Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Abstract

Research involving perceived internal versus external control of reinforcement as a personality variable has been expanding at a rapid rate. It seems clear that for some investigators there are problems associated with understanding the conceptualization of this construct as well as understanding the nature and limitations of methods of measurement. This article attempts to discuss in detail (a) the place of this construct within the framework of social learning theory, (b) misconceptions and problems of a theoretical nature, and (c) misuses and limitations associated with measurement. Problems of generalityspecificity and unidimensionality-multidimensionality are discussed as well as the logic of predictions from test scores. Estimates of the number of published articles dealing with some aspect of internal versus external control of reinforcement (sometimes referred to as locus of control) vary, but it is clear that there are well over 600 studies. The number of unpublished investigations, master's theses, and doctoral dissertations dealing with this topic are impossible to estimate. Most of these studies have been published in the last IS years, and there seems to be still an active, if not increasing, interest in the topic. The concept deals both with situational parameters and individual differences, although the bulk of the studies have been concerned with the latter. One can only speculate on the surprising popularity of this concept as a subject for psychological investigations. Interest in this concept surely must be related to some persistent social problems, which in turn are related to the tremendous growth in population, increasing complexity of society, and the subsequent feeling of powerlessness that seems to permeate all levels of society, at least in Western culture. The research referred to above has produced some important and some well-replicated findings. It has also produced a series of studies that appear to reflect a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the variables and measurement devices used to assess individual differences. It is Requests for reprints should be sent to Julian B. Rotter, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06268.