A report submitted for internal assessment of

Work Psychology
On

Locus of Control

PREPARED BY
Roll No. Name Section
18 Chhavi Jain
34 Kumar Utkarsh
47 Nidhi Sharma
70 Siddharth Agarwal
76 Tushar Vinod Gupta SP-2
77 Umang Somani
79 Vernika Singla

IIPM
Submitted to:-
Prof. Brinda Balakrishnan

Locus of Control
       Locus of control is defined as an individual’s generalized expectancies regarding the forces
that determine rewards and punishments.  Individuals with an internal locus of control view
events as resulting from their own actions.  Persons with an external locus of control view events
as being under the control of external factors such as luck (Marsh & Weary, 1995).  For example,
a person with an internal locus of control will attribute the failure to meet a desired goal to poor
personal preparation, whereas, one with an external locus of control will attribute failure to
circumstances beyond the individual’s control.  The way individuals interpret such events has a
profound affect on their psychological well-being.  If people feel they have no control over
future outcomes, they are less likely to seek solutions to their problems.  The far-reaching effects
of such maladaptive behaviors can have serious consequences, which has led many social
psychologists to examine the origin of locus control and its impact on the social world.

        Control is a concept that plays an important role in several psychological theories.  It is
central to Seligman’s (1975) probability analysis of control, theories of learned helplessness,
Rotter’s (1954) social learning theory, Weiner’s (1986) attributional analysis of motivation and
emotion, and it is the key concept in Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory.

        Seligman (1975) has defined the concept of control most explicitly.  He defines an event as
controllable when a person’s voluntary responses have an impact on the consequences of that
event.  By contrast, an event is considered to be uncontrollable when no voluntary response has
an impact on the event.  For example, when an organism receives electric shocks regardless of its
efforts to stop them, the electric shocks are uncontrollable to the organism.  However, when the
organism has the ability to prevent the shocks by pressing a button, the shock is considered to be
controllable.

        Seligman explains his analysis through a mathematical approach.  He views

controllability as a function of two parameters.  The first parameter concerns the probability that
an event (e.g., the termination of a shock) will occur when a certain voluntary behavior is
performed.  The second parameter concerns the probability that the event (e.g., the termination of
the shock) will occur in the absence of the respective action (e.g., pressing a button).  Referring
to these two parameters, Seligman defines an event as controllable when the probability of its
occurrence in the presence and in the absence of the response under consideration are equal.  For
instance, when the shock is terminated in 100 percent of the cases when the organism presses the
button, the termination of the shock is 100 percent controllable.  However, loss of control exists
when there is a lack of contingency between behaviors and outcomes.  This can lead to
motivational, emotional, and cognitive deficits.

        Such deficits can be traced to the discovery that loss of control leads to learned
helplessness, a state similar to depression.  Seligman (1975) assumes that experiences of
uncontrollability, such as the loss of a loved one, can lead to the expectancy that future events
will also be uncontrollable.  This expectancy leads to learned helplessness and depression.  Thus,
according to this theory, depressed individuals differ from nondepressed persons in that they tend
to expect to be unable to control events.

        However, in certain situations, lack of control can lead to a quite different psychological
state known as reactance.  Wortman and Brehm (1975) argue that the initial reponse to
uncontrollable outcomes is an increase in motivation and performance in order to attempt to
regain control.  Thus, the child that experiences the death of a loved one may be motivated to
become a doctor so that he or she can treat patients with similar problems and prevent the same
thing from happening to other loved ones.  The effects of reactance are limited though.  Wortman
and Brehm theorize that when perceived uncontrollable experiences continue to arise the state of
helplessness is likely to emerge.

        Research within the framework of Rotter’s (1954) social learning theory is not primarily
concerned with the conditions that lead to uncontrollability.  Instead, the psychological
consequences of the belief that one can or cannot control the causes of events is the focus of his
work.  Although Rotter takes a different angle to approach this topic, he defines “control” quite
similarly to Seligman.  He states that an individual has an internal locus of control if one
perceives that the event is contingent upon one’s behavior or relatively permanent
characteristics, whereas external locus of control is characterized by the belief that reinforcement
is perceived as not being contingent upon action ( to learn more about social learning theory,).

        This phenomena is exemplified through the relatively stable personality dispositions of
internal versus external locus of control.  Internal locus of control leads to typical shifts in
expectations of success following success or failure.  Those who succeed have increased
expectancies following success and decreased expectancies following failure.  Individuals with
an external locus of control show more atypical expectancy shifts.  They exhibit decreased
expectancies of success following success and increased expectations of success following
failure.

        In Weiner’s (1986) attributional analysis of motivation and emotion, the concept of
controllability plays a central role in evaluative interpersonal actions.  He postulates that
observers’ reactions to actors who experience failure, sickness, or need for help, are largely
determined by the perceived controllability of the causes of these events.  Attributions of failure
to controllable causes, such as lack of effort, lead to anger, punishment, and reduced willingness
to help, whereas the belief that the actor has no control over the cause of the negative event, such
as failure due to lack of ability, leads to pity, help-giving, and to lesser or no punishment.  For
example, a beggar who appears to be capable of finding work is unlikely to get many handouts
because passersby will attribute his state to being lazy.  However, a blind beggar is likely to get
more donations because people will attribute his plight to forces beyond his control.  This will
lead them to pity the beggar and make them more likely to exhibit helping behavior.

        Bandura (1986) examined aspects of the self that influence self-regulation.  His research
examined the effects of self-efficacy beliefs, or the expectations that people hold about their
abilities to accomplish certain tasks.  Whether or not they will undertake a particular activity,
attempt to do a particular task, or strive to meet a particular goal depends on whether or not they
believe we will be efficacious in performing those actions (Taylor et. al, 1998).  In other words,
if individuals believe they have control over future events, then they will attempt to exert that
control in order to achieve a positive outcome.  It does not matter whether an outcome is or is not
attainable, the perception of control determines if one will try to attain it.  For example, if one
believes that it is in her control to meet an extremely difficult goal such as getting straight As in
school, she will try to get them even though the odds may be against her.  On the contrary, one
may drop out of school because she does not believe it is under her control to determine if she
passes her classes, even though passing grades may clearly be within her realm of abilities. 
Therefore, locus of control has a significant impact on Bandura’s self-efficacy theories, and how
individuals’ expectations shape the goals they set for themselves (test your self-efficacy here).
        Locus of control is a concept that has a significant effect on our daily lives.  Those with an
external locus of control believe that their own actions do not influence future outcomes.  This
makes individuals less likely to work to reach their full potential due to the motivational,
emotional, and cognitive deficits it creates.  In fact, people with an external locus of control are
more likely to suffer from depression and other ailments because they believe their actions
cannot improve their current position.  Those with an internal locus of control see the world
through a more adaptive perspective.  They believe that hard work and personal abilities will
lead to positive outcomes.  This makes them more likely to meet challenges and succeed in their
future endeavors.  Even though one’s actions may not have anything to do with an outcome, the
belief that they do can greatly aid one’s psychological well-being.  Therefore, those that attribute
a sense of personal responsibility for their future thoughts and aspirations are much more adept
to living in the social world.

How Can You Apply Locus Of Control To Education?

        It has often been said that obtaining a good education is the key to being successful in the
world.  But what determines being successful while in school?  While many things may
contribute to school achievement, one variable that is overlooked is locus of control.  In the
context of education, locus of control refers to the types of attributions we make for our
successes and/or failures in school tasks.  If someone believes that his or her successes and
failures are due to factors within their own control, such as effort or ability, then that person is
said to have an internal locus of control.  On the other hand, if someone believes that his or her
successes and failures are due to factors outside of their own control, such as fate or luck, then
that person is said to have an external locus of control.  An example may best illustrate this
distinction.  John and Katie each receive a D on a class test.  John has an internal locus of control
and attributes his grade to lack of studying.  Katie has an external locus of control and attributes
her grade to a poorly made test and an ineffective teacher, both of which are out of her control. 
Although it may seem like a trivial issue, locus of control can have a profound impact on school
achievement.  What did your quiz results tell you about yourself?  If you scored high on
externality, do you see yourself acting like Katie?  If you scored high on internality, do you see
yourself acting like John?  After looking at the consequences of adopting either an internal or
external orientation, a specific look will be taken at learning disabled students and adult students,
as well as explaining a suggested intervention for changing a student’s locus of control.

Are Achievement And Motivation Affected By LOC?

Research has shown that having an internal locus of control is related to higher academic
achievement (Findley & Cooper, 1983).  Internals earn somewhat better grades and work harder. 
This includes spending more time on homework as well as studying longer for tests.  This makes
sense because if you believe working hard will pay off, then you are likely to do so.  What may
cause someone to develop an external locus of control?  According to Bender (1995),
“Continued failure in spite of continued attempts at school tasks leads to an external locus of
control.  Further, a high external locus of control, in turn, leads to a lack of motivation for study
and school in general.”  If someone has an external locus of control, he or she may feel that
working hard is futile because their efforts have only brought disappointment.  Ultimately, they
may perceive failure as being their destiny.  Have you ever had the experience that no matter
how hard you tried you just couldn't get that A in a class?  If this type of experience happened
often, you would likely develop an external locus of control.  Developing an external locus of
control also makes it easier to excuse poor performance without hurting the individual’s self-
esteem (Basgall & Snyder, 1988).  By attributing their failure to fate, chance, or to the fault of
someone else, they are able to escape the potential damage that may come from attributing it to
personal flaws or lack of ability.  Can you remember a time when you received a poor grade on a
test and your immediate reaction was "this test was impossible" or "the teacher didn't explain it
well"?  I know I have.  This allows us to dismiss the belief that we are inadequate, keeping our
self-esteem in tact.  However, if we consistently use this excuse, we may lose our motivation to
improve.

Physical Health And Locus Of Control

 There is extensive interest in understanding the relationship between locus of control beliefs and
a variety of different health attitudes, behaviors, and situations. Health Locus of Control (HLC),
first popularized in the 1970s by Wallston, Wallston, Kaplan and Maides, examines the degree to
which individuals believe that their health is controlled by internal or external factors.  External
beliefs are premised on the notion that one’s health outcome is under the control of powerful
others (i.e. medical professionals) or is determined by fate, luck, or chance.  Internal beliefs
characterize one’s health condition as being the direct result of one’s own actions.

       So, how do we learn to adopt positive HLOC beliefs?

        Rotter (1975) suggests that general locus of control beliefs come from specific experiences
and past reinforcement history.  Reinforcement theory (Skinner, 1938) argues that what controls
behavior are reinforcers.  A reinforcer is a consequence that immediately follows a response and
either removes a negative stimulus or adds a positive stimulus, thereby increasing the probability
that the behavior will be repeated.  Thus, individuals who have a history of successful attempts at
health control are more likely to be internal than are those who have been unsuccessful in their
attempts. 
 

        A possible determinant of these beliefs is practice in taking care of oneself.  Lau (1982)
divides practiced health habits along two separate dimensions.  Certain behaviors involve self-
care, such as brushing one’s teeth, getting exercise, getting sufficient sleep, and eating a good
diet.  Other health habits involve utilizing the services of medical professionals, like maintaining
regular checkups at a doctor or dentist, or receiving preventive vaccines. It has been identified
that practicing a variety of different health habits as a child is associated with optimistic
beliefs in the controllability of health, both for beliefs in the efficacy of self-care and of doctors. 
Peterson, Seligman, and Vaillant (1988) found that the tendency to adopt a pessimistic
explanation of personal misfortune in young adulthood was associated with poor physical health
in later life. 

Who Most Influenced The Adoption Of Your Present Health Habits?

     Research has also suggested that internal locus of control is associated with nurturing and
accepting parents who display consistent discipline (Rotter, 1975).  Reinforcement theory easily
explains why this might be the case.  Nurturing parents are likely to be attentive to their
children’s behavior and prepared to respond to the child’s actions with reinforcers to encourage
the practice of good health habits and discourage poor ones.  Yet, it is not only parents that must
be aware of their influence on the establishment of children’s health beliefs.  In a study of the
health beliefs of elementary school children and their mothers, Mechanic (1964) found that the
mother’s health beliefs were at best only slightly related to those of her children.  He implies that
peers, teachers, and mass media are other important factors that influence health beliefs.

        Socioeconomic status is another variable that has been shown to correlate with locus of
control.  Perhaps the greater availability of reinforcements for middle-class children explains the
consistent findings that they are more internally oriented than are lower-class children (review by
Phares, 1976).  Data suggests that early health habits are more prevalent in higher SES families,
where regular visits to medical professionals for checkups and vaccinations are most likely only
minor financial considerations.  Lau concludes that it is particularly important for health
professionals in contact with lower SES families to stress the wide-ranging importance of
practicing good health habits.  These habits are not only important in and of themselves, but they
also provide the basis for beliefs that influence life-long health behaviors.  Nevertheless, this
recommendation may be overly simplistic in its assumption that lower SES families are able to
come in contact with health professionals.

What Does Culture Have To Do With Locus Of Control, Anyway?

        Beginning in the middle 1970s and continuing through the early 1980s, a plethora of studies
were conducted in an attempt to determine the extent of the influence that one's culture has on
his or her locus of control.  The literature is both extensive and detailed in its scope of
experimentation, but generally follows the use of similar methodologies, (which often includes
use of the Rotter locus of control scale).  Originally, many researchers seemed to draw the
conclusion that one's culture is largely a function of the internality or externality that the
individual possesses.  However, it was not long before these findings were disputed, leading to
another wave of literature, which contradicted this newly discovered parallel between culture and
locus of control.  The opposition instead proposed a host of what was thought to be more
relevant contributors to one’s locus of control, ranging from gender to socialization practices. 
Previous research was also criticized by way of accusations that the participants used in the
studies did not accurately represent their culture, therefore defeating the entire purpose of the
study.

LIFE EXPERIENCE INVENTORY

Age: 18 – 21( ) 22 – 25( ) > 25( )
Gender: Male ( ) Female( )
City: Metro ( ) Non Metro( )_______________________________________

Given below are 25 pairs of proverbs. In each pair, choose the one proverb which reflects the
experiences of your life. There are no right or wrong answers. Donot leave any proverb
unchecked. Indicate the proverb you select in each pair by encircling either letter A or B.

1. A. God helps the helpless.

B. As you sow so shall you reap.
2. A. God never sends mouths without arranging meat.
B. Where there is a will there is a way.
3. A The blind eat many a fly.
B. Buy a penny with a pound.
4. A. To eat the kernel of the nut, one must break the shell.
B. God’s mill grinds slowly, but surely.
5. A. Might is right.
B. God’s favour can turn a toad into a king.
6. A. Much cry Little wool.
B. Patience bears good fruit.
7. A. Man proposes god disposes.
B. God help those who help themselves.

8. A. Once in a deep sea don’t fear the tornado.

B. If god is with us who can harm us?
9. A. Never put off today for tomorrow.
B. It is no use crying over spilt milk.
10. A. Knowledge is the grace of god.
B. Practice makes a man perfect.
11. A. Neither call nor invited, I am the bride’s aunt.
B. Neither can one swallow nor spit it out.
12. A. None but the brave desire the crown.
B. God holds the future in his hand.
13. A. What is destined must happen.
B. A bad carpenter blames his tools.
14. A. If it were not for a belly, the back might wear gold.
B. To get water one must dig a well.
15. A. Earning a penny, spending a pound.
B. Cut your coat according to the cloth.
16. A. You cannot get apples if you sow corn.
B. If god protects no 1 can kill.
17. A. You cannot fool destiny.
B. Man shapes his own destiny.
18. A. A bad fish spoils the pool.
B. Goodness begets goodness.
19. A. The effect speaks, the tongue need not.
B. Empty vessels make the most noice.
20. A. A single sparrow cannot make spring.
B. Charity begins at home.

21. A. What 1 day gives, another takes away.

B. Man is responsible for his deeds.
22. A. When time is bad, destiny dictates.
B. Wisdom is wealth.
23. A. You are defeated if you give up hope.
B. You win if you are lucky.
24. A. What god wills, no frost can kill.
B. As you sow so shall you reap.
25. A. Tit for tat.
B. There is no control over destiny.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 1. QUESTIONNAIRE
a. Number of respondents: 100

2. Evaluation of data on SPSS software

Graph 1:
10

4
age

18-21
2
22-25
Count

0 >25
5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 15.00
6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

LOC1

Means

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Included Excluded Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
LOC1 * age 80 100.0% 0 .0% 80 100.0%
 Report

LOC1
Std.
age Mean N Deviation
18-21 9.6429 28 1.9477
22-25 10.6410 39 2.6605
>25 10.9231 13 2.4987
Total 10.3375 80 2.4336

Graph 2:
10

4
age

18-21
2
22-25
Count

0 >25
5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 15.00
6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

LOC1

Means

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Included Excluded Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
LOC1 * GENDER 80 100.0% 0 .0% 80 100.0%
 Report

LOC1
Std.
GENDER Mean N Deviation
male 10.8500 40 2.3044
female 9.8250 40 2.4795
Total 10.3375 80 2.4336

Graph 3:
14

12

10

4
CITY
2
Metro
Count

0 Non Metro
5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 15.00
6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

LOC1

Means

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Included Excluded Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
LOC1 * CITY 80 100.0% 0 .0% 80 100.0%
 Report

LOC1
Std.
CITY Mean N Deviation
Metro 10.1429 49 2.3452
Non Metro 10.6452 31 2.5762
Total 10.3375 80 2.4336

Counselor: Chavi Kumar Jain

Subject Background: Student
Name: Harsh Thakur
Age: 23
Gender: M
Instrument Question Subject Situation Subject Answer
Answer
A. Never put off today A Suppose you have a Will work hard so
for tomorrow. backlog in one of your that I am able to
examination and you clear my backlog.
B. It is no use crying
over spilt milk. have also been informed
that your reexamination
is tomorrow .
What will you do?

Analysis:

Consistent - 9.5/10
Ambiguity- 1/10
Distinctive- 2/10

Counselor: Nidhi Sharama

Subject Background: Student
Name: Piyush Agarwal
Age: 23
Gender: M
Instrument Question Subject Situation Subject Answer
Answer
A. Knowledge is the B Who is like to succeed in 1 option
grace of god. the organization.
1 a person with lots of
B. Practice makes a man
perfect. experience which he has
acquired from practice.

2 or a knowledgeable
person only with hardly
any or no experience.

Analysis:

Consistent - 9.5/10
Ambiguity- 1/10
Distinctive- 2/10

Counselor: Siddharth Agarwal

Subject Background: Student
Name: Kunal Singh
Age: 23
Gender: M

Instrument Question Subject Situation Subject Answer

Answer
. At the times of exams Self ability
what makes u efficient
A. You cannot get apples if
that u can clear the paper.
you sow corn.
A
B. If god protects no 1 can
kill.

Analysis:

Consistent - 7/10
Ambiguity- 4/10
Distinctive- 3/10

Counselor: Tushar Vinod Gupta

Subject Background: Service
Name: kushal kapoor
Age: 26
Gender: M
Instrument Question Subject Situation Subject Answer
Answer
.
A. A bad fish spoils the Suppose in your I will quit the
pool.
organization your boss is organization.
B. Goodness begets B bribing every1 to get the
goodness. contract and he is telling
you to do the same or if u
don’t then quit the
organisation what will
you do

Analysis:

Consistent - 0/10
Ambiguity- 7/10
Distinctive- 10/10

Counselor: Vernika Singla

Subject Background: Student
Name: Amit Yadav
Age: 22
Gender: M
Instrument Question Subject Situation Subject Answer
Answer
Suppose you are a ceo of
A. God helps the helpless. a company and because I will definitely try
B of the mistake of your to bribe others and
B. As you sow so shall you
reap. staff (Vice president) try to get out of the
your company has lost a situation no matter
major client and your how I will not take
company is going to get the blame on
bankrupt and you will go myself.
behind bars what will
you do?

Analysis:

Consistent - 0/10
Ambiguity- 7/10
Distinctive- 10/10

Counselor: Umang Somani

Subject Background: Employee
Name: jitesh udwani
Age: 22
Gender: M

Instrument Question Subject Situation Subject Answer

A. Tit for tat.
B. There is no control over
destiny.
Answer
If you have an option of I will not do that
doing unethical practices because if I will do
A like smuggling etc. which bad the same will
are against humanity & happen with me.
mankind, what will you
do?

Analysis:

Consistent - 10/10
Ambiguity- 0/10
Distinctive- 0/10

Counselor: Kumar Uttkarsh

Subject Background: Student
Name: Ranjeet Sharma
Age: 22
Gender: M

Instrument Question Subject Situation Subject Answer

Answer
A. You are defeated if you If you are rejected in 10 I will pray from
give up hope. interviews than with got because he
A what mindset will you go might have thought
B. You win if you are
lucky. to face your 11th something better
interview. for me.

Analysis:

Consistent - 7/10
Ambiguity- 2/10
Distinctive- 0/10

BILBLIOGRAPHY
1. www.google.co.in
2. www.wikipedia.org
3. www.scribd.com
4. Uday Pareek
5. Journal of Social Psychology