147

ROTTER'S INTERNAL-EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL TEST

AIM OF THE TEST

To assess the locus of control of an individual using the Rotter's Locus of Control Questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION

Rotter's locus of control, introduced in 1954 as part of his social learning theory, explains how
individuals perceive control over life events, with a continuum between internal and external loci
(Rotter, 1966). Those with an internal locus believe their actions directly impact their outcomes,
while those with an external locus attribute outcomes to outside forces like luck or fate (Rotter &
Hochreich, 1975). This concept has been widely applied in understanding personality traits,
motivation, and behavior across various contexts (Lefcourt, 1976).

An internal locus of control is characterized by the belief that one's actions directly influence life
outcomes. Internals tend to take responsibility for their achievements and failures, often showing
higher motivation, problem-solving skills, and perseverance in the face of challenges, as they see
them as controllable (Cherry, 2022; Rotter, 1966).

In contrast, an external locus of control involves the belief that life events are shaped by external
forces such as luck, fate, or powerful others. Individuals with an external orientation may feel
that their actions have little influence, leading to passivity, reduced motivation, and feelings of
helplessness (Rotter, 1966; Cherry, 2022).

Rotter's social learning theory integrates cognitive factors such as expectations and beliefs,
emphasizing that behavior is shaped by both situational factors and an individual's perceived
control over outcomes. The theory highlights how generalized expectations, like locus of control,
guide behavior based on the expected reinforcement or outcomes of actions (Rotter & Hochreich,
1975).
History
 148

After Julian Rotter introduced the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale in 1966, its use
rapidly expanded throughout psychological research in the 1970s and 1980s, becoming a crucial
tool in personality, stress, and health psychology studies. Researchers found that an internal locus
of control was linked to better academic performance, mental health, and coping, while an
external locus of control was associated with greater stress and lower achievement. However,
some critics found the scale too broad, leading to the development of more targeted measures.

One of the most widely known LOC scale modifications occurred in 1973, when Levenson
proposed his Multidimensional Locus of Control Scale, which measures individual’s beliefs
about how much control one has in the environment, control by powerful others, and fate
(Levenson, 1973). Other researchers created scales that measure control beliefs in particular
areas, such as health or the workplace. Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC)
(Wallston et al., 1978) and the Work Locus of Control Scale (WLCS) (Spector, 1988) measures
were developed.

Since the 1990s LOC has been especially popular in health and clinical psychology, where it has
been used to predict health outcomes and behaviors. For instance, studies show that patients with
an internal LOC tend to experience better results in treatments like physiotherapy, while those
with an external LOC are more prone to pain, disability, and depression. An individual with
internal LOC often adopts healthier habits, including stress management, regular exercise, and
other various traits, which highlights the scale's role in shaping proactive health behaviors.

Over the years, LOC has been integrated within larger frameworks such as the Core Self-
Evaluation (CSE) model where it is combined with traits including self-esteem, Generalized self-
efficacy and emotional stability. Nonetheless, recent research suggests that LOC itself is a
distinct and unique attribute, particularly relevant in areas such as workplace behavior and
decision-making. Despite newer frameworks, it continues to offer valuable insights into how
individuals perceive and respond to control in their lives. The original scale developed by Rotter
has continued to evolve through various revisions and still remains influential, especially within
health psychology, academics, workplace and other fields
Theories
 149

Attribution Theory:

Fritz Heider, an Austrian psychologist and Gestalt psychologist, developed attribution theory in
1958. Attribution theory posits that individuals attribute their successes and failures to internal or
external factors (Heider, 1958). Corroborating this theory, individuals with an internal locus of
control may attribute outcomes to their own abilities, efforts, or traits (internality), while those
with an external locus of control attribute them to external factors such as people, luck, fate
(externality), or any circumstances beyond their control (Rotter, 1966). In Rotter's Internal-
External Locus of Control test, this tendency is being measured, with high scores indicating an
external locus of control and low scores indicating an internal locus of control.

Social Cognitive Theory:

Social cognitive theory by Albert Bandura in 1986, emphasized the role of cognitive processes,
environmental factors, and personal factors in shaping behavior. To achieve behavior change, the
social cognitive theory mainly consists of six constructs:

Self-efficacy: The belief that an individual has control over and is able to execute a behavior.
Behavioral capability: Understanding and having the skill to perform a behavior.
Expectations: They help determine the outcomes of behavior change.
Expectancies: Assigning a value to the outcomes of behavior change.

Self-control: Regulating and monitoring individual behavior.

Observational learning: Watching and observing outcomes of others performing or modeling the
desired behavior.
Reinforcements: Those rewards or incentives which promote behavior change. By corroborating
this concept, individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to believe they can
influence their outcomes through their own actions and efforts (high in self-control). They may
hence have higher self-efficacy and may be more likely to engage in
goal-directed behavior. Contrastingly, individuals with an external locus of control may perceive
themselves as having limited control(low in self-efficacy) over their outcomes and hence may be
 150

less motivated to take action or work on their performance (Bandura, 1993).

Social Learning Theory:

Julian Rotter's Social Learning Theory was influenced by Thorndike's law of effect, which
suggests that people are motivated by seeking rewards and avoiding punishment. According to
Social Learning Theory, behaviors are learned through interacting with their environment and
observing others, making behavior adaptable. Rotter saw personality as a stable set of responses
shaped by past experiences—when a response leads to a positive outcome, it becomes part of
one's behavioral pattern. His key concept, locus of control, refers to whether people believe they
control their own lives (internal locus) or feel controlled by external forces like luck or fate
(external locus). So if relying on internal (or external) factors were rewarding for an individual in
the past it becomes their learned response. (Ciccarelli & White, 2018; Rotter, 1973).

In Julian Rotter’s Social Learning Theory, three key concepts that influence behavior are
behavior potential, expectancy, and reinforcement value. These concepts help explain why people
act the way they do in various situations, relating to motivation and decision-making processes.

Behavior potential refers to the likelihood of a particular behavior occurring in a given situation.
Essentially, it reflects how probable it is that a person will act in a certain way based on previous
experiences and the current environment. This potential varies from situation to situation and
from person to person, shaped by individual learning experiences. (Rotter, 1973).

Expectancy is your belief about the likelihood of receiving a reward or reinforcement after
performing a certain behavior. If you expect a positive outcome, you're more likely to engage in
the behavior. Expectancy is subjective, as it depends on personal interpretation of situations and
past experiences. People weigh their chances of success or failure and act accordingly based on
these internal calculations. (Rotter, 1973).
Reinforcement value refers to how much you value the outcome or reward you expect from a
behavior. Even if you believe a behavior is likely to result in a positive outcome, if that outcome
isn’t valuable to you, you're less likely to pursue it. This value can vary greatly depending on
 151

personal goals, needs, and desires, influencing decision-making significantly. (Rotter, 1973).

Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale aims to measure the response pattern of an
individual. The test gauges whether the individual believes that the consequences they face are
due to their decisions and actions or due to powerful others, fate, luck, etc.

Internal vs External Locus of Control

Internal Locus of Control refers to the belief that individuals have control over the outcomes in
their lives through their own actions and decisions. They believe that their efforts and abilities
directly influence their success or failure. This belief often leads to high achievement motivation,
as these individuals see themselves as the primary drivers of their destiny. With this mindset,
they are more likely to set ambitious goals and persevere through challenges, believing their
actions will pay off. (Ciccarelli & White, 2018; Neill)

On the other hand, External Locus of Control is when people feel that their lives are shaped more
by external forces such as luck, fate, or the influence of powerful others, rather than their own
efforts. They believe that no matter how hard they work, success or failure depends on factors
beyond their control, like the decisions of powerful others or random circumstances. This
mindset can lead to feelings of helplessness, as these individuals may give up quickly or refrain
from taking initiative, thinking their actions won't change the outcome. Over time, this external
orientation can contribute to patterns of learned helplessness and even depression, as they feel
powerless to improve their situation. (Ciccarelli & White, 2018; Neill)

METHOD

A. Participant Details

Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale was administered to the participant, SH on 30 th

September, 2024. The participant is 21 years old graduate female who appeared enthusiastic
during the test.
 152

B. Description of the Test

To operationalize the concept of locus of control, Rotter developed a psychometric scale that
could measure where individuals fell on the spectrum between internal and external control. The
Locus of Control Scale consists of 29 items, presented as pairs of forced-choice statements. Of
these 29 items, 23 are used for scoring, while 6 are filler items designed to mask the true purpose
of the test and minimize bias in respondents’ answers.

Each item presents two contrasting statements: one reflecting an internal locus of control and the
other reflecting an external locus of control. The forced-choice format requires respondents to
choose the statement that they most agree with, even if neither option perfectly aligns with their
belief system. This structure ensures that individuals are making a definitive choice between an
internal or external orientation.

1. Norms

Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, adapted into Turkish by Dağ in 2002, a sample
of 100 university students was assessed to explore their individual characteristics regarding locus
of control. This adaptation was essential for ensuring cultural relevance in measuring how
individuals attribute outcomes to internal or external factors. The study focuses on university
students, a demographic undergoing significant transitional life experiences that can influence
their perceptions of control. Understanding locus of control in this context can provide insights
into how students navigate academic and personal challenges, potentially informing interventions
aimed at fostering a more internal locus of control, which may enhance resilience, motivation,
and coping strategies. Overall, this research contributes valuable insights into the relationship
between locus of control and student well-being.

2. Validity

Validity in testing refers to the extent to which a test accurately measures what it claims to
measure. In the context of locus of control, which assesses individuals' beliefs about the extent to
which they can control events affecting them, validity is crucial to ensure that the test genuinely
reflects these beliefs. The difficulty index of 0.59 indicates that the items on the test have a
 153

moderate level of difficulty. This suggests that about 59% of respondents answered the items
correctly, indicating that the questions are neither too easy nor too hard, which can be ideal for
gauging a range of abilities or beliefs.

3. Reliability

Reliability in the context of the locus of control test refers to the consistency of the results
obtained from the measurement tool. A Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.86 indicates a high level of
internal consistency, suggesting that the items on the test reliably measure the same construct.
This means that individuals' responses are stable across different administrations, reinforcing the
test's dependability. A high reliability score is crucial for ensuring that the assessment accurately
reflects locus of control beliefs, which can inform psychological research and interventions.

4. Scoring

The items that are directed towards externality and to be scored 1 are as follows - 2.a, 3.b, 4.b,
5.b, 6.a, 7.a, 9.a, 10.b, 11.b, 12.b, 13.b, 15.b, 16.a, 17.a, 18.a, 20.a, 21. a, 22.b, 23.a, 25.a, 26.b,
28.b, 29.a, respectively. The test consists of 29 items, including six filler items (1, 8, 14, 19, 24,
27) designed to obscure the test's purpose and maintain response integrity. Each relevant item is
scored one point, yielding a total score range from 0 to 23. Scores between 0 and 8 indicate an
Internal Locus of Control, suggesting individuals believe they can influence their outcomes
through their actions. Scores of 9 to 12 indicate an in between Locus of Control, reflecting a
balance between internal and external factors. Scores of 13 or higher denote an External Locus of
Control, where individuals feel that external forces, such as luck or fate, significantly impact their
lives.

5. Interpretation

Internal Locus of Control: Individuals believe that they have control over their life outcomes
through their own efforts, decisions, and behaviors. They tend to attribute success or failure to
their personal abilities and actions.
In between Locus of Control : Individuals feel that they have control over their life but may
blame fate or luck if things go wrong decreasing self blame. They are not too pessimistic and also
 154

not too optimistic in life.

External Locus of Control: Individuals feel that their outcomes are largely influenced by external
factors, such as luck, fate, or the actions of others. They may believe that they have little control
over their circumstances.

6. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Test

Advantages:

1. The Locus of Control test offers valuable insight into how individuals perceive control over
their life events, helping to distinguish between those who take responsibility for their outcomes
and those who attribute results to external factors. This distinction is useful in understanding
personal behaviors and guiding developmental interventions (Rotter, 1966; Lefcourt, 1976).

2. It has predictive value in various fields such as education, health, and work performance. For
example, individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to be motivated, achieve
higher in academic settings, and adopt healthier lifestyle habits, making the test an effective tool
for predicting behavior in different contexts (Lefcourt, 1976; Cherry, 2022).

3. The test is widely applicable across multiple fields, including psychology, education,
management, and health, allowing professionals to use it to understand behavior and decision-
making across diverse areas. Its versatility makes it an essential part of psychological
assessments in various industries (Rotter, 1966; Social Sci LibreTexts, 2023).

4. In therapeutic settings, the Locus of Control test can inform cognitive-behavioral

interventions. By identifying whether an individual holds an internal or external locus of control,
therapists can tailor strategies to encourage a shift towards a more internal orientation, thus
fostering empowerment and better coping mechanisms (Cherry, 2022; Lefcourt, 1976).

Disadvantages:
 155

1. The test may not fully account for cultural differences in perceptions of control. In collectivist
societies, for example, people may view control as resting with the group or external forces like
fate, which can skew the results when applying the test across diverse populations (Lefcourt,
1976; Social Sci LibreTexts, 2023).

2. The Locus of Control test can be context-dependent. An individual may exhibit a different
locus of control in varying aspects of their life (e.g., career vs. personal life), meaning the test
may not always provide a complete picture of how someone perceives control in all situations
(Cherry, 2022; Rotter, 1966).

3. While the test can predict certain behaviors, it doesn’t fully explain or predict all actions, as
human behavior is influenced by many other factors like emotions, environment, and situational
pressures. This limits its accuracy in providing a holistic view of personality (Lefcourt, 1976;
Rotter, 1966).

4. The internal vs. external distinction can be too simplistic for some individuals, as people often
hold a mixed or balanced locus of control, where they see both personal effort and external
factors influencing their outcomes. This complexity may not be fully captured in a binary format
(Cherry, 2022).

5. The results of the test can be influenced by the individual’s mood or perception at the time of
taking it. Subjective factors like stress or temporary setbacks might affect how individuals
perceive their control, leading to inconsistent or less reliable results (Lefcourt, 1976; Rotter,
1966).

7. Applications of the Test

1) Education:

In educational settings, to understand a student's perception of self as it relates to achievement,

can be learnt through Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control test. (Rotter, 1954). Students
are said to be self motivated, persistent and better at their performance in academics when it is
 156

known that their locus of control is internal (Dweck, 2006). In contrast, students with an external
locus of control, may be less likely to take responsibility or have acceptance for their academic
grades or performance because they would attribute the outcomes to external mediums such as
their teachers, luck or others (Skinner, 1996).

2) Health Setting:

The locus of control test is also found to be useful in understanding patient’s attitudes toward
managing their health (Wallander & Deaton, 1988). People who take proactive steps such as
maintaining a balanced diet, exercising regularly, following treatment plans, are behaviors that
people with an internal locus of control show. (Bandura, 1977) Whereas if someone has an
external locus of control, they might feel helpless and may be prone to not continue or follow
their medical treatment or advice, which may potentially affect their recovery. (Seligman, 1975)

3) Organizational Setting:

In workplace and organizations, in order to develop effective management strategies, looking

over at the employees’ locus of control can help (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2002). Employees
who tend to take the initiative, plan, and feel a sense of responsibility for their performance were
found out to have higher levels of workplace productivity and job satisfaction. These individuals
had an internal locus of control which helped them manage their workplace ethics and
performance (Rotter, 1966). But it was also noted that employees which had an external locus of
control may feel that their success depends on external forces such as luck, chance or people.
This may lead to disengagement and lower work performance (Skinner, 1996).

4) Consumer Psychology:

How the population, also called consumers, make their choices, decisions and behave can also be
understood by the valuable insights from the locus of control test (Lichtenstein & Slovic, 1971).
Consumers were known to make informed purchasing choices by proactively researching
highlighting an internal locus of control. (Wallander & Deaton, 1988). Conversely, consumers
who were mostly swayed by advertisements, peer pressure or by situational factors when
shopping, were found to have an external locus of control. These factors are essential in
 157

understanding consumer behavior and trends (Skinner, 1996).

5) Sports Psychology:

In sports psychology, using the locus of control test as an important tool for athletes and coaches
can benefit in understanding their beliefs about control affecting players’ performance (Weiner,
1986). The players or athletes who had internal locus of control tended to take responsibility for
their preparation, in-game decisions, their performance and training were found to be highly self
disciplined and resilient in the face of challenges (Bandura, 1977). But when looking at athletes
with external locus of control, they might have a tendency to attribute their failures, decisions and
performances to external factors that are all outside of their control, undermining their motivation
and focus (Seligman, 1975).

8. Recent Researches

Anmol and Rath (2022) in their study examined the effect of locus of control and gender on
happiness level among Indian adolescents. They used online cross-sectional survey on 400
adolescents (200 boys and 200 girls) between the ages of 17 and 19 years randomly selected from
five different institutions in Cuttack and used the The Internal-External Locus of Control scale
(Rotter, 1966) and The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ) (Hills & Argyle, 2002) to
measure their state of happiness.
The effect of locus of control was found to be significant, indicating that internal control
adolescents reported a higher level of happiness than external control adolescents. Similarly, the
effect of gender was significant, indicating that the mean happiness score of girls was
significantly higher than those of boys. However, the interaction effect (locus of control x
gender) was not significant. (Anmol & Rath, 2022). These findings are consistent with previous
research that individuals who believe they have personal control over their lives tend to
experience greater happiness compared to those who feel they have little control over the events
affecting them (Devin et al., 2012). It is indicated through this study that the perception of control
over life events appears to play a significant role in fostering happiness, particularly among
adolescents, making an internal locus of control a crucial factor in their well-being.

Exploring further, a study done by Jain and Singh (2015) examined the effect of locus of control
 158

on mental health and adjustment in adolescent females using Mental Health Battery designed by
Singh, Gupta (2000), Rotter's Locus of Control Scale (1966) & Adjustment Inventory for
College Students by Sinha & Singh (1995) with a purposive sampling of 50 adolescent girls with
mean age 19.5 years. The findings of this study revealed that adolescent girls with an internal
locus of control exhibited better mental health and higher levels of adjustment than those with an
external locus of control. Specifically, those with an internal locus of control displayed emotional
stability, autonomy, and a positive self-concept. In contrast, girls with an external locus of control
were more likely to attribute their successes and failures to external circumstances, which
negatively affected their mental health and adjustment (Jain & Singh, 2015). This study aligns
with broader research, which indicates that individuals with an internal locus of control tend to
cope better with stress and show more adaptive mental health outcomes, while those with an
external locus of control may experience higher levels of anxiety, depression, and poor
adjustment and as such highlights the significant role of internal locus of control in promoting
mental well-being and successful adjustment during adolescence.

Focusing on mental health, Gaur and Singh (2022) attempted to investigate the influence of
emotional intelligence and locus of control on the psychological well-being of youth. The sample
consisted of 100 university students, aged between 18 to 25 years, and data was collected using
the Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale (1966), Schutte’s Emotional Intelligence Scale (SEIS- 1998)
and The Psychological Wellbeing Scale (PWBS-2012) developed by Dr Devender Singh Sisodia
and Pooja Choudhary. The findings show that both high emotional intelligence and an internal
locus of control positively correlate with improved psychological well-being. Psychological well-
being being higher in the internal locus of control as compared to the External locus of control
(Gaur & Singh, 2021). Males were found to have a more external locus of control as compared to
the internal Locus of control, the mean statistics for Male Emotional Intelligence and
Psychological well-being was found to be lower as compared to Female Emotional Intelligence
and Psychological well-being being. These results suggest that the male sample in this study
showed a lower level of emotional intelligence, external locus of control and lower psychological
well-being. Emotional intelligence helps individuals regulate emotions and maintain better
relationships, while an internal locus of control leads to greater resilience and adaptability,
suggesting that both traits are crucial for mental health stability.
 159

A study done by Akıntunde and Olujıde (2018) explored how emotional intelligence and locus of
control impact the academic performance of gifted students who are underachieving. The sample
for the study, 72 underachieving high ability students purposely selected from 12 schools in
Ibadan, Nigeria, were administered Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale (RLCS), Schutte (1998)
Emotional Intelligence Scale (SEIS).

Locus of control and emotional intelligence as discussed in the previous study can have a strong
influence on academic achievement. Results of Akıntunde and Olujıde (2018) study showed that
the locus of control and emotional intelligence of the respondents were significantly poor,
implying that the sample tended towards the external locus of control than the internal locus of
control contributing to their underachievement. A significant difference was also found between
male and female students in their locus of control, with female participants showing better locus
of internal control. The study also revealed that locus of control has more influence than
emotional intelligence in predicting academic achievement and both locus of control and
emotional intelligence have high positive correlation and very strong significant composite effect
on academic achievement (Akıntunde & Olujıde, 2018). The study suggests that enhancing
emotional intelligence and fostering a stronger internal locus of control could significantly
improve academic outcomes for underachieving gifted students

Locus of control continues to hold its significance in recent times as can be seen by multiple
researches done on the role locus of control played during Covid-19 and continues to play in the
aftermath.
A study done by Banerjee et al. (2022) explored the relationship among locus of control,
COVID-19 anxiety, and psychological well-being. Data was collected from 100 young adults
aged from 18 to 25 years online through google forms using The Rotter's Locus of Control Scale
(1966), The Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (Lee, 2020), The Coronavirus Impact Scale (Stoddard et
al., 2021) and The Psychological Well-being Scale (Ryff, 1989). The study highlights that an
external locus of control and Coronavirus anxiety negatively affects psychological well-being
with respect to the purpose of life. Having an internal locus of control and believing that one has
agency over their life acts as a protective factor against adverse pandemic situations (Banerjee et
al., 2022). The study concluded that promoting an internal locus of control and subsequently self-
 160

efficacy, resilience, and self-reliance along with engagement in health promoting behavior
could be beneficial in reducing anxiety and improving well-being, especially during uncertain
times like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Another such study done by Muric (2023) looked at the relationship between locus of control and
preferred stress-coping strategies among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Data was collected from the sample of 110 respondents, of both sexes and aged from 20 to 65
years old by using The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) and the Rotter Internal-
External Locus of Control Scale. The results showed that there is a connection between the locus
of control and strategies for overcoming stress, revealing that the coping strategy focused on
avoidance is more pronounced in respondents with an internal locus of control than in those with
an external locus of control. However, there were no significant differences in stress coping
strategies between men and women, nor were there notable differences across various age groups
(Muric, 2023).

C. Administration of the Test

1. Materials Used

Rotter’s locus of control test questionnaire, Blank sheet, Scoring key, Pencil, scale and
eraser were used.

2. Precautions

While administering the Locus of Control (LOC) test, there is some precaution to keep to
make sure the results are correct. The test was conducted in a quiet, comfortable
environment free from distractions to ensure the participants focus. It was ensured that all
responses are kept confidential and are only used for the intended purpose. An informed
consent was obtained from participants explaining the purpose of the test and how the data
will be used. The test was administered under standardized conditions to ensure
consistency of the test.
 161

3. Instructions
This is a questionnaire to find out the way in which certain important events in our society
affect different people. Each item consists of a pair of alternatives A or B. Please select
one statement of each pair (and only one), which you more strongly believe to be the case,
as far as you are concerned. Write 'A' or 'B' in the space provided. Be sure to select the
one you actually believe to be more true rather than the one you think you should choose
or the one you would like to be true. Please find a single answer for every choice, even if
you find yourself agreeing with both the statements or neither of the two in the pair.

4. Conduction Procedure

A person’s internal or external control is assessed with the Locus of Control (LOC) test.
In this process, it starts by identifying an acceptable and reliable test which is in this case
Rotter’s Locus of Control test and the content of the questions is relevant to the age group
of the sample. Once the participant sits in a calm and comfortable position, the rapport
was built with the participant and detailed instructions are provided as to the test items
which usually require a number of statements to which the respondent has to respond in
which statements they agree the most. To ensure that participant give appropriate
responses, confidentiality has been highlighted. The responses are scored in accordance
with the scoring key. After all this procedure participants have given the answers of post
test questions and after the whole test administered explained to participants what the aim
was through these points which tried to measure whether participant had an external or
internal locus of control. (Kumar & Srivastava, 2021)

5. Observation
During the Rotter's Locus of Control assessment, she exhibited a thoughtful and reflective,
carefully considering each statement before responding. She seemed to understand the
implications of the questions, often pausing to assess her beliefs about personal control
and external influences in her life.
 162

6. Reaction to the Test

During the Rotter's Locus of Control assessment, she reacted with curiosity and
introspection, often nodding as she engaged with the statements. She expressed some
surprise at her own beliefs, particularly when reflecting on situations where she felt either
in control or subject to external circumstances. After completing the assessment, she
shared that it was a valuable experience.

RESULTS

Table 7.1
Score Table on Rotter’s Locus of Control

Score Interpretation

7 High Internal Locus of Control

DISCUSSION

The concept of Locus of Control was developed originally by Julian Rotter in 1954 from his
social learning theory. Locus of control refers to a person's belief about the degree to which their
life events are influenced by their own actions (internal locus of control) versus external factors
beyond their control (external locus of control). The Locus of Control Scale (LCS) by Julian B.
Rotter is a 29-item forced choice questionnaire that measures a person's internal versus external
locus of control. It contains six filler items to make ambiguous the purpose of the test. Scores
range from 0 to 22, with lower values (0-8) reflecting an internal locus of control, scores between
9 and 12 representing a balance between internal and external control, and higher values (13 and
above) indicating an external locus of control.

The participant scored 7 on the questionnaire, indicating a high internal locus of control. Having a
high internal locus of control can offer several advantages. People with this mindset often feel
 163

empowered, believing they have the ability to influence their own outcomes. This can lead to
greater motivation and persistence in achieving goals, as they tend to take responsibility for their
successes and failures. They are also more likely to engage in problem-solving and proactive
behaviors, which can foster personal growth and resilience. Additionally, individuals with an
internal locus of control often experience lower levels of stress since they feel more in control of
their circumstances. This mindset can also boost self-esteem and confidence in one's decision-
making abilities. These individuals also tend to have high self-efficacy.

While a high internal locus of control can offer many benefits, it can also lead to psychological
difficulties. Individuals with an overly internal orientation may place excessive pressure on
themselves, believing they are solely responsible for all outcomes. If they lack the necessary
skills, resources, or opportunities to succeed, this can result in frustration, anxiety, or feelings of
inadequacy. Such individuals may become neurotic or depressed, especially when they face
situations beyond their control but still internalize the blame. Internals can also struggle with
unrealistic expectations, overestimating their influence over external circumstances, which can
negatively affect their mental health.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Part A:
A high internal locus of control can empower individuals to take responsibility for their actions,
leading to increased motivation, problem-solving, and resilience. It often results in greater life
satisfaction and a sense of control over outcomes. However, if not balanced with realistic
expectations and necessary skills, it may cause stress, anxiety, or depression, as overly internal
people may blame themselves for circumstances beyond their control. For individuals with a
high internal locus of control, it’s important to develop coping mechanisms to manage stress and
avoid feelings of inadequacy. One effective strategy is to set realistic and achievable goals,
breaking larger tasks into smaller steps. Additionally, practicing self-compassion may also prove
to be beneficial. Engaging in mindfulness practices, such as meditation may help the individual
to manage stress and improve their overall mental well-being.
 164

Part B:
Since Locus of Control is a learned trait, Rotter’s Internal Locus of Control should not be used in
isolation. It should be used in combination with personality tests like 16 Personality Factor (PF)
Questionnaire, NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) for a holistic view of an individual's
personality. Levinson’s Locus of Control can also be used as a substitution or an addition of this
test to find the external factors of faith and powerful others.

CONCLUSION

The participant received a score of 7 on Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale, indicating a high
internal locus of control. This suggests that she is likely to feel responsible and accountable for
her successes and failures, possesses a strong belief in her own capabilities, and may have high
self-efficacy.
 165

REFERENCES

Akıntunde, D. O., & Olujıde, F. O. (2018). Influence of emotional intelligence and locus of
control on academic achievement of underachieving high ability students. Journal for the
Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(2), 14–22.

Álvarez-Rodríguez, J., Leirós-Rodríguez, R., Morera-Balaguer, J., Marqués-Sánchez, P., &

Rodríguez-Nogueira, Ó. (2022). The Influence of the Locus of Control Construct on the
Efficacy of Physiotherapy Treatments in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Systematic
Review. Journal of personalized medicine, 12(2), 232.

Anmol, & Rath, S. (2022). Effect of Locus of Control and Gender on Happiness among Indian
Adolescents. North American Journal of Psychology, 24(1), 135-146.

Bandura, Albert (1993). "Perceived Self Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning".
Educational Psychologist. 28 (2): 117–148. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3. S2CID
52256247.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Banerjee, A., Sheth, H., Agarwal, A., & Chakraborty, A. (2022). Relationship between COVID-
19 Anxiety, Locus of Control and Psychological Well-being. Indian Journal of Health
and Wellbeing, 13(2), 218-223.

Cherry, K. (2022). What is Locus of Control? Verywell Mind.

Ciccarelli, S. K., & White, J. N. (2018). Psychology (5th edition). Pearson.

Dag, I. (2002). Psychometric properties of locus of control scale. Turkish Journal of psychology,
 166

17(49), 77-90.
Devin, H. F., Ghahramanlou, F., Fooladian, A., & Zohoorian, Z. (2012). The relationship
between locus of control (internal - external) and happiness in pre-elementary teachers in
Iran. Procedía - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4169-4173.

Dogonchi, M., Mohammadzadeh, F., & Moshki, M. (2022). Investigating the Relationship
between Health Locus of Control and Health Behaviors: A Systematic Review. The Open
Public Health Journal, 15(1).

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Galvin, B, M., Randel, A.E., Collins, B.J., Johnson, R.E. (2018) Changing the focus of locus (of
control): a targeted review of the locus of control literature and agenda for future
research. J. Organ. Behav. 38:820–33

Gaur, T., & Singh, D. J. (2022). "ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND LOCUS OF
CONTROL ON PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING IN YOUTH". NeuroQuantology,
20(17), 2129-2138.

Jain, M., & Singh, S. (2015). Locus of control and its relationship with mental health and
adjustment among adolescent females. Journal of Mental Health and Human Behaviour,
20(1), 16-21.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. P., Erez, A., & Locke, T. A. (2002). Core self-evaluations and the job
attitudes and behaviors of individuals and groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3),
621-630.

Kumar, A., & Srivastava, S. N. (2021). Locus of control. In JESU SCA RES4U (pp. 1–4).

Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. Lawrence
 167

Erlbaum Associates.
Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in health and organizational settings.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(2), 206–212.

Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). The effects of uncertainty on preference between gambles.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(2), 58-69.

Muric, D. (2023). Research of the preferred style of coping stress in relation to locus of control
among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Psychiatry,
66(S1), S210–S211.

Neill, J. (n.d.). What is Locus of Control?

Rotter J. B., (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1.

Rotter, J. B. (1973). Social Learning and Clinical psychology. Johnson Reprint Corp.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning theory in personality. Prentice-Hall.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28.

Rotter, J. B., & Hochreich, D. J. (1975). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 26, 251-301.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. W. H. Freeman

and Company.

Skinner, B. F. (1996). Beyond freedom and dignity. Bantam Books.

 168

Social Sci LibreTexts. (2023). Basic Constructs in Rotter’s Social Learning Theory.

Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the Work Locus of Control Scale. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 61(4), 335–340.

Wallander, J. L., & Deaton, C. (1988). Locus of control and health-related behaviors: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 70-77.

Wallston, K. A., Wallston, B. S., & DeVellis, R. (1978). Development of the Multidimensional
Health Locus of Control (MHLC) Scales. Health Education Monographs, 6(2), 160–170

Cherry, K. (2022). What is locus of control? Verywell Mind.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Springer.

Post-Task Questions

1) How did you feel about the questions on the scale? Were they easy to
understand?
The questions seemed easy to understand and pretty straightforward, pretty binary in nature but i
guess that’s point

2) Did any of the items on the scale feel particularly relatable to you? If so, which ones and why?
The whole conversation around ‘luck’ felt like an indirect way of saying that you pretty much
create your luck’ which is a superficial way of saying that the right amount of work can only give
you a desired result. That felt relatable to me.

3)Were there any questions that felt difficult to answer or didn’t apply to your
experiences?
Not really, some didn’t apply to my experiences but they were simple in nature.

4) Did this assessment make you reflect on your personal beliefs about its influence in your life?
If so, in what way?
Self-reflection not so much, but yes it surely gave me clarity on my opinions and beliefs

5) Was there any part of the process that made you reconsider your views on how much control
you have over events in your life?
Not really, all my responses were directly proportionate as to how I approach life in general.