Religious Locus of Control Scale

Abstract

The Religious Locus of Control Scale (RLOCS) is a specialized revision of Rotter’s (1966) Internal vs. External Control Scale, designed to measure generalized expectancies regarding the source of control over life outcomes. It assesses the degree to which individuals attribute control internally (to their own efforts and abilities) or externally (to forces beyond their immediate influence). This revision specifically addresses methodological concerns that the original Rotter scale’s heavy reliance on terminology like chance, luck, and fate might reduce its applicability and validity among strongly religious populations.

The scale utilizes a 29-item forced-choice format, with 23 items scored, where the final score reflects the total number of external control choices selected. In the religious revision, eight items were altered to substitute references to God control, spiritual assistance, and providence in place of chance or fate terminology, thereby interpreting religious external attribution as a specific type of external control.

Keywords

Locus of Control, Internal Control, External Control, Religious Psychology, Rotter Scale Revision, Spiritual Control, Religiosity, Psychological Assessment.

Authors

C. E. Gabbard, G. S. Howard, C. W. Tageson

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Locus of Control Scale was to create a more psychometrically sound measure of locus of control for use within populations characterized by high religiosity. The authors sought to mitigate the confounding effect present in the original Rotter scale, where terminology related to impersonal, arbitrary external forces (e.g., fate, luck) might be rejected by religious individuals, potentially inflating their scores toward internal control, regardless of their actual beliefs about divine intervention.

By substituting terms related to God control, spiritual assistance, and providence for the original chance and fate terminology in eight key items, the revision aimed to clarify whether individuals attribute external control to impersonal forces or to powerful spiritual entities. The study also yielded a neutral revision, which excluded both chance/fate and overt religious terminology, concluding that this neutral version could be used universally across diverse populations.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of Locus of Control (LoC), as originally conceptualized by Julian Rotter. LoC refers to an individual’s generalized belief concerning where the source of control over life events resides. The dimension ranges from internal control (the belief that outcomes result from one’s own actions, effort, or characteristics) to external control (the belief that outcomes are determined by fate, chance, powerful others, or, in this revised scale, spiritual forces).

Specifically, the religious revision operationalizes God control (e.g., “spiritual powers,” “providence,” “God’s help”) as a form of external control. This distinction is crucial for religious assessment, as it separates beliefs in divine intervention (a specific external attribution) from beliefs in arbitrary chance (a different external attribution). The resulting score quantifies the degree of generalized expectation that external forces, including religious ones, dictate outcomes.

Validity

The validity assessment focused on demonstrating that the religious and neutral revisions maintained strong relationships with the original Rotter scale while improving relevance for religious groups. The intercorrelations among the three versions were notably high: the average correlation between the original and religious revision was .84; between the original and the neutral revision was .90; and between the two revisions was .91. This high overlap (15 of 23 scored items are shared) contributes significantly to these correlations.

Furthermore, the revisions demonstrated moderate consistency with the frequently utilized Levenson (1974) Multidimensional Locus of Control Scales. However, they showed a lack of correlation with less frequently used measures, specifically the Dies (1968) and Nowicki-Duke (1974) measures, though the authors suggested these secondary measures might not be the best standards themselves. Overall, the authors found the initial validity evidence encouraging.

Reliability

The original research article detailing the development and testing of the Religious Locus of Control Scale did not report any specific information regarding the internal consistency or test-retest reliability of the instrument.

Factor Analysis

The authors attempted to establish structural validity through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). However, this analytical approach was ultimately deemed not very useful by the researchers. The primary limitation was that the CFA failed to adequately account for the high degree of item overlap (15 shared items out of 23 scored items) between the original Rotter scale and the two revised versions (religious and neutral). This substantial item overlap created artificial correlations that distorted the factor structure results.

Instrument

Test Type: Paper-and-pencil self-report measure.

Format: Forced-choice format (29 items total, 23 scored items, 6 distracters/fillers).

Language Available: English (Original publication).

Population Group: Designed for religious populations, but the neutral version is suggested for universal use.

Age Group: Adults and undergraduate students (as per standardization sample).

Population Details: Standardization utilized two samples: 115 adults from Christian fundamentalist congregations (religious sample) and 184 undergraduate students from a state university (general sample). The two samples differed significantly in level of religiosity (p < .001).

Test Methodology: Subjects select one of two statements in each pair; one statement reflects external control and the other, internal control. The score is the total number of external control items endorsed (maximum score of 23). Face validity is considered high, and distracter items are included to disguise the instrument’s nature.

Keywords

Psychological Measurement, Locus of Control, Assessment, Christian Fundamentalism, Internal-External Control, Forced-choice format, Religiosity.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1986 (Publication of Revision).

Permissions & Fee: Not specified in source content. The scale is a revision of Rotter’s (1966) measure.

Reference’s

Dies, R. R. (1968). Development of a projective measure of perceived locus of control. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 32, 487-490.

Gabbard, C. E., Howard, G. S., & Tageson, C. W. (1986). Assessing locus of control with religious populations. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 292-308.

Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 377-383.

Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1974). A locus of control scale for noncollege as well as college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 136-137.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 609).

Items of the RELIGIOUS LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

Internal vs. External Control Religious Revision

The following revision of Rotter’s (1966) measure of Internal vs. External Control includes eight altered items (Gabbard, Howard, & Tageson, 1986). Subjects are to select the statement with which they more strongly agree. One’s score is the total number of underlined choices (i.e., external items) endorsed. The scale includes six filler items that are not scored (where neither option is underlined).

1. a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much.
2. b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with them.
3. a.* Many of the unhappy things in people’s lives are partly due to forces of spiritual powers.
4. b. People’s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.
5. A. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don’t take enough interest in politics.
6. b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.
7. A. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world.
8. b. Unfortunately, an individual’s worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries.
9. A. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
10. b. Most students don’t realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings.
11. a.* Without God’s help, one cannot be an effective leader.
12. b. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities.
13. A. No matter how hard you try, some people just don’t like you.
14. b. People who can’t get others to like them don’t understand how to get along with others.
15. A. Heredity plays the major role in determining one’s personality.
16. B. It is one’s experiences in life which determine what one is like.
17. A. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
18. b.* Trusting to spiritual assistance has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action.
19. A. In the case of the well-prepared student there is rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair test.
20. b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is really useless.
21. a.* Becoming a success is a matter of hard work; no other powerful forces are at work.
22. b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time.
23. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.
24. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it.
25. A. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.
26. b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things tum out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.
27. A. There are certain people who are just no good.
28. b. There is some good in everybody.
29. a.* In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with spiritual guidance.
30. b.* Many times we might just as well decide what to do by relying on powerful others.
31. a.* Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was fortunate enough or was chosen to be in the right place first.
32. b.* Getting people to do the right thing depends on ability; powerful spiritual forces have little or nothing to do with it.
33. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand nor control.
34. By taking an active part in political and social affairs, people can control world events.
35. a.* Most people can’t realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by supernatural happenings which man can’t understand.
36. b.* There really is no such thing as providence or fortune.
37. A. One should always be willing to admit mistakes.
38. b. It is usually best to cover up one’s mistakes.
39. A. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.
40. b. How many friends you have depends on how nice a person you are.
41. A. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones.
42. b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three.
43. A. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
44. b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office.
45. A. Sometimes I can’t understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give.
46. b. There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades I get.
47. A. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do.
48. b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.
49. Many times, I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.
50. b.* It is impossible for me to believe that supernatural or spiritual forces play an important role in my life.
51. A. People are lonely because they don’t try to be friendly.
52. b. There’s not much use in trying too hard to please people; if they like you, they like you.
53. A. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.
54. b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.
55. A. What happens to me is my own doing.
56. B. Sometimes I feel that I don’t have enough control over the direction my life is taking.
57. A. Most of the time I can’t understand why politicians behave the way they do.
58. b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well as on a local level.

* These items have been revised from Rotter’s (1966) original scale.