Dimensions of internal versus external control.

Abstract

Research with Rotter's I-E scale has generally proceeded on the assumption that the scale measures a unidimensional trait. The present study explored the tenability of this assumption by factor analyzing the 23 I-E item responses given by 159 college males and 157 college females. Two factors were identified: a belief concerning felt mastery over the course of one's life, and a belief concerning the extent to which the individual citizen is deemed capable of exerting an impact on political institutions. It was suggested that predictions involving the I-E scale might be refined by separate consideration of the two factors.In his well-known monograph, Rotter (1966) introduced the Internal-External (I-E) scale as a measure of individual differences in the generalized belief that a person can control his own destiny. Considerable research on diverse populations has demonstrated the construct validity of the scale in a variety of experimental and field situations (Lefcourt, 1966;Rotter, 1966). However, correlations between I-E scores and other variables have often been disappointingly low. Rotter has speculated that the failure to obtain stronger relationships may be attributable, at least in part, to the influence of situation specific attitudes in the scale items and in the areas of behavior investigated (Rotter, 1966, p. 21).Two factor analyses of the I-E scale are mentioned in the monograph. One of these, carried out by Rotter on data from 200 male and 200 female college students, indicated the presence of a general factor accounting for "much of the variance" in item responses. Several additional factors, reported as accounting for "small but significant variance," were highly specific, involved only two or three items each, and did not appear to warrant the identification of clear-cut subscales. 2 The second factor analysis of the I-E scale, originally reported by Franklin (1963), employed a principal components analysis on data obtained from 1,000 high school students. This analysis yielded an unrotated factor ac-1 Requests for reprints should be sent to Herbert L. Mirels, Department of Psychology, 1945 High Street, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210. 2 The method used to extract factors was not reported.counting for 53% of the total scale variance. Loadings of the individual test items on this factor were uniformly low, with only six of them equal to or exceeding ±.30. The first seven factors obtained by the unrotated solution were rotated to simple structure by the Carroll Biquartimin Oblique Solution (Carroll, 1957). Although the rotated factors appeared to suggest the presence of I-E subareas, none of the factors contained more than one item loading higher than ±.31. In fact, 42 of the 48 item loadings characterized by Franklin as important to factor description failed to exceed ±.20.The present study was carried out in an attempt to clarify the factor structure of the I-E scale, with the anticipation that subsets of items, should they be found to cluster meaningfully, might be employed separate...

The Validity of Locus of Control Dimensions for Chicano Populations

“…Several studies have attempted to identify the number of factorial categories which comprise Rotter's 23-item locus of control instrument (Collins, 1974;Mirels, 1970;Levenson, Note 1). Although not all researchers report the same number of factorial dimensions, a considerable consensus seems to suggest five general conceptual categories: a) beliefs concerning luck, fate, and chance; b) beliefs concerning respect and world justice; c) beliefs concerning political matters; d) beliefs concerning academic fairness; and e) beliefs concerning power, leadership, and success.…”

Locus of control in prediction of counselor effectiveness within a therapeutic camp setting

“…The LCIR is one of several scales (e. g., Mirels, 1970) that have been devised to evaluate perceived personal control of interpersonal situations. Results of the present study provide evidence for the continued evolution of the relevance of this scale for functioning within a clinical setting.…”

Empirical Alienation Studies: An Overview

“…(1969), who showed the importance of distinguishing between personal and social control, which, in their factor analysis, meant effectively the difference between items containing an 'I' reference as against those focusing on 'system blame' (for an earlier distinction going in the same direction, see also Seeman, 1967a: 120). The pursuit of these subleties concerning the individual's sense of control has produced a substantial literature, much of it in agreement in showing that people treat these attributions about their world of control with considerable discrimination: they do not confuse self and system, work and politics, achievements and failures, luck and talent, or personal competence and civic competence (Mirels, 1970;Abramowitz, 1973;Schwartz, 1973;Aberbach, 1974;Balch, 1974;Collins, 1974;Renshon, 1974;Rosenau, 1974).…”