Multidimensional Locus of Control Attitude Scale Levenson Miller 1976 JPSP

8/10/2019 Multidimensional Locus of Control Attitude Scale Levenson Miller 1976 JPSP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/multidimensional-locus-of-control-attitude-scale-levenson-miller-1976-jpsp 1/10

Journal o] Personality an d Social Psychology

1976, Vol. 33, No. 2, 199-208

Multidimensional Locus of Control in Sociopolitical Activists

of

Conservative and Liberal

Ideologies

Hanna

Levenson and Jim

Miller

Texas A&M University

Three studies were conducted

to

examine

th e

relationship between

a

multi-

dimensional measure of locus of control an d sociopolitical activism, controlling

for

the effects of

political ideology.

In

Study

1, 98

male college students com-

pleted a measure of conservatism-liberalism, Kerpelman's Activism scale, and

locus of control scales designed to differentiate between tw o types of externals:

belief

in

powerful others versus belief

in

chance forces.

In

Studies

2 and 3,

female college students N s ~ 26 and 40) who differed in the extent of their

participation in leftist political activities or feminist causes responded to the

multidimensional locus of control scales. As predicted, results from analyses of

variance and trend analyses indicate that for liberals, increases in

expectancies

of

control

by powerful

others

are

positively associated with increases

in ac-

tivism, while for conse rvatives , there is a negative relationship. The imp ortance

of controlling

fo r

ideology

and the

implications

of the

differentiated view

of

externality for understanding social action are discussed.

The purpose of this study is twofold: (a)

to

provide data relevant to a mult idimen-

sional (yet generalized-expectancy) delinea-

tion of locus of control and (b) to examine

th e

relationship between locus

of

control

and

social-political activism, con trollin g for the

effects

of

political ideology. Rotter

(1966) ,

with his Internal-External

(I-E)

Scale, has at-

tempted to measure the extent to which peo-

ple perceive that events are contingent upon

their

ow n behavior (internally controlled) or

the degree to which they feel

that

events are

beyond their

own

control

and are

determined

by fate, chance, or

powerful

others (exter-

nally controlled). Despite the fact that over

1,000 studies have been published dealing

with the co nstruct, findings relating locus of

control to involvement in voluntary social

action activities have been

conflicting

and

A

preliminary version

of

Study

1 was

presented

at the meeting of the Southwestern Psychological

Association,

El Paso, Texas, M ay 1974. The authors

would like to thank Alice H. Eagly and Lester

Shine fo r their suggestions regarding th e analysis

of

data.

Jim Miller is now at the Department of Social

Rehabilitation

and

Control , Southern Pines, N o r t h

Carolina 28387.

Requests

fo r

reprints should

be

sent

to

Hanna

Levenson, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M

University,

College

Station, Texas 77843.

confusing. For example, according to Rotter's

theory, internals should be more likely to

participate in social action because they be-

lieve their behavior would bring about de-

sired

goals. Externals,

on the

other hand,

should no t becom e involved because they

perceive little connection between their be-

havior and desired outcomes. Studies con-

ducted d ur in g the early 1960s have suppo rted

this reasoning. Gore

and

Rotter (1963)

and

Strickland (1965) found

that

black youths

who were willing to participate in or who

had actually engaged in civil rights activities

held

more internal control expectancies than

their less active black peers.

Some

researchers, however, have

found

that the I-E scale scores are not sign ificantly

related to activism (B lanc har d & Scarboro,

1972; Evans & Alexander, 1970; Gootnick,

1974).

In

addition, other investigators have

found that externals

are

more politically

ac-

tive than internals. A relationship between

black activism

and

externality

was

shown

in

a

study

by

Ransford

(1968), and

Sanger

and

Alker

(1972) found that feminist activists

scored m ore externally on a dimension of

Protestant ethic ideology than a control

group. Why should people become involved

if

they feel they have no mastery over the

situation?

199



HANNA LEVENSON AND JIM MILLER

Changing Times

and Confounding Variables

There appear

to be two

related explana-

tions

of the

failure

of the

Rotter

I-E

control

scale to predict social activism; one is based

on the

change

in the

nature

of

social activism

in this country and in the expectancies • of

people who do become involved, and the

other

is based on the confounding of variables on

the I-E scale (Hersch & Scheibe, 1967; Joe,

1971;

Lefcourt , 1972) .

When

the I-E scale was developed, em-

pirical data supported th e unidimensional

nature

of the

items. However, results

of re-

cent

factor

analytic studies (Collins, 1974 ;

Kleiber,

Veldman,

&

Menaker, Note

1)

have

indicated the presence of several factors on

the

I-E

scale. Since there

is a

10-year time

span between

the

development

of the I-E

scale and recent evidence

that

indicates its

multidimensionali ty,

one cannot overlook the

possibility that th e seeming discrepancy is a

function of the changing times. The social

action activism

of the

early 1960s might have

been an outgrowth of a belief

that

a person

could

make

meaningful

changes in society

through

information

and

increased effort

(high belief in personal

control) .

However,

any changes usually occurred gradually, and

many students began to realize the power of

th e system to control outcomes (high be-

lief in system control) . Thus, it is not sur-

prising that those

w ho

participated

in the

more violent protests of the late 1960s could

have rejected the view of internal control.

In addition to the changing times explana-

tion, another reason w hy researchers have

not found consistent relationships between

scores on the I-E scale and activism may lie

in

th e

format

and conceptualization of the

scale. Unfortunately, because of the forced-

choice format of the I-E scale, rejection of

the internal items results

in a

high external

score, which

is

denned

as a

belief that events

are controlled by fate, chance, or powerful

others. Frequently, how ever, the expectancy

of

control

by

powerful

others

is not

taken

into

consideration in interpreting the results.

When activists score in an external direction,

they are

often

interpreted as alienated indi-

viduals

whose rioting and protesting behav-

iors are seen as noninstrumental expressions

of

hostili ty (e.g. , Rotter,

1971). The

global

definition of

externals might obscure

th e

importance

of

perceptions

of

powerful others

(system control) for understanding the in-

s t rumental i ty of

protest behavior.

It was reasoned that the multidimensional

scales developed

by

Levenson

(1974)

would

be

useful

in analyzing the relationship be-

tween

locus

of

control

an d

activism. Leven-

son constructed the Internal, Powerful Oth-

ers, and Chance scales in order to measure

belief in

chance

or

fate expectancies

as

sepa-

rate from

a powerful

others orientation.

The

rationale behind

differentiating

tw o types of

externals stemmed from the reasoning that

people who

believe

that the

world

is un-

ordered would behave

and

think

differently

from people who believe

that

the world is

ordered but that

powerful

others are in con-

trol.

In the

latter case

a

potential

fo r

control

exists.

Previous work with

th e

Internal, Powerful

Others,

and

Chance scales

has led to a fuller

unders tanding

of the phenomenological vari-

ables involved in perceived parental upbring-

ing,

psychopathological diagnosis, clinical im-

provement, membership in antipollution

groups,

imprisonment,

and

academic

perform-

ance (Levenson, 1973a, 1973b, 1974,

in

press;

Prociuk & Breen, 197S). The authors hy-

pothesize that the powerful others dimension

of

the

tripartite differentiation

of

locus

of

control will be meaningfully related to ac-

tivism, especially in view of past research,

which can be interpreted as relating perceived

discrimination against

oneself

(system con-

trol)

and

activism.

Political

Ideology

In addition to the changing times and the

conceptual weaknesses within

the I-E

scale,

another consideration that

may

explain con-

flicting

data relating locus

of

control

to

activism

is the

confounding

of

political

in-

volvement

and

political ideology. Kerpelman

(1969) and

Lewis and Kraut

(1972)

have

pointed

out

that

many conclusions relating

personality differences

to

political activism

are based on sudies in which either liberal

activists

were compared to liberal an d con-

servative nonactivists or very active liberals

were compared to slightly active conserva-



LOCUS

OF CONTROL IN SOCIOPOLITICAL ACTIVISTS

201

tives. Most of the studies relating locus of

control

to

activism fall into

th e former

cate-

gory, with

no

attempt made

to

control

fo r

political ideology.

In

fact, there

has

been

a

tendency

in

psychological research

in

gen-

eral to equate activism with involvement in

leftist causes. How ever, since there are pro -

test groups of conservative ideologies, activ-

ism should be denned independently of po-

litical philosophy. Neglect of ideological dif-

ferences

is a serious shortcoming for locus of

control research, since it has been shown

that

internal items on the

I E

scale are more

appealing to

conservatives (Thomas, L970)

an d to those supporting a Protestant ethic

philosophy (Mirels

&

Garret t ,

1971).

Abramowitz (1973 ) has been one of the

few researchers to attempt to analyze scores

on the I-E scale as a

function

of activism

and political ideology

(left ,

middle , r ight) .

He found that left activists had higher ex-

ternal scores than right activists. However,

interpretation of

these data

is

complicated

by the

fact that

A bram ow itz was not able to

control for activism level across the political

ideologies; in his study

left

activists were

significantly more politically active than the

right activists (mean Activism scale score of

4 1 . 2 versus 25.S) .

From the foregoing review of relevant stud-

ies, it

appears that

the

relationship

between

activism

and locus of control might be clari-

fied if locus of control scores of groups that

were equated fo r activism and political ide-

ology were compared and if

differentiated

measures

of

externality were used.

The

pur-

pose of this study is to examine the relation-

ship between Internal, Powerful Others,

and

Chance scale scores

and social-political ac-

tivism, controlling for political ideology.

Often-cited investigations on activism and

apathy

in adolescents (e.g., Block,

Haan,

&

Smith, 1968; Flacks, 1967; Keniston, 1970)

have

emphasized

the

importance

of percep-

tions of powerful others. Conservatives are

seen as those who accept traditional Ameri-

can

values

and

authority, while

the

liberal

activists

are

described

as

those

who

reject

policies and institutions

that

conflict with

their

egalitarian view

of

political participa-

tion.

It appears that most of the work done on

activism and political ideology indicates that

atti tudes toward authority are of crucial im -

portance. It was reasoned that the locus of

control dimension of expectancy for control

by

powerful

others would

be

differentially

related to activism depending upon one's

political ideology. It was expected that the

more liberals perceived that powerful others

play

a

major role

in

controlling their lives,

the more activist they would become, be-

cause the power would be perceived as in-

hibiting realization

of

their potentials.

On

th e

other hand, it was predicted that con-

servatives would see power as legitimate and,

therefore, increases

in

expectancies

of

control

by

powerful

others would be associated with

decreases

in

activism levels. Specifically,

it

was hypothesized that activist liberals would

have significantly higher

Powerful

Others

scale scores than

the

activist conservatives.

One main study and two corollary investiga-

tions were conducted.

STUDY 1

Method

Subjects and

Procedure

Although scores

on

self-report measures were used

to divide subjects into groups according to political

ideology and activism, an attempt was made to

include

students

who were highly active in conserva-

tive and

liberal causes

in the

testing

procedure. In

order to accomplish this, th e presidents of the senior

class and/or representatives of the student

senate

at

four large state universities in the Southwest pro-

vided the present

authors

with the names of stu-

dents

who were most

involved

in

l e f t

an d right

political activities. These informants were told the

nature

of the

research

in very

general

terms,

an d

they were assured that th e students ' names would

be

kept confidential.

Since

very

few

females were

identified by these student leaders, data were gath-

ered only for males. By obtaining the names of

activist

subjects

in this

manner

n

=

5l), we hoped

to test a number of conservative activists who were

just as active as their liberal counterparts, since the

inability to equate activism levels between the two

ideologies has been a serious shortcoming in most

studies (Kerpelman, 1969).

These identified activist students were either ap -

proached individually in the universities' student

government

o f f i c e s

or

they

were telephoned

an d

asked to meet the researcher to discuss possible

participation in a research project. All

students

who

were

able to be contacted (« = 48) agreed to par-

ticipate.

No

mention

was

made

of

political

ideology

or of student activism in recruiting the subjects.

They were instructed

to

complete

a

number

of self-



202

H A N N A

LEVENSON AND JIM MILLER

report measures in private and to return them to

th e

second

au thor , a

male graduate s tudent ,

who

projected the appearance of neither a right-wing

reactionary nor a left-wing radical.

In order to obtain subjects n =

SO )

w ho would

probably report less involvement on the self-report

activism measure, several classes

at the four

uni-

versities used above were tested

by the

same male

researcher. The average age for the identified activ-

ists was 23 years;

that

of the remaining sample

was 22 years. To avoid the possibility of

confound-

ing race with political ideology, all subjects

n —

98)

were

white. All data were collected in the

spring of 1973.

Instruments

Locus

of

control.

The self-report measures for

assessing locus of control were Levenson's (1974)

Internal, Powerfu l Others,

an d

Chance scales, each

of which

is

comprised

of

eight items

in a

Likert

fo rma t (possible range on each scale = 0-48). T he

three scales were derived

on an a

priori basis

from

several items adapted from Rotter 's I-E scale

and

a set of statements written specifically for the new

scales. While previous studies have found slight to

moderate correlations between the

Powerfu l

Others

and

Chance scales (.23

to .59), the

internal, power-

fu l others, and chance orientations were the first

three clusters

to

emerge

from factor

analyses

on

data from normal (Levenson, 1974) and psychiatric

samples (Levenson, 1973a). These

factors

seem

to

be

conceptually pure

in

that only items from

th e

appropriate scale load on that one factor. Table 1

contains

th e

items

that

were presented

to the

sub-

jects as a

unified

attitude scale of 24 items. The

statements attempt

to

measure

th e

degree

to

which

a subject perceives the events in his own life as

being a consequence of his own acts, under the

control of powerfu l others, or determined by chance

forces.

T he

three

new

scales differ

from

Rotter's

I- E

scale in

four

important ways: (a) Instead of a

forced-choice

format,

a

Likert 6-point scale

is

used,

so

that th e three scales are statistically indepen dent

of one ano ther , (b) The statements on the scales

are

worded in the first person (personal control)

rather than mixing first-person with third-person

(system control) phrasing. This distinction w as

made based on the factor analyses of Gurin, Gurin,

Lao, and

Beattie (1969)

and

Mirels (1970).

(c )

The

scales have

a

high degree

of

parallelism

in

con-

tent among each

triad,

(d) The scales are not cor-

related with a measure of social desirability. For

th e

present sample,

Cronbach's

alpha

is .77 for the

Internal scale, .71 for the Powerful Others scale,

and .73 for the Chance scale.

Political activity. Social-political involvement

was

measured by Kerpelman's (1969) Actual Activism

subscale of the Political Activity scale. The Actual

Activism subscale is comprised of 12

Likert-type

i tems that ask how much time has been spent in

var ious

activist pursuits (range = 12-60). In the

T A B L E 1

I N T E R N A L , P O W E R F U L

O T H E R S , A N D C H A N C E Locus

O F C O N T R O L S C A L E ITEMS

Internal scale

1.

Whether

or not I get

to

be a

leader depends mostly

on my ability.

4. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends

mostly

on how

good

a

driver

I am.

5. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make

them work.

9. How many friends I have depends on how nice a

person I am.

18. I can

pretty much determine what

will

happen

in

my

life.

19 .

I am

usually able

to

protect

m y

personal interests.

21 .

When

I get

what

I

want, it's usually because

I

worked hard for it.

23. My life is determined by my own actions.

Powerful

others scale

3. I feel

like

what happens in my life is mostly deter-

mined by powerful people.

8.

Although

I

might have good

ability, I will not be

given leadership responsibility without appealing

to

those

in

positions

of

power.

11. My life is

chiefly

controlled b y

powerful

others.

13 .

People like

myself

have very little chance

of

pro-

tecting

ou r

personal interests when

they

conflict

with those of strong pressure groups.

15. Getting what

I

w ant requir es pleasing those people

above

me.

17. If important people were to decide they didn't like

m e,

I probably wouldn't make many

friends.

20.

Whether

or not I get

into

a car

accident depends

mostly on the other driver.

22 . In order to have m y plans work, I make sure that

they fit in with the desires of people who have

power over

m e.

Chance scale

2. To a great extent my

life

is controlled by

accidental

happenings.

6.

Often there

is no

chance

of

protecting

my

personal

interest from bad luck happenings.

7. When I get what I want, it's usually because I'm

lucky.

10 .

I have often found that what is going to happen

will happen.

12.

Whether

or not I get

into

a car

accident

is

mostly

a matter of luck.

14 . It's no t always wise for me to plan too far ahead

because m any things tur n out to b e a m atte r of

good or bad fortune.

16 .

Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on

whether

I'm

lucky enough

to be in the

right

place

at the

right time.

24. It's

chiefly a

matter

of fate

whether

or not I

have

a few

freiends

or many

friends.

Note. Al l

24 locus of control i tems (8 for each scale) ar e

included

in the table. The n um berin g represents the orde r in

which th e

items appeared

to

part ic ipants

in the

study.

present investigation,

th e

behaviorally

identified

student activists scored more than one standard

deviation higher on the Activism subscale than the

classroom-tested subjects p < .001), even though

several self-identified activists were in the latter



LOCUS

OF

CONTROL

IN

SOCIOPOLITICAL ACTIVISTS

3

TABLE

2

MEANS,

S T A N D A R D D E V I A T IO N S ,

AND CELL «s

F O R

THE

A C T I V I S M

X

I D E O L O G Y CELLS S T U D Y

1)

Measure

Activism

Conservatives

Liberals

Conservatism-liberalism

Conservatives

Liberals

Cell ns

Conservatives

Liberals

Lo w

M

18.06

1 9 . 7 5

98.29

53.38

17

8

Activis

Modera te

SD

2.70

1.75

19.60

12.50

M

25.54

25.43

87.92

53.50

13

14

SD

1.81

1.91

1 6 . 2 7

9.76

m

level

High

M

32.40

33.00

98.67

48.50

9

14

SD

3.24

3.11

18.40

9.80

Very

high

M

43.67

4 7 . 2 1

97.22

44.07

SD

4.58

5 . 2 7

24.32

10.48

9

14

group.

For the

present sample,

th e

alpha coefficient

for

th e Actual Activism subscale is

.91.

Scores on

th e

Activism subscale provided

th e

basis

fo r

assign-

ing subjects to activism groups.

Political ideology. The m easu re of political ideol-

ogy was

constructed

specifically fo r

this study, since

it was felt

that

little

informat ion

on criterion valid-

ity was available for existing ideology scales and

that many items contained in older scales were not

appropriate

in

1973.

The

Conservatism-Liberalism

scale is comprised of 25 Likert-type items, and its

alpha reliability is .92 (Levenson & Miller, 1974).

A

high score indicates a conservative view on topics

such as drugs, national

defense,

censorship, and

welfare (range =

25-175).

In the present study the

behaviorally identified conservative activists scored

almost

two

standard deviations higher than their

behaviorally

identified

liberal activist peers p <

.001).

Scores

on the

Conservatism-Liberalism scale

formed the basis for dich otom izing subjects into

either conservative

or

liberal ideology groups.

In the present study, the Conservatism-Liberal-

ism scale, the locus of control scales, and the Actu al

Activism scale were combined into

a

booklet

an d

presented to the subject in that order, preceded by

a cover sheet requesting certain demographic

infor-

mation

and

containing

the

statement,

If you

would

like to

obtain

a

copy

of the

results

at the

com-

pletion of this project, please give me your name

after

you are finished and I will be glad to send

you a copy.

Results

Design

It was

decided

to use a

two-way factorial

design to test the presence of the predicted

interaction

effect

between activism and ide-

ology in predicting locus of control scores.

Subjects who scored above the median (68)

on

the Con servatism-Liberalism scale consti-

tuted the conservative group (« = 49) and

those

who

scored below

the

median repre-

sented the liberal group

(w

= 49). Subjects

were

also

divided into quartiles

based

on

their Activism

scale

scores. Since

past

re-

search has indicated that activism is posi-

tively related to a liberal political ideology,

it was considered extremely important to

make sure

that

the

various levels

of

activism

between conservative

and

liberal students

were

equivalent and to control for ideology

across the activism levels before analyzing

the locus of control scores. Table 2 presents

the

mean scores

and

standard deviations

on

the Conservatism-Liberalism and the Activ-

ism

scales

for

each

of the

cells

in the 2 X 4

grouping.

Two

2 X 4 analyses

of

variance indicated

a

significant interaction

on the

scores

on the

Activism scale and on the Conservatism-Lib-

eralism

scale.

Analysis

fo r

simple

effects

indi-

cated that

for the

highest level

of

activism,

liberals were significantly more active

than

conservatives; these liberals also scored sig-

nificantly more liberal than

two

other groups

of liberals. Therefore,

th e

subjects

in the

highest level of activism were excluded

from

the analysis of locus of control scores. The

remaining 2 X 3 (Ideology X Activism) de -

sign

was

considered most appropriate

to

test

the hypotheses for the following reasons: (a)

In all

cells ideology

and

activism were

equated, thus permitt ing a test of the pre-

dicted interaction

on

locus

of

control

scale

scores, (b) The data from over 75 of the







206

HANNA LEVENSON AND JIM M ILLER

The

behavioral criterion

for the liberal

student

activists was participation in a small lesbian group

that was

quite involved

in

trying

to

change

sexist

laws

an d

attitudes.

The

corresponding campus group

was a relatively inactive chapter of a national wom-

en's liberation group. All

data

in Study 3 were

collected

at a coeducational

college

in the Southwest.

One of the two

undergraduate testers

in

Study

2

went to a

meeting

of the

lesbian group n

— 12 )

and the

other went

to a

meeting

of the feminist

organization

(» = 28) . T he

testers explained

that

they were interested in the attitudes of students on

campus. No mention was made of political ideology,

feminist

issues,

or

activism.

All

students present

agreed

to

participate,

and the

locus

of

control scales

were administered during

that

meeting.

Results

As

predicted,

the

students

in the

activist

lesbian group scored extremely high

on the

Powerful Others

scale

M

= 39.75) as

com-

pared to the

feminist

group members M

=

15.89), ^(1,38) = 81.88,

p <

.001. The dif-

ference

between groups on the Chance scale

is not significant F = .91), but the

differ-

ence

between means

on the

Internal scale

is also highly

significant.

The members of the

activist lesbian group

felt they had less

per-

sonal control over their lives

M — 21.67)

than those in the feminist group

M =

37.39) ; F(l, 38) = 98.76, p < .001.

G E N E R A L D I S C U S S I O N

The

results

indicate that expectancies of

control by powerful others appear quite rele-

vant

for

understanding

the

activism

of

these

conservative and liberal students. The finding

that

there is a differential relationship be-

tween activism and locus of control depend-

ing upon one's political ideology

can be

described according to attribution theory.

Attribution theory describes the processes

which operate

as if the

individual were moti-

vated

to

attain

a

cognitive mastery

of the

causal

nature

of the

environment (Kelley,

1967). From

an

attributional point

of

view,

Rotter's

external control dimension represents

the

attribution

of causality to external forces,

while internal control represents the attribu-

tion

of

causality

to

personal forces.

By

examining

an

attributional model

of

achievement motivation, Weiner and his col-

leagues (Weiner, Heckhausen, Meyer, &

Cook, 1972) have delineated

four

elements

that are contained within two causal dimen-

sions: locus of control (internal versus ex-

ternal) and stability (fixed versus variable).

Ability and effort are perceived as internal

determinants

of

success

and

failure, while

luck

and task difficulty are external causes.

However,

as

Weiner

et

al.

point out, ability

and

task

difficulty are relatively constant

over time, while effort and luck are more

variable.

These

investigators feel

that

changes

in expectancy of success are due to the sta-

bility of the attributional dimension, rather

than to the

locus

of

control dimension.

Weiner's reasoning for suggesting a Stabil-

ity X

Locus

of

Control classification scheme

is quite similar to the rationale for differen-

tiating between two types of externals in the

development of the Powerful Others and

Chance

scales.

Both of

these

scales measure

orientations that are external to the indi-

vidual,

but

chance implies great variability,

while

powerful others could be seen as rela-

tively

stable

or predictable.

This

added di-

mension of predictability becomes quite im -

portant

fo r

understanding

how

some students

with an

external locus

of

control could

en-

gage in instrumental activism. In such a situ-

ation, the potential for change with increased

effort exists.

If one

incorrectly equated

ex-

ternality with a view of an unstable world,

then one would probably interpret the

acti-

vism

of externals as

noninstrumental,

ex-

pressive releases brought about by frustra-

tion.

Pertinent to the consequences of causal

attributions, Weiner et al.

(1972)

not only

have evidence that changes in expectancy of

success

are

related

to the

stability factor,

but

they

also have shown

that

affective responses

to an

outcome

are

determined primarily

by

the

locus

of

control dimension

of

causality.

This emphasis on affect is of interest in

delineating differences between liberals' and

conservatives' attributions for negative condi-

tions.

When faced

with

situations in which pow-

erful others are believed to control outcomes,

the activism level of the conservative could

be less because the expectancy for success

would be

low.

For

liberals, however, attribut-

ing the causes for such negative conditions as

poverty, sexism, and racism to other people

instead of to one's own inadequacies should



LOCUS OF CONTROL IN SOCIOPOLITICAL ACTIVISTS

7

augment activism

and

lessen negative

affect

because, according

to

Weiner's conceptuali-

zation,

th e external locus of causality reduces

personal responsibility fo r present negative

circumstances. Similar reasoning

has

been

used

by

Gurin

et

al.

(1969) and

Sanger

and

Alker (1972) to explain w hy externality is

positively correlated with activism fo r blacks

and feminists.

Several

factors are important fo r deciding

on

the generality of the findings in

these

three studies. College-educated liberal activ-

ists could have scored higher

on the

Power-

ful Others scale because they tended to view

authority with suspicion. However, there

are

probably

several

groups

of

conservative

ac-

tivists w ho might have a similar distrust of

authorities (e.g., Wallace supporters, John

Birch Society

members ) . In

addition,

not all

liberal activists

feel

they are controlled by

other people

per se; for

many, institutional-

ized barriers an d policies are seen as more

constraining. Therefore, it may be that the

findings from

these studies

do not

generalize

to all activists, but depend on the specific

external

targets

relevant

to a

particular group.

Future work

on the

relationship between

the

Powerful

Others scale

and

other types

of

predictable, controlling

forces

(e.g., racism,

poverty) should

be

informative.

I n

Studies

2

and 3, subjects were tested as they appeared

for a group meeting. Although th e experi-

menter did not mention political ideology or

activism, there

is a

possibility that responses

to the

self-report measures were partially

a

reflection of the salience of group member-

ship. It may be that people who knew they

were being tested because they were members

of

a

radical group responded

in a

more

paranoid,

defensive

manner.

In

Studies

1 and 2,

differences between

groups were

significant

only

fo r Powerful

Others

scale

scores. In Study 3, however, the

lesbians (highly active liberals) scored higher

on

perceptions

of

control

by powerful

others

than less active

feminists, as

predicted,

but

they

also

felt

that

they

had

significantly less

personal control over their lives. One might

speculate

that

there

is an

interplay between

the

three locus

of

control orientations

as a

function of

success

or

failure

in

achieving

desired

goals. Although

the

lesbians

had

been

striving

to

change attitudes

and

laws, they

perceived that

they

had had little

success,

and

therefore

their lo w Internal scale scores

could be a reflection of

their estimation

of

their ability

and/or

effort.

If such is the

case,

their

defensive externality (Minton,

1972) does not seem to be alleviating self-

blame. The lower Internal scores could

also

be an internalization of society's negative

view of homosexuals. Since the Internal, Pow-

erful

Others, and Chance scales are empiri-

cally independent,

it

might

be frui t fu l in

fu ture

research to make predictions based on

two or

three

of the

locus

of

control scale

scores.

REFERENCE NOTES

1.

Kleiber,

D.,

Veldman,

D. J., & Menaker, S. L.

Th e multidimensionality of

locus

of control.

Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern

Psychological Association, Washington,

D.C.,

Apri l

1973.

2. Barr,

A.

J.,

&

Goodnight,

J. H. Statistical analy-

si s

system. Unpublished manuscript, 1972. (Avail-

able from Students' Supply Stores, North Caro-

lina State University,

Raleigh,

North Carolina

27607) .

REFERENCES

Abramowitz , S. I. The comparative competence-

adjus tment

of student

left

social-political activists.

Journal

of

Personality

1973,

41,

244-260.

Appelbaum,

M. I.,

&

Cramer,

E.

M. Some problems

in the nonorthogonal analysis of variance.

Psycho-

logical

Bulletin, 1974, 81 , 33S-343.

Blanchard, E. B., & Scarboro, M. E. Locus of con-

trol, political attitudes, and voting behavior in a

college ag e population. Psychological Reports

1972,

30 ,

529-530.

Block,

J.

H.,

Haan,

N., &

Smith,

M, B.

Activism

and apathy in contemporary adolescents. In J. F.

A d a m s

(Ed.), Understanding adolescence. Boston:

Allyn & Bacon, 1968.

Carlson,

J. E., & Timm, N. H. Analysis of variance.

Psychological Bulletin,

1974,

81,

563-570.

Collins, B. E. Four components of the Rotter In -

ternal-External Scale: Belief in a difficult world,

a just world, a predictable world, and a politi-

cally

responsive world. Journal

of

Personality

an d

Social Psychology

1974,

29 , 381-391.

Evans, D. A ., & Alexander, S. Some psychological

correlates of civil rights activity. Psychological

Reports

1970,

26 ,

899-906.

Flacks, R. The liberated generation: A n exploration

of the roots of student protest.

Journal

of

Social

Issues,

1967,

23 3), 52-75.

Fowler, M . G., Fowler, R.

L.,

& Van de Riet, H.

Feminism

an d

political radicalism.

Journal of

Psychology

1973,

83 , 237-242.



208

H A N N A

LEVENSON AND JIM MILLER

Gaito,

J.

Unequal intervals

and

unequal

n in

trend

analyses. Psychological

Bulletin,

196S,

63, 125-121.

Gootnick, A. T. Locus of control an d political par-

ticipation

of

college students:

A

compar ison

of

unidimensional

and

mult idimens ional approaches .

Journal

of

Consulting

an d

Clinical Psychology,

1974,

42,

54-58.

Gore,

P. M,, & Rotter , J. B. A personality correlate

of social

action.

Journal

of

Personality, 1963,

31 ,

58-64.

Gurin, P.,

Gur in ,

G .,

Lao,

R., &

Beattie,

M. In-

ternal-external control in the motivational dy-

namics of Negro

youth.

Journal of Social Issues,

1969,

25(3), 29-S3.

Hersch,

P. D., &

Scheibe, K.

E. On the

reliability

and va lidity of internal-external contro l as a

personality dimension. Journal of Consulting Psy-

chology, 1967, 31, 609-614.

Joe,

V. C.

Review

of the

internal-external control

cons truct

as a

personality variable. Psychological

Reports,

1971,

28,

619-640.

Kelley,

H. H. Attribution

theory

in social

psychol-

ogy. In D. Levine

(Ed.),

Nebraska Symposium

on motivation

(Vol.

I S ) .

Lincoln: University

of

Nebraska

Press,

1967.

Keniston,

K. The

sources

of

student dissent.

In P.

Mussen,

J.

Conger ,

& J.

Kagen (Eds.), Readings

in child development and personality. N e w Y o r k :

Harper

&

Row, 1970.

Kerpelman, L. C.

Student polit ical activism

and

ideology: Comparative characteristics

of

activists

an d

nonactivists . Journal

o f

Cou nseling Psychol-

ogy, 1969, 16, 8-13.

Lefcourt ,

H, M. Recent developments in the study

of

locus of control. In B. A.

Maher (Ed . ) ,

Progress

in experimental personality research

(Vol. 4). New

Y ork: Academ ic Press, 1972.

Levenson,

H.

Multidimensional locus

of

control

in

psychiatric

patients. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1973,

41,

397-404.

(a )

Levenson,

H.

Perceived parental antecedents

of

internal,

powerfu l

others,

and

chance locus

of

control orientations.

Developmental

Psychology,

1973,

9,

260-265.

(b)

Levenson, H. Activism and powerful others: Dis-

tinctions within

th e

concept

of

internal-external

control.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 1974,

38, 377-383.

Levenson,

H.

Multidimensional locus

of

control

in

prison inmates.

Journal of Applied Social Psychol-

ogy,

1975,

in press.

Levenson,

H., &

M iller,

J.

Development

of a

current

scale

to

measure conservatism-liberalism.

Journal

o f Psychology, 1974, 88 , 241-244.

Lewis,

S.

H.,

&

Kraut ,

R. F.

Correlates

of

student

political activism

an d

ideology. Journal of Social

Issues, 1972,

28 4), 131-149.

Minton,

H. L.

Power

and

personality.

In J. T.

Tedeschi ( E d . ) , The social

influence

process.

Chicago: Aldine, 1972.

Mirels,

H. L.

Dimensions

of

internal versus external

control.

Journal

of

Consulting

an d

Clinical Psy-

chology, 1970,

34 , 226-228.

Mirels, H., & G a r r e t t, J. The Protestant ethic as a

personality variable.

Journal o f Consulting an d

Clinical Psychology, 1971,

36 , 40-44.

Overall,

J.

E.,

& Spiegel, D. K. Con cerning least

squares analysis of experimental

data.

Psycho-

logical Bulletin,

1969, 72, 311-322,

Prociuk,

T.

J.,

&

Breen,

L. J. Defensive

external i ty

and its relation to academic performance. Journal

o f Personality an d Social Psychology, 1975, 31 ,

549-556.

Ransford ,

H. E. Isolation, powerlessness and vio-

lence: A study of

attitudes

and

participation

in

the Watts

riot.

American Journal

of

Sociology,

1968, 73, 581-591.

Rotter , J. B. Gene ralized expectancies for internal

versus external control of reinforcement . Psycho-

logical Monographs,

1966,

80 1,

Whole

N o.

609) .

Rotter,

J. B.

External control

and

internal control.

Psychology Today, Jun e 1971, 37-42; 58-59.

Sanger,

S. P., & Alker, H. A.

Dimensions

of in-

ternal-external

locus

of

control

and the

women's

l iberat ion movement . Journal of Social Issues,

1972,

28 4),

115-129.

Strickland,

B. R. The prediction of social action

from a

dimension

of internal-external control,

Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 66 , 353-358.

Thomas,

L. E. The

I-E scale, ideological bias,

and

polit ical participation. Journal o f Personality,

1970, 38 ,

273-286.

Weiner,

B.,

Heckhausen, H., Meyer , W., & Cook,

R. E.

Causal ascriptions

and

achievement behav-

ior:

A

conceptual analysis

of effort an d

reanalysis

of

locus

of

control. Journal

of

Personality

an d

Social Psychology,

1972,

21 , 239-248.

(Received January 29 , 1975)

Documents

Multidimensional Locus of Control Attitude Scale Levenson Miller 1976 JPSP