Memory and personality: external versus internal locus of control and superficial organization in free recall

JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR 22, 6 1 - 7 4 (1983)

Memory and Personality: External versus Internal Locus of Control and Superficial Organization in Free Recall HENRY C. ELLIS AND JAMES B. FRANKLIN

University of New Mexico This r e s e a r c h e x a m i n e d the effects of having both a semantic a n d a superficial perceptual category for organizing lists of w o r d s in free recall, and also e x a m i n e d the effects of a personality variable, locus of control, on susceptibility to superficial features. W h e n given an option to e n c o d e both semantic and superficial features, subjects with an external locus of control e n c o d e d the superficial features m o r e extensively t h a n internals; in addition, with this option externals s h o w e d poorer free recall. W h e n only semantic cues were present, no difference in recall or clustering occurred b e t w e e n internals and externals. T h e data are interpreted in t e r m s of differences in ease of distraction, with externals being less able to distinguish relevant s e m a n t i c from less pertinent perceptual features.

Our research focuses on two issues: (a) If We are interested in the susceptibility of human subjects to superficial, nonsemantic a superficial feature is available for orfeatures of to-be-remembered word lists ganizing a categorized word list, what effect when semantic category information is does this have on presumably more effiavailable. Will subjects use these superfi- cient semantic/conceptual organization? cial features to organize information when For instance, does the reliance upon superobvious semantic features are also present? ficial processing suppress or displace opWe are further interested in how individ- portunities for semantic processing quid ual-difference variables, such as prevailing pro quo, or are other processes operative? personality characteristics of our subjects, (b) If the effect of suppression does occur, influence the manner by which they or- is it related to individual-difference factors ganize information in memory. It is well such as personality characteristics of the known that subjects will organize word subject? In this research we examine these lists in free recall according to conceptual issues, with a principal focus on the second or other available categories. But if subjects question. We propose that encoding effecare given the option of organizing informa- tiveness is determined both by opportion with both semantic and superficialper- tunities to process word lists on the basis of ceptual features of a list available, how will superficial versus semantic features and by they perform? It may be that subjects will the prevailing personality orientation, consystematically organize the list on the basis cerning dependence on internal versus exof the more effective semantic categories ternal resources, that subjects bring to the present. But it is also possible that some task. More generally, this research argues subjects will organize the list using the less for the context sensitivity of memory in effective perceptual features. which subject-criterial-task interactions are important (cf. Cosden, Ellis, & Feeney, 1979; Jenkins, 1979). This r e s e a r c h was s u p p o r t e d by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH-15142 to the first author. We This research is based upon the general thank Gil Einstein, Michael E y s e n c k , Earl H u n t , Reed assumption that the effectiveness with H u n t , Herbert Lefcourt, and Jerry Phares for their which verbal information is organized in c o m m e n t s on an earlier draft of this paper. R e q u e s t for memory may be influenced by the manipureprints should be sent to H e n r y C. Ellis, D e p a r t m e n t lation of less meaningful or irrelevant asof P s y c h o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y of N e w Mexico, Albuquerque, N e w Mexico 87131. pects of the material. There is evidence for 61 0022-5371/83/010061-14503.00/0 Copyright (~) 1983by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

62

ELLIS AND FRANKLIN

this assumption. For example, Hertel and fectively encoded and retained than mateEllis (1979) demonstrated that inclusion of rial processed superficially (cf. Craik & bizarre sentences in the context of mean- L o c k h a r t , 1972; M o s c o v i t c h & Craik, ingful sentences led to deeper processing of 1976). the more meaningful information. SimiMore importantly, this research demonlarly, Postman and Kreusi (1977) showed strates the significant role of a personality that subjects who rated words for pleasant- predisposition, locus of control, in proness recalled more words than those who cessing information. Individuals having an rated the words for frequency even when internal locus of control subscribe to the both groups were instructed to remember view that individual ability and effort and the words. And Loftus, Miller, and Burns the reliance upon one's internal resources (1978) found that inclusion of irrelevant or are the major determinants of performance. misleading information produced distortion In contrast, individuals having an external in subjects' recall of a simulated accident. locus of control are inclined to attribute the Such studies indicate that memory may be vicissitudes of existence to fate, luck, the influenced by a variety of factors which b e h a v i o r of others, or e n v i r o n m e n t a l lead the subject away from the optimal or factors--in brief, forces external to themmost effective processing strategies. More- selves. Locus of control implies a broad over, there is good evidence that nonse- delineation of attitudes into those generally mantic information play s a significant role representing the conviction of the effecin long-term retention (Hunt & Elliott, 1980). tiveness of individual effort at one end of We also know that where the manner of the scale to those representing the contrary presenting information tends to distract persuasion at the other (cf. Pines, 1973; subjects from processing it more deeply or Rotter, 1966). A principal expectation of semantically, recall will suffer. For exam- this research was that subjects classified as pie, subjects required to process letter se- having an external locus of control would quences presented in a repetitious fashion, be more susceptible to the influence of suin the context of a perceptual grouping task, perficial, irrelevant features in processing a show substantially poorer recall than sub- word list for free recall. Additional predicjects presented the information in varied tions follow from this distinction and are fashion (e.g., Ellis, 1973; Ellis, Parente, & outlined in Experiment 2. In summary, the purpose of this research Walker, 1974; Ellis, Parente, Grah, & Spiering, 1975). Varied input has the effect was twofold: Does the presence of a superof encouraging subjects to look for a higher ficial basis for organizing information affect order structure in the information which opportunities for semantic organization? leads to a more efficient coding strategy of What is the role of locus of control predischunking the letter sequence. Conversely, position in processing information? The repetitious input has the effect of dis- first issue was examined in Experiment 1 couraging adoption of this strategy. More and both issues were examined in Experigenerally, forcing subjects to look for a ment 2. more optimal coding strategy produces a EXPERIMENT 1 more elaborated, semantic processing of the letter sequences as chunks of words. Method Related findings have been reported subSubjects, materials, and procedure. sequently by Slamecka and Graf (1978) and Seventy-three undergraduate students from by Jacoby (1978). These findings are, of the University of New Mexico served as course, quite consistent with the notion that subjects. They were assigned to one of six material processed at deeper, elaborated, treatment groups by a table of random or more distinctive levels will be more ef- numbers. All subjects were shown a ran-

L O C U S OF C O N T R O L A N D M E M O R Y

domized list of 16 familiar nouns with instructions to remember the words as best they were able. In each condition the list was shown at a rate of 3 seconds/word. Of the 16 words, four were names of professions, four were names of types of buildings, four were types of food, and four were varieties of animals. The lists were presented for four presentations. The words ranged from six to ten letters. Half the subjects were given an immediate test of free recall whereas the remaining half were tested after a 10-minute delay interval. The delay subjects worked simple multiplication problems during the interval to control for rehearsal. The delay interval was introduced to increase the precision of the experiment and to allow examination of possible interaction effects. Both groups were given 3 minutes to free-recall words in writing. Design. The design consisted of three treatment conditions and an immediate versus delayed retention test. The three conditions consisted of an experimental group and two control conditions. In the experimental condition, the subjects saw the list of 16 words color-blocked; i.e., the first four words in the list were presented over a red background, the next four over a green background, the next four over a yellow background, and the final four over a blue background. The purpose of this procedure was to provide a superficial, semantically irrelevant basis for processing the list, namely, color. Thus, in addition to the ever-present semantic basis for encoding (semantic categories), the experimental subjects had an alternative coding option based on the superficial list characteristic of color. By providing subjects with this ready option, it was expected that they would be inclined, to some extent, to encode the tobe-recalled words by association with their appropriate color, and thus "color-cluster" in free recall. Furthermore, it was assumed that this type of encoding would compete with and suppress semantic encoding by c a t e g o r i e s . Th e w o r d s w e r e s e l e c t e d

63

against any prominent association with any of the colors used as background during word presentation. For example, words associated with red, such as apple, were avoided. In this way, the background color for each word was a superficial list characteristic and not evocative of some meaningful aspect of the word itself. It should be clear that in the experimental condition, where dual organizational features are present, color and serial order of presentation is partially confounded because of the color-blocking procedure. Colors are always blocked whereas the conceptual categories are always random. Although blocked presentation always leads to better memory than does random presentation, this is not a problem for our research. First, we wish to give the color (nonsemantic) feature every opportunity to be used as a basis for organization and to accomplish this we color-block the presentation. Second, in Experiment 2, our principal interest is in internal versus external comparisons, where both groups are presented with identical dual-organization conditions. The control subjects studied the same word list as did the experimental subjects with one change. Instead of backgrounds of varying colors, these subjects were shown the word list with a single color background. One fourth of the control subjects were shown words with a red background, one fourth over a green background, one fourth over a yellow background, and one fourth over a blue background. This procedure was designed to control for any unique associative or perceptual effects. More generally, the control condition allows for clustering by semantic categories but does not allow for clustering by color whereas, as noted above, the experimental condition allows for both options. A second control condition was considered potentially important. A consistent finding in human m e m o r y is that items which are in some way distinctive are more easily remembered (cf. Ellis, 1973;

64

ELLIS AND FRANKLIN

Eysenck, 1979; Hunt & Elliott, 1980). In analyzed for clustering (Bousfield & Bousthe experimental condition words marking field, 1966) by semantic categories (semanthe transition from one color to another tic clustering), or by association with other may conceivably acquire a measure of dis- words presented in the same color (clustinctiveness which in turn can affect recall. tering by color). Analyses of variance were In order to assess the impact of this poten- performed to test all hypotheses as well as tial effect, a second control condition was related post hoc issues. In all instances, added. Subjects in this distinctiveness con- alpha level was preset at .05. trol condition were shown the same words Word recall. It was hypothesized that abas the other two groups with most of the solute recall would be suppressed in the exitems being presented over a single color perimental (color block) condition vis-a-vis background. However, the fifth, ninth, and the control conditions. Figure 1 is a plot of thirteenth words in each presentation were words recalled for the three conditions shown with a background color different showing the effects of delay in the retention from that of the other words. Thus all color test. The figure shows no difference among transitions actually present in the experi- groups in the number of words recalled mental condition (red to green, green to during immediate recall, F (2,67) = .45, MSe yellow, yellow to blue) were also repre- = 4.27. In contrast, the figure shows poorer sented in this control condition. This con- recall of the experimental subjects in detrol may not be entirely satisfactory be- layed recall, F(2,67) = 3.42, MSe = 4.27. cause the introduction of three unique colSemantic clustering. The principal hyors into a homogeneous list can produce an pothesis of this study was that presenting isolation effect, an effect not necessarily word lists in color blocks (experimental conequivalent to that produced by transitions ,dition) would result in a suppression of between blocks of colors. It nevertheless clustering by semantic categories and rerepresents an effort to control for transition duced word recall. The pattern of clustereffects which turned out to be unnecessary ing, as shown in Figure 2, generally resembecause there were no differences between bles that of the recall data. As the figure the two control conditions. suggests, there was no reliable difference Two hypotheses were advanced. First, it among groups under the immediate recall was expected that presence of color-based condition, F(2,67) = .13, MSe = .21. But processing in the experimental condition following the 10-minute retention interval, would reduce the amount of semantic pro- semantic clustering by the experimental cessing, and that this would, in turn, result in lowered free recall of words by the exp e r i m e n t a l subjects. Second, b e c a u s e Experimental color-association groupings were present in Control -- -Distinctiveness Control the experimental but not in the control con14 ditions, it was expected that clustering by color would be greater in the experimental than in the control condition, where such "clustering" should be at chance level be2~ 12 cause only one color background is present. It was naturally expected that semantic clustering would correlate negatively with o~ I i Immediate I0 Minute clustering by color. Delay cr-

n

Results Each subject recalled as many words in writing as possible. The output order was

Retention Interval

FIG. 1. M e a n n u m b e r of words recalled by subjects in the experimental (color groupings) a n d control conditions over time.

L O C U S OF C O N T R O L A N D M E M O R Y Experimental Control ~ Distinctiveness Control ~

,6O - -

.40

¢. _----o

0

-

,20

Immediate

I0 Minute Delay

Retention

Interval

FIG. 2. M e a n s e m a n t i c clustering indices in the experimental (color groupings) and control conditions

over time. subjects is seen to drop below that of control subjects, F(2,67) = 2.73, MSe = .21. Clustering by color. During presentation the experimental list items were seen over four different colors of background. Thus, words presented over a red background might be encoded as " r e d words," i.e., words belonging to this category, those presented over a green background as "green words," and so on. Clustering by color, then, was defined as the extent to which "red words" were listed together at recall with other " r e d w o r d s , " " g r e e n words" with other "green words," and so forth. It was expected that clustering by color would be higher among experimental subjects than among control subjects, where such clustering would of necessity be

Experimental D ~ - a Control ~ Distinctiveness Control o - - - o

.24 -

,16 - -

.o8

=-~$ O0

-

65

fortuitous and random. Color clustering in control subjects was obtained via a yoking procedure. The presentation order of both the control and experimental lists was identical. Therefore, the recall protocols in the control list, which did not have varied colored backgrounds, could be cluster analyzed as if they did have color backgrounds, using the same structure. Figure 3 shows that, overall, experimental subjects clustered more by color than did control subjects, albeit at nonsignificant levels, F(2,67) --- 1.08, MSe = .11. The figure provides support for the hypothesis at immediate recall, where reliable differences between experimental and control subject were obtained, F(2,67) -- 3.46, MSe = •11. The greater influence of superficial encoding at immediate than at delayed recall suggests that clustering by color is a relatively transitory phenomenon. One further fact stood out clearly upon inspection of individual recall protocols. Although a considerable proportion of the experimental subjects clustered by color at no more than chance levels, certain subjects actively employed this clustering as an organizational device. Isolation of the five highest color clustering scores from each group revealed that the top five color clusterers in the experimental group had a mean clustering index of .586 as compared to .335 for those from the first control group and .300 for those from the distinctiveness control group, a difference of nearly two standard deviations. This raises the question of what factors might distinguish color clusterers from nonclusterers in the experimental condition, which is addressed in Experiment 2.

Clustering by color and semantic clustering. It was certainly e x p e c t e d that

-

I

I

Immediate

I0 Minute Delay

Retention Interval

FIG. 3. M e a n color clustering indices in the experimental (color groupings) and control conditions over time.

semantic clustering would be negatively correlated with clustering by color. It was logically assumed that this relationship could exist only in the experimental condition (color-grouped presentation), and that correlations between these two variables under any other condition would not exceed chance. In the experimental condition,

66

ELLIS AND FRANKLIN

the correlation between semantic clustering and clustering by color was r(25) = -.41, p < .002. In the first control condition, the correlation was r(23) = -.19, p < .50, and in the distinctiveness control condition, the correlation was r(22) = -.23, p < .50. Thus, this prediction was given unequivocal support suggesting that, indeed, superficial processing may be at the expense of semantic processing. Clustering and recall. The original hypothesis was based upon two fundamental assumptions. The first was that semantic clustering would be positively correlated with recall. The Pearson correlation between semantic clustering and immediate recall was r(36) = .48, p < .01, and for delayed recall the correlation was r(33) = .31, p < .05. The second assumption, based upon the same reasoning as the first, was that clustering by color, a suppressor of semantic processing, would correlate negatively with recall. And, in fact, the Pearson correlation coefficient between clustering by color and recall was low but reliable, r(67) = -.20, p < .01. EXPERIMENT 2 Experiment 2 was conducted for two purposes. The first was the clarification of one anomaly in Experiment 1. There is an apparent ceiling effect in immediate free recall arising from the brevity of the list and the frequency with which it was presented. Therefore, the list was lengthened from 16 to 24 words and the frequency of presentation reduced from four to three presentations. At no point of comparison were significant differences observed between the first control group and the distinctiveness control group. Therefore, continued use of both types of control groups was unnecessary, and in Experiment 2 only the first type of control was employed. The second purpose of Experiment2 was suggested by a somewhat unexpected aspect of the color clustering results of Experiment 1. We were surprised by the consider-

able range of individual differences in color clustering and wished to examine this in greater detail. The experimental subjects' clustering index (color) indicated that while a considerable portion of this group produced an index essentially indistinguishable from control subjects, other experimental subjects showed strong color-clustering tendencies. In Experiment 2, therefore, it was hoped that the use of a standard personality assessment instrument might shed some light upon the distinction between subjects influenced by the opportunity to encode superficially and those not influenced. The personality variable selected to assess the individual's susceptibility to the color grouped presentation was that of InternalExternal Locus of Control. Conceived by Rotter (1966), the locus-of-control orientation is described in terms of a generalized expectation on the part of the individual regarding the efficiency of one's efforts in determining the receipt of reinforcement. Pines (1973) cited a number of studies suggesting that internals make greater use of direct experience with problem materials than do externals. From this he infers an orientation of internals toward actively seeking information for the solution of a problem which is greater than that evinced by externals. Similarly, Prociuk and Breen (1977) found that internals were more active in seeking context-relevant information than were externals, and were likewise more successful at remembering such information. Julian and Katz (1968) employed a semantic discrimination task and found that internals took longer to respond on items rated as difficult than on items rated as easy, whereas externals' reaction times were unaffected by task difficulty. We propose that internals are more tenacious in their pursuit of task goals than are externals, and that the increased response latencies for difficult items reflects the information-seeking tendency which distinguishes internals from externals. It remains to be determined which aspects

LOCUS

OF CONTROL

of cognitive functioning most clearly distinguish the performance of internals from that of externals. If, however, internals are distinguished by their more earnest pursuit of task-relevant information while externals appear to have some difficulty in discriminating between relevant and irrelevant features, the following predictions can be made. First, subjects with an external locus of control should prove more susceptible to the influence of superficial, irrelevant stimulus characteristics such as color in the experimental condition (color-grouped presentation) than should internals. Therefore, for the experimental condition, it was expected that externals would cluster by color more than would internals. Second, and in the same logical vein, it was expected that, in the experimental condition, externals would cluster less by semantic categories than would internals. It was further expected that, based on the first two predictions, externals would perform more poorly in terms of words recalled in the experimental condition than internals. Finally, it was predicted that a standard measure of externality (Rotter, 1966) would be negatively correlated with recall performance and semantic clustering and positively correlated with clustering by color. The literature on locus of control is not specific as to whether the two orientations are distinct in their cognitive processes in a qualitative sense, a quantitative sense, or both. That is, do internals simply believe more strongly in their abilities and, so believing, exert more cognitive effort (cf. Tyler, Hertel, McCallum, & Ellis, 1979) than do externals? Or, are externals more easily distracted from effective goal-seek ing? Sanders, Halcomb, Fray, and Owens (1976) observed that internals outperformed externals on a task requiring continuous vigilance. One inference from their finding could be that externals' distractibility, whether or not due to inability to discriminate relevant from irrelevant information, is a major distinguishing characteristic of that orientation. For Experiment 2 this means

AND

MEMORY

67

that, if internals outstrip externals on many tasks because internals are more highly motivated (Borland, 1975), more self-confident (Neufeld, 1974), or simply try harder (Colwick, 1977), one would expect internals' recall performance to be superior to externals' across all conditions, irrespective of treatment. If, however, externals are more readily distractible from task requirements, this performance differential should occur only under the experimental condition wherein the color-grouped presentation offers a task-irrelevant feature which should serve to distract externals' organizational efforts. In Experiment 1, it was noted that some subjects appeared markedly susceptible to the influence of the color-grouped presentation. Since the key to such susceptibility seems to involve distraction by the superficial color groupings, it was decided that distractibility should be the basis for the final prediction--that internals would recall better than externals in the experimental but not in the control condition.

Method Subjects for Experiment 2 were 105 undergraduate psychology students who participated for class credit in an introductory psychology course. All subjects were pretested with the Rotter LC Scale, a standard locus-of-control scale for adults which measures externality on an integer scale from zero (very internal) to 23 (very external). This instrument is composed of 29 items, each of which requires the subject to choose one of two statements as the one with which he is more in agreement. These statements make reference to matters of social and political as well as personal relevance. In addition, nine of the items in this questionnaire have been identified as having the strongest relationship to the overall score (Mirels, 1970). These items have been isolated as an alternative basis for scoring the locus-of-control protocols and comprise what is hereafter referred to as a Personal Control Scale (as distinct from the full

68

ELLIS AND FRANKLIN

Locus-of-Control Scale). For purposes of analysis, each p r o t o c o l was scored according to both scales. Based on preliminary data, individuals whose full Locusof-Control scores were from zero to nine were classified as internals and those scoring ten or above were designated as externals. Although the correlation between the two scales was quite high (.76), the two methods produced somewhat different divisions of the population. That is, not every subject who qualified as an external according to the full Locus-of-Control Scale received the same designation according to the Personal Control Subscale. Except in Tables 1 - 3 , the data reported refer to the subscale rather than the full scale. For this purpose, a score between zero and three on the Personal Control Scale was scored internal and any score above three, external. It should be noted that the basic results are identical, regardless of whether the full scale or the subscale are used. Subjects wer e r a n d o m l y assigned to either the experimental or control condition by drawing half the subjects for each condition from the internal pool and half from the external pool. Cutoff points for dividing subjects into internals and externals was determined by using an even split. The procedure for presentation and testing was the same as for Experiment 1 except for the changes previously noted. This experiment was analyzed as a three-factor design (condition, retention interval, and locus-ofcontrol orientation).

Results Word recall. The recall results are shown in Figure 4, which is a plot of mean word recall as a function of the conditions of the experiment. The figure shows that, for the experimental condition, recall was reliably greater for the internals than for the externals, F(1,97) = 14.53, MS~ = 14.61. This finding is of greatest interest because it shows the pronounced effect of a prevailing personality orientation, locus of control, on ordinary free recall. In contrast, for the

Internals(Experimentol)O--4 Externals (Experimental) o---o Internals(Control) • ."

20--

als(Control)o---0

18-~

16--

cr

14 1 12--

I

Immediate

I _ I0 Minute Delay

Retention Interval

FIG. 4. Mean number of words recalled in the experimental (color groupings) and control conditions for internal and external locus-of-control subjects.

control condition, no reliable differences b e t w e e n i n t e r n a l s and e x t e r n a l s w ere f o u n d , F ( 1 , 9 7 ) = .07, MSe = 14.61. Moreover, these findings imply an interaction b e t w e e n locus of c o n t r o l and the experimental/control manipulation on recall which was obtained, F(1,97) = 5.53, MSe = 14.61. The difference between experimental and control conditions, collapsed across locuso f - c o n t r o l g r o u p i n g , was not rel i abl e, F(1,97) = 2.66, MS~ = 14.61,p < .11. The mean number of words recalled for the experimental group was 15.65 whereas the controls averaged 16.93. Finally, the ceiling effects in recall seen in Experiment 1 were eliminated in Experiment 2. In addition, reliable forgetting occurred, F (1,97) = 11.50, MSe = 14.61, which did not occur in Experiment 1.

Locus of control and recall~clustering correlations. It was expected that measures of locus of control, since they were scales of increasing externality, would correlate negatively with recall performance in the experimental condition but would be unrelated to recall in the control condition. Table 1 offers unequivocal support for this expectation. As can be seen in the table, all correlations in the experimental condition are reliably negative whereas no correlation in the control condition departs reliably from zero.

LOCUS OF CONTROL AND MEMORY

69

TABLE 1 CORRELATION OF LOCUS OF CONTROL (EXTERNALITY) WITH RECALL PERFORMANCE

Standard LC scale

Experimental Control

Personal control scale

Immediate

Delay

Immediate

Delay

-.511" -.059

-.441" -.026

-.419" -.038

-.472" - . 143

* p < .01.

Semantic clustering. We e x p e c t e d that internals would be relatively unaffected by opportunities to e n c o d e superficially and t h a t t h e y w o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , do m o r e semantic clustering than the m o r e susceptible externals in the e x p e r i m e n t a l condition but not in the control condition. As Figure 5 shows, internals on the average did have higher semantic clustering scores in the exp e r i m e n t a l condition t h a n did e x t e r n a l s , F ( 1 , 9 7 ) = 19.84, MSe = .14. F u r t h e r analysis of the data in Figure 5 reveals that, whereas internals in the experimental condition do not differ reliably from their corresponding control group, F(1,68) = 2.49, MSe = .14, the e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p ext e r n a l s ' s e m a n t i c c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e s are m a r k e d l y lower than controls', F(1,97) = 8.19, MS~ = . 14. This clearly implies that externals e x p e r i e n c e a suppression of semantic processing in the e x p e r i m e n t a l condition which internals do not. The difference b e t w e e n e x p e r i m e n t a l and control conditions, collapsed across locusof-control groupings, was not reliable, F ( 1 , 9 7 ) = .61, MS~ = .14. T h e m e a n semantic clustering index for the experimental group was .32 w h e r e a s the m e a n index was .39 for the control group. It was further e x p e c t e d that m e a s u r e s of

increasing externality would be negatively correlated with semantic clustering in the experimental but not in the control condition. Table 2 offers strong evidence in support of this supposition. The correlations between locus of control and the semantic clustering index are reliably negative in the experimental condition but do not deviate substantially f r o m zero a m o n g control subjects. Finally, as in the first experiment, it w a s e x p e c t e d that semantic clustering would be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with recall performance. The P e a r s o n correlation b e t w e e n s e m a n t i c clustering and i m m e d i a t e recall was r(52) = .43, p < .002, and r(49) = .29,p < .05 for delayed recall. Clustering by color. The final measure a b o u t which h y p o t h e s e s w e r e g e n e r a t e d was that of clustering by color. Since clustering by color is a relatively superficial basis for processing verbal material, we expected that clustering by color would correlate negatively with recall p e r f o r m a n c e and, consistent with our expectation, a reliable negative correlation was found in the experimental condition, r(63) = - . 3 6 , p < .01. It was similarly e x p e c t e d that any relationship b e t w e e n clustering by color and recall p e r f o r m a n c e in the control condition

TABLE 2 CORRELATION OF LOCUS OF CONTROL (EXTERNALITY) WITH SEMANTIC CLUSTERING Standard LC scale

Experimental Control * p < .01.

Personal control scale

Immediate

Delay

Immediate

Delay

- .461" .013

-.588" .083

- .461" .123

-.422" - . 164

70

ELLIS AND FRANKLIN TABLE 3 CORRELATION OF LOCUS OF CONTROL (EXTERNALITY) WITH COLOR CLUSTERING

Personal control scale

Standard LC scale

Experimental Control

Immediate

Delay

Immediate

Delay

.323" - . 317

.224 .239

.318' - . 128

.409" .134

*p < .05. could not exceed chance levels, and such was found to be the case, r(38) = - . 1 7 , p < .25. It was also e x p e c t e d that externals would respond more readily to the opportunity for color groupings than would internals and so would show higher levels of such clustering in the experimental condition. Figure 6 illustrates that, as expected, externals in the experimental condition had clustering scores substantially higher than those of internals in that condition, F(1,97) = 8.95, MSe = .08. M o r e o v e r , experimental internals' clustering scores did not differ reliably from those of control group subjects, F(1,97) = .36, MSe = .07. Clustering scores for externals in the experimental condition, h o w e v e r , were reliably higher than w e r e controls', F(1,97) = 3.86, MSe = .07. The difference b e t w e e n experimental and control condition, collapsed across locuso f - c o n t r o l g r o u p i n g s , w a s not r e l i a b l e ,

F(1,97) = .36, MSe = .08. The m e a n color clustering index was .23 for the experimental group a n d . 19 for the control group. It was also e x p e c t e d that an external locus of control should p r o v e to be related to heightened susceptibility to the experimental presentation. Accordingly, it was expected that the locus of control (externality) m e a s u r e s would correlate positively with clustering b y color. Table 3 fully supports this expectation. DISCUSSION The major goals of this research were to d e t e r m i n e the effects of the p r e s e n c e of both semantic and perceptual features of word lists on recall and clustering and to determine the role of a personality variable, locus of control, in the m a n n e r by which subjects organized material in free recall. In this fashion we could investigate the role of individual differences in locus-of-control

Internals (Experimentol)O--~] Externals (Experimental) O---o| Internals(control) H | Externals(Control) O ~ 3 |

,60

Internals (Experimentol)ll--'o Externals(Experimental)O'--o Internals(Control) H ! E×ternals(control) o ~ o

.4C O

--O

,45

.30

~,20 m (D ,10 m

.15 0__--- 1 ,0C

1/--0

I Immediate

I LO Minute Delay

Retention ;nlerval

Fro. 5. Mean semantic clustering indices in the experimental (color groupings) and control conditions for internal and external locus-of-control subjects.

~L

I

I

Immediate

I0 Minute Delay

Retention interval

FIG. 6. Mean color clustering indices in the experimental (color groupings) and control conditions for internal and external locus-of-control subjects.

LOCUS OF C O N T R O L A N D M E M O R Y

orientation on the susceptibility to using superficial perceptual features in organizing information in memory. We were particularly interested in examining the notion that subjects with an external locus of control would be more susceptible to superficial processing, and correspondingly less likely to process materials semantically. Five major findings resulted from these studies. First, we found that subjects having an external locus of control encoded the superficial perceptual features of the list more extensively than did internals. Second, the opportunity to encode the perceptual features of the list as a basis for organization r e d u c e d organization by semantic categories among externals but not among internals. In brief, internals had a kind of immunity towards superficial processing not held by the externals, who were more easily d i s t r a c t e d by the color background of the words. Third, the greater the degree of semantic organization, the better was list recall; in contrast, higher levels of superficial organization were related to decreased recall. Fourth, the degree of externality was positively related to superficial color clustering and negatively to semantic clustering and recall. Finally, where there was opportunity to process the word lists superficially, the recall of externals was substantially diminished but not so for the internals. These findings have important implications for the role of personality and individual differences in memory. The locusof-control variable has received increased attention in recent years as a way of Understanding the various ways humans deal with the events of living (cf. Lefcourt, 1976; Phares, 1976) and this research is consistent with recent studies of individual differences in locus of control as they relate to cognitive processes (Rotter, 1979). We propose an attentional-discrirnination hypothesis to account for differences between externals and internals in which greater ease of distraction by externals coupled with less effectiveness in discriminating between

71

semantic and less useful perceptual features a c c o u n t for the results. Our r e s e a r c h suggests that externals are rather readily distracted from more effective ways of encoding and organizing verbal information when given the opportunity to organize information according to superficial nonsemantic categories. The most general explanation of this finding perhaps lies in the original conception of the locus-of-control construct, namely, that externals are more ineffective than internals in distinguishing features of a task which portend reinforcement from those which do not. The failure to distinguish potentially fruitful from fruitless or less optimal situations can obviously lead to the belief that what one does has little bearing upon one's fortunes. Thus when presented words with a highly salient color background which allows for a simple mode of organization, externals are more likely to seize upon this opportunity rather than search for more subtle semantic cues. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is supported by Seeman's (1963) finding that internals were more effective than externals in selectively remembering relevant information whereas externals did not distinguish begween relevant and irrelevant information. Prociuk and Breen (1977) found, similarly, that internals were more active seekers of information which had relevance to their academic situations than were externals. Thus, one characteristic of the cognitive activities which distinguish internals from externals is the internals' greater tendency to attend selectively to the relevant aspects of the task at hand. The failure of selective attention among externals is consistent with the findings of Sanders et al. (1976) that internals outperformed externals on a test of perceptual vigilance. Our hypothesis does not suggest that externals are intrinsically deficient in semantic processing. As noted, externals generally perform as well as internals when they have no option but to process a list semantically, as in the control condition. Rather, it is the case that externals are apparently

72

ELLIS AND FRANKLIN

less likely to detect semantic features when given the option to organize on the basis of perceptual features. It should also be emphasized that a distraction interpretation does not imply that subjects are necessarily aware during study of the list that perceptual features are useful and relevant (or alternatively, less useful) aspects by which to organize the list. Externals may simply choose to process the color-based information without necessarily attempting to process semantic features. Our results do not allow us to conclude whether or not the externals are unable to reject perceptual features, only that they choose to select these features. One interesting study would be to examine internal-external differences in processing, where the nonsemantic or perceptual dimension was completely confounded with conceptual category information. If the dimensions are redundant it would be interesting to see if externals still did more color processing. Would internals even notice the color? And would externals show much tendency to semantically organize the list? In addition, the ability to engage a large proportion of the limited-capacity central processing system upon a particular task, which has been described by Tyler, Hertel, McCallum, and Ellis (1979) as a working definition of cognitive effort, apparently distinguishes externals from internals. Cohen and Lefkowitz (1977) noted that internals performed better on an anagram task than did externals; moreover, this disparity in performance increased with the difficulty (cognitive effort) of the problems. This finding is also consonant with Colwick's (1977) report that internals show a preference for tasks in which high effort is a major determinant of outcome. Internals are apparently able to concentrate a larger proportion of their cognitive activity upon relevant aspects of the given task than are externals. Because a portion of this study is correlational, with performance in the experi-

mental condition being negatively correlated with external locus of control, it is possible that some other factor such as intelligence or anxiety might account for the results. In his summary of the literature on intelligence and locus of control, Phares (1976) reports that the correlations between intelligence measures and I - E scores are consistently negligible or at best low. Thus it does not appear defensible to argue that the performance of the externals is a result of lesser intelligence. Similarly, it might be argued that those with an external locus of control are more anxious and that the poorer performance of externals in the experimental conditions is simply a reflection of their greater anxiety. Here Phares (1976) reports that rather consistent correlations between externality and anxiety have been obtained. However, there are two points that should be noted about this relationship. First, the magnitude of the reported correlations tend to be consistently lower than the negative correlations between externality and recall or clustering obtained in this study. Thus, it is unlikely that our results are simply due to any correlation between anxiety and externality. Second, as Phares (1976) points out, it is difficult to separate cause and effect in any definitive way regarding anxiety-externality correlations. Although it is possible to conceptualize anxiety as leading to an external belief system, it is equally plausible that the conditions that lead to external beliefs also lead to anxiety. Finally, it should be noted that if externals are more anxious or less intelligent or whatever, we might have expected to have seen some evidence of this in the control condition, but such was not the case.

We recognize that the recall and clustering results could have depended upon variations in testing conditions, which is the issue of what has been called transferappropriate processing (cf., Bransford, Franks, Morris, & Stein, 1979). It is entirely possible that a different pattern of resuits could have resulted if a different re-

LOCUS OF CONTROL AND MEMORY

tention test had been used in which colors were presented as retrieval cues. Although the externals' organizational strategy was relatively ineffective in view of the particular testing conditions used (free recall with no instructions as to how to organize the lists), we would certainly expect different results if different retention testing procedures were used. Nevertheless, we emphasize that under ordinary free-recaU instructions, in which the opportunity to organize lists semantically or superficially is equally present for internals and externals, the externals are much more susceptible to superficial organization and show significantly less recall. We also note that the pattern of experimental versus control results for Experiment 2, averaged over locus-of-control scores, is not entirely the same as the pattern in Experiment 1. For example, in Experiment 1, semantic clustering was significantly lower on the delayed test for the experimental than the control group, with no reliable difference on the immediate test. In Experiment 2, the overall level of semantic clustering was comparable for the two groups. We have no immediate or easy explanation of this difference; however, we do note that the difference could be explained if the subjects in Experiment 1 consisted of more externals than internals. These subjects should show less semantic clustering in the experimental condition in order to be consistent with the results of Experiment 2. Unfortunately, we do not have I - E measures of the subjects in Experiment 1 and can only suggest this possibility. These data also suggest a possible paradox when their implications for instruction are considered. On the one hand is the growing evidence that information is encoded more effectively if it is processed actively and effortfully and involves reorganization of the materials (cf. Ellis et al., 1974; Ellis et al., 1975; J a c o b y , 1978; Slamecka & Graf, 1978; Tyler et al., 1979). But we also know that subjects with an ex-

73

ternal orientation suffer from possible ambiguities in tasks and may be easily distracted from the effective processing of verbal materials by even minor superficial features of the material. Therefore, the externals' optimal performance with highly structured tasks may place an individualdifference constraint on the general principle of requiring subjects to reorganize less-than-completely-structured materials for optimal retention. This could suggest an interesting challenge to those concerned with optimizing instruction, where the task is conceived as one in which instructional materials require some reasonable amount of discovery, reorganization, or effort, while being sufficiently structured to enable externals to perform adequately. REFERENCES BORLAND, C. M. Locus of control, need for achievem e n t and e n t r e p r e n e u r s h i p . Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975, 36, 771A. BOUSFIELD, A. K., & BOUSFIELD, W . A . Measurement of clustering and of sequential constancies in repeated free recall. Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 935-942. BRANSFORD, J. D., FRANKS, J. J., MORRIS, C. D., & STEIN, B. S. Some general constraints in learning and memory research. In L. S. Cermak and F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979. COHEN, R. S., & LEFKOWITZ, J. Self-esteem, locus of control and task difficulty as determinants of task performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1977, 11, 314-321. COLWICK~J. w . Personal control and attention to reinforcement cues in relation to internal/external locus of control. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 37, 6364B. COSDEN, M . A . , ELLIS, H. C., & FEENE¥, D. M. Cognitive flexibility, rigidity, repetition effects and memory. Journal of Research in Personality, 1979, 13, 386-395. CRAIK, F. I. M., & LOCKHART, R. S. Levels of processing: A f r a m e w o r k for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11,671-684. ELLIS, H. C. Stimulus encoding processes in human learning and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Vol. 7. ELLIS, H . C . , PARENTE, F . J . , & WALKER, C . W . Coding and varied input versus repetition in

74

ELLIS AND FRANKLIN human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 102, 619-624.

ELLIS, H. C., PARENTE, F. J., GRAH, C. R., & SPIERING, K. Coding strategies, perceptual grouping, and the "variability effect" in free recall. Memory and Cognition, 1975, 3, 226-232. EYSENCK, M. W. Depth, elaboration, and distinctiveness. In L. S. Cermak and F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979. HERTEL, P. Z., t~ ELLIS, H. C. Constructive memory for bizarre and sensible sentences. Journal of Ex-

perimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1979, 5, 386-394. HUNT, R . R . , & ELLIOTT, J. M. The role of nonsemantic information in memory: Orthographic distinctiveness effects in retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1980, 109, 49-74. JACOBY, L. L. On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 17, 649-667. JENKINS, J. J. Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory experiments. In L. S. Cermak and F. I. M. Cralk (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Eflbaum, 1979. JULIAN, J. W., & KATZ, S. B. Internal versus external control and the value of reinforcement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 363368. LEFCOURT, H. M. Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976. LOFTUS, E . F . , MILLER, D. G., & BURNS, H . J . Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1978, 4, 19-31. MIRELS, H. L. Dimensions of internal versus external control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 226-228. MOSCOVITCH, M., & CRAIK, F. I. M. Depth of processing, retrieval cues, and uniqueness of encoding as factors in recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976, 15, 447-458.

NEUFELD, E. P. Information gathering, locus of control and expectancy variables in planning for personal goals. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 35, 2995B. PHARES, E. J, Locus of control in personality. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1976. PINES, H. A. An attributional analysis of locus of control orientation and source of information dependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26, 262-272. POSTMAN, L., & KREUSI, E. The influence of orienting tasks on the encoding and recall of words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 16, 353-369. PROCIUK, T. J., & BREEN, L. J. Internal/external locus of control and information seeking in a college academic situation. Journal of Social Psychology, 1977, 101, 309. ROTTER, J. B. Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954. ROTTER, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l of r e i n f o r c e m e n t . Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80, No. 609. ROTTER, J . B . Individual differences and perceived control. In L. C. Perlmuter and R . A . Monty (Eds.), Choice and perceived control. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979. SANDERS, M. G., HALCOMB, C. G., FRAY, J. M., & OWENS, J. M. Internal/external locus of control and performance on a vigilance task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 42, 939. SEEMAN, M. Alienation and social learning in a reformatory. American Journal of Sociology, 1963, 69, 270- 284. SLAMECKA, N. J., & GRAF, P. The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1978, 4, 592-604. TYLER, S. W., HERTEL, P. T., McCALLUM, M. C., & ELHS, H. C. Cognitive effort and memory. Jour-

nal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1979, 5, 607-617. (Received January 7, 1982)