Locus of Control is a popular construct from psychological control research, emerging in the 1970s. The concept of control belief has numerous constructs, but they are different in their structure. As Skinner (1996, p. 549) sums it up:
Even a cursory consideration of the area reveals a large number of terms, which, although different, nevertheless seem to be interrelated and partially overlapping. [. . . ] One set of these constructs is based on the term control and includes, for example, personal control, sense of control, locus of control, cognitive control, agenda control, vicarious control, illusory control, outcome control, primary control, secondary control, action control, decisional control, predictive control, informational control and proxy control. The other set of constructs does not explicitly use the word control but nevertheless seems closely related, if not identical, to the set that does; these include helpless- ness, efficacy, agency, capacity, mastery, effectance, effectiveness, autonomy, self-determination, competence, contingency, causal attributions, explanatory style, responsibility, blame, probability of success, and outcome expectancy.
Table 2.1: The Big Five and its original factors
Domain Facets Definition of Factor
O (Openness) O1 Fantasy
The degree to which a person needs intellectual stimulation, change, and variety.
O2 Aesthetics O3 Feelings O4 Actions O5 Ideas O6 Values C (Conscientiousness) C1 Competence
The degree to which a person is willing to comply with
conventional rules, norms, and standards. C2 Order C3 Dutifulness C4 Achievement Striving C5 Self-Discipline C6 Deliberation E (Extraversion) E1 Warmth
The degree to which a person needs attention and social interaction. E2 Gregariousness E3 Assertiveness E4 Activity E5 Excitement-Seeking E6 Positive Emotions A (Agreeableness) A1 Trust
The degree to which a person needs pleasant and harmonious relations with others.
A2 Straightforwardness A3 Altruism A4 Compliance A5 Modesty A6 Tender-Mindedness N (Neuroticism) N1 Anxiety
The degree to which a person experiences the world as
threatening and beyond his/her control. N2 Angry Hostility N3 Depression N4 Self-Consciousness N5 Impulsiveness N6 Vulnerability
Extensive research has been done on different constructs of control, showing variations in outcomes such as personal well-being, health, coping and success. Due to the large variety of constructs however, many studies are not comparable. Differences in results can be perplexing if the differences between the constructs are not clear. Vice versa, even if studies have used the same or a very similar construct, it is likely that these studies cannot be found under the same label (Skinner, 1996).
To understand the concept of control, it is best to start with the reactions of animals. In numerous (rather cruel) studies was shown how animals behaviour changes when the control over a painful situation was taken from them. To spare the gentle reader from the dreadful details, I summarise the main result of series of studies by Seligman et al. (1968). The research subjects were dogs exposed to electric shocks, one group physically constrained and the second group put in a box that enabled the dogs to end the shocks by showing certain behaviours. In the second part of the experiment, dogs were set in a box, where escape from the shock was not possible. Seligman et al. found the dogs to be helplessly exposed to the shock in the first part of the experiment to resign. They suffered without even trying to escape. This is what Seligman labelled as ‘learned helplessness’. The other dogs, who had learned before that the shock could be avoided by a certain behaviour struggled hard by barking, jumping and trying to run to avoid the pain. When the researchers introduced an obvious way for the dogs to escape (a kennel with a movable exit door), the second group of dogs learned much faster to use the new option of avoidance. In the original series of experiments many more options and variations were conducted.
Learned helplessness is not only a phenomenon in animals but also in humans. This was most drastically shown in chronically ill people. One study described a series of suicides in psychiatry after a number of discouraging arguments with staff members. The patients simply lost hope ever to be better again (Lefcourt, 1973). Of course, these three examples are the extremes of the subjective loss of control. However, they underline the extent of effects control beliefs have. The good news is: These beliefs can be learned and changed and the focus of psychological research shifted from hopelessness to encouraging
and improving self-perception, emotional well-being, mastery orientation, and success (e.g. Dweck, 2008, 1999; Hansemark, 1998), which is the link of those control beliefs to school and labour market outcomes.
Locus of Control measures the difference between individuals in their attribution of control over their lives. Some individuals tend to think that they have little or no control over what happens in their lives, while others believe that they control most of the things that happen to them. These are called external and internal attributions of control (Weinhardt and Schupp, 2011; Judge et al., 2002; Rotter, 1966). This concept is close to social psychological theories of attributions (Seligman, 1972; Weiner, 1972). One of these theories is the attribution theory by Kelley (1973), which describes that actors differently attribute positive and negative events to internal and external factors, which they cognitively process to a logical conclusion about control. Depending on this control thought, individuals act accordingly. The internal attribution of control is predictive for motivation and goal settings. Only if control is attributed to oneself will individuals understand it as malleable under their influence and therefore it becomes the precondition of action. The external attribution can lead to so called ‘learned helplessness’ (Seligman, 1972). This means that the individual does not recognise their own control over a situation and thinks nothing can be changed by their actions. This prevents the individual from taking action for improvement. It can even lead to – or is typical of – depressive behaviour (Alloy and Abramson, 1982; Klein et al., 1976). Among all kinds of measures over different dimensions of control, the construct Locus of Control has grown to be the most popular measure (Lefcourt, 2014). Developed by Rotter (1954) the measures are now widely used in surveys and psychological studies. Table 2.2 shows the original questions of Rotter’s measurement.
Table 2.2: Rotter’s original questionnaire of assessing Locus of Control (1954) Item no. Item poles Item text
1 Filler a Children get into trouble because their parents punish them toomuch. Filler b The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents aretoo easy with them.
Table 2.2 continued
Item no. Item poles Item text
2 a Many of the unhappy things in people’s life are partly due to badluck. b People’s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.
3 a One of the major reasons why we have wars is because peopledon’t take enough interest in politics. b There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try toprevent them. 4 a In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world.
b Unfortunately, an individual’s worth often passes unrecognised nomatter how hard he tries. 5 a The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
b Most students don’t realise the extent to which their grades areinfluenced by accidental happenings. 6 a Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.
b Capable people who fail to become leaders have not takenadvantage of their opportunities. 7 a No matter how hard you try some people just don’t like you.
b People who can’t get others to like them don’t understand how toget along with others. 8 Filler a Heredity plays the major role in determining one’s personality.
Filler b It is one’s experiences in life which determine what they’re like. 9 a I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
b Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making adecision to take a definite course of action. 10 a In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever sucha thing as an unfair test.
b Many times exam questions lend to be so unrelated to coursework that studying is really useless. 11 a Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little ornothing to do with it.
b Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place atthe right time. 12 a The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.
b This world is run by the few people in power, and there is notmuch the little guy can do about it. 13 a When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make themwork.
Table 2.2 continued
Item no. Item poles Item text
14 Filler a There are certain people who are just no good. Filler b There is some good in everyone.
15 a In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do withluck. b Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping acoin. 16 a Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enoughto be in the right place first.
b Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luckhas little or nothing to do with it. 17 a As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims offorces we can neither understand, nor control.
b By taking an active part in political and social affairs the peoplecan control world events. 18 a Most people don’t realise the extent to which their lives arecontrolled by accidental happenings.
b There really is no such thing as ‘luck’.
19 Filler a One should always be willing to admit mistakes. Filler b It is usually best to cover up one’s mistakes.
20 a It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. b How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person youare. 21 a In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced bythe good ones.
b Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance,laziness, or all three. 22 a With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
b It is difficult for people to have much control over the thingspoliticians do in office. 23 a Sometimes I can’t understand how teachers arrive at the gradesthey give.
b There is a direct connection between how hard I study and thegrades I get. 24 Filler a A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what theyshould do.
Filler b A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are. 25 a Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things thathappen to me.
Table 2.2 continued
Item no. Item poles Item text
b It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck play animportant role in my life. 26 a People are lonely because they don’t try to be friendly.
b There’s not much use in trying too hard to please people, if theylike you, they like you. 27 Filler a There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.
Filler b Team sports are an excellent way to build character. 28 a What happens to me is my own doing.
b Sometimes I feel that I don’t have enough control over thedirection my life is taking. 29 a Most of the time I can’t understand why politicians behave theway they do.
b In the long run the people are responsible for bad government ona national as well as on a local level.
Source: Rotter (1954, pp. 11)
Items poled towards high values in externally located control in bold print
Rotter (1954) defines his internal versus external control attribution construct as the following:
[...] an event regarded by some persons as a reward or reinforcement may be differently perceived and reacted to by others. One of the determinants of this reaction is the degree to which the individual perceives that the reward follows from, or is contingent upon, his own behaviour or attributes versus the degree to which he feels the reward is controlled by forces outside of himself and may occur independently of his own actions. The effect of a reinforcement following some behaviour on the part of a human subject, in other words, is not a simple stamping-in process but depends upon whether or not the person perceives a causal relationship between his own behaviour and the reward. A perception of self-action and outcome can vary in degree. When a reinforcement is perceived by the subject as following some action of his own but not being entirely contingent upon his action, then, in our culture, it is typically perceived as the result of luck, chance, fate, as under the control
of powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great complexity of the forces surrounding him. When the event is interpreted in this way by an individual, we have labelled this a belief in external control. If the person perceives that the event is contingent upon his own behaviour or his own relatively permanent characteristics, we have termed this a belief in internal control.
In addition to the learned helplessness concept of Seligman, Rotter emphasises the cogni- tive judgement and subjective perception of the situation instead of simple conditioning. If the control is perceived as out of the control of the individual, dependent on luck, fate or others, he labels it ‘external control’. On the other hand, people showing ‘internal control’, believe that the outcome of an event was or will be dependent on their own action.
Rotter also states that the Locus of Control is not the expectancy of an outcome, rather than a reinforcement between the expectancy and the outcome. On an abstract level, he talks about specific and general expectancies. As the name suggests, specific expectancies are connected to the outcome of a specific situation. In contrast, general expectancies are about undefined situations, more of a belief, drawn from learned attitudes and expe- riences. Specific expectancies can predict a behavioural outcome of a person correctly, when the situation is the same or rather similar to a situation already familiar to the individual. There is security in the judgement of the individual about how to reach a certain outcome and, therefore, the individual will react accordingly. However, if the sit- uation is unknown, there is insecurity and therefore people will draw from general beliefs or knowledge. The measurements of Locus of Control indicates the general attitudes of people towards life and not specific expectancies in specific situations. Therefore, Locus of Control is not supposed to predict behaviour precisely in repeated situations, but to cover a trend of decisions taken by individuals because of their general beliefs. For ex- ample, a student revising for a maths test, with the specific expectancy of failing because he or she has failed in maths tests before, will have a number of different alternative behaviours in mind: Not revising at all, for expecting failure anyway, or, since there is a
chance of improving, because it is a different test, trying to learn, as his or her general Locus of Control is internal and therefore success is connected to the effort taken to reach it. Rotter’s assumption is, the more similar the situation is, e.g. the same subject and the same teacher, the more likely the specific expectancies decide over the behaviour. The more the situation differs, e.g. a geography test instead of maths or a new school year with a different teacher, the more general expectancies guide the behaviour of individuals. One of the most common critiques about Locus of Control and social class and at- tainment is the direction of causality. Locus of Control is not a general predictor of life decision, but a catalyst towards a certain behaviour in unknown situations, which means that failure in one career decision does not necessarily demotivate success-striving be- haviour in another career decision, depending on how similar the first situation is to the next. In terms of social learning, social status of the parents imprints children’s Locus of Control. However, low social status does not necessarily cause external Locus of Control. Locus of control can be shaped by many other things than low social status or income, such as child abuse or peer effects. It then effects disadvantageous or advantageous be- haviour in situations new to individuals rather than previous experiences of the family. Various situations and events, such as career changes, can contribute to shape Locus of Control. As demonstrated in Seligman’s learned helplessness concept, constant failure in attainment can lead to the feeling of lacking control, which in turn shows in a tendency for external Locus of Control. On the other hand, own initiative, effort and acting will improve chances of success. Most likely it is a reciprocal relationship. In chapter 6 I will try to capture the reciprocity of attainment and Locus of Control, by modelling a dynamic model with different time point of measurements of both attainment and Locus of control to see the trend of causal direction.
3 Data and Operationalisation
The data used for this study is the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) and its additional module, the GSOEP Youth Questionnaire. The GSOEP is a representative sample of about 11,000 households in Germany, containing approximately 22,000 persons. It started in 1984 and is one of the longest running panel studies in the world. The survey is conducted yearly with random survey dates. It contains extensive information about the socio-economic situation of the household as well as a monthly biography employment history of the respondents. In addition, questions about personality and life satisfaction are included.
The German Socio-Economic Panel is provided by the Institute for Economic Research (DIW) and contains educational information for three generations: the respondents of the Youth Questionnaire, their parents as respondents of the main questionnaire, and indirectly the parents of the respondents of the main questionnaire. For the two younger generations, the participants of the Youth and main questionnaire, first-hand information