value is subjective, meaning that the same

event or experience can vastly differ in desirability, depending on the individual's
life experience. Punishment from a parent would be negatively reinforcing to most
children and something to be avoided. However, children who get little positive
attention from parents can seek out parental punishment because it has a higher
reinforcement value than neglect.

The value of any given reinforcer is determined in part by other, future reinforcers
it might lead to. For example, doing well on an exam in a particular class would
have a heightened reinforcement value, if you believe that doing well in that class
will lead to being able to work in your professor's lab. Therefore, even an
apparently trivial event can have a very strong reinforcement value, either positive
or negative, if the individual sees it as leading to other strongly valued reinforcers.

The least amount of reinforcement that still has a positive value is known as
the minimal goal. If people achieve an outcome that equals or exceeds their
minimal goal, they will feel that they have succeeded. When the level of
reinforcement falls below an individual's minimal goal, that reinforcement feels
like failure. People differ in their minimal goals. Thus, the same outcome may
represent success to one person (with a lower minimal goal) while it feels like
failure to another person (with a higher minimal goal).
Predictive Formula. Behavior Potential (BP), Expectancy (E) and Reinforcement
Value (RV) can be combined into a predictive formula for behavior:

BP = f(E & RV)

This formula can be read as follows: behavior potential is a function of expectancy
and reinforcement value. Or, in other words, the likelihood of a person's exhibiting
a particular behavior is a function of the probability that that behavior will lead to a
given outcome and the desirability of that outcome. If expectancy and
reinforcement value are both high, then behavior potential will be high. If either
expectancy or reinforcement value is low, then behavior potential will be lower.

Psychological Situation. The psychological situation represents Rotter's idea that

each individual's experience of the environment is unique. Although the
psychological situation does not figure directly into Rotter's formula for predicting
behavior, Rotter believes it is always important to keep in mind that different
people interpret the same situation differently. Different people will have different
expectancies and reinforcement values in the same situation. Thus, it is people's
subjective interpretation of the environment, rather than an objective array of
stimuli, that is meaningful to them and that determines how they behave.

Generality versus Specificity. An important dimension of personality theories is

the generality versus specificity of their constructs. General constructs are broad
and abstract, while specific constructs are narrow and concrete. Both types of
constructs have their advantages. A theory with general constructs allows one to
make many predictions, across situations, from knowing only a small amount of
information. The disadvantages of general constructs, though, are that they are
harder to measure and the predictions made from them have a lower level of
accuracy. Specific constructs, on the other hand, are easier to measure, and they
can be used to make more accurate predictions. However, these predictions are
limited to being situation-specific.

For example, knowing that someone is a generally hostile person allows us to

make predictions that this individual will be hostile toward a range of people.
Across situations, this person is likely to be more hostile to others than is someone
low in hostility. However, our ability predict how hostile this person would be to
Jane, for example, is limited, because there may be other factors that determine
whether this individual will treat Jane in a hostile way during a particular
encounter (e.g., person likes Jane, or situational factors inhibit an expression of
hostility). On the other hand, if we know that this person hates Jane, we can predict
with a high level of accuracy that this person will be hostile toward Jane. But, we
will not be able to predict whether this person will treat other people in a hostile
way.
A strength of Rotter's social learning theory is that it explicitly blends specific and
general constructs, offering the benefits of each. In social learning theory, all
general constructs have a specific counterpart. For every situationally specific
expectancy there is a cross-situational generalized expectancy. Social learning
theory blends generality and specificity to enable psychologists to measure
variables and to make a large number of accurate predictions from these variables.

"Locus of Control." For many people, their only exposure to the ideas of Julian B.
Rotter is his concept of generalized expectancies for control of reinforcement,
more commonly known as locus of control. Locus of control refers to people's very
general, cross-situational beliefs about what determines whether or not they get
reinforced in life. People can be classified along a continuum from very internal to
very external.

People with a strong internal locus of control believe that the responsibility for
whether or not they get reinforced ultimately lies with themselves. Internals believe
that success or failure is due to their own efforts. In contrast, externals believe that
the reinforcers in life are controlled by luck, chance, or powerful others. Therefore,
they see little impact of their own efforts on the amount of reinforcement they
receive.

Rotter has written extensively on problems with people's interpretations of the

locus of control concept. First, he has warned people that locus of control is not a
typology. It represents a continuum, not an either/or proposition. Second, because
locus of control is a generalized expectancy it will predict people's behavior across
situations. However, there may be some specific situations in which people who,
for example, are generally external behave like internals. That is because their
learning history has shown them that they have control over the reinforcement they
receive in certain situations, although overall they perceive little control over what
happens to them. Again, one can see the importance of conceiving of personality as
the interaction of the person and the environment.

Psychopathology and Treatment. Rotter is very opposed to the medical model

conception of mental disorders as being diseases or illnesses. Rather, he conceives
of psychological problems as maladaptive behavior brought about by faulty or
inadequate learning experiences. Rotter (1969) wrote that pathology might develop
when a "person anticipating punishment or failure may avoid situations physically,
avoid by repression or may attempt to reach [his or her] goals through
rationalization, fantasy or symbolic means" (p. 7).

For Rotter, the symptoms of pathology, like all behavior, are learned. Therefore,
treatment should be considered a learning situation in which adaptive behaviors
and cognitions are taught. The therapist-client relationship is viewed as being
similar to a teacher-student relationship. Having a warm relationship between
client and therapist gives the therapist more reinforcement value for the client. This
allows the therapist to influence the client's behavior more through praise and
encouragement. Much of current cognitive-behavioral treatment has its roots in
Rotter's social learning theory, although these debts often go unacknowledged.

According to Rotter, pathology can develop due to difficulties at any point in his
predictive formula. Behavior can be maladaptive, because the individual never
learned more healthy behaviors. In this case, the therapist would make direct
suggestions about new behaviors to try and would use techniques such as role-
playing to develop more effective coping skills.

Expectancies can lead to pathology when they are irrationally low. If people have
low expectancies, they do not believe their behaviors will be reinforced.
Consequently, they put little effort into their behaviors. If they don't try to succeed,
they are likely to fail. And, when they fail, it confirms their low expectancies. This
process of decreasing expectancies is a common occurrence in pathology known as
a vicious cycle. When clients have low expectancies, therapists attempt to increase
clients' confidence by using their therapeutic influence to help clients (a) gain
insight into the irrationality of their expectancies and (b) attempt behaviors they
have been avoiding out of fear of failure. In general, social learning therapists
always attempt to raise their clients' expectancies for reinforcement.

Lastly, reinforcement value problems can lead to pathology. Reinforcers are the
goals we seek in life. If people set unrealistically high and unobtainable goals for
themselves (i.e., have too high minimal goals), they are likely to experience
frequent failure. This failure can lead to the development of the vicious cycle
described above. In this situation, therapists would help clients to lower their
minimal goals, developing reasonable, achievable standards for themselves.
Flexibility in setting minimal goals is one sign of good mental health. It is better to
strive, step by step, to achieve a series of goals than it is to set one distant, lofty
goal for oneself. A Rotter therapist also wants clients to consider the long-term
consequences of behavior, rather than just short-term consequences.

Importance to the Field of Psychology

Julian B. Rotter has been cited as one of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the
20th century. Haggbloom et al. (2002) found that Rotter was 18th in frequency of
citations in journal articles and 64th in overall eminence.

 Haggbloom, S. J. et al. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the

20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6, 139-152. doi: 10.1037/1089-
2680.6.2.139
Radio Interview & Profile

Julian Rotter was interviewed about locus of control on the Mind

Changers program on the BBC in 2012.

Julian Rotter was also profiled in 2012 in UConn Today.

Passing

News of Julian Rotter's death and obituaries have been posted here:

 The American Psychological Association published an obituary in its

flagship American Psychologist journal: Strickland, B. R. (2014). Julian B.
Rotter (1916-2014). American Psychologist, 69, 545-546. doi: 10.1037/a0036918
 The University of Connecticut's UConn Today and the Psychology
Department
 The Hartford Courant
 BBC radio (starts at 9:00)

Contemporary Research in Social Learning Theory

Personality research is still being done using Rotter's highly flexible framework.
Catanzaro and Mearns have used social learning theory to define generalized
expectancies for negative mood regulation (NMR). NMR expectancies represent
beliefs people have about their ability to control the unpleasant moods they
experience. In keeping with Rotter's theory, these expectancies predict how people
cope with a variety of upsetting events, as well as the outcomes of that coping, in
terms of mood and health. Click here to go to the NMR Research Page.

Selected Bibliography
Rotter has numerous publications spanning over seven decades. This section will
highlight his most important contributions to the literature. Interested parties
should consult these works for a more in-depth description of the concepts
introduced on this web page.

 Rotter, J. B. (1942). Level of aspiration as a method of studying personality.

II. Development and evaluation of a controlled method. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 31, 410-422. doi: 10.1037/h0054342
 Rotter, J. B., & Rafferty, J. E. (1950). The Rotter Incomplete Sentences
Blank manual: College form. New York: Psychological Corp.
 Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York:
Prentice-Hall. doi: 10.1037/10788-000
 Rotter, J. B. (1960). Some implications of a social learning theory for the
prediction of goal directed behavior from testing procedures. Psychological
Review, 67, 301-316. doi: 10.1037/h0039601
 Rotter, J. B., Liverant, S., & Crowne, D. P. (1961). The growth and
extinction of expectancies in chance controlled and skilled tasks. Journal of
Psychology, 52, 161-177. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1961.9916516
 Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80. (Whole No.
609). doi: 10.1037/h0092976
 Rotter, J. B. (1969, June). A social learning approach to community mental
health. In Symposium on youth: their values, goals and career concepts
[third report]. Rensselaerville, NY. (ERIC No. ED036828) download
 Rotter, J. B. (1970). Some implications of a social learning theory for the
practice of psychotherapy. In D. Levis (Ed.), Learning approaches to
therapeutic behavior change (pp. 208-241). Chicago: Aldine.
 Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal
trust. American Psychologist, 26, 443-452. doi: 10.1037/h0031464
 Rotter, J. B. (1971). On the evaluation of methods of intervening in other
people's lives. Clinical Psychologist, 24, 1.
 Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. E., & Phares, E. J. (1972). Applications of a social
learning theory of personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
 Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the
construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 56-67. doi: 10.1037/h0076301
 Rotter, J. B. (1978). Generalized expectancies for problem solving and
psychotherapy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 1-10. doi:
10.1007/BF01172508
 Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness and
gullibility. American Psychologist, 26, 1-7. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.1.1
 Rotter, J. B. (1981). The psychological situation in social learning theory. In
D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional
perspective (pp. 169-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  Rotter, J. B. (1982). The development and applications of social learning
theory. New York: Praeger.
 Rotter, J. B. (1989). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case
history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45, 489-493. doi: 10.1037//0003-
066X.45.4.489
 Rotter, J. B., Lah, M. I., & Rafferty, J. E. (1992). Rotter Incomplete
Sentences Blank Second Edition manual. New York: Psychological
Corporation.
 Rotter, J. B. (1992). Some comments on the "cognates of personal
control." Applied & Preventive Psychology, 1, 127-129. doi: 10.1016/S0962-
1849(05)80154-4

What is Locus
of Control?
Measures of Locus of James Neill
Last updated:
Locus of
Control Control 06 Dec 2006
Tutorial
 Measures of Locus of Control
 References

Measures of Locus of Control

Julian Rotter (1966) developed a 29-item Locus of Control
questionnaire. Since then, many others have tested, criticiqued
and refined the concept and the measurement tool (e.g., Marsh &
Richards, 1986). Rotter's original instrument is still in wide use,
but increasingly people are turning to more specific measures of
Locus of Control (e.g., health locus of control) and / or to
multidimensional measures (Marsh & Richards, 1987).
 Rotter's 29-item Locus of Control (paper & pencil - print it out)
- Scoring
 Rotter's 29-item Locus of Control (web-based - do it online &
compare your scores to military officers and business executives)
 Pettijohn's 20-item Locus of Control (web-based - do it online)
 Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales (paper & pencil -
3 measures)
 Work Locus of Control (Spector, 1988)
References
Marsh, H. W. & Richards, G. E. (1986). The Rotter Locus of
Control Scale: The comparison of alternative response formats
and implications for reliability, validity and dimensionality.
Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 509-558.
Marsh, H. W. & Richards, G. E. (1987). The multidimensionality of the
Rotter I-E Scale and its higher order structure: An application of
confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 39-
69.

Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus

external control of reinforcements, Psychological
Monographs, 80, Whole No. 609.

Locus Of Control & Attributional Style Test

rongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly

agree agree/disagree disagree
1 2 3 4 5
1. Heredity determines most of one's personality.
2. Whatever plans you make, there is always something
unexpected that will interfere with them.
3. Intelligence is a given and cannot be trained or become stunted.
4. You cannot fool your destiny.
5. I can complain about politics, but that's about all I can do.
6. When I ace a test or do really well on a project at work, I
assume that I succeeded only because it was an easy one.
7. In one way or another, academic success is mostly a result of
one's socio-economic background.
8. Unless a person is given the chance to meet new people, he/she
will end up lonely.

Further Reading
  Kirsch, I. (1986). Self-efficacy and expectancy: Old wine with new
labels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 824-830. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.824
 Mearns, J. (2009). Social learning theory. In H. Reis & S. Sprecher
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (vol. 3) (pp. 1537-1540).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412958479.n506
 Williams, D. M. (2010). Outcome expectancy and self-efficacy: Theoretical
implications of an unresolved contradiction. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 14, 417-425. doi: 10.1177/1088868310368802

Locus of Control: External or

Internal? [TEST]
Locus of control is allocation of responsibility for the events
in your life. Do you feel like you are in control of your
environment and the outcomes you are getting, or do you
feel helpless and frustrated as if you were caught up in the
river of life? Do you think that your achievements are the
direct result of your efforts or, perhaps, just plain luck?

It’s time to take a test and see where do you stand when it
comes to your locus of control. Taking this test may be a real
eye-opener, but make sure to be as honest as you possibly
can when answering these questions. Please evaluate each
statement below using this abbreviation key (you need to
evaluate each statement for the results to be reliable):

D+ Disagree Strongly
D Disagree
D- Disagree slightly
N Neutral
A– Agree Slightly
A Agree
A+ Agree Strongly

Statement: D+ D D- N A- A A+
It is my responsibility to make the
most of my talents and abilities.
I don’t get started with a project
unless I believe that success is
possible.
I don’t plan much in advance
because you never know what
happens next.
Climbing the corporate ladder is
more about being in the right
place at the right time and
knowing the right people than
doing a good job.
Most people breakup because
they don’t make any effort to
work on their relationship.
I rely on my health providers to
get well and/or stay healthy.
Unless you are willing to get out
there and actually meet people,
you will always be lonely.
Rich and famous celebrities are
there because they were lucky.
If someone dislikes me, there is
nothing I can do about it.
Good relationships and love can
be lost because of external
factors, and there is nothing we
can do about it.
I often feel trapped and helpless.
My friends and family know me
better than I know myself.
Whether or not I get promoted
depends on the mood of my
supervisor more than my efforts.
Most so-called overnight
successes are really the result of
years of preparation and work.
In order for me to be healthy, I
need to change my lifestyle and
watch what I eat.
If two people are not in love with
each other, they usually can’t be
happy together no matter how
much they try.
Generally, my friends and
colleagues acknowledge my
accomplishments.
I know how to convince people to
give me what I want.
The person I am today is the
result of what my school and
parents taught me.
Although there are things beyond
my control, I will still do
everything I can to get the results
I want.
I worked hard for all good things I
achieved in my life.
Whenever there is a problem or a
conflict, I always analyze my own
behavior first.
The way I feel about myself is
defined by those around me.
I am highly independent and enjoy
taking decisions.
My health issues have nothing to
do with my lifestyle.
Most of the time, great projects
fail because of some external
events beyond one’s control.
Managers and supervisors are
responsible for poor results of
their subordinates.
I often feel that I don’t have any
control over my personal
relationships.
I know how to get people to like
me.
If my spouse falls out of love with
me, there is nothing I can do.
It is my responsibility to manage
my own life well.
I often can’t see the motives
behind others’ actions.
If someone fails at something, it
is probably because they didn’t
make enough effort to succeed.
Most of my problems were caused
by other people.
I can improve my well-being by
exercising, eating well and
managing my emotions.
Hard work is the best predictor of
success.
I feel that I am the one
responsible for my own
satisfaction and happiness.
I could never figure out why some
people liked me while some
others didn’t.
I am a self-reliant person.
No matter how much I try, I don’t
receive any credit for what I do.
There were situations in my life
where there was no solution.
I wouldn’t be where I am today if
not the help and support of other
people.
Most of my problems are the
result of my laziness and/or
ignorance.
Whenever I face a problem, I tend
to go with the flow and see how
everything will pan out without
my interference.

Behavior Management: Locus of

Control
Understand the difference between praise and encouragement and when to use
each method as a form of motivation for your students.

Jabberwocky
Locus of control refers to the degree to which individuals perceive they are in
control of the factors that affect their lives. External individuals feel they are
strongly influenced by others (parents, teachers, peers). Internal individuals feel
they are primarily responsible for the events that happen to them

ocus of Control or Self-Esteem; Which One is the Best Predictor

of Academic Achievement in Iranian College Students
Seyyed Nasrollah Hosseini,1 Mehdi Mirzaei Alavijeh,2 Behzad Karami Matin,3 Behrooz Hamzeh,3Hossein
Ashtarian,3 and Farzad Jalilian4,*

Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►

Abstract
Go to:
1. Background
Academic achievement and preservation of students’ educational failure are two of the most
important concerns of university academic staff and parents of the students (1, 2). The
opposite of educational progress is educational failure which considering the results from
various studies, could highly affect people destinies and impose much expenses to families.
In this regard, studies have shown that self-esteem is an important factor for education
progress (3). Students with higher self-esteem appeared to be more successful in education
(4, 5). Self-esteem is considered as a vital capital and the most effective factor to progress
and development of talents and creativity (6-8). Low self-esteem is introduced as a risk factor
leading to aggression, depression, felony and weak educational outcomes (9, 10). On the
other hand, locus of control among people is another important possible personality side to be
studied and a meaningful concept in the Rotter social learning theory (11, 12). Rotter defined
locus of control as the extent to which someone believes they can affect their lives; it has two
control dimensions: internal and external. Considering Rotter hypothesis, people having
external control has positive and negative perception about happenings and events which are
not related to people behavior and is beyond personal control; Rotter considered this people
to believe in chance or have external control source (11). In other dimensions, internal control
source results from positive or negative perception of events which is under personal control
(13). Although in the Ross and Broh study had reported that academic achievement could
increase self-esteem, self-esteem does not affect subsequent achievement. In addition, locus
of control does not affect subsequent academic achievement (14). Gerardi reported a
significant relationship between the high level of self-concept and academic achievement
(15). Furthermore, several studies had shown the role of self-esteem in predicting of
academic achievement (16-18). In other hand, it should be noted that the intervention
program need to emphasize on psychological factors that mediate and predict behaviors
(19, 20).
Go to:

2. Objectives
Considering all the mentioned perceptions and the importance of knowing effective variables
on academic achievement, and due to differences in the findings of the conducted studies, the
aim of the present study was to determine the prediction of locus of control and self-esteem in
academic achievement among college students.
Go to:

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 300 college students at Kermanshah University
of Medical Sciences, the west of Iran, in 2014. The sample size was calculated at the 95%
significant level according to the results of a pilot study and a sample of 300 was estimated.
From a total of 300 students, 252 cases (84%) signed the consent form and voluntarily agreed
to participate in the study. This study was conducted with approval from Kermanshah
University of Medical Sciences’ institutional review board.
3.2. Measure
Participants responded to the standard self-report questionnaire. The questionnaire included
four sections that comprised of 95 questions: Seven questions for demographic, one question
about academic achievement, 29 questions for Rotter locus of control scale, and 58 questions
about the Coopersmith self-esteem inventory.

3.2.1. Background
The background data included age (years), sex (boy, girl), live in dormitory (yes, no), filed of
education (medical, dentist, pharmacology, nursing, paramedical, and health), level of
education (BSc, MD), mother and father education level (Illiterate, under diploma, diploma,
BSc, MSc).

3.2.2. Academic Achievement Status

This status evaluated through asking a single question which questioned about the average
score of previous semester of students [0 - 20].

3.2.3. Rotter Locus of Control Scale

This scale includes 29 items where each item contains two sentences as A and B on important
social events. 23 items evaluate locus control and six items were chosen neutrally to support
the scale and cover the given scale. Among 23 items used in scoring each A choice equals one
score and B choice gets a zero; therefore, maximum and minimum scores in this scale would
be 23 and 0, respectively. A total score of each person represents type and degree of each
person’s locus control, only participants gained 9 scores or more meet internal locus control.
This questionnaire has been used in several studies to recalculate and confirmed the
reliability of the questionnaire (3, 21).

3.2.4. Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory

Self-esteem was evaluated by the Coopersmith 58-item standard scale. Each item was
measured on an ordinal 5-point Likert-type scaling (like me” or “not like me). Examples of
the items are: “I find it very hard to talk in front of a group.” This questionnaire was used in
several studies in Iran and its reliability and validity was proven. Generally, 50 items are
divided into four scales of self-esteem (general), social self-esteem (peers), family self-
esteem and educational self-esteem (school). In addition to these four subscales, it offers a
total score. Furthermore, 8 items are pathometers and are responded choosing yes or no. The
higher the score from this test, the more the self-esteem. Therefore, scores higher than 25
show high self-esteem and scores lower than 25 represents low self-esteem among
participants (3, 5).

3.3. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed by SPSS version 21 using appropriate statistical tests including
correlation, and linear regression at the significant level of 95%.
Go to:
4. Results
The mean age of the respondents was 21.44 years (95% CI: 21.15, 21.73), ranged from 18 to
27 years. More details of demographic characteristics of the participants are shown in Table
1.

Table 1.
Demographic Characteristics of the Participants

Among the demographic characteristics, sex, father education, and mother education had a
significant effect on self-esteem and locus of control among the students (Tables 2 and
and33).

Table 2.
a
Demographic Characteristics Affected Self-Esteem Among the Students

Table 3.
a
Demographic Characteristics Affected the Locus of Control Among the Students

The bivariate analysis showed the correlations between the locus of control and self-esteem (r
= -0.439, P < 0.001), self-esteem and academic achievement (r = -0.525, P < 0.05), and the
locus of control and academic achievement (r = 0.395, P < 0.05).
Finally, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to explain the variation in
academic achievement using the self-esteem and locus of control. Table 4shows statistically
significant predictors of the outcome measure. Generally, they were accounted for 39.5% of
the variation in academic achievement.
Table 4.
a b
Predictors of the Academic Achievement ,

From a total of 252 respondents, 29.8% (n = 75) had internal locus of control, and 70.2% (n =
177) had external locus of control. In addition, our results showed that 23.8% (n = 60) had
low self-esteem and 76.2% (n = 192) had high self-esteem.
Results of the current study showed that 76.2% of the students had high self-esteem and
29.8% had internal locus control. There was a significant correlation between self-esteem,
locus of control and academic achievement. Furthermore, self-esteem and locus of control
totally predicted 39.5% of the variation in academic achievement, which self-esteem was a
stronger factor to predict the academic achievement.
Go to:

5. Discussion
Self-esteem is affected by communication with others and people with higher self-esteem
believe themselves to be more attractive, lovely and valuable, and welcome the
communication with others and create close relationships with them; as the result, self-esteem
is believed as an essential component of social relationships (22). Most of the students
(76.2%) participated in the present study showed high self-esteem, which is in accordance
with the results by Mirzaei Alavijeh et al. (3). Considering medical science students as future
employees at health and treatment centers in Iran, they will play an essential role in social
health and high self-esteem levels among them could be a positive point in this regard.
Results of the present study showed that the majority of the students (70.2%) had external
locus of control. In this regard, Mirzaei Alavijeh et al. (3) and Medanlu et al. reported similar
results (23).
Another finding from the present study was the meaningful correlation between self-esteem,
locus of control and students’ academic achievement, which means the higher the self-esteem
among students, the lower their belief in effect of chance on life and education as a part of
life. They were more dependent to their internal abilities and their educational progress
increased as the result. Mirzaei Alavijeh et al. reported a meaningful correlation among locus
of control, self-esteem and students average scores (3). In addition, other studies showed the
relationship between students’ self-esteem and academic achievement (5, 16-18). Though,
Tamanaifar et al. and other studies suggested no relationship between students’ self-esteem
and their educational progress, which does not correspond with results from the present study
(1, 14). In contrast to results of this study, Ross and Broh mentioned “locus of control does
not affect subsequent academic success” (14). Considering the reported correlation among
self-esteem, locus of control and educational progress, it seems essential to consider these
factors in planning interventions to develop students’ educational progress.
Another finding of the present study was a higher level of self-esteem among female student;
this result is similar to the results reported by other studies (1, 3). Therefore, it is suggested to
conduct more studies on self-esteem, especially among male students.
The findings reported in this study have certain limitations. First, data collection was based
on self-reporting, which is usually prone to recall bias. Second, data were collected from
Iranian medical college students in the west of Iran, and the results cannot be generalized to
other population of college students. However, even considering all these limitations, our
study has a guideline for education planners in universities to design intervention programs
for the promotion of academic achievement among college students.

5.1. Conclusions
Our findings show that designing and implementing intervention programs for promoting
self-esteem can help improve academic achievement among college students.
Go to:

Acknowledgments
This article is a part of research project supported by student research committee of
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. We would like to thank
deputy of research of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences for financial support of
this study.
Go to:

Footnotes
Authors' Contribution:Seyyed Nasrollah Hosseini, Mehdi Mirzaei Alavijeh, and Farzad Jalilian developed
the original idea, study design, data analysis and writing the manuscript. Behzad Karami Matin, Behrooz
Hamzeh, and Hossein Ashtarian participated in designing the data collection and writing the manuscript. All
authors provided comments and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest:The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Go to:

References
1. Tamanaifar MR, Sedighi Arfai F, Salami Mohammad Abadi F. The Relationship of Emotional
Intelligence, Self Concept and Self Esteem to Academic Achivenment. Q J Res Plan High
Educ. 2011;16(2):99–113.
2. Best JR, Miller PH, Naglieri JA. Relations between Executive Function and Academic Achievement
from Ages 5 to 17 in a Large, Representative National Sample. Learn Individ Differ. 2011;21(4):327–
36. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.007.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
3. Mirzaei Alavijeh M, Rajaei N, Rezaei F, Hasanpoor S, Pirouzeh R, Babaei Borzabadi M. Comparison
of self-esteem, locus of control and their relationship with university students’ educational status at
Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences-Yazd. J Med Educ Dev. 2012;7(1):58–70.
4. Komarraju M, Musulkin S, Bhattacharya G. Role of Student–Faculty Interactions in Developing
College Students’ Academic Self-Concept, Motivation, and Achievement. J College Student
Dev. 2010;51(3):332–42. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0137. [Cross Ref]
5. Hasanvand B, khaledian M. The Relationship of Emotional Intelligence with Self-esteem and
Academic Progress. Int J Psychol Behav Sci. 2012;2(6):231–6. doi:
10.5923/j.ijpbs.20120206.06. [Cross Ref]
6. Kristjansson AL, Sigfusdottir ID, Allegrante JP. Health behavior and academic achievement among
adolescents: the relative contribution of dietary habits, physical activity, body mass index, and self-
esteem. Health Educ Behav. 2010;37(1):51–64. doi: 10.1177/1090198107313481. [PubMed] [Cross
Ref]
7. Aryana M. Relationship Between Self-esteem and Academic Achievement Amongst Pre-University
Students. J Appl Sci. 2010;10(20):2474–7. doi: 10.3923/jas.2010.2474.2477. [Cross Ref]
8. Peixoto F, Almeida LS. Self-concept, self-esteem and academic achievement: strategies for
maintaining self-esteem in students experiencing academic failure. Eur J Psychol
Educ. 2010;25(2):157–75. doi: 10.1007/s10212-010-0011-z. [Cross Ref]
9. Baumeister RF, Bushman BJ, Campbell WK. Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Aggression: Does Violence
Result From Low Self-Esteem or From Threatened Egotism? Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 2000;9(1):26–9.
doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00053.[Cross Ref]
10. Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF, Thomaes S, Ryu E, Begeer S, West SG. Looking again, and harder, for
a link between low self-esteem and aggression. J Pers. 2009;77(2):427–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2008.00553.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
11. Rotter JB. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. Am
Psychol. 1990;45(4):489–93. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.45.4.489.[Cross Ref]
12. Roddenberry A, Renk K. Locus of control and self-efficacy: potential mediators of stress, illness,
and utilization of health services in college students. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2010;41(4):353–70.
doi: 10.1007/s10578-010-0173-6. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
13. Mueller SL, Thomas AS. Culture and entrepreneurial potential. J Business Ventur. 2001;16(1):51–
75. doi: 10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00039-7. [Cross Ref]
14. Ross CE, Broh BA. The Roles of Self-Esteem and the Sense of Personal Control in the Academic
Achievement Process. Sociol Educ. 2000;73(4):270. doi: 10.2307/2673234. [Cross Ref]
15. Gerardi S. Self-concept of ability as a predictor of academic success among urban technical
college students. Soc Sci J. 2005;42(2):295–300. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.007. [Cross Ref]
16. El-Anzi FO. Academic Achievement and Its Relationship with Anxiety, Self-Esteem, Optimism, and
Pessimism in Kuwaiti Students. Soc Behav Pers Int J. 2005;33(1):95–104. doi:
10.2224/sbp.2005.33.1.95. [Cross Ref]
17. Lin YR, Shiah IS, Chang YC, Lai TJ, Wang KY, Chou KR. Evaluation of an assertiveness training
program on nursing and medical students' assertiveness, self-esteem, and interpersonal
communication satisfaction. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(8):656–65. doi:
10.1016/j.nedt.2004.09.004. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
18. Miyamoto RH, Hishinuma ES, Nishimura ST, Nahulu LB, Andrade NN, Goebert DA, et al. Path
models linking correlates of self-esteem in a multi-ethnic adolescent sample. Pers Individ
Differ. 2001;31(5):701–12. doi: 10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00172-0.[Cross Ref]
19. Jalilian F, Mari A, Mahboby M, Motlagh F, Aghaei A, Mirzaei Alavijeh M, et al. Explain of ecstasy
use among kermanshah adolescents, the west of Iran: An application of the Theory of Planned
Behavior. Life Sci J. 2014;11(1s):82–6.
20. Ahmadpanah M, Mirzaei Alavijeh M, Allahverdipour H, Jalilian F, Haghighi M, Afsar A, et al.
Effectiveness of Coping Skills Education Program to Reduce Craving Beliefs among Addicts Referred
To Addiction Centers in Hamadan: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Iran J Public
Health. 2013;42(10):1139–44. [PMC free article][PubMed]
21. Gueritault-Chalvin V, Kalichman SC, Demi A, Peterson JL. Work-related stress and occupational
burnout in AIDS caregivers: test of a coping model with nurses providing AIDS care. AIDS
Care. 2000;12(2):149–61. doi: 10.1080/09540120050001823.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
22. Leary MR. Making Sense of Self-Esteem. Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 1999;8(1):32–5. doi:
10.1111/1467-8721.00008. [Cross Ref]
23. Medanlu M, Haghani H, Jafarpour M. Relationship of Self-esteem and locus of control in to Guilty
Youth [Persian]. J Gorgan Uni Med Sci. 2001;3(7):41–5.
 Articles from Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences are provided here courtesy
of Kowsar Medical Institute

Citation
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school
failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221-234.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221

Abstract
A sample of 1,803 minority students from low-income homes was classified into 3
groups on the basis of grades, test scores, and persistence from Grade 8 through
Grade 12; the classifications were academically successful school completers
("resilient" students), school completers with poorer academic performance
(nonresilient completers), and noncompleters (dropouts). Groups were compared in
terms of psychological characteristics and measures of "school engagement." Large,
significant differences were found among groups on engagement behaviors, even
after background and psychological characteristics were controlled statistically. The
findings support the hypothesis that student engagement is an important component
of academic resilience. Furthermore, they provide information for designing
interventions to improve the educational prognoses of students at risk. (PsycINFO
Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Locus of Control: Academic Achievement and Retention in a

Sample of University First-Year Students
Gifford, Denise D.; Briceno-Perriott, Juanita; Mianzo, Frank
Journal of College Admission, v191 p18-25 Spr 2006
Higher education administrators are seeking to identify additional effective
student pre-college predictors of university academic success to utilize in an
increasingly competitive admission environment. A study of more than 3,000
first-year students assessed a traditional pre-college predictor, the ACT, along
with a new potential pre-college predictor, locus of control, to determine their
effectiveness in predicting first-year student academic achievement as measured
by end-of-first-year cumulative GPA. The results of the study indicated that first-
year students who entered university with lower scores on the locus of control
scale (internals) obtained significantly higher GPAs than those who scored higher
(externals) on this same scale. Pre-college ACT scores also served as an effective
predictor of student academic success as demonstrated by significantly higher
cumulative GPAs at the end of the first year. In addition, this study found that
first-year students retained to their sophomore year demonstrated a statistically
higher GPA than those who were not retained. (Contains 1 table.)