Internal vs. external control of reinforcement and attention in a decision-making task¹

Abstract

In recent mvestigations with the mtemal-extemal control (I-E) construct, several hypotheses have been tested as to the eflEect of specific task expectancies upon persons mamtainmg generalized expectancies of mtemal (I) or extemal (E) control of reinforcement The generahzed expectancy of I-E has most frequently been measured by the I-E scale (Rotter, 1966) which samples general attitudes regardmg the causahty of events Specific task expectancies have been pnmanly created through directions given m different tasks Most commonly, the same task has been described as requuing skill or as bemg largely chance-determmed, with the task bemg of such a nature that either mterpretation would be plausible. Another variant of specific task expectancy structurmg has been created through providing more and less autonomous conditions which create the illusion of a varymg degree of possible controlIn several studies concemmg I-E and the response to autonomy or self-rehance conditions, I subjects have been found to improve with more opportumty for self-detenmnation, while E subjects have exhibited the reverse preference Cromwell, Rosenthal, Shakow, and Zahn (1961) found that subjects charactenzed as E persons performed most poorly m a reaction-time study when granted some autonomy m completmg the task I subjects, on the other hand, perfonned at theu-best under autonomous conditions Julian and Katz (1968), however, have recently re-1 This report is based parbally on a master's thesis submitted by the second author to the Graduate School, University of Waterloo

Effects of personality and situational variation in locus of control on cheating: Determinants of the "congruence effect"1

“…The main effect for instructions was found to be highly significant (F = 198.91, p < .001, 73% of variance*), indicating that subjects perceived the task in accordance with the instructions given. The fact that the two locus of control groups did not perceive the task differently is important in view of earlier findings (Lefcourt et al, 1968). Thus, corrections for subjective skill-chance task perceptions were not required in the present study.…”

“…Rotter and Mulry (1965) found support for their view as persons took longer to make decisions (presumably an index of increased concem over reward outcomes) on a difficult angle-matching task when in a situation congruent with their locus of control beliefs (i.e., internals under skill and externals under chance) than when the person and situation were incongruent. * Lefcourt, Lewis, and Silverman (1968) subsequently provided corroborative evidence on a level of aspiration task.…”

Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control.

“…The general pattern in these studies is that externals, compared with internals, try harder and do better in tasks described as chance determined. In two studies (Davis & Phares, 1967;Rotter & Mulry, 1965), the superior performance of externals on chance tasks failed to reach significance; in three others (Lefcourt, Lewis, & Silverman, 1968;Petzel & Gynther, 1970;Watson & Baumal, 1967) the difference was significant (but see DuCette & Wolk, 1973, for conflicting results). In a related vein, Pittman and Pittman (1979) reported that externals performed better than internals under conditions of high helplessness (60 problem-solving trials with noncontingent feedback) but performed worse under conditions of low helplessness (20 trials with noncontingent feedback) and no helplessness (see Gregory, Chartier, & Wright, 1979, for similar findings).…”

Expectancy of reinforcement in chance and skill tasks under motor handicap

“…Lefcourt, Lewis, and Silverman ( 5 ) found Ss with internal locus of control perception (skill) t o have higher level of aspiration discrepancy scores than externals (chance). Internals made more unusual shifts (up with failure, down with success) than externals under chance instructions.…”