Aviation Safety Locus of Control Scale

Abstract

The Aviation Safety Locus of Control scale (ASLOC) is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to measure an individual pilot’s perception regarding the controllability of safety outcomes and accidents within the aviation environment. Developed by David R. Hunter in 2001, this scale adapts the traditional concept of Locus of Control to specifically assess whether aviators attribute accident causation primarily to their own actions (Internal Locus of Control) or to outside forces such as fate, luck, poor regulation, or equipment failure (External Locus of Control). The ASLOC is crucial for understanding safety culture, informing training programs, and predicting individual safety behaviors among flight crew personnel.

Keywords

Aviation Safety, Locus of Control, Pilot Behavior, Safety Culture, Accident Causation, Psychometric Scale, Internal Control, External Control, Aviation Safety, Human Factors.

Authors

David R. Hunter

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Aviation Safety Locus of Control scale is to quantify the degree to which pilots believe they have personal agency over safety outcomes during flight operations and ground procedures. By identifying a pilot’s typical attribution style—whether they perceive safety as a consequence of their diligence and adherence to procedures, or as a consequence of uncontrollable external variables—the scale provides valuable insights for targeted safety interventions. Furthermore, it serves as a research tool for correlating locus of control orientations with actual safety records, incident reporting, and compliance with mandatory procedures.

Construct

The ASLOC scale is fundamentally rooted in Julian Rotter’s Locus of Control theory, applied specifically to the context of aviation safety. The scale measures a two-dimensional construct:

• Internal Locus of Control: This dimension reflects the belief that safety and accident avoidance are directly controlled by the pilot’s own efforts, skills, vigilance, and adherence to regulations. Individuals scoring high on this dimension accept personal responsibility for outcomes.
• External Locus of Control: This dimension reflects the belief that safety outcomes are determined by factors outside the pilot’s control, such as fate, luck, systemic equipment issues, governmental oversight (e.g., FAA), or unavoidable chance occurrences.

The distinction between these two attribution styles is critical in predicting willingness to engage in proactive safety behaviors and the propensity to report incidents or errors.

Validity

While the original source material provides limited specific validity coefficients (such as correlation with external criteria), the development of the scale in 2001/2002 suggests foundational work was conducted to establish its psychometric properties. The scale’s content validity is established by its direct derivation from established safety literature and its specific focus on pilot decision-making and accident causation beliefs. Further studies, such as those conducted on Indian aviators (Joseph & Ganesh, 2006), have utilized and implicitly supported the scale’s relevance and applicability across varied aviation populations, suggesting cross-cultural utility and construct validity in measuring safety attitudes.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the ASLOC scale was assessed using Coefficient Alpha based on a sample of 477 cases. The results demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability for both subscales, considering the nature of psychological constructs:

• The 10-item Internal Locus of Control subscale achieved a Coefficient Alpha of 0.69.
• The 10-item External Locus of Control subscale achieved a Coefficient Alpha of 0.63.

These values, while modest, indicate that the items within each subscale generally measure a unified construct, providing sufficient reliability for research purposes in applied settings. Subsequent research may further refine these subscales to improve internal consistency.

Factor Analysis

The structure of the scale is implicitly defined by its two scoring keys (Internal and External), suggesting a primary two-factor structure identified through exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis during the scale’s development. The scale consists of 20 items distributed equally across these two factors, which align conceptually with the core duality of the Locus of Control construct. This factor structure allows researchers to obtain distinct scores for internal attribution (personal control) and external attribution (situational or chance control) regarding safety outcomes.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire

Format: 5-point Likert scale, ranging from Strongly Agree (5) to Strongly Disagree (1). Scoring is based on two distinct 10-item subscales (Internal and External).

Language Available: English (Original development language).

Population Group: Pilots and professional aviators.

Age Group: Adult (typically professional pilots).

Population Details: The initial reliability study was based on a sample of 477 aviation personnel.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their level of agreement with 20 statements concerning the causes of aviation accidents and incidents. Higher scores on the Internal subscale indicate a stronger belief in personal responsibility for safety; higher scores on the External subscale indicate a stronger belief in the role of external forces or chance.

Keywords

Pilot Training, Human Factors, Aviation Safety Management, Self-Efficacy, Safety Compliance, Risk Perception, Psychometrics, Attribution Theory, Locus of Control.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in the source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected] (Affiliation: Likely the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at the time of publication).

Correspondence Address: Not provided in the source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2001 (Development), 2002 (Publication).

Permissions and Fee: Information on specific permissions or fees for commercial use is not detailed in the source. However, the instrument was made available online for researchers. The instrument’s availability for non-commercial research can be verified via the provided link: http://www.avhf.com/html/Researcher/ASLOC_Civil.asp.

Reference’s

• Hunter, D. R. (2002). Development of an aviation safety locus of control scale. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 73, 1184-1188.
• Joseph, C., & Ganesh, A. (2006). Aviation safety locus of control in Indian aviators. Indian Journal of Aerospace Medicine, 50, 14-21.
• Jones JW, Wuebker L. (1985). Development and validation of the safety locus of control scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 151–161.

Items of the Aviation Safety Locus of Control scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

• If pilots follow all the rules and regulations, they can avoid many aviation accidents.
• Accidents are usually caused by unsafe equipment and poor safety regulations.
• Pilots should lose their license if they periodically neglect to use safety devices (for example, seat belts, checklists, etc.) that are required by regulation.
• I Accidents and injuries occur because pilots do not take enough interest in safety.
• Avoiding accidents is a matter of luck.
• Most accidents and incidents can be avoided if pilots use proper procedures.
• Most accidents and injuries cannot be avoided.
• Most accidents are due to pilot carelessness.
• Most pilots will be involved in accidents or incidents which result in aircraft damage or personal injury.
• Pilots should be fined if they have an accident or incident while “horsing around”.
• Most accidents that result in injuries are largely preventable.
• Pilots can do very little to avoid minor incidents while working.
• Whether people get injured or not is a matter of fate, chance, or luck.
• Pilots’ accidents and injuries result from the mistakes they make.
• Most accidents can be blamed on poor FAA 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 flight than to follow a safety precaution that costs more time.
• There is a direct connection between how careful pilots are and the number of accidents they have.
• Most accidents are unavoidable.