- Email: [email protected]
The relationship between externality and E, N, P and L: an experiment and review
Pcrso,~. ~ntliu~f. Die. Vol. 6. No 4. pp. 505-507. Prmkd ,n Great Bntain. All nghts reserved
1985 Copyright
The relationship between externality
0191-8X69/85 $3 00 + 0 00 Q 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd
and E, N, P and L: an experiment and review CLIVE
LAYTON
Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 SAF, England (Received 26 November
1984)
Summary-Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire were given to 241 male 16yr-olds and 144 skilled and semi-skilled men. As hypothesized, externality was positively associated with the N and P scales, negatively related to L and independent of E.
INTRODUCTION The internalexternal locus of control construct is considered a generalized expectancy operating across a large number of situations varying within individuals. As a general principle, ‘internal control refers to the perception of positive and/or negative events as being contingent upon one’s own actions and thereby under personal control; external control refers to the perception of positive and/or negative events as being unrelated to one’s own behaviour in certain situations, and therefore, beyond personal control (Rotter, Seeman and Liverant, 1962). In our culture such external events are typically perceived as being the result of luck, chance, God, fate or under the control of powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great complexity of the forces surrounding the individual. There is good reason to believe that an external control orientation and abnormal personality functioning are correlated [see Layton (1984) for a review], though the picture is complex with internals and externals sometimes acting in opposing fashions to that typically expected (Rotter, 1975). Externality appears to be associated with holding irrational values, mood disturbances, depression and suicide potential. Schizophrenics likewise score higher in the direction of externality. Personality correlates depict externals, in contrast to internals, as being relatively anxious, aggressive, dogmatic, less trustful and more suspicious of others, lacking in confidence and insight, and having low needs for social approval (e.g. Joe, 1971). From the descriptions provided by Eysenck and Eysenck (1964, 1975, 1976) of high scorers on their neuroticism (N) and psychoticism (P) dimensions as measured by their questionnaires, one might expect that N and P would be positively associated with an external control orientation. Given the neurotics’ anxious, irrational, touchy, excitable, moody and frequently depressed, and even aggressive state, such a relationship has been previously found, on American Ss, using various versions of the N scale (e.g. Feather, 1967; Platt, Pomeranz and Eisenman, 1971; Joubert, 1978; Morris and Carden, 1981). Further, a large number of studies (see Layton, 1984) have shown significant relationships between various measures of anxiety and externality. Likewise, the troublesome, hostile, aggressive, insensitive, irresponsible and tough-minded character scoring high on the P scale may refuse to accept responsibility for his own actions. As regards extraversion (E), a number of studies (e.g. Feather, 1967; Fumham and Henderson, 1982) have shown that externality is largely unrelated to this personality variable.
METHOD Data was collected from two distinct samples. In the first, Ss comprised 241 white, English male pupils, aged 16 yr, taken from five mixed comprehensive schools, set in essentially rural areas, with both academic and technical streams being represented. Ss forming the second sample were 144 male, predominantly English, skilled and semi-skilled employees taken from four firms set in urban environments. The mean age was 32.9 yr (SD = 11.7), median age 30 yr, with a range between 17 and 62 yr. Apparatus The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975) was used to measure the trait variables extraversion (E), neuroticism (N) and psychoticism (P). In addition, the Lie scale (L), which is heterogeneous in content, measures dissimulation, and a conglomerate function which includes conformity, was scored. The Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (I-E; Rotter, 1966) was used as a general measure to ascertain whether individuals perceived outcome as being contingent upon behaviour. Although the locus of control concept seems to be multidimensional, the factors are not clearly identifiable (see Layton, 1984). The I-E scale has been shown to be consistently related to a greater range of attitudes and behavidurs than most personality factors, and subscales of the construct have been found to be no better predictors than the entire scale on a number of occasions (e.g. Duffy, Shiflett and Downey, 1977). RESULTS Pearson product-moment correlations between externality and presented in Table 1. Means and standard deviations are given in the interested reader (Appendix), as there appear to be no recent moved in the direction of externality (see Layton, 1984) over the
E, N, P and L for the ldyr-old and adult samples are Table 2. Cumulative percentage tables are provided for data on such, and I-E scale scores are known to have last 20 or so years.
NOTES AND SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS
506
Table I. Correlations between externality P and L for the two groups
and E. N,
Externality 16-yr-old pupils (n = 241)
E
-0.05
N P L
0.15* 0.13. -0.19,:
Employees (fl=l44) -0.06 0.24” 0.29’** -0.24*’
*P < 0.05; l*p < 0.01; l**p < 0.001.
Table 2. Means and standard
deviations
for externality,
Externality
16-yr-old pupils Employees
E, N. P and L for the two groups N
E
P
L
n
R
SD
x
SD
R
SD
X
SD
X
SD
241 144
12.22 12.09
3.53 4.09
14.64 12.43
4.39 4.66
8.43 10.54
4.74 4.91
4.57 4.35
3.51 3.79
8.32 6.93
4.29 4.06
DISCUSSION
Neurosis has been described in terms closely allied with the locus of control construct. Adler noted the neurotics’ clinging to a belief in external control by blaming a variety of objective causes for individual difficulties thus gaining freedom from personal responsibility (Ansbacher and Ansbacher, 1956). Adlerian theorists have used the term ‘discouragement’, in an analogous fashion to that of external control, though their terminology is more suggestive of an affective response accompanying perceived control. Dinkmeyer and Dreikurs (1963) noted that in neurotic patients “it became obvious that any maladjustment, the retreat into illness, and the many deficiencies and failures which these patients experienced-was due to their discouragement”. Feather (1967) noted a correlation of 0.27 for 31 males between externality and the N scale of the MPI. Platt er al. (1971). Joubert (1978) and Morris and Carden (1981) found positive correlations between the two constructs using the N scale of the EPI. Morel& Krotinger and Moore (1979) found three scales derived from Levenson’s factor-analytic study of the I-E scale to be correlated with the EPI N scale, and concluded that Ss predisposed to neurotic breakdown were more likely to believe that they were not in control of reinforcement contingencies, and that consequences were determined quite randomly. Likewise, Lichenstein and Kentzer (1967) noted a relationship between an external orientation and neurotic symptoms. The non-significant findings with regard to E is in line with a number of studies (e.g. Feather, 1967; Collins, Martin, Ashmore and Ross, 1973; Platt et al., 1971; Joubert, 1978; Morelli et al., 1979; Morris and Carden, 1981; Furnham and Henderson, 1982). Liverant and Scodel (1960) maintained that internals would tend to be more cautious and conservative than externals in risk-taking situations. This view was supported by Julian, Lichtman and Ryckman (1968) and the weight of evidence appears to favour this hypothesis. Tiggemann, Winefield and Brebner (1982) reported a marked helplessness effect in accord with predictions made by the Brebner-Cooper model of extraversion, in terms of inhibition and excitation derived from stimulus analysis and response organization. However, Lefcourt and Steffy (1970) and Minton and Miller (1970) reported no relationship between risk-taking and externality (though of course risk-taking is only a part of the E construct), while Baron (1968) found internals were more willing to take risks. Eliot and Hardy (1977) noted that internals were more extraverted than externals, in the sense that they were more at ease with interpersonal contact, using the extraversion-introversion dimension of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The relationship between externality and P is as expected, though confirmatory evidence has yet to be located. In contrast however, Gorman (1971) found an external control to be associated with ‘lower tough mood levels’, though toughmindedness forms only part of the P construct. The negative relationship between the L scale and externality, suggests that internals are more inclined to dissimulate/ conform/be defensive, compared to those of an external orientation. The externals’ ability to avoid responsibility may allow them to admit more readily to items forming the L scale. Thus, it is conceivable that some of the differences between internals and externals are of style rather than substance.
REFERENCES
Ansbacher H. and Ansbacher R. (1956) The Individual Psychology of A&red Adler. Basic Books, New York. Baron R. A. (1968) Authoritarianism, locus of control and risk-taking. J. Psychol. 68, 141-143. Collins B. E., Martin J. C., Ashmore R. D. and Ross L. (1973) Some dimensions of the internalexternal metaphor in theories of personality. J. Person. 41, 471492. Dinkmeyer D. and Dreikurs R. (1963) Encouraging Children to Lenrn: the Encouragemen! Process. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Duffy P. J., Shiflett S. and Downey R. G. (1977) Locus of control: dimensionality and predictability using Likert scales. J. appl. Psychol. 62, 214-219. Eliot J. and Hardy R. C. (1977) Internality and extraversion-introversion. Percept. Mot. Skills 45, 430. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1964) The Manual of the Eysenck PersonulifJ fnoenfory. Univ. of London Press. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1975) The Man& of Ihe Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Hodder & Stoughton, London. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1976) Psychotictim us CIDimension of Personalilfy. Hodder & Stoughton, London.
NOTES
AND
SHORTER
CO.MMUNlCATlONS
507
Feather N. T. (1967) Some personality correlates of external control. Aus!. J. Psychol. 19, 253-260. Furnham A. and Henderson M. (1982) A content analysis of four personality inventories. J. clin. Psycho/. 38, 8 18-825. German B. S. (1971) A multivariate study of the relationship of cognitive control and cognitive principles to reported daily mood experiences. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, City Univ. of New York. Joe U. C. (1971) Review of the internal
APPENDIX I-E 23 22 21 20 I9 18 I7 16 15 14 I3 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I 0 No. x SD Median
f
1 4 7 4 10 15 21 23 30 29 29 18 18 8 9 5 5 3
Cum%
100 99.6 97.9 95.0 93.4 89.2 83.0 74.3 64.1 52.3 40.2 28.2 20.8 13.3 10.0 6.2 4.2 2.1
2
241 12.22 3.53 11.81
I-E 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 I6 15 14 I3 I2 II 10 9 8 1 6 5 4 3 2 I 0 No. x SD Median
f
Cum%
1 1 1 4 9 5 7 IO 15 21 9 II 18 6 4 4 5 6 6 1
100 99.3 98.6 91.9 95.1 88.9 85.4 80.6 70.1 63.2 48.6 42.4 34.1 22.2 18.1 15.3 12.5 9.0 6.9 0.7
144 12.09 4.09 12.10
1985 Copyright
The relationship between externality
0191-8X69/85 $3 00 + 0 00 Q 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd
and E, N, P and L: an experiment and review CLIVE
LAYTON
Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 SAF, England (Received 26 November
1984)
Summary-Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire were given to 241 male 16yr-olds and 144 skilled and semi-skilled men. As hypothesized, externality was positively associated with the N and P scales, negatively related to L and independent of E.
INTRODUCTION The internalexternal locus of control construct is considered a generalized expectancy operating across a large number of situations varying within individuals. As a general principle, ‘internal control refers to the perception of positive and/or negative events as being contingent upon one’s own actions and thereby under personal control; external control refers to the perception of positive and/or negative events as being unrelated to one’s own behaviour in certain situations, and therefore, beyond personal control (Rotter, Seeman and Liverant, 1962). In our culture such external events are typically perceived as being the result of luck, chance, God, fate or under the control of powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great complexity of the forces surrounding the individual. There is good reason to believe that an external control orientation and abnormal personality functioning are correlated [see Layton (1984) for a review], though the picture is complex with internals and externals sometimes acting in opposing fashions to that typically expected (Rotter, 1975). Externality appears to be associated with holding irrational values, mood disturbances, depression and suicide potential. Schizophrenics likewise score higher in the direction of externality. Personality correlates depict externals, in contrast to internals, as being relatively anxious, aggressive, dogmatic, less trustful and more suspicious of others, lacking in confidence and insight, and having low needs for social approval (e.g. Joe, 1971). From the descriptions provided by Eysenck and Eysenck (1964, 1975, 1976) of high scorers on their neuroticism (N) and psychoticism (P) dimensions as measured by their questionnaires, one might expect that N and P would be positively associated with an external control orientation. Given the neurotics’ anxious, irrational, touchy, excitable, moody and frequently depressed, and even aggressive state, such a relationship has been previously found, on American Ss, using various versions of the N scale (e.g. Feather, 1967; Platt, Pomeranz and Eisenman, 1971; Joubert, 1978; Morris and Carden, 1981). Further, a large number of studies (see Layton, 1984) have shown significant relationships between various measures of anxiety and externality. Likewise, the troublesome, hostile, aggressive, insensitive, irresponsible and tough-minded character scoring high on the P scale may refuse to accept responsibility for his own actions. As regards extraversion (E), a number of studies (e.g. Feather, 1967; Fumham and Henderson, 1982) have shown that externality is largely unrelated to this personality variable.
METHOD Data was collected from two distinct samples. In the first, Ss comprised 241 white, English male pupils, aged 16 yr, taken from five mixed comprehensive schools, set in essentially rural areas, with both academic and technical streams being represented. Ss forming the second sample were 144 male, predominantly English, skilled and semi-skilled employees taken from four firms set in urban environments. The mean age was 32.9 yr (SD = 11.7), median age 30 yr, with a range between 17 and 62 yr. Apparatus The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975) was used to measure the trait variables extraversion (E), neuroticism (N) and psychoticism (P). In addition, the Lie scale (L), which is heterogeneous in content, measures dissimulation, and a conglomerate function which includes conformity, was scored. The Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (I-E; Rotter, 1966) was used as a general measure to ascertain whether individuals perceived outcome as being contingent upon behaviour. Although the locus of control concept seems to be multidimensional, the factors are not clearly identifiable (see Layton, 1984). The I-E scale has been shown to be consistently related to a greater range of attitudes and behavidurs than most personality factors, and subscales of the construct have been found to be no better predictors than the entire scale on a number of occasions (e.g. Duffy, Shiflett and Downey, 1977). RESULTS Pearson product-moment correlations between externality and presented in Table 1. Means and standard deviations are given in the interested reader (Appendix), as there appear to be no recent moved in the direction of externality (see Layton, 1984) over the
E, N, P and L for the ldyr-old and adult samples are Table 2. Cumulative percentage tables are provided for data on such, and I-E scale scores are known to have last 20 or so years.
NOTES AND SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS
506
Table I. Correlations between externality P and L for the two groups
and E. N,
Externality 16-yr-old pupils (n = 241)
E
-0.05
N P L
0.15* 0.13. -0.19,:
Employees (fl=l44) -0.06 0.24” 0.29’** -0.24*’
*P < 0.05; l*p < 0.01; l**p < 0.001.
Table 2. Means and standard
deviations
for externality,
Externality
16-yr-old pupils Employees
E, N. P and L for the two groups N
E
P
L
n
R
SD
x
SD
R
SD
X
SD
X
SD
241 144
12.22 12.09
3.53 4.09
14.64 12.43
4.39 4.66
8.43 10.54
4.74 4.91
4.57 4.35
3.51 3.79
8.32 6.93
4.29 4.06
DISCUSSION
Neurosis has been described in terms closely allied with the locus of control construct. Adler noted the neurotics’ clinging to a belief in external control by blaming a variety of objective causes for individual difficulties thus gaining freedom from personal responsibility (Ansbacher and Ansbacher, 1956). Adlerian theorists have used the term ‘discouragement’, in an analogous fashion to that of external control, though their terminology is more suggestive of an affective response accompanying perceived control. Dinkmeyer and Dreikurs (1963) noted that in neurotic patients “it became obvious that any maladjustment, the retreat into illness, and the many deficiencies and failures which these patients experienced-was due to their discouragement”. Feather (1967) noted a correlation of 0.27 for 31 males between externality and the N scale of the MPI. Platt er al. (1971). Joubert (1978) and Morris and Carden (1981) found positive correlations between the two constructs using the N scale of the EPI. Morel& Krotinger and Moore (1979) found three scales derived from Levenson’s factor-analytic study of the I-E scale to be correlated with the EPI N scale, and concluded that Ss predisposed to neurotic breakdown were more likely to believe that they were not in control of reinforcement contingencies, and that consequences were determined quite randomly. Likewise, Lichenstein and Kentzer (1967) noted a relationship between an external orientation and neurotic symptoms. The non-significant findings with regard to E is in line with a number of studies (e.g. Feather, 1967; Collins, Martin, Ashmore and Ross, 1973; Platt et al., 1971; Joubert, 1978; Morelli et al., 1979; Morris and Carden, 1981; Furnham and Henderson, 1982). Liverant and Scodel (1960) maintained that internals would tend to be more cautious and conservative than externals in risk-taking situations. This view was supported by Julian, Lichtman and Ryckman (1968) and the weight of evidence appears to favour this hypothesis. Tiggemann, Winefield and Brebner (1982) reported a marked helplessness effect in accord with predictions made by the Brebner-Cooper model of extraversion, in terms of inhibition and excitation derived from stimulus analysis and response organization. However, Lefcourt and Steffy (1970) and Minton and Miller (1970) reported no relationship between risk-taking and externality (though of course risk-taking is only a part of the E construct), while Baron (1968) found internals were more willing to take risks. Eliot and Hardy (1977) noted that internals were more extraverted than externals, in the sense that they were more at ease with interpersonal contact, using the extraversion-introversion dimension of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The relationship between externality and P is as expected, though confirmatory evidence has yet to be located. In contrast however, Gorman (1971) found an external control to be associated with ‘lower tough mood levels’, though toughmindedness forms only part of the P construct. The negative relationship between the L scale and externality, suggests that internals are more inclined to dissimulate/ conform/be defensive, compared to those of an external orientation. The externals’ ability to avoid responsibility may allow them to admit more readily to items forming the L scale. Thus, it is conceivable that some of the differences between internals and externals are of style rather than substance.
REFERENCES
Ansbacher H. and Ansbacher R. (1956) The Individual Psychology of A&red Adler. Basic Books, New York. Baron R. A. (1968) Authoritarianism, locus of control and risk-taking. J. Psychol. 68, 141-143. Collins B. E., Martin J. C., Ashmore R. D. and Ross L. (1973) Some dimensions of the internalexternal metaphor in theories of personality. J. Person. 41, 471492. Dinkmeyer D. and Dreikurs R. (1963) Encouraging Children to Lenrn: the Encouragemen! Process. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Duffy P. J., Shiflett S. and Downey R. G. (1977) Locus of control: dimensionality and predictability using Likert scales. J. appl. Psychol. 62, 214-219. Eliot J. and Hardy R. C. (1977) Internality and extraversion-introversion. Percept. Mot. Skills 45, 430. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1964) The Manual of the Eysenck PersonulifJ fnoenfory. Univ. of London Press. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1975) The Man& of Ihe Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Hodder & Stoughton, London. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1976) Psychotictim us CIDimension of Personalilfy. Hodder & Stoughton, London.
NOTES
AND
SHORTER
CO.MMUNlCATlONS
507
Feather N. T. (1967) Some personality correlates of external control. Aus!. J. Psychol. 19, 253-260. Furnham A. and Henderson M. (1982) A content analysis of four personality inventories. J. clin. Psycho/. 38, 8 18-825. German B. S. (1971) A multivariate study of the relationship of cognitive control and cognitive principles to reported daily mood experiences. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, City Univ. of New York. Joe U. C. (1971) Review of the internal
APPENDIX I-E 23 22 21 20 I9 18 I7 16 15 14 I3 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I 0 No. x SD Median
f
1 4 7 4 10 15 21 23 30 29 29 18 18 8 9 5 5 3
Cum%
100 99.6 97.9 95.0 93.4 89.2 83.0 74.3 64.1 52.3 40.2 28.2 20.8 13.3 10.0 6.2 4.2 2.1
2
241 12.22 3.53 11.81
I-E 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 I6 15 14 I3 I2 II 10 9 8 1 6 5 4 3 2 I 0 No. x SD Median
f
Cum%
1 1 1 4 9 5 7 IO 15 21 9 II 18 6 4 4 5 6 6 1
100 99.3 98.6 91.9 95.1 88.9 85.4 80.6 70.1 63.2 48.6 42.4 34.1 22.2 18.1 15.3 12.5 9.0 6.9 0.7
144 12.09 4.09 12.10