The Locus of Control Contsruct

analytical Essay
1974 words
1974 words

Locus of Control, originally conceptualized by Julian Rotter (1966), has been found to be critical to numerous studies. Within psychology, it is considered to be a generalized expectancy regarding the forces that determine reinforcement. Individuals with internal orientation perceive rewards as contingent based on personal behavior, whereas those with external orientation attribute reinforcement received to external factors such as chance and powerful others (Levenson 1981). This essay examines the nature and significance of this psychological construct, especially in academic achievement and health domains. Additionally, it has been argued that high internality is positively associated with leadership while high scores of powerful others have detrimental impacts. Finally comes the argument that higher internality is beneficial for career and leadership.

The nature and the importance of the ‘Locus of Control’ construct

Theoretically derived from Rotter’s I-E Scale, the Levenson scale is extensively used because of its sufficient reliability and validity. Compared with overly simplistic I-E scale, this multidimensional approach is more convincible as it lessens ambiguous wording and almost deters social desirability bias which might arouse a loss of reality (Krampen 1981). In contrast, it may be argued that the I-E Scale is more widely applied. Central construct as it is, I-E scale is surrounded by other development of Locus of Control construct and may be more dominant in some domains. Riordan (1981) administered those two scales to South African students. Effectively, Rotter’s scale was found high reliability, together with the result that Black participants scored significantly less towards internality than White respondent...

... middle of paper ...

... pp. 159-168, viewed 4 April 2014, Tandfonline, doi: 10.1080/00224545.1981.9711654.
Rotter, J. 1966, ‘Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement’, Psychological Monographs, vol. 80, pp. 1-28, viewed 1 April 2014, PsycARTICLES, doi: 10.1037/h0092976.
Selart, M. 2005, ‘Understanding the role of locus of control in consultative decision-making: A case study’. Management Decision, vol. 43, pp. 397-412.
Spector, P.E. 1988,‘Development of the work locus of control scale’. Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol. 61, pp. 335-340, viewed 10 April 2014, Wiley Online Library, doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988.tb00470.x.
Wallston, B. S. and Wallston, K. A. 1978, ‘Locus of Control and Health: A Review of the Literature’, Health Education & Behavior, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 107-117, viewed 5 April 2014, Sage Journals, doi: 10.1177/109019817800600102.

In this essay, the author

  • Analyzes the nature and significance of the locus of control psychological construct, especially in academic achievement and health domains.
  • Compares the levenson scale with rotter's i-e scale because of its reliability and validity.
  • Argues that locus of control construct provides health problems and treatments with essential insights.
  • Argues that generalized locus of control plays an influential role in academic achievement.
  • Explains that high internality is positively correlated with effective democratic leadership. supervisors and subordinates have higher exceptions of controlled by personal effort.
  • Explains that high scores on the p scale might have adverse impacts on effective autocratic leadership where there is no employees’ involvement and decision-making process is totally controlled by leaders.
  • Explains that they were raised in a democratic environment, which allowed them to grow up as independent, dominant, and self-sufficient. however, scores of p scale and c scale are relatively low.
  • Argues that higher internality is a key trait of an effective leader, and suggests that democratic leaders scored significantly higher on i scale.
  • Concludes that locus of control indicates the degree to which persons ascribe outcomes to personal behaviors or outside forces like chance and powerful others.
  • Opines that moderation is the key to success in different schools. anderson, a. and hattie, j. 2005, 'locus of control, self-efficacy, and motivation in different schools'.
  • Cites barbuto, weltmer, and pennisi as antecedents of leader-member exchange quality.
Get Access