Incremental VALIDITY of Locus of CONTROL

INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF LOCUSOF CONTROL AFTER CONTROLLING

FOR COGNITIVE ABILITY ANDCONSCIENTIOUSNESS

Keith HattrupSan Diego State University

Matthew S. O’ConnellSelect International, Inc.

Jeffrey R. LabradorCentral Michigan University

ABSTRACT: This research examined the criterion-related validity of work-spe-cific locus of control in predicting job performance, including incremental validityafter controlling for cognitive ability and conscientiousness. Data from a studentsample and from a large employee sample were used to evaluate the scaleproperties of measures of locus of control, conscientiousness, and cognitive abil-ity. Two concurrent criterion-related validation studies were then conducted toevaluate the incremental validity of locus of control. In both validation studies,locus of control demonstrated overall and incremental relationships with per-formance after controlling for ability and conscientiousness, such that employeeswith higher internal locus of control performed more effectively than externals.

KEY WORDS: job performance; locus of control; personality.

INTRODUCTION

Prior to the 1990’s, many authors concluded that personality was notstrongly related to individual job performance (e.g., Guion & Gottier,1965; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984).

Address correspondence to Keith Hattrup, Department of psychology, San DeigoState University, 5500 Campanile Dr. San Diego, CA, 92182-4611, USA., E-mail:[email protected].

Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 4, Summer 2005 (�2005)DOI: 10.1007/s10869-005-4519-1

461

0889-3268/05/0600-0461/0 � 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

More recently, interest in the use of personality as a predictor of jobperformance has grown, in part because of the emergence of a compre-hensive taxonomy of personality dimensions (e.g., Digman, 1990; McCrae& Costa, 1987), and meta-analytic evidence of the validity of personalitydimensions in predicting job performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991;Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). In particular,five factors, often referred to as the Big 5 or Five Factor Model (FFM),have emerged in studies of the factor structure of personality (e.g.,McCrae & Costa, 1985). These factors are: (a) Openness to Experience,(b) Conscientiousness, (c) Extraversion, (d) Agreeableness, and (e) Neu-roticism.

Of the five factors, conscientiousness provides the most consistentlyvalid prediction of performance across jobs and organizations (e.g.,Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Furthermore, con-scientiousness demonstrates incremental validity in predicting job per-formance after controlling for cognitive ability (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).Nevertheless, a number of researchers have questioned the comprehen-siveness of the FFM, identifying additional personality dimensions thatappear relevant to job performance (e.g., Hough, 1992; Judge, Erez, &Bono, 1998). Others have suggested that the five factors may be toobroad, and that prediction of job performance may be improved by relyingon narrower sub-dimensions of the FFM (e.g., Ashton, 1998; Hough,1992; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996). Of the personality traitsthat have been suggested to reside outside of the FFM, or that mayrepresent an important sub-dimension of a broader job-relevantpersonality factor, locus of control has been identified as a potentiallyvalid predictor of job performance (Spector, 1982). Recently, Hough(1992) reported that locus of control correlated significantly with workoutcomes, but was ‘‘missing entirely from the Big Five (p. 153).’’ Anumber of studies have demonstrated significant relationships betweenwork-specific locus of control and measures of job performance (e.g.,Blau, 1993; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990; Macan,Trusty, & Trimble, 1996; Spector, 1988). And, a recent meta-analysis byJudge and Bono (2001) reported a corrected correlation between jobperformance and locus of control that was ‘‘equal to that of conscien-tiousness (p. 85).’’ Clearly, locus of control appears to have potential inpredicting performance at work.

Although evidence supports the criterion-related validity of locus ofcontrol, largely unexplored is the incremental validity of locus of controlafter controlling for cognitive ability and conscientiousness. Hence, thepurpose of the present study is to examine the incremental validity of ameasure of work-specific locus of control in predicting job performance,after controlling for general cognitive ability and conscientiousness.Thus, the present study is designed to contribute to our knowledge about

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY462

the role of a specific job-relevant trait in the prediction of job performanceafter controlling for general cognitive ability and a broad conscientious-ness factor.

Criterion-Related Validity of Conscientiousness

Optimism about the usefulness of personality measures in predictingjob performance criteria is largely attributed to two developments. First,it is thought that earlier pessimistic conclusions about the validity ofpersonality were due to the lack of a common framework for organizingpersonality dimensions (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991). By applying theFFM developed by other researchers (e.g., Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1981;McCrae & Costa, 1987), Barrick and Mount (1991) were able to demon-strate generalizable relationships between conscientiousness and jobperformance criteria. Subsequent meta-analyses (e.g., Barrick & Mount,1995; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997; Tett et al., 1991) also re-ported useful criterion-related validities of dimensions of the FFM, par-ticularly conscientiousness.

A second development is the recognition that personality measuresthat are developed on the basis of a job analysis are conceptually morejob-relevant and therefore, more likely to be job related (e.g., Weiss &Adler, 1984). Thus, conscientiousness is thought to relate to job perfor-mance because of its focus on behaviors that are relevant to effectivenessin organizations. Research has also demonstrated that conscientiousnessadds incrementally to the prediction of job performance above that pre-dicted by cognitive ability (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). This is becausecognitive ability and conscientiousness correlate with somewhat differ-ent dimensions of job performance. Whereas cognitive ability correlateshighest with performance of core transformation and maintenanceactivities, or task performance, work orientation and conscientiousnesscorrelate more strongly with behaviors that support and maintain theorganizational context, or contextual performance (e.g., Hattrup,O’Connell, & Wingate, 1998; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; McHenry,Hough, Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990).

Criterion-Related Validity of Locus of Control

Locus of control refers to a generalized expectancy that outcomes,such as the attainment of rewards or the avoidance of punishment, arecontrolled by one’s own actions (internal locus of control) or by externalfactors (external locus of control) (e.g., Spector, 1982, 1988). Persons withan internal locus of control believe that reinforcements are determined bypersonal effort, ability, and initiative, whereas persons with an externallocus of control tend to believe that reinforcements are determined by

KEITH HATTRUP, MATTHEW S. O’CONNELL, AND JEFFREY R. LABRADOR 463

other persons, luck, or fate (O’Brien, 1984). Internal locus of control isnegatively related to anxiety (Spector, 1982), which is conceptually sim-ilar to the neuroticism dimension of the FFM, and is positively correlatedwith achievement orientation. Research has shown that individuals withhigher internal locus of control report less stress, less anxiety, higherwork motivation, and are more likely to emerge as leaders than personswith higher external locus of control (Spector, 1982).

Currently, there is a lack of consensus in the literature about therelationship between locus of control and the FFM. Hough (1992) forexample, argued that the prediction of job performance requires morethan five broad factors, and that instead, at least nine personality factorsare necessary, including locus of control. Similarly, Tett et al’s. (1991)meta-analysis of the criterion-related validities of personality dimensionsin predicting job performance included locus of control as a trait factorthat was independent of the FFM. In contrast, Costa and McCrae (1992)suggested that locus of control is a part of the broader conscientiousnessfactor (see also Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoreson, 2002a,b). More recently, anumber of studies has provided evidence that locus of control may be asub-dimension of a broader Core Self-Evaluations construct, along withself-esteem, self-efficacy, and neuroticism (Bono & Judge, 2003; Erez &Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2002a,b). According tothese authors, core self-evaluations may represent a broad factorneuroticism factor (Bono & Judge, 2003; Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge &Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2002a,b). Thus, it appears that locus of controlhas been considered as an independent factor and as a sub-dimension ofconscientiousness, neuroticism, or core self-evaluations. Despite somelack of consensus about the relationship of locus of control to the FFM, itis clear that most authors consider locus of control to represent a specific,rather than broad, personality trait.

Evidence of relationships between locus of control and job perfor-mance has appeared in the literature (O’Brien, 1984; Spector, 1982).Hough (1992), for example, reported an average observed correlation of.19 across 11 studies between locus of control and overall job perfor-mance, such that internals performed better than externals. Only mea-sures of achievement orientation correlated as highly with overallperformance in this study as locus of control. Tett et al. (1991) reported aweaker relationship in their meta-analysis (q = .13) between higherinternal locus of control and better job performance, although their re-sults were based on a smaller number of studies (k = 7). A more com-prehensive recent meta-analysis by Judge and Bono (2001) reported acorrected validity of .22 (k = 35).

Studies of the processes underlying relationships between locus ofcontrol and performance suggest that internals perceive higher expec-tancies that effort will lead to good performance, and that performance


will lead to valued outcomes, than do externals (e.g., Lied & Pritchard,1976; Mitchell, Smyser, & Weed, 1975; Szilagyi & Sims, 1975). Hence,internals demonstrate higher task motivation, as long as valued job re-wards are perceived to be linked to performance levels (Spector, 1982).Further, internals are more likely than externals to react to stress withbehavioral responses rather than emotional reactions (e.g., Anderson,Hellreigel, & Slocum, 1977). Internals also demonstrate more work-group cooperation, self-reliance, and independence than do externals(e.g., Cravens & Worchel, 1977; Tseng, 1970). Because of its correlationwith achievement orientation, motivation, and conscientiousness, it isreasonable to expect positive correlations between internal locus of con-trol and measures of general cognitive ability.

Thus, substantial empirical evidence demonstrates that locus ofcontrol has direct relationships with job performance. Locus of controlalso appears to provide incremental prediction after controlling for cog-nitive ability (Blau, 1993). These findings underscore a need to furtherexplore the nomological network of work-specific locus of control and itsunique relationships with job performance. Of particular interest is theextent to which locus of control adds incrementally to the prediction ofjob performance after controlling for cognitive ability and conscien-tiousness. Given research demonstrating low to moderate correlationsbetween locus of control and conscientiousness (e.g., Morrison, 1997), andsignificant relationships between locus of control and job performance(e.g., Blau, 1993), we predict that locus of control will correlate positivelywith job performance and will add incrementally to the prediction ofperformance after controlling for cognitive ability and conscientiousness.We predict that internals will perform their jobs more effectively thanexternals, and that this relationship will hold after controlling for theeffects of cognitive ability and conscientiousness.

As noted above, research has demonstrated that conscientiousness andwork orientation relate more strongly to contextual behaviors at workthan to behaviors reflecting task performance (e.g., Hough et al., 1990;Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Hough et al., (1990) also reported strongerrelationships between several other personality measures, including locusof control, and measures of effort and leadership, personal discipline, andphysical fitness and military bearing, than between the same personalityscales and measures of technical proficiency and general soldieringproficiency. These results lead to the expectation that locus of control willrelate more strongly to contextual performance than to task performance.

The Measurement of Locus of Control

A variety of measures of locus of control has appeared in the lit-erature (e.g., Lefcourt, 1976, 1981; Rotter, 1966). Several authors have


argued that measures that focus on locus of control in a specific domainshould correlate more strongly with behavior in the same domain thanwould general measures (e.g., Lefcourt, 1976, 1981; Stipek & Weisz,1981). For example, Blau (1993) reported stronger relationships betweena work-specific locus of control measure (Spector, 1988) and several jobperformance criteria, compared to Rotter’s general measure. Thus, goal-specific measures of locus of control have been developed for a variety ofspecific purposes or populations (e.g., Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall,1965; Donovan & O’Leary, 1978; Montag & Comrey, 1987; Wallston &Wallston, 1981; Wong, Watters, & Sproule, 1978). Given the focus of thepresent study on the prediction of job performance, a measure of locus ofcontrol for outcomes of work-related behaviors is of most relevance.Hence, the present research examines a measure of work-specific locus ofcontrol, and measures of conscientiousness and cognitive ability, that weredeveloped as part of a computerized multi-attribute test battery designedfor use in the selection of entry- and mid-level production workers.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORK-SPECIFIC LOCUS OF CONTROLSCALE

Several steps were followed in developing the work-specific locus ofcontrol measure. A review of the literature led to the development of aninitial pool of 35 items, which were subsequently administered toa sample of 85 applicants for retail sales positions. Responses wereprovided on a 5-point scale, anchored ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘stronglyagree’’. Internal consistency reliability analyses were used to identify 16items, which were then administered to a sample of 54 retail storemanagers and 40 undergraduate students. After scoring all items so thathigher levels of agreement indicated internal locus of control, and lowerlevels of agreement indicated higher external locus of control, item-totalcorrelations were examined, and a single item was chosen for eliminationfrom the measure. The 15-item scale was then administered to anadditional group of 49 applicants for retail sales positions, along withRotter’s (1966) locus of control scale. The correlation between the twoscales was .50, which is very similar to the correlation observed betweenthe work-specific locus of control measure described by Spector (1988) andRotter’s (1966) scale (Blau, 1993; Spector, 1988).

As described below, the resulting 15-item scale was then examinedusing two normative samples, including a sample of college undergrad-uates and a large sample of job applicants and incumbents in variouspositions in organizations throughout the United States. Its criterion-related validity and incremental validity were examined in two localconcurrent validation studies.


NORMATIVE STUDIES

Method

Samples and ProceduresData were collected from two samples to evaluate the internal con-

sistency and intercorrelations involving the locus of control scale, theproprietary measures of conscientiousness and cognitive ability thatwere used in the subsequent validation studies, and a published measureof each of the dimensions of the FFM. The first sample included 77undergraduate students at a large public university in the MidwesternU.S. Participants in the student sample completed paper-and-pencilversions of the locus of control scale described above, the conscientious-ness measure described below, and the International Personality ItemPool indicators of the FFM (Goldberg, 1999; International PersonalityItem Pool, 2001).

The second normative sample included 3491 applicants and incum-bents from eight manufacturing firms operating in the Midwestern U.S.The positions encompassed a wide range of entry to mid-level manufac-turing, assembly, and operator positions, and included repetitive light,moderate, and heavy manufacturing jobs, as well as more sophisticatedoperator positions focusing on monitoring and troubleshooting processes.Participants completed the 15-item locus of control measure, along withthe proprietary measures of conscientiousness and cognitive ability de-scribed below, using a computer. Applicants were administered themeasures during pre-employment testing, whereas incumbent partici-pants were randomly selected from the organizations’ current pool ofemployees to complete the measures during work hours in a proctoredadministration.

MeasuresWork-Specific Locus of Control. The 15-item measure described abovewas administered in both normative samples. The student sample wastoo small to perform exploratory factor analysis, so this sample was usedonly to evaluate the intercorrelations between the measures used in thisresearch and a published measure of the FFM. In this student sample,the 15-item locus of control scale had an internal consistency reliability of.56. The same 15-items were administered to the larger employee sam-ple. In this sample, exploratory principal factors analysis with varimaxrotation identified anywhere from one to three distinct factors, cumula-tively accounting for 19.6, 31.3, and 39.3% of the item variance, respec-tively. Items were retained for factors if their loadings exceeded .30 on afactor and were at least .10 larger than their loadings on alternativefactors. Both the two and three factor solutions separated the subset of


positively worded items from the subset of reverse-worded items, and theAlpha reliabilities of scales formed from these solutions ranged from .52to .71. Because neither factor solution was consistent with existing the-oretical models of the dimensionality of locus of control, and becausethere was little empirical support for retaining scales formed from thetwo and three factor solutions, we evaluated the scale properties of thecomposite formed from all 15 items. This analysis identified a single itemthat showed a low item-total correlation (r = .03), and that when deleted,resulted in a 14-item work-specific locus of control measure with aninternal consistency reliability of .65. Scale scores were formed afterrecoding items so that higher levels of agreement indicated higherinternal locus of control. The 14-item measure was then used in allsubsequent analyses involving the employee sample used in the normativephase of the research, and the two validation studies described below.

Conscientiousness. A 23-item work-specific conscientiousness scale de-scribed by Hattrup et al., (1998) was included in the battery of testsadministered to participants in this research. This measure was designedto reflect the broad conscientiousness factor, and hence, included fouritems reflecting hard work/achievement/work ethic, three items relatedto persistence, six items related to effective use of time (versus wastingtime), three items related to detail orientation, four items related toimpulse control, two items related to physical appearance/presentation,and one item that reflected decisiveness (see Hough & Ones, 2001, for acomparison of facets). Hattrup et al., (1998) reported an internal con-sistency of .70, and correlations of .23 and –.24 between the measure andmeasures of organizational citizenship and absenteeism, respectively.Items were rated using a 5-point Likert scale anchored ‘‘Strongly Dis-agree’’ to ‘‘Strongly Agree.’’ Internal consistency reliability in the studentsample was .72 and was .73 in the employee sample.

Cognitive Ability. A 26-item cognitive ability measure was developed toreflect three broad domains, including analytical reasoning, numericalreasoning, and applied reasoning. These domains were considered relevantto the jobs of interest given the requirements of each job for problem solving,manipulation of quantitative information, and reliable performance ofassembly and production tasks. Items were scored dichotomously, and thesum across the 26 items was used as the composite ability score. The abilitymeasure was administered in the employee normative sample. Internalconsistency reliability of 26-item ability measure was .81 in this sample.

Five Factor Model. The 50-item IPIP measure of the FFM (Goldberg,1999; International Personality Item Pool, 2001) was administered to thestudent sample. The IPIP is a publicly available pool of items that is


designed, in part, to measure the five broad factors of the FFM. Partic-ipants use a 5-point Likert response scale to indicate the extent to whicheach item is, as a self-description, ‘‘very inaccurate’’ to ‘‘very accurate.’’The IPIP (International Personality Item Pool, 2001) reports internalconsistencies of each of the 10-item factor scales that range between .79and .87. In the present student sample, internal consistencies rangedbetween .74 and .91.

Results and Discussion

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and intercorrelationsamong the measures administered to the student sample. As can be seen,the 23-item conscientiousness measure used in this research demon-strated good convergent validity with the IPIP conscientiousness scale,as indicated by the large correlation between these variables. As ex-pected, the 23-item conscientiousness scale had much lower correlationswith the other four dimensions of the FFM. The locus of control scalecorrelated .15 with the 23-item conscientiousness scale, and –.07 with theIPIP conscientiousness scale. Its correlations with the other dimensionsof the FFM were also small. Thus, the locus of control scale appearsrelatively independent of the FFM, suggesting that it may either resideoutside the FFM as suggested by Hough (1992), or may represent aspecific sub-component of a very broad conscientiousness factor as sug-gested by Costa and McCrae (1992), or a broad self-evaluations factor(Judge & Bono, 2001). Whatever the conceptual relationships betweenlocus of control and the FFM and core self-evaluations, the results of thepresent study suggest that the criterion-related validity of locus of con-trol in predicting job performance is not accounted for by the broaderdimensions of the FFM.

Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistency Reliabilities, and Intercorre-

lations of Variables in the Student Sample (N = 77)

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. 23-Item conscientiousness 3.38 .36 (.72)2. 15-Item locus of control 3.18 .31 .15 (.56)3. IPIP conscientiousness 3.58 .58 .74* –.07 (.84)4. IPIP extraversion 3.38 .36 –.27* .04 –.41* (.89)5. IPIP neuroticism 3.24 .81 –.26* .14 –.25* –.05 (.91)6. IPIP agreeableness 4.27 .50 –.20 –.15 –.19 .13 –.05 (.87)7. IPIP openness 3.66 .53 –.21 –.18 –.20 .24* .19 .10 (.74)

*p < .05.


Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and intercorrelationsamong the measures that were administered to the larger employeenormative sample. As can be seen, locus of control correlated signifi-cantly with the 23-item conscientiousness measure, suggesting thatpersons who are higher in conscientiousness are more likely to be high ininternal locus of control than persons who are lower in conscientiousness.Internal locus of control also correlated positively with the measure ofcognitive ability (r = .08), as did conscientiousness (r = .11). Thus, thedata collected in two samples showed a good pattern of convergent anddiscriminant validity of the locus of control and conscientiousness mea-sures used in this research with measures of the FFM and cognitiveability. Of more direct relevance to the goals of the present study, how-ever, is whether locus of control incrementally predicts job performanceafter controlling for cognitive ability and conscientiousness. These rela-tionships are examined in the validation studies reported below.

VALIDATION STUDY 1

Method

Sample and ProcedureParticipants in this study included 121 operators at a paint pro-

cessing facility in the U.S., including 106 male employees, 13 femaleemployees, and two others for whom gender information was unavail-able. Participants were randomly selected from current employees whohad been working in the company for at least 1 year. They completed thecognitive ability, conscientiousness, and locus of control measures de-scribed above as part of a larger research project, during work hours in aproctored administration. All three measures were administered andscored by computer. Job performance of the sample was evaluated byimmediate supervisors. Participants in this study monitored machinesand equipment used in the processing of paints and dyes that are usedfor coloring various products. Hence, the job required paying attention to


lations of Variables Examined in the Normative Sample (N = 3491)

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. Cognitive ability 13.51 4.79 (.81)2. Conscientiousness 3.92 .31 .11** (.73)3. Locus of control 3.69 .39 .08** .51** (.65)

**p < .01.


detail, monitoring production processes, and developing unique solutionsto novel problems.

MeasuresThe cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and locus of control mea-

sures described above were administered. Internal consistency reliabili-ties were .78, .72, and .65, respectively, in the present sample. Table 3presents the means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and internalconsistency reliabilities of these measures in the present sample.

Job Performance. Supervisors rated the job performance of participantsusing a 10-item graphic rating measure. Each of the 10 items repre-sented a dimension of job performance that had been identified in a jobanalysis, including initiative, work motivation, leadership, dependabil-ity, attention to detail, practical learning, teamwork, technical knowl-edge, and quantitative and qualitative problem solving. Supervisors useda 10-point rating scale to indicate how effectively the ratee had demon-strated behaviors related to each dimension. An exploratory principalfactors analysis with varimax rotation was performed in the sample of121 participants in the validation sample. Items were assigned to a factorif their loadings on the factor exceeded .30 and were at least .10 differentfrom their loadings on alternative factors. The qualitative problemsolving item was eliminated from the analysis because it correlated 1.0with the quantitative problem solving item. A three factor solution,accounting for about 77% of the variance in the items, appeared mostinterpretable. The first factor was comprised of the items measuringleadership, teamwork, and positive attitude, and thus, is consistent withthe interpersonal facilitation dimension of contextual performance de-scribed by Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996). The second factor includedthe conscientiousness, initiative, work motivation, and practial learningitems, and thus, is consistent with the job dedication dimension of per-formance described by Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996). The thirdfactor included the technical knowledge and quantitative problem solv-ing items, and was most consistent with the dimension of task perfor-mance, described by several authors (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993;Motowidlo et al., 1997). Internal consistency reliabilities of the inter-personal facilitation, job dedication, and task performance scales were.85, .81, and .77, respectively. As can be seen in Table 3, intercorrelationsamong the three job performance scales ranged from .53 to .69.


Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrela-tions among the predictor and criterion variables examined in this study.


As can be seen, conscientiousness showed a strong relationship with lo-cus of control (r = .57). Cognitive ability correlated significantly withlocus of control but not with conscientiousness. As can be seen in Table 3,cognitive ability was significantly related to all three performancedimensions, which is somewhat inconsistent with previous researchdemonstrating stronger correlations between cognitive ability and taskperformance than between cognitive ability and dimensions of contextualperformance (e.g., McHenry et al., 1990; see also Motowidlo et al., 1997).

Conscientiousness correlated significantly only with the job dedica-tion dimension (r = .18), which is consistent with the suggestion of VanScotter and Motowidlo that job dediction should be predictable fromscores on measures of conscientiousness, whereas interpersonal facili-tation should be predicted from agreeableness and extraversion. Theresults are also consistent with previous research demonstrating stron-ger relationships between conscientiousness or work orientation andcontextual performance than between these predictors and task perfor-mance (e.g., McHenry et al., 1990; see also Motowidlo et al., 1997;Murphy & Shiarella, 1997). Follow-up tests of differences in dependentcorrelations (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) showed that conscientiousness wasmore strongly correlated with the job dedication scale than with the taskperformance scale, whereas no other differences in the criterion-relatedvalidity coefficients for conscientiousness were significant.

Locus of control correlated significantly with all three performancedimensions, demonstrating more effective task performance, job dedica-tion, and interpersonal facilitation among employees who were higher ininternal locus of control. Follow-up tests revealed that locus of controlwas more strongly correlated with the interpersonal facilitation dimen-sion than with the task performance dimension, although no other dif-ferences in correlations involving locus of control and the criteria weresignificant. The strong correlation between internal locus of control andinterpersonal facilitation is consistent with previous research demon-strating positive relationships between internal locus of control and


lations of Variables Examined in Validation Study 1 (N = 121)

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Cognitive Ability 14.40 5.09 (.78)2. Conscientiousness 3.47 .29 .09 (.72)3. Locus of control 3.23 .36 .18* .57** (.65)4. Task performance 6.03 1.49 .23* .02 .19* (.77)5. Job dedication 5.93 1.37 .27** .18* .31** .69** (.81)6. Interpersonal facilitation 5.61 1.41 .25** .14 .38** .53** .62** (.85)

*p < .05, **p < .01.


effectiveness in leadership and teamwork roles (e.g., Anderson &Schneier, 1978; Goodstadt & Hjelle, 1973).

Table 4 presents results of regressions designed to evaluate theincremental validity of locus of control in predicting the three job perfor-mance dimensions. As can be seen, conscientiousness failed to show uniquerelationships with any of the job performance dimensions when used inconjunction with cognitive ability. This result is inconsistent with findingsthat suggest generalizability of the relationship between conscientiousnessand job performance across settings (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991), andincremental validity of conscientiousness above the effects of cognitiveability (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). On the other hand, the results of thisstudy may be consistent with findings from other research which showsthat conscientiousness is often unrelated or negatively related to perfor-mance of tasks that require creativity, initiative, and problem solving (e.g.,George & Zhou, 2001; Hogan & Hogan, 1995). Effective performance in thejob examined in this study required that employees identify unique solu-tions to novel problems. Rule-bound or rigid adherence to standardizedproblem solutions would result in incomplete or slower solutions than ap-proaches that involve innovative solutions. As would be expected in suchjobs, cognitive ability was significantly related to ratings of effectiveness,and conscientiousness correlated significantly only with job dedication. It isimportant to note, however, that creativity is often considered an aspect ofopenness, rather than low conscientiousness (see Hough & Ones, 2001).

Table 4 shows that locus of control added incrementally to the pre-diction of all three performance dimensions after controlling for cognitiveability and conscientiousness. The positive sign of the regression coeffi-cient for locus of control indicates that participants who scored higher in

Table 4Regressions of Task Performance, Job Dedication, and Interpersonal

Facilitation on Cognitive Ability and Personality Measures in ValidationStudy 1 (N = 121)

Independent Variables

Task Performance Job Dedication Interpersonal Facil

b R2 DR2 b R2 DR2 b R2 DR2

Step 1 .05* .10** .08**

Cognitive ability .23* .25** .24**

Conscientiousness –.00 .16 .12

Step 2 .08* .03* .14** .04* .19** .11**

Cognitive ability .20* .22* .19*

Conscientiousness –.12 .01 –.11Locus of control .22* .26* .41**

*p < .05, **p < .01.


internal locus of control demonstrated better task performance, jobdedication, and interpersonal facilitation than participants with higherexternal locus of control, even after controlling for the effects of cognitiveability and conscientiousness. Thus, the results of Study 1 underscorethe job-relevance of locus of control as a potentially important predictorof job performance. A second validation study was conducted to assessthe generalizability of these effects in a job that was characterized bydifferent demands and performance expectations.

VALIDATION STUDY 2

Method

Sample and ProcedureParticipants in this study included 113 male and 29 female pro-

duction workers at a large automobile manufacturing facility in the U.S.As in the first validation study, participants were randomly selected fromcurrent employees who had been working in the company for at least oneyear. They completed the assessment as part of a larger research projectduring work hours in a proctored administration, and were assured thatthe results would be used only for research purposes. Their job perfor-mance was rated by their direct supervisors. Employees worked as‘‘Production Team Members’’, and were trained in a variety of the func-tions involved in the manufacture of automobiles, including paint, body,final assembly, trim, and so on. According to a job analysis, effectivenessdepended on attention to detail, work pace, and periodic cooperation withcoworkers to resolve unexpected problems.

MeasuresPredictors. The measures of cognitive ability, conscientiousness, andlocus of control were administered by computer, as described above.Internal consistency reliabilities of the ability, conscientiousness, andlocus of control measures were .47, .74, and .58, respectively, in Valida-tion Study 2. The lower reliabilities of the ability and locus of controlmeasures in the second validation study, as compared to the normativesample and first validation study, are difficult to interpret, but may bepartly a result of the lower variances of these two measures in the secondvalidation sample as compared to the other samples.

Job Performance. Supervisors rated incumbents’ performance using a32-item behavioral observation measure. Items described examples ofeffective or ineffective behavior in each of seven job areas, includingorganizational citizenship, work pace, teamwork, quality awareness,problem solving, responsibility, and flexibility. Between three and 10


items were written for each dimension. Supervisors rated the frequencywith which each of the 32 behaviors was observed using a 7-point Likertscale, with anchors ‘‘Never’’ to ‘‘Always.’’ Exploratory principal factorsanalysis with varimax rotation failed to converge on an interpretablesolution, owing to the large number of very highly correlated items in themeasure. We also formed a contextual performance scale by averagingscores on the organizational citizenship, teamwork, responsibility, andflexibility subscales; and a task performance scale by averaging scores onthe quality awareness, problem solving, and work pace. The correlationbetween the task and contextual performance scales was .89, and pre-dictors showed almost identical relationships with the two performancedimensions. Thus, results strongly suggest that a composite unidimen-sional performance measure best fits the pattern of responses in Vali-dation Study 2. The internal consistency reliability (Alpha) of theperformance measure in this sample was .97.


Table 5 presents the correlations among locus of control, conscien-tiousness, cognitive ability, and job performance. As can be seen, con-scientiousness and locus of control were significantly correlated, as wasthe case in the normative sample and in Study 1. In the present sample,about 21% of the variance was shared between the locus of controlmeasure and the conscientiousness scale, which is similar to the resultsobserved in the normative sample and first validation sample. As can beseen in Table 5, both conscientiousness and locus of control were sig-nificantly related to the job performance measure. The positive correla-tion between conscientiousness and performance is consistent withliterature that demonstrates positive effects of conscientiousness onperformance of tasks that do not require high levels of creativity andinnovativeness. The non-significant correlation between cognitive ability


lations of Variables Examined in Validation Study 2 (N = 142)

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. Cognitive ability 15.18 2.85 (.47)2. Conscientiousness 3.57 .31 –.04 (.74)3. Locus of control 3.44 .30 –.10 .46** (.58)4. Job performance ratings 4.72 .86 –.03 .28** .27** (.97)

*p < .05, **p < .01.


and performance may be the result of lower internal consistency of theability measure in this sample.

Table 6 presents the results of regression analyses designed to testthe incremental validity of locus of control. As can be seen, conscien-tiousness had unique effects on performance after controlling forability. Locus of control also added incrementally to the prediction ofperformance after controlling for ability and conscientiousness. Thesefindings are consistent with the results of Study 1, which showed asimilar incremental relationship between locus of control and jobperformance after controlling for both ability and conscientiousness.(Table 4)

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The goal of this research was to examine the incremental validity oflocus of control in predicting job performance, after controlling for theeffects of cognitive ability and conscientiousness. As hypothesized, locusof control showed significant incremental relationships with job perfor-mance after controlling for cognitive ability and conscientiousness. Thefindings of the present study are consistent with research that hasdemonstrated significant validity associated with locus of control whenpredicting job performance (e.g., Blau, 1993; Hough, 1992; Judge & Bono,2001). The unique contribution of the present study is in demonstratingincremental relationships between locus of control and job performance,after controlling for both cognitive ability and a measure of conscien-tiousness.

The incremental effects of locus of control on ratings of job perfor-mance demonstrate that unique variance in the criterion is accounted for

Table 6Regressions of Job Performance on Cognitive Ability and Personality Measures

in Validation Study 2 (N = 142)

Variables b R2 DR2

Step 1. .08**

Cognitive ability –.02Conscientiousness .28**

Step 2. .11** .03*

Cognitive ability –.01Conscientiousness .20*

Locus of control .18*

*p < .05, **p < .01.


by locus of control. From a practical point of view, locus of control ex-plained an additional .03 to .11 proportion of variance in job performanceafter accounting for ability and conscientiousness. Schmidt and Hunter(1998) reported that conscientiousness added .09 to the proportion ofcriterion variance explained by cognitive ability, whereas job knowledgemeasures, assessment centers, and biodata added only .07, .02, and .01,respectively. Results of the present study demonstrate that, after con-trolling for two constructs commonly used in the selection of personnel,locus of control adds an increment to the proportion of explained jobperformance variance that compares favorably to the increment added byjob knowledge tests, assessment centers, biodata, education, or jobexperience above cognitive ability alone. Clearly, the results underscorea need for additional research that evaluates relationships between locusof control and the FFM and core self-evaluations, and that tests varioustheoretical models that include locus of control as a specific trait relevantto work-related behaviors.

From a theoretical point of view, the incremental validity of locus ofcontrol suggests a need to better ascertain the substantive meaning ofthe criterion variance that is uniquely explained by locus of control.Studies that have addressed the incremental effects of conscientiousnesson job performance have demonstrated that one important reason for theunique effects of conscientiousness is that ability and conscientiousnessrelate to somewhat different dimensions of job performance (e.g., Mot-owidlo et al., 1997; Motowidlo & VanScotter, 1994). Results of Study 1were somewhat consistent with this previous research in that conscien-tiousness correlated significantly only with the measure of job dedication,and its correlation with job dedication was significantly greater than itscorrelation with task performance. In the same sample, locus of controlwas more strongly correlated with the interpersonal facilitation dimen-sion of performance than with task performance, suggesting that locus ofcontrol may contribute to performance by increasing the likelihood thatworkers will form positive relationships with others, demonstrate lead-ership, and exhibit positive attitudes.

It is noteworthy that locus of control was the only predictor thatrelated uniquely to job performance criteria in both validation studies. Asnoted above, ability, but not conscientiousness was related to perfor-mance for employees who performed the process monitoring and trou-bleshooting tasks in Study 1, whereas conscientiousness, but not ability,was related to performance of assembly and teamwork behaviors inStudy 2. For the most part, employees in Study 1 monitored automatedchemical processing equipment, and were required to troubleshootequipment failures and develop novel solutions to production problems.Hence, the job required abstract reasoning and problem solving, which isconsistent with the recognition that process monitoring and maintenance


of automated systems is cognitively challenging (e.g., Argote, Goodman,& Schkade, 1983; Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Weick, 1990), and with ourfinding of a positive correlation between ability and performance in thesejobs. Cognitive ability was not significantly related to performance in thejobs examined in Study 2, however. The jobs examined in Study 2 in-volved simple production and assembly tasks, and hence, previous re-search leads to the expectation of a relatively lower correlation betweenability and performance than was observed in Study 1, due to the relativelack of significant cognitive demands (e.g., Hunter & Hunter, 1984).

The findings of the present research with respect to conscientious-ness also provided mixed support for previous research. On one hand,conscientiousness related significantly and incrementally with perfor-mance in Study 2. This is consistent with previous research demon-strating incremental relationships between conscientiousness andoverall job performance (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). In Study 1,however, conscientiousness correlated significantly with job dedication,but not with task performance or interpersonal facilitation. Hence, re-sults of the present study are consistent with Van Scotter and Moto-widlo’s (1996) suggestion that conscientiousness should relate mainly tojob dedication, whereas interpersonal facilitation and task performanceare predictable from other constructs.

Of course, the studies reported here are not without limitations.Perhaps most significant is the use of unpublished measures of keyconstructs in the present study, which is often considered less desirablethan using measures with more well-known psychometric properties.However, results demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistencyof each of the measures used in this research, although the internalconsistency of the locus of control scale was somewhat lower. Results ofthe two normative studies and two validation studies were generallyconsistent with our hypotheses, and with the extant literature. More-over, the measure of conscientiousness used in this research was shownin a previous study to relate significantly with measures of organiza-tional citizenship and attendance (Hattrup et al., 1998). The availableempirical literature includes a variety of validation studies that usedisparate measures of ability and personality constructs, and the use ofproprietary measures in field research is not uncommon. Overall, theevidence obtained in the present research provides strong support for theincremental effects of locus of control on job performance after control-ling for cognitive ability and conscientiousness.

Researchers should attempt to replicate these findings in field set-tings using a variety of instruments. Carefully designed research thatvaries measurement methods and constructs will contribute substan-tially to our understanding of the latent individual difference constructsunderlying performance in organizations. It is also hoped that the


present findings might contribute to future meta-analytic research de-signed to identify relationships among various ability and personalityconstructs and various job performance dimensions. Such research hasthe potential to provide more power to detect stable relationships at thepopulation level. Although the samples used in both validation studiesreported here were moderate in size, some non-significant results mayhave been observed due to low statistical power. Researchers are urged tofollow-up on the present findings with additional large sample field re-search and meta-analytic investigations. The results of this researchclearly demonstrate the need for researchers to look beyond conscien-tiousness and the FFM, and to consider other specific personality variablesthat may have considerable usefulness in predicting valued outcomes inorganizations. Locus of control appears to offer this potential.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. R., Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J. W. (1977). Managerial response to environ-mentally induced stress. Academy of Management Journal, 201, 260–272.

Anderson, C. R. & Schneier, C. E. (1978). Locus of control, leader behavior, andleader performance among management students. Academy of Management Journal,21, 690–698.

Argote, L., Goodman, P. S. & Schkade, D. (1983). The human side of robotics: How workersreact to a robot. Sloan Management Review, 24, 31–41.

Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289–303.

Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big 5 personality dimensions and job perfor-mance. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–25.

Blau, G. (1993). Testing the relationship of locus of control to different performancedimensions. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 66, 125–138.

Costa, P. T. Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality andIndividual Differences, 13, 653–665.

Crandall, V. C., Kratovsky, W. & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Children’s beliefs in their control ofreinforcements in intellectual achievement behaviors. Child Development, 36, 91–109.

Cravens, R. W. & Worchel, P. (1977). The differential effects of rewarding and coerciveleaders on group members differing in locus of control. Journal of Personality, 45,150–168.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five factor model. AnnualReview of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Donovan, D. M. & O’Leary, M. R. (1978). The drinking-related locus of control scale.Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 39, 759–784.

Erez, A. & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, moti-vation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279.

George, J. M. & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness arerelated to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 513–524.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals inpersonality lexicons. Review of personality and social psychology. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage 141–166.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuringthe lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De


Fruyt & F. Ostendorf (Eds.). Personality psychology in Europe (pp. 7–28). Tilburg, TheNetherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Goodstadt, B. E. & Hjelle, L. A. (1973). Power to the powerless: Locus of control and the useof power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 190–196.

Guion, R. M. & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection.Personnel Psychology, 18, 135–164.

Hattrup, K., O’Connell, M. S. & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of multidimensionalcriteria: Distinguishing task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 11,305–319.

Hesketh, A. & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos(Eds.). The changing nature of performance, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan personality inventory manual. 2nd, Tulsa, OK: HoganAssessment Systems.

Hough, L. M. (1992). The ,Big Five’ personality variables—construct confusion: descriptionversus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. L., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D. & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on thosevalidities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.

Hough, L. M. & Ones, D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity, and use of per-sonality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In N. Anderson,D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C Viswesvaran (Eds.). Handbook of industrial, work, andorganizational psychology (pp. 233–277). London: Sage.

Hunter, J. E. & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of jobperformance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.

Hurtz, G. M. & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big 5 revisited.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.

International Personality Item Pool (2001). A Scientific Collaboratory for the Developmentof Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences(http://ipip.ori.org/). Internet Web Site.

Judge, T. A. & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits – self-esteem,generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfactionand job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A. & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relationbetween positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167–187.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E. & Thoreson, C. J. (2002a). Are measures of self-esteem,neuroticism, locus of control and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common con-struct?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E. & Thoreson, C. J. (2002b). The core self-evaluations scale:Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.

Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. New York:Wiley.

Lefcourt, H. M. (1981). Research with the locus of control construct: Volume 1, Assessmentmethods. New York: Academic Press.

Lied, T. R. & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Relationships between personality variablesand components of the expectancy-valence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,463–467.

Macan, T. H., Trusty, M. L. & Trimble, S. K. (1996). Spector’s work locus of control scale:Dimensionality and validity evidence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56,349–357.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1985). Updating Norman’s ‘‘adequate taxonomy’’: Intel-ligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710–721.

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personalityacross instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,81–90.

McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A. & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project avalidity results: the relationship between predictor and criterion domains. PersonnelPsychology, 43, 335–354.


Mitchell, T. R., Smyser, C. M. & Weed, S. E. (1975). Locus of control: Supervision and worksatisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 623–631.

Montag, I. & Comrey, A. L. (1987). Internality and externality as correlates of involvementin fatal driving accidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 339–343.

Morrison, K. A. (1997). Personality correlates of the five-factor model for a sample ofbusiness owners/managers: Associations with scores on self-monitoring, Type A behavior,locus of control, and subjective well-being. Psychological Reports, 80, 255–272.

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C. & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences intask and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71–83.

Motowidlo, S. J. & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance shouldbe distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,475–480.

Murphy, K. R. & Shiarella, A. H. (1997). Implications of the multidimensional nature of jobperformance for the validity of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studyingtest validity. Personnel Psychology, 50, 823–854.

O’Brien, G. E. (1984). Locus of control, work, and retirement. In H. M. Lefcourt (Eds.).Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 3): Extensions and limitations, NewYork: Academic Press.

Rotter, J. B. (1996). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of re-inforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, (Whole No. 609).

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in theEuropean community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43.

Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods inpersonnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of researchfindings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.

Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A. & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analysis of validity studiespublished between 1964 and 1984 and the investigation of study characteristics. Per-sonnel Psychology, 37, 407–422.

Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M. & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How tosink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17,639–655.

Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employees’ locus of control.Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482–497.

Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupa-tional Psychology, 61, 335–340.

Stipek, D. J. & Weisz, J. R. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic achievement.Review of Educational Research, 51, 101–137.

Szilagyi, A. D. & Sims, H. P. (1975). Locus of control and expectancies across multipleoccupational levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 638–640.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N. & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of jobperformance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.

Tseng, M. S. (1970). Locus of control as a determinant of job proficiency, employability, andtraining satisfaction of vocational rehabilitation clients. Journal of Counseling Psy-chology, 17, 487–491.

Van Scotter, J. R. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication asseparate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.

Wallston, K. A. & Wallston, B. S. (1981). Health locus of control scales. In H. M. Lefcourt(Eds.). Research with the locus of control construct (pp. 189–244). New York: AcademicPress.

Weick, K. E. (1990). Technology as equivoque: Sensemaking in new technologies. In P. S.Goodman, L. S. Sproull & Associates (Eds.). Technology and organizations (pp. 1–44).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weiss, H. M. & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw &L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–50). Greenwich, CT:JAI.

Wong, P. T. P., Watters, D. A. & Sproule, C. F. (1978). Initial validity and reliability of theTrent Attribution Profile as a measure of attribution schema and locus of control.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 1129–1134.


Documents

Incremental VALIDITY of Locus of CONTROL