Levenson I, P, C Scale

Abstract

The Levenson IPC Scale, formally known as the Multidimensional Locus of Control Scale, is a psychological instrument developed by Hanna Levenson in 1973. It was designed to address the limitations of earlier, unidimensional measures of Locus of Control by separating external control into two distinct components: control attributed to Powerful Others (P) and control attributed to Chance (C). This 24-item measure assesses an individual’s generalized expectancy regarding the extent to which reinforcements are contingent upon their own actions, the influence of powerful individuals, or random factors like fate or luck. The scale provides three independent scores, offering a more nuanced understanding of control orientation than its predecessors.

Keywords

Levenson IPC Scale, Multidimensional Locus of Control, Locus of Control, Internal control, Powerful Others, Chance, psychological assessment, Hanna Levenson.

Authors

Hanna Levenson (1973).

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Levenson IPC Scale is to provide a more nuanced and detailed assessment of an individual’s generalized expectations of control compared to the original Rotter I-E scale. By differentiating between internal control and two distinct types of external control (Powerful Others and Chance), the scale allows researchers to isolate specific beliefs that predict behavior in various contexts, such as health, political engagement, and achievement motivation.

This multidimensional approach enables clinicians and researchers to understand whether an individual attributes external outcomes to structured, potentially negotiable forces (powerful people) or to unpredictable, arbitrary forces (fate or luck). This distinction is critical for tailoring interventions and accurately predicting responses to external stimuli, particularly in situations where individuals feel a loss of personal agency.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of Locus of Control (LOC), which refers to the degree to which individuals believe that they have control over the outcomes of events in their lives. The Levenson IPC Scale operationalizes this construct across three orthogonal dimensions, with 8 items dedicated to measuring each factor:

• Internal (I): The belief that one’s outcomes are the result of one’s own efforts, abilities, and actions. High scores indicate a strong belief in personal control.
• Powerful Others (P): The belief that important life events are controlled by influential people, such as government officials, bosses, or authority figures.
• Chance (C): The belief that outcomes are determined by fate, luck, or random circumstances beyond anyone’s control, reflecting a sense of fatalism.

Validity

The scale demonstrates strong construct validity, particularly through its discriminant validity from the original unidimensional measure. Studies consistently show that the I, P, and C subscales are relatively independent, supporting Levenson’s theoretical argument for separating the external dimension. For instance, the correlation between the P and C subscales tends to be low, indicating that they measure distinct external control orientations rather than a single generalized external factor.

Furthermore, predictive validity has been established across various domains. High scores on the Internal subscale are typically associated with better academic achievement, proactive health behaviors, and higher self-efficacy. Conversely, high scores on the Powerful Others subscale might correlate with deference to authority or political cynicism, while high scores on the Chance subscale are often linked to feelings of helplessness, depression, or learned helplessness.

Reliability

The reliability of the Levenson IPC Scale is generally considered acceptable for research purposes, although the internal consistency can vary across diverse populations. Initial research reported acceptable split-half reliability coefficients, typically ranging from .62 to .79 for the three subscales (I, P, and C).

Measures of internal consistency, often assessed via Cronbach’s alpha, typically fall between .64 and .80 for the Internal subscale, demonstrating solid consistency. The P and C subscales often show slightly lower, but acceptable, coefficients. Test-retest reliability over several weeks has also been shown to be stable, supporting the notion that LOC, as measured by the IPC Scale, is a relatively enduring personality trait.

Factor Analysis

The development and validation of the Levenson IPC Scale relied heavily on factor analysis, which confirmed the scale’s intended multidimensional structure. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses consistently support the existence of three distinct, yet related, factors (I, P, and C), thereby justifying the scale’s scoring methodology.

This factorial clarity distinguishes the IPC Scale from its predecessors, ensuring that items measuring internal control do not significantly load onto the external factors, and crucially, that the Powerful Others and Chance items load onto separate factors. This robust factor structure allows for the independent scoring and interpretation of the three control dimensions, providing researchers with specific data points rather than a single continuum.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire; Psychological assessment scale.

Format: 24 statements rated on a 6-point Likert scale. Responses range from +3 (agree strongly) to -3 (disagree strongly). Each subscale (Internal, Powerful Others, Chance) consists of 8 items.

Language Available: Primarily English; widely translated into numerous languages for international research, including Spanish, German, and Chinese.

Population Group: General population; frequently used in academic, clinical, educational, and organizational psychology research.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (typically 16 years and older).

Population Details: Originally validated on university student samples, but has been extensively used across diverse demographic groups, including psychiatric patients and professional workers, demonstrating broad applicability.

Test Methodology: Respondents read attitude statements and indicate their level of agreement or disagreement using the specified 6-point response continuum. Scores for each subscale (I, P, C) are calculated separately, providing three independent measures of control orientation.

Keywords

Personality trait, self-efficacy, external control, internal control, psychological assessment, factor analysis, scale development, psychological construct.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not publicly listed or provided in source documentation.

Affiliation Email addresses: Contact information for the developer is provided for permissions.

Correspondence Address: Hannah Levenson, Ph.D. Levenson Institute for Training (LIFT) 2323 Sacramento St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94115.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed in 1973. The source content explicitly states that the scale is Copyright protected. Use requires formal permission from the developer, Dr. Hanna Levenson, or the Levenson Institute for Training (LIFT).

The original PDF of the instrument, which may contain detailed administration instructions and usage details, can be downloaded here: http://cart.rmcdenver.com/instruments/multidimensional_locus.pdf

Reference’s

The foundational reference for the scale is:

• Levenson, H. (1973). Reliability and validity of the I, P, and C scales—A multidimensional view of Locus of Control. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Montreal.

Additional resources relating to the scale’s theoretical background and application include:

• Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the Locus of Control construct (Vol. 1, pp. 15–39). Academic Press.
• A secondary resource discussing the scale’s application can be found here: http://www.cyfernet.org/article.php?mode=b&c=1383&resource_id=10831

[quads id=5]

Items of the Levenson IPC Scale

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

Directions

Following is a series of attitude statements. Each represents a commonly held opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. You will probably agree with some items and disagree with others. We are interested in the extent to which you agree or disagree with such matters of opinion.

Read each statement carefully. Then indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree using the following responses:

• If you agree strongly‚ respond +3
• If you agree somewhat‚ respond +2
• If you agree slightly‚ respond +1
• If you disagree slightly‚ respond –1
• If you disagree somewhat‚ respond –2
• If you disagree strongly‚ respond –3

First impressions are usually best. Read each statement‚ decide if you agree or disagree and the strength of your opinion‚ and then respond accordingly

1. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability
2. To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings
3. I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people
4. Whether or not I get in to a car accident depends mostly on how good of a driver I am
5. When I make plans‚ I am almost certain to make them work
6. Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interests from bad luck happening
7. When I get what I want‚ it’s usually because I am lucky
8. Although I might have good ability‚ I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those positions of power
9. How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am
10. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen
11. My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others
12. Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck
13. People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interests when they conflict with those of strong pressure groups
14. It’s not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune
15. Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me
16. Whether or not I get to be leader depends on whether I am lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time
17. If important people were to decide they didn’t like me‚ I probably wouldn’t make many friends
18. I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life
19. I am usually able to protect my personal interests
20. Whether or not I get in a car accident depends mostly on the other driver
21. When I get what I want‚ it is usually because I worked hard for it.
22. In order to have my plans work‚ I make sure that they fit in with the desires of people who have power over me
23. My life is determined by my own actions
24. It’s chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have few friends or many friends.