Internal or External Locus of Control?
In his development of Attribution Theory, Heider was concerned primarily with how
we understand the behaviour of others. His ideas were progressed in concepts like
Correspondent Inference Theory and Covariation Theory.
However, Julian B Rotter (1966) focused on how people attribute the reasons for their
own behaviour. From his research, Rotter concluded that people tend to have either:-
- an internal locus of control - ie: they decide what to do - the root of their behaviour
is dispositional
- an external locus of control - ie: their behaviour is shaped by external, situational
factors - eg: expectations
Rotter found that, while people do move along a continuum with total internal locus
and total external locus at its poles, they do tend overall to attribute one way
or the other.
(The concept of locus of control had actually been put forward slightly earlier by
Carl Rogers (1961), initially referring to it as ‘locus of evaluation’. Rogers hypothesised
the concept from case studies whereas Rotter’s research was based on extensive sample
groups, After Rotter published, Humanistic psychologists tended to used the ‘locus
of control’ term.)
Since the ‘cool’ vMEMES tend to run Externally Referenced meta-programmes, they can
be said to show an external locus of control; while the ‘warm’ vMEMES tend to Internally
Reference and thus show an internal locus of control. However, Rotter was convinced
from his research that there was an innate temperamental element in the tendency
to attribute. In terms of Dimensions of Temperament, those with a Choleric disposition
and those high in Psychoticism are likely to be more internal while Melancholic temperaments
and those low in Psychoticism (Impulse Control) are more likely to be external.
3 Dimensions of Attribution
Bernard Weiner (1980) was also interested in how people attribute success or failure
in their own actions. Building on Rotter’s work, he proposed a 3-dimensional model
of attribution:-
- Locus internal or external
- Stable or unstable - whether the behaviour was likely to change
- Controllable or uncontrollable - by the individual concerned
Clearly the development of the model was influenced by the Cognitive Triad which
Aaron T Beck had started to publicise. Weiner’s model adds the additional factor
of controllability. This provides an extra insight into whether someone attributes
dispositionally - ie: it’s within their control - or situationally - ie: it’s not
in their control in their locus. However, the attitude to whether the behaviour can
be controlled or not will be strongly influenced by the vMEME(s) dominating in the
selfplex at the time. Attitude towards control may also be affected by temperament
- especially in terms of whether someone is high or low in Psychoticism. The basic
attribution of either ‘internal’ or ‘external’ is, though, like Heider’s basic Attribution
Theory, simplistic when set against attributional style in the Cognitive Triad.
Carol S Dweck’s (1975) work with 12 children struggling academically illustrates
the importance of controllability. One group, given only positive feedback, were
more likely to give up, blaming lack of ability. However, another group, told they
were taking too long and needed to try harder, showed greater persistence and attributed
any failures to lack of effort.
Weiner’s model travels cross-culturally. Beatte Schuster, Friedrich Fosterlung &
Weiner (1989) tested it in Belgium, Germany, India, South Korea and England. All
the participants, apart from the Indians, rated the story of someone failing to get
a job in terms that equated to locus, stability and controllability. (The researchers
also added a fourth category of universality - does it influence only this or other
outcomes - which also figured prominently in explanations of the job seeker’s failure.)
Circles of Influence & Concern
Attribution Theory - and especially Weiner’s emphasis on controllability - underpins
Stephen Covey’s (1989) concept of Circle of Influence and Circle of Concern.
Those who tend to be dispositional in their outlook tend to focus on what they can
do (control) - their Circle of Influence - to influence the world around them - their
Circle of Concern. In so doing, they sometimes succeed in expanding their Circle
of Influence. They make things happen.
Those who tend to be situational rather focus on what the world around is doing to
them - ie: how their Circle of Concern impacts upon their Circle of Influence. They
see things happening as beyond their control. As a result, their Circle of Influence
often shrinks.
