James Internal-External Locus of Control Scale

Abstract

The James Internal-External Locus of Control Scale is a psychological instrument designed to assess an individual’s generalized expectancy concerning the relationship between their actions and subsequent outcomes. Unlike earlier, often unidimensional scales, the James scale is structured to measure multiple dimensions of external control, specifically differentiating between forces such as Fate, Luck, Powerful Others, and the perception of Personal Control. This multi-factorial approach provides a more nuanced understanding of how individuals attribute causality for events in their lives. The scale utilizes a 4-point Likert-type rating system ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree).

Keywords

Locus of Control, Internal-External, Fate, Luck, Powerful Others, Personal Control, Attribution Theory, Multi-dimensional Scale, Social Learning Theory, Psychometric properties

Authors

William H. James (Conceptual Originator), G. D. Borich, S. W. Paver (Key Validators/Researchers)

Purpose

The primary purpose of the James Locus of Control Scale is to empirically measure the degree to which respondents believe they have control over reinforcements and outcomes in their lives. By separating external control into specific sub-factors (Fate, Luck, Powerful Others), the scale aims to provide researchers and clinicians with a refined metric capable of predicting behavior across various domains, including academic achievement, health behavior, and organizational efficacy. The scores reflect the strength of an individual’s belief in external determinism versus internal agency.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of Locus of Control (LOC), which is rooted in Julian Rotter’s Social Learning Theory. LOC refers to the degree to which individuals perceive that outcomes result from their own efforts (internal LOC) or from external forces beyond their control (external LOC). The James scale is notable for its departure from Rotter’s unidimensional forced-choice format by adopting a multi-dimensional approach utilizing a Likert scale. It operationalizes external LOC across four distinct dimensions:

• Fate: Belief that life events are predetermined or inevitable, regardless of personal effort.
• Luck: Belief that chance or random events dictate success and failure.
• Powerful Others: Belief that influential people (e.g., politicians, teachers, authorities) control one’s outcomes.
• Personal Control: The inverse measure, reflecting the degree of perceived self-efficacy and influence over immediate circumstances.

This factor structure allows for the assessment of specific sources of externality, providing richer data on why an individual might feel powerless—whether due to generalized fate beliefs or specific perceived power imbalances with others.

Validity

Validation efforts, such as the study by Borich and Paver (1974), focused on establishing the construct validity of the scale. The multi-dimensional design necessitates demonstrating both convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity is typically established by showing that the total score or relevant subscales correlate positively with other established measures of externality (like the Rotter I-E Scale), while discriminant validity is confirmed by demonstrating that the subscales are sufficiently independent of one another (e.g., the Luck factor should not perfectly correlate with the Powerful Others factor).

The four distinct factors identified in the James scale strongly support its utility in measuring the complexity inherent in the Internal-External construct. Studies confirm that the scale provides meaningful distinctions between these sources of perceived external influence, enhancing its theoretical and practical application compared to simpler, unidimensional measures.

Reliability

Though specific quantitative reliability coefficients (such as Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency or test-retest reliability) are not provided in the source material, multi-factor scales of this nature generally aim for acceptable levels of internal consistency (typically alphas above 0.70) within each subscale. Given its use in academic research, the James scale is expected to demonstrate robust reliability metrics, ensuring that the measurement is consistent across time and item sets. High internal consistency within the distinct dimensions (Fate, Luck, etc.) is crucial for justifying the scale’s multi-dimensional scoring approach.

Factor Analysis

The structure of the James scale, clearly segmented into four thematic areas (Fate, Luck, Personal Control, Powerful Others), indicates that its development was guided by rigorous Factor Analysis. Factor Analysis is the statistical technique used to confirm that the items group together conceptually as intended. The research by Borich and Paver (1974) likely employed exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis to verify that the items load significantly onto their respective theoretical factors and minimally onto others, thereby confirming the scale’s multi-dimensional structure and its advantage over single-score instruments.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Psychometric Scale

Format: 4-point Likert Scale (0 = strongly disagree; 3 = strongly agree)

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population; validated extensively on student and adult populations.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (typically 16+)

Population Details: Primarily used in educational and psychological research settings, often with college students or general adult samples studying attribution styles and motivational differences.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate the extent of their agreement with each statement regarding control over life events. Scores are summed within each of the four dimensions to yield distinct subscale scores, allowing for a profile analysis of external control beliefs.

Keywords

Psychological assessment, Social Learning Theory, External Locus of Control, Internal Locus of Control, Educational psychology, Self-efficacy, Determinism, Construct validity, Borich and Paver

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: The scale items are widely accessible in academic literature, suggesting its use is generally permitted for non-commercial research and educational purposes, provided proper citation is given.

Fee: Generally considered free for academic research use.

Test Year: The validation study cited is 1974. Conceptual development is attributed to earlier work by W. H. James (c. 1957).

Reference’s

The primary cited reference related to the psychometric properties of the scale is:

• Borich, G. D. & Paver, S. W. (1974). Convergent and discriminant validity of the locus of control construct. Report- Research; Tests/Questionnaires.

The original PDF of this report can be downloaded here: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED171731.pdf

Items of the James Internal-External Locus of Control Scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way. Items are rated on a 4-point scale: 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree).

Fate

• Wars between countries seem inevitable despite efforts to prevent them. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• Some people seem born to fail while others seem born for success no matter what they do. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• I feel that many people could be described as victims of circumstances beyond their control. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• I have usually found that what is going to happen will happen‚ regardless of my actions. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• I don’t believe that a person can really be a ma‎ster of his fate. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• There’s not much use in worrying about things… what will be‚ will be. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

Luck

• It is usually true of successful people that their good breaks far outweigh their bad breaks. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• Many times I feel that we might just as well make many of our decisions by flipping a coin. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• Getting a good job seems to be largely a matter of being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• A great deal that happens to me is probably just a matter of chance. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• It isn’t wise to plan too far ahead because most of things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• When things are going well for me I consider it due to a run of good luck. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• Most people don’t realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• Most of the disappointing things in my life have contained a large element of chance. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• Success is mostly a matter of getting good breaks. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• I think that life is mostly a gamble. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

Personal Control

• I feel that I have little influence over the way people behave. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• Success in dealing with people seems to be more a matter of the other person’s moods and feelings at the time rather than one’s own actions. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• Sometimes I feel that I don’t have enough control over the direction my life is taking. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

Powerful Others

• It is difficult for ordinary people to have much control over what politicians do in office. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)

• It seems many times that the grades one gets in school are more dependent on the teacher’s whims than on what the student can really do. (Rating: 0 1 2 3)