Army Locus of Control Scale (Army-LOC)

Abstract

The Army Locus of Control Scale (Army-LOC) is a specialized psychometric instrument developed to assess how U.S. Army Aviators perceive the sources of control over their personal and professional outcomes, particularly concerning aviation safety and accidents. Developed by David R. Hunter and John E. Stewart in 2009, the scale measures various facets of perceived control, differentiating between beliefs that outcomes are governed by internal factors (skill, effort, caution) versus external factors (luck, fate, environment, or other people). The scale is crucial for understanding risk orientation and decision-making patterns among military pilots, offering insights into attitudes that may predispose individuals to risky behavior or, conversely, highly cautious operational conduct.

Keywords

Army-LOC, Locus of Control, Aviation safety, Military psychology, Risk perception, Pilot assessment, Internality, Externality, Accident Causality, Destiny, Resignation

Authors

David R. Hunter, John E. Stewart

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Army-LOC scale is to quantify the degree to which Army Aviators attribute success, failure, and safety outcomes to internal versus external sources. This measurement is vital for military organizations, as an individual’s Locus of Control (LOC) is strongly correlated with attitude toward risk, adherence to regulations, and overall safety performance in high-stakes environments like military aviation.

By identifying aviators who exhibit highly external or fatalistic beliefs regarding accidents, the scale allows for targeted safety training and intervention strategies. The instrument was designed specifically to address the unique operational context and safety culture prevalent within U.S. Army aviation, moving beyond general measures of LOC to focus on aviation-specific events.

Construct

The Army-LOC measures the psychological construct of Locus of Control, which refers to the extent to which individuals believe they have control over the events that affect them. The scale is multi-dimensional, breaking down the general LOC construct into six distinct components relevant to military aviation: Luck, Externality, Internality, Accident Causality, Fate/Destiny, and Resignation.

High scores on the Internality components reflect a belief that outcomes (e.g., avoiding accidents) result from personal effort, skill, and careful behavior. Conversely, high scores on Externality, Luck, or Fate/Destiny reflect a belief that outcomes are determined by external forces, chance, or predetermined events outside the aviator’s influence. The Accident Causality component specifically focuses on attributing accidents to pilot error or lack of effort, while Resignation captures fatalistic acceptance of unavoidable accidents.

Validity

The development of the Army-LOC scale involved rigorous item generation and selection to ensure content validity relevant to the operational environment of Army Aviators. Although specific details regarding construct and criterion validity (e.g., correlation with actual accident rates or simulator performance) are often detailed in the accompanying technical reports, the scale structure suggests strong face validity by anchoring items directly in aviation scenarios and safety protocols. The clear distinction between the Internality and Externality subscales, supported by factor analysis, provides evidence of construct validity, ensuring the instrument measures the intended dimensions of control attribution.

Reliability

The scale demonstrates strong internal consistency, confirming its Reliability across its principal components, as measured by Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients. The primary components exhibited high reliability scores, indicating that the items within each component consistently measure the same underlying construct.

The reliability coefficients for the six core components are: Luck (.89), Externality (.87), Internality (.85), Accident Causality (.82), Fate (.81), and Resignation (.60). Furthermore, the two main aggregated scales also showed robust reliability: the 15-item Internality Scale achieved an Alpha of .83, while the 15-item Externality Scale achieved a notably high Alpha of .92. The slightly lower alpha for Resignation (.60) suggests that this component, while distinct, may be less internally consistent than the others.

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis was employed during the scale development to determine the underlying structure of the Locus of Control construct within the Army aviation context. This analysis resulted in the identification of six distinct, yet related, components: Luck, Externality, Internality, Accident Causality, Fate, and Resignation.

These components confirm that the traditional bipolar concept of Locus of Control (Internal vs. External) is best represented as a multi-faceted construct in specialized, high-risk operational environments. The separation of concepts like Luck, Fate, and general Externality allows researchers and safety officers to pinpoint specific fatalistic or externalizing attitudes that require targeted intervention.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Self-Report Scale

Format: Multi-item Likert Scale

Language Available: English (en)

Population Group: Military Personnel (Aviators/Pilots)

Age Group: Adult

Population Details: U.S. Army Aviators (Pilots). The research context suggests the scale was validated on this specific operational group, likely including both rotary-wing and fixed-wing pilots.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their agreement with statements using a five-point Likert scale: a. Strongly Agree, b. Agree, c. Neither agree nor disagree, d. Disagree, e. Strongly Disagree. The full scale comprises numerous items designed to capture the six underlying components.

Keywords

Pilot attitude, Psychological assessment, Cronbach’s Alpha, Safety culture, Military aviation, Locus of Control, Accident prevention, Reliability

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and published in 2009 by David R. Hunter and John E. Stewart. As research conducted for the United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), the instrument and its associated research report are generally available in the public domain, often without commercial fees, particularly for academic or governmental use.

The official technical report detailing the scale’s development, validation, and use can be accessed via the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). The instrument can be found at: www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA509824.

Reference’s

The Army-LOC scale is grounded in a series of research efforts focusing on risk perception and decision-making in aviation. Key associated references include:

• David R. Hunter, John E. Stewart (2009). Locus of Control, Risk Orientation, and Decision Making Among U.S. Army Aviators. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
• Hunter, D.R. (2006). Risk perception among general aviation pilots. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 16, 135-144.
• Hunter, D.R. (2004). Measurement of hazardous attitudes among pilots. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 15, 23-43.
• Hunter, D. R. (2002). Risk perception and risk tolerance in aircraft pilots (Report DOT/FAA/AM–02/17). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
• Hunter, D. R. (2002). Development of an aviation safety locus of control scale. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 73, 1184-1188.
• Hunter, D.R. (1995). Airman research questionnaire: Methodology and overall results. DOT/FAA/AM-95/27. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.

Items of the Army Locus of Control Scale (Army- LOC)

Note: The following list contains the full set of items used in the scale development and validation process.

• If Aviators follow all the rules and regulations, they can avoid many aviation accidents.
• Accidents are usually caused by unsafe equipment and inadequate maintenance.
• Aviators should be reprimanded if they periodically neglect to use safety devices (for example, seat belts, checklists, etc.) that are required by Army Regulations.
• Accidents and injuries occur because Aviators do not take enough interest in safety.
• Avoiding accidents is a matter of Luck.
• Most accidents and incidents can be avoided if Aviators use proper procedures.
• Most accidents and injuries cannot be avoided.
• Most accidents are due to Aviators’ carelessness.
• Most Aviators will be involved in accidents or incidents which result in aircraft damage or personal injury.
• Aviators should be punished if they have an accident or incident while “horsing around”.
• Most accidents that result in injuries are largely preventable.
• Aviators can do very little to avoid minor incidents while flying their missions.
• Whether people get injured or not is a matter of fate, chance, or Luck.
• Aviators’ accidents and injuries result from the mistakes they make.
• Most accidents can be blamed on poor command oversight.
• Most injuries are caused by accidental happenings outside people’s control.

• People can avoid getting injured if they are careful and aware of potential dangers.
• It is more important to complete a mission than to follow a safety precaution that costs more time.
• There is a direct connection between how careful Aviators are and the number of accidents they have.
• Most accidents are unavoidable.
• No matter how hard Aviators try to prevent them, there will always be accidents.
• There are so many dangers in this world that you never know how or when you might be in an accident.
• Most Aviators never think about safety during their flights.
• In the end, whether I am in an accident depends on my skills and abilities.
• If you keep your wits about you, success is always possible.
• I’d rather be Lucky than good.
• Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.
• Stuff just happens.
• Some people are just destined to be in an accident.
• If I get in a difficult situation, it is my own behavior that determines if I make it out OK.
• No matter what I do, if I am going to have an accident, I will have an accident.
• Getting regular training and practice is the best way for me to avoid an accident.
• I am in control of my life.
• When I make a mistake, I am to blame.
• Luck plays a big part in determining whether you will be in an accident.
• My success in aviation is largely a matter of good fortune.

• If I take care of myself, I can avoid accidents.
• The main thing that affects my safety is what I myself do.
• No matter what I do, I’m likely to have an accident.
• If it’s meant to be, I will be safe and not have an accident.
• If I take the right actions, I can avoid accidents.
• Regarding safety, I can only do what the Army tells me to do.
• Whether or not I get into an accident depends mostly on how good a pilot I am.
• To a great extent, what happens to me in life is outside my control.
• If I get what I want, it is because I worked for it.
• It is my ability and determination that will determine whether I am in an accident.
• I am careful to check everything on the aircraft before I depart on a mission.
• Often there is no way to protect myself from the effects of bad Luck.
• Much of the time when I am successful, it is because I am Lucky.
• I believe I have control over my own destiny.
• The decisions made by other people will largely determine if I am in an accident.
• Whether or not I get into an accident is mostly a matter of Luck.
• Whether or not I get into an accident depends mostly on other people.
• Whether or not I get into an accident depends mostly on things that I cannot control, like the weather.
• I do not really believe in Luck.

• My success is mainly a matter of chance.
• Chance has a lot to do with avoiding accidents.
• Being at the wrong place at the wrong time is what causes accidents.
• You cannot control your destiny.
• Bad Luck is what gets many pilots into trouble.
• If something is meant to happen there is nothing you can do to change it.
• The idea that Luck determines what happens to you is ridiculous.
• You are responsible for the things that happen to you in your life.
• If I have an accident, it’s because I didn’t try hard enough.
• If I have an accident, It’s because I was not careful enough.
• If I try hard enough, I can get out of any situation.
• Safety is due to effort, not Luck.
• Accidents could be eliminated, if pilots made more of an effort.
• Chance has nothing to do with being safe.
• If I have a close call, it just means I have to work harder next time.
• I feel completely in control, all the time.
• I never blame others for my problems.
• I have little influence over the things that happen to me.
• I am superstitious.

• Accidents are really beyond anybody’s control – they just happen.
• I can prepare myself to deal with the mistakes of others.
• When a person fails, it is almost always their own fault.
• A person’s destiny determines what happens to them
• At some point a person must accept the inevitable and face their fate calmly
• I feel that there is some higher power looking out for me
• There are no problems that cannot be overcome with enough effort
• If I had an accident, it would be the result of bad Luck.
• I’ll die when it’s my time to go, but not before.
• In a tight situation, I trust to fate.
• In flying, what will be, will be.
• Most of the time accidents are caused by things beyond the Aviator’s control.
• Sometimes you just have to depend on Luck to get you through.
• Successful flying is partly a matter of good Luck.
• You don’t go until your number is up.