Locus of Control refers to an individual’s perception of the underlying main causes of events in his/her life. Or, more simply: Do you believe that your destiny is controlled by yourself or by external forces (such as fate, god, or powerful others)
Many psychological theories have attempted to answer this question. One such explanation is the locus of control. Locus of control has generated much research in a variety of areas in psychology. The construct applies to such fields as educational psychology, health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, and clinical psychology. Debate continues whether domain-specific or more global measures of locus of control will prove to be more useful in practical application. Careful distinctions should also be made between locus of control (a personality variable linked with generalized expectancies about the future) and attributional style (a concept concerning explanations for past outcomes), or between locus of control and concepts such as self-efficacy.
Locus of control is a concept created by psychologist Julian Rotter (1954). Rotter was interested in social learning and why some behaviors stick while others languish. Locus of control is an underlying structure of Rotter’s social learning theory, but as a standalone theory, it has had significant applications in education, health, and clinical psychology. It has driven research in motivation, learning, depression, and addiction.
In this article, we look at the research into the locus of control and offer seven worksheets and two recommended books to provide a comprehensive overview of this topic.
What Is the Locus of Control in Psychology?
The concept behind locus of control is fairly simple. Our lives are full of actions and outcomes. Each of us will ascribe a certain locus of control over these outcomes. The theory states that we will place the location, or locus, either externally or internally.
If we place the locus of control externally, we are likely to blame the outcome on fate, luck, or happenstance. If we place the locus of control internally, we are likely to believe our actions determine the outcome.
Rotter (1966) stated that where we place that locus will either reinforce or punish our actions. An internal locus of control will lead to a reinforcement of that behavior, and the behavior will continue. An external locus of control will cause the behavior to extinguish – why would we continue to try if the outcome is outside of our control?
However, Rotter (1975) was careful to state that we should conceptualize this as a continuum between external and internal, rather than an either/or categorization. In general, healthy adults rarely believe that everything is either entirely out of our control or entirely within it.
Individuals who employ a blend of both internal and external loci in their reasoning report higher levels of happiness (April, Dharani, & Peters, 2012).
Internal vs External Locus of Control: 3 Examples
Here are three examples of how our locus of control may influence the way we view an outcome and the behaviors that follow.
We will call these two people Isaac the Internalizer and Everett the Externalizer.
- Work
Isaac and Everett are both up for a promotion.
Isaac, with his internal locus of control, believes that his hard work will get him a promotion. He also believes that if he doesn’t get it, he just needs to work harder.
Everett, on the other hand, feels that the promotion is largely outside of his control and that external forces, whether they are just chance or the boss’s whims, will determine whether he will get the promotion. Although he may not work as hard to obtain the promotion, if he doesn’t get it, Everett may be easier on himself than Isaac.
- School
There is a big test coming up, and Isaac and Everett are at the library.
Isaac believes his score will directly reflect the amount of studying that he did, and since he wants a good grade, he applies himself and studies hard.
Everett has an external locus of control and believes that the grade may well reflect the teacher’s bias. He believes that studying too hard is a waste of time.
- Health
Isaac’s doctor tells him he has the potential to develop Type II diabetes.
Isaac has heard that it’s possible to control this outcome with diet, so he decides to cut out all sugar and try to eat more vegetables.
Everett gets the same diagnosis, but he believes that it’s all genetic. He comes from a family with a history of diabetes and feels that the outcome is inevitable. He doesn’t try to change his diet because he doesn’t think it will make any difference.
It is important to note that the locus of control is a continuum. No one has a 100% external or internal locus of control. Instead, most people lie somewhere on the continuum between the two extremes.
These are characteristics of people with a dominant internal or external locus of control.
Internal Locus of Control
- Are more likely to take responsibility for their actions
- Tend to be less influenced by the opinions of other people
- Often do better at tasks when they are allowed to work at their own pace
- Usually, have a strong sense of self-efficacy
- Tend to work hard to achieve the things they want
- Feel confident in the face of challenges
- Tend to be physically healthier
- Report being happier and more independent
- Often achieve greater success in the workplace
External Locus of Control
- Blame outside forces for their circumstances
- Often credit luck or chance for any successes
- Don’t believe that they can change their situation through their efforts
- Frequently feel hopeless or powerless in the face of difficult situations
- Are more prone to experiencing learned helplessness
What Role Does Your Locus of Control Play in Your Life?
Internal locus of control is often used synonymously with “self-determination” and “personal agency.” Some research suggests that men tend to have a higher internal locus of control than women6 while others suggest the opposite: that women have a greater internal locus of control in comparison.7 Other research reports a shift towards a more internal locus of control as people grow older.8
Experts have found that, in general, people with an internal locus of control tend to be better off.5 However, it is also important to remember that the internal locus of control does not always equal “good” and the external locus of control does not always equal “bad.”
In some contexts, having an external locus of control can be a good thing—particularly when a situation poses a threat to self-esteem or is genuinely outside of a person’s control.
For example, a person who loses a sports game may feel depressed or anxious if they have a strong internal locus of control. If this person thinks, “I’m bad at sports and I don’t try hard enough,” they might allow the loss to affect their self-image and feel stressed in future games.
However, if this person takes an external focus during such situations (“We were unlucky to get matched with such a strong team,” or “The sun was in my eyes!”), they will probably feel more relaxed and less stressed.
Do You Have an External or Internal Locus of Control?
Where does your locus of control fall on the continuum? Read through the statements below and select the set that best describes your outlook on life.
Outlook 1
- I often feel that I have little control over my life and what happens to me.
- People rarely get what they deserve.
- It isn’t worth setting goals or making plans because too many things can happen that are outside of my control.
- Life is a game of chance.
- Individuals have little influence over the events of the world.
If the statements above best reflect your view on life, then you probably tend to have an external locus of control.
Outlook 2
- If you work hard and commit yourself to a goal, you can achieve anything.
- There is no such thing as fate or destiny.
- If you study hard and are well-prepared, you can do well on exams.
- Luck has little to do with success; it’s mostly a matter of dedication and effort.
- In the long run, people tend to get what they deserve in life.
If the statements above best reflect your outlook on life, then you most likely have an internal locus of control
Popular Theories About the Concept
Following is a discussion of how locus of control relates to other psychological theories. Two theories that are related but differ in subtle ways include self-efficacy and attribution style.
Another important theory is personality and how it affects our locus of control. And finally, to stay relevant, the theory of locus of control must take into consideration cultural factors, such as how oppression and discrimination may affect our perception of control.
Self-efficacy theory
Self-efficacy, a concept proposed by social psychologist Albert Bandura (2010), is the measure of how capable an individual feels about achieving their goals.
Bandura showed that no matter how talented a person may be if they do not believe they are capable, this belief will have a strong effect on their ability to succeed. Individuals with high self-efficacy will have higher levels of persistence and give up less easily than those with low levels of self-efficacy (Schunk, 1990).
Self-efficacy and locus of control are related, but they are not the same. An individual with an internal locus of control may feel their health outcomes are caused by their behavior, but they may not feel capable of achieving their goal.
For example, a person may know that they can increase muscle mass by doing certain exercises but may feel that they won’t succeed because they don’t know to create an exercise plan. Also, locus of control includes an appraisal of the surrounding environment, whereas self-efficacy is ultimately a self-reflective construct.
Attributional styles & locus of control
Locus of control is a theory of learning. Importantly, this means that the behavior in question, whether it’s sticking with an exercise plan or studying for a test, will either be reinforced or halted based on the perceived locus of control.
For example, if a person finds a $20 bill on the street, it is unlikely that they will continue to return to that street, again and again, looking for more money; instead, they perceive that the locus of control behind finding the money was an external event, namely chance.
Attributional style is also a theory of behavior that includes locus of control as one of three potential causes (Weiner, 1986). Attribution theory includes other factors – whether the cause is global or specific, stable or unstable – in addition to whether the individual perceives that they have control over it.
A global attribution means that the person believes the cause of the event is consistent across all contexts. A specific attribution is just the opposite: it only happens in a particular context. Whether an outcome is stable or unstable describes if it is consistent across time or only attributable to a single point in time.
Weiner (1986) gives the example that ability is stable and internal, whereas mood is unstable and internal. Task difficulty may be seen as stable and external, while luck is seen as unstable and external. The perceived amount of control over each of these may vary from person to person.
Similar to the locus of control, our attribution style will affect our behavior. Imagine, for example, that your brother is visiting, and he blows up at you over something small, yelling and storming out.
If you attribute his behavior to internal, stable, and global causes, you perceive that your brother’s personality causes him to act this way in all contexts and all the time. If you attribute his behavior to internal but unstable and specific causes, you may think that he is in a foul mood, that this is out of character, and something must have set him off.
Given these two appraisals of the same situation, we will behave differently. We are less likely to be forgiving if we feel the person has control over their behavior. We may be more likely to let it go if we think it’s a one-time event rather than something that happens no matter the situation.
Locus of control & personality theories
Much of the research into the locus of control and how it relates to personality has been in the realm of work satisfaction and health outcomes (Strauser, Ketz, & Keim, 2002; Spector & O’Connell, 1994).
The Big Five personality traits (emotional stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) have each been shown to have varying levels of impact on outcomes in these realms. These traits have been examined for their relationship with the locus of control and how the interaction may affect work-life and health (Ng, Sorensen, & Eby, 2006; Boysan & Kiral, 2017; Mutlu, Balbag, & Cemrek, 2010).
In general, emotional stability (formerly known as neuroticism) and conscientiousness have strong positive relationships with an internal locus of control. Believing that their behavior contributes directly to the outcome of a situation will naturally lead to hard work if the individual also has the desire.
Conversely, those with an external locus of control have been shown to have higher levels of stress and even depression (Benassi, Sweeney, & Dufour, 1988). It stands to reason that if someone feels they are at the mercy of outside forces and their life is not in their hands, this could lead to anxiety and learned helplessness.
The idea of learned helplessness and its relationship to an external locus of control was introduced by Martin Seligman (1975).
He advanced the hypothesis that individuals with depression have a state of mind that reflects a type of helplessness, meaning that they don’t believe that their actions will have any positive effect on the outcomes of their lives. This type of thinking may reflect an external locus of control because they have little faith in themselves (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).
Cultural humility and locus of control
A factor that has not been addressed much in literature is how an individual’s locus of control may be shaped by systems of injustice, like institutionalized racism and gender discrimination.
An external locus of control is often described as attributing outcomes to such things as luck, fate, or chance. But what if an individual doesn’t get a promotion because their boss is discriminating against them? What if a couple cannot get a loan to buy a house because of their sexual orientation or race?
For oppressed or marginalized groups, there is an objective threat to their ability to control the outcomes of their lives. Their perceived differences in loci of control may reflect these systems of oppression, rather than a lack of self-determination (Sue, 1978).
Research into the locus of control and its effects on an individual’s outcome has encouraged programs that help people move toward a greater feeling of internal control (Twenge, Zhang, & Im, 2004).
It’s generally believed that those with higher levels of internal locus of control also tend to have better outcomes (Rotter, 1966; Lefcourt, 1982; Twenge et al. 2004). But before we apply blanket programs that treat all individuals the same, it is important to recognize that these programs often overlook systemic issues that may truly affect an individual’s level of control (Brown, Rosnick, & Segrist, 2017).
How does it work?
The first recorded trace of the term Locus of Control comes from Julian B. Rotter’s work (1954) based on the social learning theory of personality. It is a great example of a generalized expectancy related to problem-solving, a strategy that applies to a wide variety of situations.
In 1966 Rotter distributed an article in Psychological Monographs which summed up around a decade of extensive research (by Rotter and his understudies), with most of this work never being published beforehand.
It is speculated that Locus of Control may have come beforehand, as a term coined by a psychologist name Alfred Adler. The evidence for this is lacking, however, so the main bulk of the credit for the concept lies in Rotter and his understudies’ early works.
One of these understudies was William H. James. This psychologist would later go on to produce his work in the field, but while he was under the tutelage of Rotter, he wanted to study what he denoted as “expectancy shifts”.
These “expectancy shifts” can be classified as followed:
Typical Expectancy Shifts
Typical expectancy shifts, derive from the belief that success (or failure) will be the determining notion for whatever activity/action is preceded next (that is to say, if one succeeds at something then the expectancy is that they will succeed again).
Let’s say – for example – that during a basketball game a player shoots a basketball and scores a point. After attempting this three times and scoring all three, the player might come to believe that (due to the fact the player has been continuously successful) if they continue to shoot, they will continue to score.
Atypical Expectancy Shifts
Atypical expectancy shifts derive from the belief that success (or a failure) will not have any determining notion for whichever activity/action that follows it (that is to say, if one succeeds at an activity then the expectancy for the subsequent one is independent of this result; one could fail or succeed).
To give an example of this, picture someone who is at a casino. This individual places a bet on the ball landing on a red number on the roulette wheel.
After three spins of the wheel, the ball has landed once in a red number, once in a black number, and finally once in a green number. The individual will (hopefully) most likely conclude that the result of the spin is independent of the last result, with each spin being a stand-alone event.
Additional research supported the hypothesis that typical expectancy shifts were much more common amongst individuals who had confidence in their abilities, whilst those who didn’t believe in their capabilities tended to attribute their expectancies toward fate rather than skill.
In other words, the distinction lies in whether the cause is internal or external; those who have faith in their abilities will look towards an internal cause and adopt a typical expectancy shift while those who attribute their results to external causes will most likely exhibit an atypical expectancy shift.
Rotter has made strides in this area of his research, covering this phenomenon in multiple works (1975). He has talked about issues and confusions in others’ utilization of the interior versus outer build; explaining how misconceptions and miscommunication have led people to mistake Locus of Control for other psychological terms.
3 Fascinating Research Findings
Since locus of control has such a widespread application, we look at three research findings.
Health and motivation
During the COVID-19 pandemic, experts encouraged social distancing as a way to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus.
Itani and Hollebeek (2021) found that an internal locus of control positively correlated with a willingness to social distance, showing that if individuals believed that their behavior had a positive outcome on their health, they were more willing to comply with recommendations.
Clinical psychology
Globally, 5.1% of women and 3.6% of men experience depression, and 4.6% of women and 2.6% of men experience anxiety disorders (World Health Organization, 2017).
Churchill, Munyanyi, Prakash, and Smyth (2020) examined longitudinal data on these gender disparities in mental health and found an intriguing outcome. The researchers examined the scores of over 20,000 Australians on measures of mental health and locus of control.
They showed a significant gender gap in mental health, consistent with the World Health Organization findings. They also showed that women were more likely to have an external locus of control than men. Finally, through regression analysis, they could demonstrate that a unit increase toward the internal locus of control would have a more significant effect on this gender gap than any other variable, including employment and marital status.
Environment
Locus of control is a key factor in pro-environmental behavior (Peyton & Miller, 1980). Chiang, Fang, Kaplan, and Ng (2019) took this finding a step further and examined the relationship between environmental actions, locus of control, and emotional stability.
They found that the personality factor of emotional stability positively influenced pro-environmental behavior. They also showed through structural equation modeling that emotional stability may be a mediator between an internal locus of control and pro-environmental behavior.
High levels of patience and calm (positive levels of emotional stability) may lead to a greater level of internal locus of control and feelings of forward helping the planet.
7 Worksheets & Exercises for Psychologists
To help clients understand how they perceive control, we have created several worksheets.
Worksheets for children
I Can/Can’t Control
This worksheet is a checklist that helps children learn to identify things they can control and things they can’t.
Out of Control or In Control
In this worksheet, children are presented with a list of reactions they might have, such as hitting, pacing, and talking with friends. This exercise requires them to sort these reactions into three columns: Out of Control, In Control, or Both.
Self-Control Spotting Activity
This worksheet gives the child eight different activities to identify and sort as either self-control or no self-control.
For teenagers
What Makes Me Angry
This worksheet helps guide teenagers to see that it is not the person or event that makes them angry, but their thoughts instead.
Control in relationships
Shifting Codependency Patterns
This worksheet for relationships outlines examples of denial, low self-esteem, compliance, avoidance, and control. For each of these patterns, the worksheet provides examples of a codependent reaction and a secure reaction.
Control in life
Control–Influence–Accept Model
In this exercise, clients are asked to present a challenging situation and then assess what can be controlled or influenced, and what needs to be accepted.
Our 2 Favorite Books on the Topic
Below is a recommendation for more reading on the topic of Locus of Control.
1. Choice or Chance: Understanding Your Locus of Control and Why It Matters – Stephen Nowicki
Clinical psychologist Dr. Nowicki has spent his career investigating and writing about the locus of control.
This self-help book guides readers to identify their locus of control and how it may be influencing their lives. This is a good choice for those who would like to dive into the research and find out how it applies to their own lives.
Find the book on Amazon.
- Nowicki, Stephen (Author)
- English (Publication Language)
- 272 Pages - 05/17/2016 (Publication Date) - Prometheus (Publisher)
2. Teach Internal Locus Of Control: A Positive Psychology App – Russ Hill
Because an internal locus of control has been strongly associated with greater well-being and more success in work and school, it is no surprise that people want to know if there is a way to become more internalized.
This book teaches a six-step behavioral strategy that will help teach learners how to become more “internal” and feel that they have more control over their lives.
Find the book on Amazon.
- Hill, Russ (Author)
- English (Publication Language)
- 234 Pages - 07/05/2011 (Publication Date) - WILL TO POWER PRESS (Publisher)
Conclusion
Locus of control began as an explanation for why some behaviors flourish and grow, while others never take seed.
This theory has had a far-reaching impact in the fields of developmental psychology, health psychology, clinical psychology, and more. At present, it is now seen as an important building block of self-evaluation, a multi-dimensional construct under which self-efficacy, self-esteem, and emotional stability also lie.
When we attribute an outcome in life to external forces beyond our control, we may find ourselves feeling helpless to enact change.
But the truth of our level of control often resides only in our perception of it. Between this real and perceived level of control is a choice to believe in ourselves and our ability to change our fate.
