Locus of Control

Locus of control describes how much you believe you control the events in your life. People with an internal locus of control believe their own actions drive their outcomes. Those with an external locus of control attribute outcomes to luck, fate, or other people instead.

Internal vs. External Locus of Control

The difference between an internal and external locus of control lies in where people believe the power or influence over their lives comes from.

Psychologist Julian B. Rotter introduced the concept in 1954, as part of his social learning theory of personality. In his 1966 monograph, he defined it as the degree to which people believe they themselves, or external forces, control the outcomes in their lives.

Locus of control (LoC) exists on a continuum, ranging from highly internal to highly external, with most people falling somewhere in between.

It plays a major role in how people interpret success, failure, health, and personal agency.

Internal Locus of Control

Individuals with an internal locus of control believe their own effort, decisions, and actions directly shape their outcomes. They take responsibility for what happens to them.

Key traits of internals include:

• Self-responsibility: Internals attribute success or failure to their own behavior. For example, if they fail an exam, they might admit they didn’t study enough and plan to improve next time.

• Perceived control: They feel capable of influencing performance, health, and stress through their choices and behaviors.

• Positive outcomes: Research shows internals tend to perform better academically, achieve more professionally, experience better mental and physical health, and engage more often in proactive coping and healthy habits.

External Locus of Control

Individuals with an external locus of control believe outcomes are determined by factors beyond their control, such as fate, luck, or the actions of others.

Key traits of externals include:

• External forces: Externals attribute results to outside circumstances. If they fail a test, they might blame unfair questions or bad luck rather than lack of preparation.

• Reduced control: They are less likely to feel that effort leads to change, which can discourage persistence and personal growth.

• Health beliefs: Externals often view their health as being controlled by chance or medical professionals rather than by their own behaviors or lifestyle.

A Note on Attributional Style

Locus of control is related to but distinct from attributional style.

Locus of control focuses on people’s expectations about future events (who or what controls outcomes), while attributional style concerns how people explain past successes and failures.

Examples

People with an internal locus of control accept occasions in their day-to-day existence as controllable.

To be more specific, this means that they can recognize instances where destiny is controllable: for instance, an individual is taking a test for a driver’s license.

The Driving Test Example

A person with an internal locus of control credits their own preparation for whether they pass or fail a driving test.

If they pass, they praise their own skill. If they fail, they resolve to improve their driving before retaking it.

Someone with an external locus of control perceives the identical event differently.

They blame outside factors instead, such as the weather, the examiner, or the test route, rather than their own preparation.

Health Beliefs Example

Locus of control also influences how people think about and manage their health.

A person with an internal health locus of control believes that their behaviors and lifestyle choices directly affect their well-being.

They are more likely to exercise, eat healthily, avoid smoking, and seek medical advice when needed, because they believe their actions make a difference.

They might say, “I am responsible for my health,” reflecting a sense of personal agency.

In contrast, someone with an external health locus of control believes that their health is largely a matter of luck, fate, or external factors.

They may think, “If I’m meant to get sick, I’ll get sick no matter what I do,” or “Doctors are the ones who determine whether I stay healthy.”

Because they perceive their health as beyond their control, they may be less motivated to adopt healthy behaviors or make lifestyle changes.

Applications

Locus of control provides a unifying framework for understanding how people perceive and manage influence over their lives.

Whether in therapy, classrooms, workplaces, relationships, or health contexts, beliefs about control affect motivation, coping, and well-being.

1. Therapy and Mental Health

How individuals make causal attributions for their experiences is fundamental to many therapeutic approaches.

Control, Responsibility, and Meaning:

Existential and humanistic therapies emphasize helping clients develop a stronger sense of personal responsibility and agency.

Clients are encouraged to identify what they can change, influence, or reframe, and to accept what lies beyond it.

By doing so, they discover greater meaning and freedom in their lives.

Attributional Style and Depression:

Locus of control plays a key role in understanding Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).

A pessimistic attributional style increases vulnerability to depression and learned helplessness. It interprets negative events as internal (“my fault”), stable (“it will always be this way”), and global (“it affects everything”).

Conversely, a more balanced or internal locus of control supports resilience and motivation.

Self-Regulation and Health Interventions:

Therapeutic methods such as biofeedback, relaxation training, and mindfulness foster autonomic self-regulation, helping clients regain a sense of control over stress, anxiety, and physiological states.

---

2. Education and Learning

Beliefs about control and ability profoundly affect student motivation, learning strategies, and achievement.

Academic Performance:

Students with an internal locus of control take responsibility for their outcomes, viewing poor grades as something they can improve through effort.

In contrast, external students may attribute failure to luck or unfair tests, which can reduce motivation.

Growth Mindset and Teacher Expectations:

Encouraging a growth mindset (the belief that intelligence and ability develop through effort) aligns closely with an internal, controllable attribution style.

Similarly, teacher expectations (the Pygmalion effect) can powerfully shape student performance, demonstrating how external perceptions of control influence real outcomes.

---

3. Work and Organizational Psychology

In the workplace, control beliefs underpin job satisfaction, motivation, and stress management.

Job Strain and Autonomy:

The Demand–Control Model of job stress links high job demands and low decision-making autonomy to high job strain, which is associated with poorer health outcomes and burnout.

Workers who feel in control of their tasks experience lower stress and greater engagement.

Management and Leadership:

Control beliefs also influence leadership and management style.

Theory X managers view employees as inherently unmotivated and needing control (external orientation), while Theory Y managers assume workers are self-directed and seek intrinsic satisfaction (internal orientation).

Leadership models such as Contingency Theory similarly emphasize that effective leadership depends on the leader’s control and influence within a given context.

Personal Resources:

Traits like self-efficacy, optimism, and an internal locus of control act as buffers against workplace stress, improving well-being and performance.

---

4. Relationships and Social Context

Attribution theory shapes how people interpret others’ behavior and navigate interpersonal dynamics.

Relational Attributions:

Individuals with a more internal locus of control tend to take responsibility for their role in conflicts and work proactively to resolve them. Those with a more external orientation are more likely to blame partners or outside circumstances.

Family and Systems Therapy:

Systemic and couples therapy frames problems not as one partner’s “fault” but as a pattern emerging from the relationship’s interactions.

This challenges external attributions (“it’s their problem”) and encourages shared responsibility and adaptive change.

Cultural Context:

Control beliefs also vary culturally.

Collectivist cultures often view the self as interdependent and embedded within social context, emphasizing relational control rather than purely individual autonomy.

Therapists must therefore consider cultural and intersectional factors in understanding a client’s sense of control.

---

5. Health Psychology

The concept of health locus of control has become one of the most widely applied forms of LoC in research and clinical practice.

Health Locus of Control Scales:

The Health Locus of Control (HLC) and Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) scales (Wallston & Wallston, 2004) measure whether individuals attribute their health outcomes to:

• Internal factors (self-care, lifestyle, effort)

• Powerful others (doctors, family, authority figures)

• Chance or fate (luck, destiny)

Health Outcomes and Behavior:

Research generally links an internal health locus of control to greater treatment adherence, more active coping, and better physical outcomes.

Examples include diabetes management and stroke rehabilitation.

However, meta-analytic evidence is mixed.

Reviews of health behaviors such as exercise, alcohol use, and weight control find inconsistent or even contradictory links to locus of control (Norman et al., 1997, 1998; Bennett et al., 1998).

Domain-Specific Scales:

Researchers have developed numerous domain-specific measures for health contexts, including:

• the Weight Locus of Control Scale
• the Dieting Beliefs Scale
• the Mental Health Locus of Control Scale
• the Cancer Locus of Control Scale

These scales explore how perceptions of control shape behavior and adjustment in a specific health domain.

Conceptual Summary:

Ultimately, in health psychology, locus of control highlights a central tension:

Believing in one’s ability to influence outcomes can promote healthy behavior and recovery. But excessive internality risks self-blame when outcomes are truly uncontrollable, and excessive externality risks discouraging responsibility altogether.

Origins

Julian B. Rotter introduced the concept of locus of control in 1954 as part of his social learning theory of personality.

It is a classic example of a generalized expectancy: a belief about reinforcement that applies across a wide variety of situations, not just one.

In 1966, Rotter published an article in Psychological Monographs summarizing nearly a decade of research by himself and his students. Most of this work had never been published before.

1. The Proponent and Initial Publication

The concept of locus of control was formally proposed by Julian Rotter in 1966.

• Rotter’s seminal work defining the theory was titled Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement and was published in Psychological Monographs in 1966.
• Rotter’s 1966 article argued that a person’s internal-versus-external orientation is an important, stable part of personality, and set out to measure it reliably.
• Hundreds, potentially thousands, of studies have drawn on Rotter’s theory since his 1966 article appeared.

2. Conceptual Context and Theoretical Roots

Rotter proposed the LoC concept as a cognitive factor that affects learning and personality development.

• The theory emerged as part of the exploration of generalized beliefs regarding the power individuals possess over their lives.
• Rotter believed people expect greater reinforcement when they attribute responsibility for outcomes internally rather than externally. This trait-like expectation shapes whether personal action feels effective.
• Rotter was influenced by behaviorism (especially learning theory) but incorporated internal, cognitive factors. His model asks whether people believe their choices actually cause the outcomes that follow.

3. Relation to Attribution Theory

Rotter established locus of control in 1966, but it later became a core dimension within attribution theory, which explains how people account for outcomes.

• Attribution theory explains how people identify the causes of an outcome. One model names three dimensions: locus (internal vs. external), stability (stable vs. unstable), and controllability (controllable vs. uncontrollable).
• Weiner (1984) noted that locus of control, developed from an idea by Rotter, is one of three factors shaping motivational attributions for success and failure.

Measurement

The measurement of Locus of Control is fundamentally achieved through self-report questionnaires, originally conceived by Rotter.

These instruments evolved into multidimensional scales, such as the MHLC. They capture the nuanced beliefs people hold about who or what controls outcomes in specific life domains, especially health.

1. Rotter’s Internal–External (I-E) Scale

The foundational instrument for measuring generalized locus of control was developed by Julian Rotter and presented in his seminal 1966 article, Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

• Purpose: The I-E Scale was designed to measure the extent to which a person possesses the personality characteristic of an internal or external locus of control.
• Structure: The scale uses a forced-choice format of 29 item pairs, six of which are filler items, leaving 23 scored pairs; higher totals reflect a more external orientation.
• Interpretation: A person is categorized based on whether they interpret their own choices and personality as responsible for behavioral consequences (internal LoC) or attribute consequences to external forces (external LoC).

Levenson’s Multidimensional IPC Scale

Rotter’s scale treated externality as a single dimension, but Levenson (1973) argued that not all “external” beliefs are alike.

Her 24-item IPC Scale splits external control into two independent components, yielding three subscales:

• Internality: control by oneself.
• Powerful others: control by authority figures such as doctors or the government.
• Chance: control by fate or luck.

A person who believes powerful others control their life is psychologically different from one who believes the world is simply random.

Rotter’s original scale would have labeled both as simply “external.”

2. Specialized Health Locus of Control Scales (MHLC)

Due to the general nature of Rotter’s original scale, researchers developed more specific instruments, particularly within the field of Health Psychology, where perceived control is vital.

The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) Scale was developed by Kenneth Wallston and colleagues in 1978.

This scale looks specifically at individuals’ beliefs about the factors that determine their health outcomes.

The MHLC refined the measurement by identifying three statistically independent dimensions of health control, moving beyond a simple internal/external dichotomy:

• Internal Health Locus of Control: How much people feel responsible for their own health and stress. For example: “My own lifestyle choices are what will affect my stress levels.”
• Powerful Others’ Control over Health: The belief that people such as doctors, family, or friends determine health outcomes. For example: “Whenever I feel stressed, I should consult a trained professional.”
• External/Chance Health Locus of Control: The belief that health is determined by fate, luck, or chance. For example: “No matter what I do, if I am going to get sick, I will get sick.”

3. Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank (RISB)

The RISB is a projective test, not a traditional quantitative questionnaire like the I-E Scale. It is directly linked to Julian Rotter, the originator of locus of control theory.

• Nature: Julian Rotter developed the RISB in 1950, before he formally published LoC theory in 1966. It presents 40 incomplete sentences, from which the administrator infers the test-taker’s psychological states, fears, and struggles.
• Forms: The RISB has three forms for different age groups: school, college, and adult.
• Relationship to LoC: The test is relevant because it emerged from the work of Rotter, the same figure who proposed the Locus of Control theory.

4. General Characteristics of Locus of Control Questionnaires

Like other psychological questionnaires, LoC scales collect data from many people by asking them to answer a series of questions.

• Format: Locus of control scales often use Likert-type items, where participants rate their agreement (e.g., from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”).
• Scoring: LoC questionnaires place a person along the continuum, but scoring direction varies by scale. On some questionnaires, a high score indicates an external locus of control and a low score indicates an internal one.
• Purpose of Results: Researchers often correlate LoC scores with outcomes. Individuals with a stronger internal focus tend to take more responsibility for their health, engage in healthier behaviors, and report less depression.
• A Generational Shift: College students have scored steadily more external over recent decades (see Critical Evaluation).

Critical Evaluation of Locus of Control Theory

Locus of control theory has shaped psychology for six decades, but it has real limits worth weighing.

Strengths

Four strengths stand out:

• Foundational and generative: Rotter’s (1966) I-E Scale opened a huge, still-active research literature and provided a genuinely unifying framework linking motivation, coping, achievement, and health.
• Refined and multidimensional: Later work split the single internal-external axis into independent internal, powerful-others, and chance dimensions (Levenson, 1973; Wallston et al., 1978), capturing that not all “external” beliefs are the same.
• Practically useful: The theory has clear, tested applications in education, health, occupational, and clinical psychology, and an internal orientation is reliably linked to better adjustment on average.
• Grounded in a wider theory: As a generalized expectancy within social learning theory, locus of control is theoretically coherent rather than an isolated trait, and it dovetails with attribution theory (Weiner, 1984).

Limitations

Several limitations temper these strengths:

• Continuum reduced to a type: Treating locus of control as two categories oversimplifies a continuum on which most people fall in the middle.
• Situational vs. dispositional: General locus-of-control scores predict specific behaviors only weakly; where people have direct experience, situation-specific beliefs dominate instead (Rotter, 1975).
• Modest effect sizes: Especially for health behaviors, the evidence is mixed and often weak, so locus of control is one modest predictor among many, not a decisive cause.
• Measurement concerns: The validity of locus-of-control questionnaires across different contexts has been questioned (Furnham & Steele, 1993), and self-report measures invite social-desirability bias.
• Neither pole is universally adaptive: Excessive internality produces self-blame for genuinely uncontrollable events, while excessive externality discourages responsibility altogether.
• Cultural bias: The prized “internal” orientation reflects Western, individualist values; the externality-distress link is weaker in collectivist cultures (see Contemporary Research, below).
• A moving target: Locus-of-control scores have shifted over time (see Contemporary Research, below), showing the trait is not culturally or historically fixed.

Contemporary Research

Two large studies illustrate how the evidence has evolved.

The Generational Shift Toward Externality

Twenge, Zhang, and Im (2004) pooled 97 samples of US college students and 41 samples of children aged 9–14, collected between 1960 and 2002.

Together the samples covered roughly 18,310 students and 6,554 children.

Locus-of-control scores became substantially more external over time, a shift of roughly 0.80 standard deviations.

The average student in 2002 scored more external than roughly 80% of students in the early 1960s.

Does Culture Change What “External” Means?

Cheng, Cheung, Chio, and Chan (2013) conducted a meta-analysis spanning 18 cultural regions, testing how locus of control relates to psychological symptoms.

The link between an external locus of control and psychological symptoms proved significantly stronger in individualist, largely Western regions than in collectivist ones.

So the meaning and psychological cost of being “external” genuinely differ across cultures.

FAQs

References

Bennett, P., Norman, P., Murphy, S., Moore, L., & Tudor-Smith, C. (1998). Beliefs about alcohol, health locus of control, value for health and reported consumption in a representative population sample. Health Education Research, 13 (1), 25-32.

Bialer, I. (1961). Conceptualization of success and failure in mentally retarded and normal children. Journal of personality.

Cheng, C., Cheung, S.-F., Chio, J. H.-M., & Chan, M.-P. S. (2013). Cultural meaning of perceived control: A meta-analysis of locus of control and psychological symptoms across 18 cultural regions. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 152–188.

CRANDALL, V. C., KATKOVSKY, W., & CRANDALL, V. J. (1965) Children’s beliefs in their own control of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations. Child Development, 36, 91-109.

Duttweiler, P. C. (1984). The internal control index: A newly developed measure of locus of control. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44 (2), 209-221.

Furnham, A., & Steele, H. (1993). Measuring locus of control: A critique of general, children’s, health‐and work‐related locus of control questionnaires. British Journal of Psychology, 84 (4), 443-479.

Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41(3), 397–404.

Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40 (1), 148.

Norman, P., Bennett, P., Smith, C., & Murphy, S. (1997). Health locus of control and leisure-time exercise. Personality and Individual Differences, 23 (5), 769-774.

Norman, P., Bennett, P., Smith, C., & Murphy, S. (1998). Health locus of control and health behavior. Journal of Health Psychology, 3 (2), 171-180.

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80 (1), 1.

Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43 (1), 56.

Saltzer, E. B. (1982). The weight locus of control (WLOC) scale: a specific measure for obesity research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46 (6), 620-628.

Stotland, S., & Zuroff, D. C. (1990). A new measure of weight locus of control: The Dieting Beliefs Scale. Journal of personality assessment, 54 (1-2), 191-203.

Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It’s beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960–2002. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 308–319.

Wallston, K. A., Strudler Wallston, B., & DeVellis, R. (1978). Development of the multidimensional health locus of control (MHLC) scales. Health education monographs, 6 (1), 160-170.

Wallston, K. A., & Wallston, B. S. (2004). Multidimensional health locus of control scale. Encyclopedia of health psychology, 171, 172.

Watson, M., Greer, S., Pruyn, J., & Van Den Borne, B. (1990). Locus of control and adjustment to cancer. Psychological Reports, 66 (1), 39-48.

Wood, W. D., & Letak, J. K. (1982). A mental-health locus of control scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 3 (1), 84-87.

Keep Learning

• Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28.
• Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American psychologist, 45(4), 489.
• Stotland, S., & Zuroff, D. C. (1990). A new measure of weight locus of control: The Dieting Beliefs Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54(1–2), 191–203.
• Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior