TOC Electronic Journal: To print this article select pages 11-20.

Deconstructing Locus of Control: Implications for

Practitioners

Lawrence I. Marks

Locus of control is demonstrated as being an important individual belief for counselors to consider in their work. Western cultural
bias that has influenced the research with locus of control, and may influence how counselors conceptualize clients’ problems, is
the notion that internal control is always more desirable than exter nal control. Several areas of locus of control theory are re-
viewed, including sociocultural influences in the formation of the theory, cultural differences in locus of control, and differing
conceptualizations of the construct. In addition, selected research with locus of control and mental health is briefly reviewed.
Finally, important implications for practitioners are suggested.

I
ndividuals’ beliefs about the controllability of what
happens to them is a core element of their under-
standing of how they live in the world (Shapiro,
Schwartz, & Astin, 1996). In initial investigations of
these beliefs, clinical psychology researchers observed
that some clients changed their behavior more than others
after new experiences. The proposed variable to account
for this difference, known as locus of control, was the ex-
pectancy or belief about the reinforcements that follow a
behavior (Rotter, Seeman, & Liverant 1962). Those indi-
viduals with an internal locus of control believe that rein-
forcements are a result of personal effort, whereas indi-
viduals with an external locus of control believe that rein-
forcements occur as a result of forces outside their per-
sonal control.
Because of the significance of locus of control in deter-
mining behavior, research of this construct has proliferated
in the area of mental health as well as other fields (Lefcourt,
1982; Rotter, 1990). However, development and applica-
tion of the locus of control construct over the years has
been subject to the Western sociocultural emphasis that
taking or having personal control over situations is always
the best scenario. When this perspective is taken, practitio-
ners who consider the locus of control concept may subse-
quently conceptualize their work with clients inappropri-
ately. Applying the idea that having an internal locus of
control is always the most beneficial may be unfit for a
particular client. The appropriateness of individuals’ locus
of control beliefs may depend on cultural or situational
variables. If mental health practitioners choose to take lo-
cus of control into account in their work, they should un-
derstand and consider its construction and underlying mean-
ing. To this end, in a deconstruction of locus of control, I
explore the theory of locus of control, including sociocul-
tural influences, cultural differences, and conceptualizations.
A representative sample of the research in locus of control
and mental health is included to illustrate the relationship
between these variables and how locus of control has been
applied in counseling. Finally, on the basis of this review, I
suggest important implications for practitioners.
LOCUS OF CONTROL THEORY
Rotter’s (1954, 1966) concept of internal–external locus of
control has its foundation in social learning theory. Origi-
nally, Rotter (1966) distinguished between a belief in inter-
nal versus external control of reinforcement. To paraphrase
Rotter (1966), reinforcements following an action will be
understood by individuals with a belief in external control
as a direct consequence of luck, chance, or fate, whereas
individuals with a belief in internal control will perceive
these same reinforcements as being dependent on their own
ability or behavior. Essentially, this initial conception of lo-
cus of control concerned learning processes such that people
with a belief in internal control are more likely to change
their behavior following a positive or negative reinforce-
ment than are people with a belief in external control. For
behavior change to occur, however, the reinforcement must
be of value to the person. Individuals with an internal locus
of control experience reinforcements of value as more mean-
ingful or influential to them because they believe that they
have control over reinforcements; to increase or decrease

Lawrence I. Marks is currently a psychology intern in the Counseling Center at the University of Missouri–Columbia and a doctoral student in counseling
psychology in the Department of Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology at the University of Tennessee–Knoxville. Correspondence regarding this
article should be sent to Lawrence I. Marks, 119 Parker Hall, Counseling Center, University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211 (e-mail:
countrn4@showme.missouri.edu).

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 1998 • VOLUME 7 6 251

Marks
the reinforcement, they change their behavior. On the other
hand, individuals with an external locus of control are less
likely to change their behavior because they do not believe
that changing their behavior would have an effect on the
reinforcements. Instead, they believe that what happens to
them is primarily due to luck, chance, fate, or powerful others.
Rotter (1966) hypothesized that there are individual differ-
ences in the locus of control variable, that locus of control is
important in comprehending learning processes, and that lo-
cus of control influences behavior in many situations.
The question of why there was an interest in locus of
control has been answered in the early writings about the
topic by Rotter et al. (1962), who pointed out that “the
stimulus for studying such a variable has come from analy-
sis of patients in psychotherapy and from an attempt to
explain certain discrepancies in learning studies of perfor-
mance and extinction” (p. 474). Rotter and his colleagues
were interested in predicting how reinforcements alter be-
havior. Developing the concept of locus of control was a
useful way to explain these predictions. In addition, when
the behaviorist approach competed with the emerging
emphasis on cognitive psychology during the 1960s, devel-
opment of the locus of control concept was a way for social
learning theorists to combine behavioral learning and cog-
nitive theories (Rotter, 1975). With locus of control, they
explained how certain cognitions about control influence
behavior change. Researchers simultaneously were moving
away from emphasizing concepts of stable personality traits
to an interest in behavior change. Locus of control was one
notion that bridged this transition because it incorporated
an individual characteristic as a means of predicting behav-
ior change (Lefcourt, 1992).
After the introduction of locus of control theory, there
was a tremendous increase in research using the locus of
control concept, and it has continued to be widely used in
psychological research investigations. To illustrate, an early
bibliography of locus of control articles included over 1200
references (Thornhill, Thornhill, & Youngman, 1975). A
current computer search of psychological articles published
since January 1974, using locus of control as a descriptor,
yielded approximately 4000 entries. In his reviews, Rotter
(1975, 1990) suggested that this level of attention is re-
lated to the usefulness of locus of control in conceptualiz-
ing social problems and subsequent feelings of powerless-
ness among members of Western culture. Furthermore,
Rotter (1990) discussed four propositions that contribute
to the heuristic value of the locus of control construct: its
precise definition, its imbeddedness in a theory of behav-
ior, its methodological construction, and its initial publica-
tion as a thorough research monograph.
Rotter (1975) cautioned practitioners to avoid falsely as-
suming that characteristics of individuals with an internal
locus of control are all positive and qualities of individuals
with an external locus of control are all negative. This cau-
tion notwithstanding, research and practice in the area has
been biased by the popular assumption that a belief in in-
ternal control is more desirable than a belief in external
252 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 1998 • VOLUME 76
control (Evans, Shapiro, & Lewis, 1993; Furby, 1979). This
bias, as shown in this article, has resulted from the influ-
ence of Western cultural ideology.
Sociocultural Influences on Locus of Control
Western culture has always placed a high value on personal
autonomy, and this value has influenced the development
of the locus of control concept. In turn, the continued con-
centration within psychology on personal control is paral-
lel to society’s preoccupation with independence (Furby,
1979; Stam, 1987). Embedded in Rotter’s concept is the
Protestant ethic, which argues that “there is a correlation
between hard work and social achievement. . . . It is an
ethic of individual effort and has little if anything to say
about external, structural impediments to achievement”
(Sampson, 1983, p. 135). Indeed, researchers have shown
internality to be related to the Protestant ethic and tradi-
tional American values (Fink & Hjelle, 1973; Mirels &
Garrett, 1971; Rotter, 1975). This bias is resounded in
Lefcourt’s (1982) assertion, “Man must come to be more
effective and more able to perceive himself as the deter-
miner of his fate if he is to live comfortably with himself”
(p. 3). Furthermore, Wong and Sproule (1984) contended,
“Since the early 1960s, ‘control’ psychologists have been
busy demonstrating the importance of internal control. Their
main practical concern is how to enhance a person’s belief
in self-efficacy or internal control” (p. 354). The emphasis
on internality served to reinforce and perpetuate the un-
changing view of and assumptions about locus of control.
According to Gurin, Gurin, and Morrison (1978), the bias
toward internality was present in the 1960s as locus of con-
trol attained a distinction with the rise in new social pro-
grams and interventions. Belief in external control was
viewed as “a potentially critical problem among the lower
socioeconomic and minority groups who were the primary
targets of these interventions” (Gurin et al., 1978, p. 292).
In fact, these authors asserted that it is simply a coinci-
dence that Rotter’s locus of control concept (and scale)
became available at the same time social scientists were
interested in the role of powerlessness in certain societal
phenomena. A more appropriate measure may have assessed
individual’s ideological control (described below), a distinct
aspect of external locus of control. Explaining social prob-
lems from a control perspective placed responsibility for
managing social problems in the hands of those who per-
ceived themselves as having more power, or an internal locus
of control. Those who could provide opportunities eventu-
ally developed programs for those with physical handicaps,
for those in minority groups, and for individuals with other
disadvantages (Lefcourt, 1992).
Driven by the belief that internality is more desirable
than externality, researchers have continually found con-
firming evidence for their hypotheses. For example, Duke
and Nowicki (1974) reported internality in male college
juniors to be positively related to achievement. Nowicki
and Duke (1983) saw a theme in their sample of research

that internality and positive social characteristics were re-
lated. Internal locus of control for academic achievement
was positively related to achievement scores for a sample
of school children, even when controlling for gender, socio-
economic status, and ethnicity (Young & Shorr, 1986). Ac-
cording to a review by Renn and Vandenberg (1991), em-
ployees with an internal locus of control were rated higher
than those with an external locus of control on important
job variables, such as performance or satisfaction. Even
among mental health professionals, those with a greater
sense of internal control beliefs reported higher satisfac-
tion with their jobs and life and expected more favorable
outcomes for their clients (Koeske & Kirk, 1995).
The results of these studies are consistent in the belief
that internality is more favorable than externality; these find-
ings also conform to Western societal ideals. Because psy-
chological theory is influenced by cultural biases and pre-
vailing values (Gergen, 1985), it comes as no surprise that
the group with more power or control in society, higher
socioeconomic Euro-Americans, defines desired character-
istics that are adopted by researchers and practitioners. Con-
sequently, along with the findings of positive associations of
those with internal control beliefs compared with those with
external control beliefs, differences on measures of locus of
control have been reported between and among cultures.
Cultural Differences in Locus of Control
The focus on internality mirrors the demographics of North
American society. That is, internal locus of control is re-
ported more frequently in majority groups such as Euro-
Americans and members of higher socioeconomic status
(Gurin et al., 1978). Conversely, Lefcourt (1982) concluded
from his review that minority groups, such as African Ameri-
cans, Spanish Americans, and Native Americans, have been
found to hold external control beliefs more than Euro-
Americans. This difference, he suggested, is the result of
access to opportunity.
Suggesting that societal factors influence locus of con-
trol, Jensen, Olsen, and Hughes (1990) reported a signifi-
cant main effect for country of residence in their sample of
nine Western European countries. Bates and Rankin-Hill
(1994) cited Latin American societal and cultural factors
to account for their findings that Puerto Ricans and New
England Latinos scored higher on external control than non-
Latinos in their sample. Weisz, Rothbaum, and Blackburn
(1984) cited five studies, all published before 1982, that
reported scores for Japanese to be more external than for
Americans. Students in Denmark (a Western culture with
comprehensive social welfare programs) did not differ from
American students in overall internal control scores, but
significantly differed on many of the individual items on
the scale used. In addition, compared with themselves, Dan-
ish students thought individuals in the U.S. and West Ger-
many would be more internal, whereas American students
thought the Danes and West Germans maintained more
external control beliefs (Parsons, Schneider, & Hansen,
1970). Taken together, these studies demonstrate that locus
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 1998 • VOLUME 76
Deconstructing Locus of Control
of control beliefs vary across countries and that cultural
and societal factors often account for the differences.
Within cultural groups differences are also important to
consider, which may be explained by such factors as socio-
economic status or cultural identity. In a study of job train-
ing participants, Wenzel (1993) reported that Blacks en-
dorsed a belief in powerful others more than Whites
(Reader’s Note. The authors’ terms used in each study are
retained throughout this section.). All of the participants
were economically disadvantaged, which suggests these dif-
ferences were not related to economic status. However,
within cultures, it is likely that economic status does play a
role in beliefs about control. For example, among Hispanic
cultures, belief in external locus of control, also known as
cultural fatalism, is common (Comas-Díaz, 1993), and may
be stronger among individuals from a lower socioeconomic
class (Ross, Mirowsky, & Cockerham, 1983). The findings of
one study indicated that socioeconomic status was corre-
lated more strongly with locus of control than was ethnicity
in a sample of White, Black, and MexicanAmerican children
(Young & Shorr, 1986).
Regarding cultural identity, Martin and Hall (1992) con-
sidered locus of control and African Americans’ racial iden-
tity, with progression along a continuum related to increased
identity as an African American. An earlier stage of racial
identity was associated with a belief in chance or fate, and a
later stage of racial identity was associated with internal
control. Demonstrating the effects of acculturation on per-
ceptions of control, Padilla et al. (1985) reported that among
Japanese and Japanese American students, more first gen-
eration students endorsed beliefs in external control and
more third and later generation students scored higher on
internal control. In another study, greater perceived con-
trol was directly related to Asian Americans’ level of accul-
turation (Park & Harrison, 1995).
Associations between internality and higher socioeco-
nomic status and greater acculturation seems to support
the Euro-American cultural emphasis on having an inter-
nal locus of control. As shown, researchers frequently find
differences between cultures on locus of control scales. In
addition, as individuals become more acculturated to Ameri-
can culture, they may incorporate into their own beliefs
the American value of personal control. Differences within
and between countries seem to be a function of culture.
For example, in traditional Chinese culture, situation and
luck are seen as influencing success more than in American
culture (Wong & Piran, 1995). In Indian culture there is
less consideration of the individual as controlling reinforce-
ments and more emphasis on “cosmic order” (Kumar, 1986).
However, differences in locus of control scores between
cultural or other groups may also reflect important varying
conceptualizations of the locus of control construct.
Conceptualizations of Locus of Control
The design of studies of locus of control and subsequent
interpretations of results by researchers and practitioners
are influenced by differing conceptualizations of the con-
253
Marks
struct. Probably the most variability in conceptualization
comes from the different dimensions that have been hy-
pothesized concerning locus of control. Initially, Rotter
(1966) conceived locus of control as being multidimen-
sional; however, he operationalized locus of control as be-
ing unidimensional. He did not look for other factors em-
pirically because previous findings yielded only one factor
(Coombs & Schroeder, 1988). Assessing the multidimen-
sionality of locus of control is supported by factor analyses
of locus of control scales (e.g., Coombs & Schroeder, 1988;
Ganellen & Blaney, 1984; Garza & Widlak, 1977; Lefcourt,
1982; Mirels, 1970). In general, these studies have revealed
more than one factor and have revealed that certain factors
(i.e., aspects of external control) may be better predictors
of specific dependent variables.
A current multidimensional view is Levenson’s (1974,
1981; Levenson & Miller, 1976) separation of external be-
liefs into control by powerful others and fate or chance
control. According to Ganellen and Blaney (1984), Levenson
followed other investigators who suggested separating ex-
ternal control into dimensions of powerful others and
chance or luck. In fact, Rotter et al. (1962) had previously
suggested that there are four kinds of beliefs in external
control: belief that events occur because of luck or chance,
belief that events occur because of fate, belief that events
are controlled by powerful others, and belief that the world
is too complex to be predicted. Levenson (1974, 1981) hy-
pothesized that beliefs in control by powerful others lead
to different thoughts and behaviors than beliefs in control
by chance. According to Levenson’s (1981) conceptual-
ization, externality may reflect a belief in control by pow-
erful others that may express a genuine appraisal of certain
sociopolitical situations and not a maladjusted personality.
For example, after a period of democratization in Poland,
Polish university students scored slightly more internal on
overall locus of control, and significantly more internal on
a political control subscale compared to a matched sample
of Polish students surveyed before the political changes
began (Tobacyk, 1992). Thus, studies that use Rotter’s
(1966) unidimensional scale may be missing important fac-
tors that could be revealed with Levenson’s scale.
A useful conceptualization of locus of control is provided
by Gurin et al. (1978; Gurin, Gurin, Lao, & Beattie, 1969)
who proposed a differentiation between personal control,
which refers to individuals’ beliefs about their ability to
control events in their lives, and ideological control, which
refers to individuals’ beliefs about the potential for control
in their society at large. Gurin et al. (1978) found that this
distinction was made by all of their samples and was espe-
cially prominent in individuals of lower socioeconomic sta-
tus and in African Americans. Specifically, they insisted that
these groups’ high external scores were a function of per-
sonal control beliefs resulting from their experience with
discrimination, not their beliefs about the effects of a person’s
effort in society. Gurin et al. (1978) argued that scores of
greater externality on measures of locus of control among
254 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 1998 • VOLUME 76
minority groups were incorrectly interpreted in several re-
ports as demonstrating that “cultural values and beliefs in
external forces needed to be altered, when in fact their sense
of low personal control reflected a correct perception of a
harsh environment over which they had little control” (p.
292). That is, early evaluations did not distinguish between
personal and ideological aspects of control; thus, it was not
possible to demonstrate which factors actually accounted
for the observed differences in external control.
In their examination of locus of control, Wong and Sproule
(1984) offered valuable contributions to this literature. First,
they noted the importance of realism and idealism. When
locus of control was assessed, respondents’ reality consider-
ations tended to account for external scores and their ide-
als seemed to underlie internal scores. Second, the authors’
conceptualization of locus of control involved a dual di-
mensional view. Dual control, or shared responsibility, was
described in terms of internal and external control com-
pared with internal versus external control. They labeled
the unstudied group of individuals who understand con-
trol to be from both internal and external sources as
“bilocals.” That is, bilocals are individuals who strike a
healthy balance between their beliefs in internal and exter-
nal control. Although individuals falling in the middle of
the locus of control continuum were distinguished as a
notable group by Rotter et al. (1962), the possible mean-
ingfulness of this group has been largely ignored. Wong and
Sproule (1984) hypothesized that bilocals cope more ef-
fectively because they observe an optimal mix between
personal responsibility (internal control) and faith in ap-
propriate outside resources (external control). Emphasiz-
ing the importance of both internal and external aspects of
control instead of focusing only on the benefits of being
internal or the distresses associated with being external is a
sensible alternative to prevailing views of locus of control.
With this multidimensional focus has come the perspec-
tive that to have external control beliefs is not necessarily
dysfunctional. An external belief may be derived from pow-
erful others, in which a potential for control exists, as op-
posed to chance, as in Levenson’s (1981) description. Simi-
larly, Gurin et al.’s (1978) personal control, in which the
individual is making accurate judgments about situations
as opposed to ideological control, may account for an ex-
ternal belief. Moreover, bilocals may be better adjusted than
controllers (those with internal control beliefs) and
controllees (those with external control beliefs) in many
ways (Wong & Sproule, 1984). Alternatively, an external
locus of control may be reflecting cultural values or beliefs
as described above. Having an external locus of control may
be an effective or adaptive way of believing and function-
ing in certain situations or cultures.
In an interesting analysis of control in American and Japa-
nese cultures, Weisz et al. (1984) offered a distinction be-
tween primary and secondary control. In primary control,
individuals influence existing realities, whereas in secondary
control, individuals accommodate to existing realities. Weisz

et al. described four forms of secondary control: predictive
(preparing for future events and their impact), vicarious
(enhancing one’s sense of control by aligning with power-
ful others), illusory (enhancing acceptance of chance or fate),
and interpretive (altering perspectives of reality in order to
understand the meaning of events). They demonstrated the
emphasis on primary control in American-Western culture
and the reliance on secondary control in Japanese culture,
and they noted both positive and negative connotations of
each form of control in the cultures. Primary control in
America, for example, was associated with autonomy and
self-expression, but also self-absorption and loneliness. Sec-
ondary control in Japan was associated with self-discipline
and attentiveness but also with excessive conformity and
oversensitivity. The parallel between primary and second-
ary and internal and external is evident. Primary and inter-
nal control place the person as having responsibility for
acting on the environment. Secondary and external control
have the person adjust to being acted upon by the environ-
ment. Although Weisz et al. suggested that both forms of con-
trol are important, they did not escape the Western bias dis-
cussed earlier. Labeling external control as secondary seems
to connote an inferior way of being (Shapiro et al., 1996).
A final and important consideration for practitioners with
respect to the conceptualizations of locus of control is
whether it is used as a generalized expectancy or applied in
specific situations. Rotter (1966) noted the worth of devel-
oping precise measures for specific situations, especially in
practical applications. Using measures tailored for certain
populations with special concerns is preferable for maxi-
mizing predictions rather than using global assessments
(Lefcourt, 1982, 1991; Rotter, 1975). Schulz, Heckhausen,
and Locher (1991) suggested that generalized locus of con-
trol remains relatively stable over the life course, but per-
ceptions of control over specific domains may change (cf
Gatz & Karel, 1993). This finding and those of others (see
Thompson & Spacapan, 1991) indicate that domain spe-
cific measures may be more useful at times than global
measures. Calls for using goal-specific scales are prevalent
in the literature (e.g., Coombs & Schroeder, 1988; Lefcourt,
1981, 1991). Lefcourt (1991) described 18 goal-specific or
area-specific scales, such as the Marital Locus of Control
Scale (Miller, Lefcourt, & Ware, 1983), the Lau-Ware Health
Locus of Control Scale (Lau, 1982), and the Mental Health
Locus of Control Scale (Hill & Bale, 1980). Knowledge of
the various conceptualizations and dimensions of the locus
of control construct will be useful to practitioners when
evaluating results of studies with locus of control and men-
tal health.
RESEARCH WITH LOCUS OF CONTROL AND MENTAL HEALTH
Because locus of control was first conceived by examining
clinical patients and because, historically, internality has been
associated with better adjustment, the relationship between
locus of control and mental health is particularly germane.
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 1998 • VOLUME 76
Deconstructing Locus of Control
To give practitioners a sample of how locus of control has
been applied to mental health and counseling, a brief re-
view of the general and replicated findings is presented here.
Typically the relationship between locus of control and
mental health is examined by having the participant com-
plete a written locus of control measure (e.g., Internal-Ex-
ternal Locus of Control Scale; Rotter, 1966; Internality, Pow-
erful Others, and Chance Scales; Levenson, 1974; Adult
Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale; Nowicki
& Duke, 1974), along with one or more measures of psy-
chological health, also usually self-report, such as the Beck
Depression Inventory (Beck, 1967) or the anxiety and de-
pression subscales of the Symptom Checklist-90-
Revised(SCL-90-R; Derogatis, Rickels, & Rock, 1976). Col-
lege students tend to be the most common research partici-
pants, but psychiatric patients and the general population
also have been studied (Benassi, Sweeney, & Dufour, 1988).
Research findings include significant correlations between
endorsing external locus of control and higher levels of
psychological distress (Holder & Levi, 1988; Petrosky &
Birkimer, 1991) as well as higher levels of abnormal per-
sonal functioning (Brannigan, Rosenberg, & Loprete, 1977;
Lefcourt, 1982). High levels of stress have been shown to
moderate the correlations between belief in external control
and vulnerability to depression (Ganellen & Blaney, 1984). In
a review of research in this area, Benassi et al. (1988) reported
a mean effect size of .31, indicating higher levels of external
control are associated with increased levels of depression. Simi-
lar results were obtained by Presson and Benassi (1996). Among
individuals diagnosed with major depression and taking anti-
depressants, those who also had internal control beliefs re-
garding their health showed greater improvement than those
who had external health locus of control beliefs (Reynaert,
Janne, Vause, Zdanowicz, & Lejeune, 1995). Furthermore, ex-
ternality was shown to be correlated with poorer coping
(Vickers, Conway, & Haight, 1983) as measured by scales of
coping and defense mechanisms developed by Joffe and
Naditch (1977). Suggesting that men with an internal locus
of control cope more effectively, Krause and Stryker (1984)
reported that an internal locus of control buffered the psycho-
physiological effects of stressful events in their sample of
middle-aged men.
Similar findings have been reported in cross-cultural re-
search. In comparing African, Black American, and White
American college students, Helms and Giorgis (1980) found
that external locus of control scores were correlated with
anxiety only for Black students. In a sample of low-income
African American women diagnosed with depression or
schizophrenia, externality was correlated with severity of
disturbance (Goodman, Cooley, Sewell, & Leavitt, 1994).
Lester, Castromayor, and Icli (1991) reported a modest as-
sociation between external locus of control scores and de-
pression among students in the Philippines and students in
Turkey. In samples of students from Hong Kong, India, and
the United States, external locus of control was correlated with
chronic self-destructiveness (Kelley et al., 1986). Furthermore,
255
Marks
Boor (1976) analyzed studies measuring locus of control in
various countries and correlated the results with national sui-
cide rates, concluding that “cultures that foster high percep-
tions of external control also foster high suicide rates” (p. 144).
These findings have prompted investigators to study the
role of locus of control in counseling. Nowicki and Duke
(1978) showed that, as a group, clients with personal prob-
lems had more external locus of control beliefs than clients
presenting vocational concerns or those who were not cli-
ents. In addition, individuals with an internal locus of con-
trol participated in counseling for a shorter time and dem-
onstrated better improvement than did those with an ex-
ternal locus of control. In terms of matching locus of con-
trol beliefs to therapeutic approaches, there have been con-
flicting findings. From their comparison of two counseling
formats, Kilmann, Albert, and Sotile (1975) suggested that
individuals with an internal locus of control may benefit
most from unstructured counseling approaches, and those
with an external locus of control may benefit more from
structured approaches. In a study with high school students,
Trice (1990) suggested that highly structured interventions
may be more suitable for those with an external locus of
control. She also found that, in general, students with a
higher internal locus of control score tended to be more
compliant with the interventions. When treatment prefer-
ence is used as the dependent measure, however, different
results are obtained. After viewing videos portraying a coun-
seling session in which a body image disturbance problem
was discussed, female college students with an external lo-
cus of control tended to favor nondirective counselors more
than directive counselors, whereas women with an internal
locus of control preferred directive counselors more. These
findings were true only for women in the sample with el-
evated symptoms of body image disturbance (Vincent &
LeBow, 1995). In a study of college students’ preferences
for group counseling, Kilmann (1974) reported, contrary
to his predictions, that participants with an external locus
of control preferred a group described as having a shared
leadership style more than a group described as having a
controlled style, and participants with an internal locus of
control tended not to indicate such a preference. The in-
congruity between these last two findings and the previous
two may result from the use of a generalized locus of con-
trol measure in all four studies, as opposed to a counseling
specific measure. In addition, Vincent and LeBow (1995)
and Kilmann (1974) assessed treatment preference, a some-
what different dependent variable than treatment outcome.
Recognizing the salience of locus of control in counsel-
ing, Hill and Bale (1980, 1981) constructed two counsel-
ing-specific measures. The Mental Health Locus of Control
Scale is a bipolar scale designed to measure clients’ percep-
tions about who has control in interactions between them-
selves (internal) and practitioners (external). The Mental
Health Locus of Origin Scale is a bipolar measure concerned
with clients’ beliefs about whether the causes of maladap-
tive behavior lie in physiological factors (endogenous) or
interactions between a person and the environment (inter-
256 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 1998 • VOLUME 76
actional). Clients scoring high on the interactional dimen-
sion tend to believe that it is beneficial for clients to have an
active role in counseling and to accept responsibility. Those
clients who score high on the endogenous dimension tend
to believe in a relatively more passive role for the client
(Hill & Bale, 1980). Development of these scales is consis-
tent with the conceptualization that assessing specific ar-
eas of control as opposed to global notions of control is the
most beneficial (Lefcourt, 1982, 1991; Rotter, 1975). How-
ever, reported use of these counseling-specific scales in re-
search or practice seems to be rare (see Lefcourt, 1991).
Nonetheless, the aforementioned summaries demonstrate
agreement with other researchers’ (Hill & Bale, 1980;
Sandler, Reese, Spencer, & Harpin, 1983) conclusions that
locus of control is a significantly influential variable in the
counseling process.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS
As the emphasis on internal control has biased the hypoth-
eses of researchers, it also has influenced the concep-
tualizations of effective counseling methods. An internal
locus of control seems to be a type of “moral vision” of
Western counseling approaches (Christopher, 1996). For
example, defining and exploring an individual’s perceptions
of control and enhancing self-control seem to be integral
aspects of counseling theories, such as cognitive and behav-
ioral approaches (Corsini & Wedding, 1989). Recently,
Strong, Yoder, and Corcoran (1995) asserted that encour-
aging clients to strengthen personal powers is fundamental
in counseling, implying that all clients should strive for an
internal locus of control. Some have suggested that increas-
ing internal control is a primary goal of all counseling ap-
proaches (Frank, 1982; Strupp, 1970). Having an internal
locus of control has been repeatedly associated with sound
mental health, and thus, when appropriate, interventions
that increase internal locus of control within clients can be
beneficial (e.g., Cochran & Laub, 1994; Connolly, 1980;
Husa, 1982). Furthermore, clients with an internal locus of
control may be more motivated to work on their issues
because they see themselves as the determiner of change
(Neeman, 1995).
However, as the previously discussed research also indi-
cates, beliefs about control may vary with the situation as
well as within and between cultures. Thus, counselors need
to consider how a client’s culture might influence his or
her beliefs about locus of control. As prevously noted,
differences in locus of control have been found between
and within various cultural groups. These differences may
stem from socioeconomic status or level of accultura-
tion. An external locus of control score may be accounted
for by one or several factors including beliefs about fate,
beliefs about social-political matters, beliefs about power-
ful others, beliefs about luck or chance, beliefs about po-
tential for control, or beliefs about cultural or family values
(Garza & Widlak, 1977; Gurin et al., 1978; Levenson, 1974,
1981; Rotter et al., 1962).

Knowing what accounts for cultural differences in lo-
cus of control, practitioners might then be able to work
with control beliefs in their clients in a more appropriate
and useful way. When counselors consider the underlying
meaning of a client’s locus of control, they are in a better
position for determining how functional these beliefs are.
For example, a client from a Middle Eastern culture is likely
to view fate as a determiner of his or her life. The actions of
this client may be interpreted by a counselor as passive and
dysfunctional. If the counselor takes time to explore these
culture laden beliefs with the client, the client will very
likely feel uniquely understood and supported and then
perhaps be in a position to explore how these beliefs are
helpful at times and how these beliefs differ from those of
a Western culture.
Counselors should avoid globally applying the idea that
internality is always the most beneficial by weighing
ethnicity and other demographic factors. For example, the
way of relating to others in Japanese culture may be viewed
as emphasizing an external locus of control and may carry
with it negative associations, but this secondary control is
very much a part of Japanese culture. In Japanese thera-
peutic approaches, a main goal is either to accept the symp-
toms (Morita therapy) or understand the symptoms through
reinterpretation (Naikan therapy), both strengthening sec-
ondary control (Weisz et al., 1984). To illustrate, suppose
an Asian male college student with an external locus of
control is presenting with symptoms of depression. The
counselor might consider emphasizing the various forms
of secondary control (Weisz et al., 1984) with this client,
or the counselor might begin by discussing with the client
that certain strategies may be helpful, such as cognitive or
psychopharmacological interventions, rather than beginning
by recommending these interventions from the start (Tho-
mas & Althen, 1989). Again, being sensitive to this client’s
cultural identity is important (Sodowsky, Kwan, & Pannu,
1995). In general, to suggest that one means of control (i.e.,
primary or secondary) is always better than another is in-
appropriate. At the same time, considering different means
of achieving control in comparison to what one usually does
is sure to advance personal growth (Weisz et al., 1984).
One key to how either internal (or primary) or external
(or secondary) control beliefs might be of avail in a culture
is the consistency of these beliefs. That is, having a constant
way of explaining what happens to oneself may provide a
sense of stability and predictability, which can be comfort-
ing. Locus of control beliefs tend to be formed beginning in
early childhood and are influenced by early learning experi-
ences, access to opportunities, and family cultural values
(Lefcourt, 1980). These familiar, internalized beliefs may
stay with individuals through their development. Practitio-
ners might discuss with clients how their control beliefs are
related to their culture or upbringing, how these beliefs are
manifested, and how these beliefs are meaningful to the in-
dividual. In addition, practitioners might explore how clients’
flexibility or firmness of locus of control beliefs is helpful to
them. Together, the client and counselor can consider how an
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 1998 • VOLUME 76
Deconstructing Locus of Control
individual’s locus of control beliefs are a strength and whether
they can be altered in certain situations.
Clients’ beliefs about current perceptions of control and
beliefs about potential for control is another aspect for prac-
titioners to assess (Gurin et al., 1978). This information
would very likely be important for therapeutic change to
occur. For example, a counseling approach should differ if
an external belief is accounted for by accurate judgments
about a situation versus general beliefs about the potential
for control. Understanding clients’ beliefs about ideologi-
cal control, such as the role of fate in their life, may be
particularly important to consider with ethnically diverse
clients. The distinction between personal and ideological
control suggests that perhaps because of their experiences,
some individuals, especially minorities, may have learned
to hold external locus of control beliefs. This idea is analo-
gous to Seligman’s (1975) theory of learned helplessness.
For example, if an African American female client present-
ing with career issues has an external locus of control, ac-
counted for by her experiences with discrimination, then
strategies that acknowledge her experience and empower
her to take steps at seeking out, obtaining, maintaining, or
advancing a career may be beneficial. The counselor also
should use strategies that are sensitive to this client’s cul-
tural identity (e.g., Wilson & Stith, 1993; Young, 1993).
Although a generalized expectancy of control beliefs may
be stable over time, changing circumstances and continual
appraisals by the individual will most likely influence be-
liefs about locus of control, particularly in specific situa-
tions. It is plausible that some individuals’ beliefs about how
much control they have over events happening in their life
at the present time might differ from their beliefs about
how much control they may have over these same events if
they were to occur in their past or in their future. Reasons
behind these altering expectancies may be an issue to ad-
dress in counseling, particularly within a developmental
framework. For example, a freshman at a large university
may overly rely on her advisors, instructors, friends, or par-
ents for direction and assistance and take a passive role in
her education and social interactions because this is how
she approached situations in her hometown. A counselor
might encourage her to begin developing assertiveness skills
and begin seeing that she can influence, or feel internal con-
trol regarding her academic performance; in the student’s
new environment, these would be appropriate developmen-
tal changes for her.
Development of the counseling-specific locus of control
scales by Hill and Bale (1980, 1981) has been a vital step to
understanding the role of clients’ beliefs about control in
the counseling setting. As previously noted, there are equivo-
cal results concerning which treatment strategy fits best with
which belief style. Use of the counseling-specific locus of
control measures, rather than a generalized locus of control
measure, in assessing control beliefs might be of greater use
to practitioners interested in matching treatment with cli-
ent beliefs about counseling. Outcomes may be enhanced
when treatment fits with clients’ preferences for a counsel-
257
Marks
ing approach (Thompson & Campbell, 1992). It makes sense
for practitioners to consider clients’ mental health locus of
control in addition to their generalized locus of control when
devising treatment strategies. In this approach, the treat-
ment might give more responsibility to the client who has
an internal locus of control and might more judiciously in-
troduce clients to taking responsibility or emphasize other
means of coping for clients with external beliefs. This view
has already been implemented in some medical treatments,
such as cancer screening behaviors (Bundek, Marks, &
Richardson, 1993) and recovery from myocardial infarc-
tion (Cromwell, Butterfield, Brayfield, & Curry, 1977).
Rather than considering internal control and healthy func-
tioning as linear, it seems to be more appropriate to take an
interactional perspective that matches control beliefs to en-
vironmental demands in determining what is most func-
tional (Evans et al., 1993). Wong and Sproule (1984) ad-
dressed how people might be able to modify their percep-
tions of control to fit situational demands. Wong and Sproule
suggested that bilocals have this adaptability by incorpo-
rating external and internal control into their philosophy.
This idea diverged from the either-or view of locus of con-
trol by suggesting cognizance of the strengths and limita-
tions of both internal and external control. This holistic
approach seems to be a recurring theme in psychological
literature today. In another instance, Weisz et al. (1984)
discussed the blending of primary and secondary control,
noting that flexibility is required to be the most adaptive
for a given set of circumstances.
This view is consistent with research demonstrating that
goodness of fit between appraisal of control and coping strat-
egies is associated with effective coping (Forsythe &
Compas, 1987). Perhaps healthy individuals facing stress-
ful events are able to accurately assess their level of control
in situations, and they have the flexibility in coping strate-
gies to draw on the most effective intervention. Counselors
could use this information by addressing clients’ percep-
tions of control with an issue or problem and the reasons
for their beliefs. Clients might be encouraged to develop
bilocal views in which their control beliefs are not dichoto-
mous. Preventive and rehabilitative interventions could fo-
cus on problem-solving coping when there is a high level
of control or on emotion-focused coping when control is
low (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Schwartz & Rogers, 1994).
As has been demonstrated in this article, locus of control
is a significantly influential variable in the counseling pro-
cess (Hill & Bale, 1980; Sandler et al., 1983) and may be
especially important to consider when working with cul-
turally diverse clients (Martin & Hall, 1992; Oler, 1989). It
should be emphasized that locus of control is only one as-
pect of a person’s belief system and should be considered
along with the broader personality of an individual. For
example, locus of control has been included as only one of
several influential factors when examining college adjust-
ment (Mooney, Sherman, & Lo Presto, 1991), women’s cop-
ing with infertility (Fouad & Fahje, 1989), and life satisfac-
258 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 1998 • VOLUME 76
tion (Lewis & Borders, 1995). Counselors should be aware
of their own values regarding control beliefs, especially their
beliefs about control in clients different from them (e.g., in
terms of culture). With this in mind, counselors should make
an effort to gain an understanding of clients’ views about
control, be accepting of clients’ cultural values regarding
control, and discuss these beliefs with clients. Counselors
also might suggest the multiple ways to think about con-
trol when appropriate, explore how clients’ notions of con-
trol fit with their concerns, and examine how clients’ be-
liefs about control might be used in facilitating change and
enhancing functioning and growth.
REFERENCES
Bates, M. S., & Rankin-Hill, R. (1994). Control, culture and chronic
pain. Social Science & Medicine, 39, 629–645.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical experimental, and theoretical as-
pects. New York: Harper & Row.
Benassi, V. A., Sweeney, P. D., & Dufour, C. L. (1988). Is there a relation
between locus of control orientation and depression? Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, 97, 357–367.
Boor, M. (1976). Relationship of internal-external control and national
suicide rates. Journal of Social Psychology, 100, 143–144.
Brannigan, G. G., Rosenberg, L. A., & Loprete, L. J. (1977). Internal-
external expectancy, maladjustment and psychotherapeutic interven-
tion. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 71–78.
Bundek, N. I., Marks, G., & Richardson, J. L. (1993). Role of health locus
of control beliefs in cancer screening of elderly Hispanic women. Health
Psychology, 12, 193–199.
Christopher, J. C. (1996). Counseling’s inescapable moral visions. Jour-
nal of Counseling & Development, 75, 17–25.
Cochran, L., & Laub, J. (1994). Becoming an agent: Patterns and dynamics
for shaping your life. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Comas-Díaz, L. (1993). Hispanic Latino communities: Psychological
implications. In D. R. Atkinson, G. Morten, & D. W. Sue (Eds.), Coun-
seling American minorities: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 245–263).
Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Connolly, S. G. (1980). Changing expectancies: A counseling model based
on locus of control. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 59, 176–180.
Coombs, W. N., & Schroeder, H. E. (1988). Generalized locus of control:
An analysis of factor analytic data. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 9, 79–85.
Corsini, R. J., & Wedding, D. (1989). Current psychotherapies (4th ed.).
Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Cromwell, R. L., Butterfield, E. C., Brayfield, F. M., & Curry, J. J. (1977).
Acute myocardial infarction: Reaction and recovery. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Derogatis, L. R., Rickels, K., & Rock, A. F. (1976). The SCL-90 and the
MMPI: A step in the validation of a new self-report scale. British Jour-
nal of Psychiatry, 128, 280–289.
Duke, M. P., & Nowicki, S. (1974). Locus of control and achievement—
the confirmation of a theoretical expectation. The Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 87, 263–267.
Evans, G. W., Shapiro, D. H., & Lewis, M. A. (1993). Specifying dysfunc-
tional mismatches between different control dimensions. British Journal
of Psychology, 84, 255–273.
Fink, H. C., & Hjelle, L. A. (1973). Internal-external control and ideol-
ogy. Psychological Reports, 33, 967–974.
Forsythe, C. J., & Compas, B. E. (1987). Interaction of cognitive apprais-
als of stressful events and coping: Testing the goodness of fit hypoth-
esis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 473–485.
Fouad, N. A., & Fahje, K. K. (1989). An exploratory study of the psycho-
logical correlates of infertility on women. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 68, 97–101.

Frank, J. D. (1982). Therapeutic components shared by all psychothera-
pies. In J. H. Harvey & M. M. Parks (Eds.), Psychotherapy research and
behavior change (Master lecture series, Vol. 1, pp. 9–37). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Furby, L. (1979). Individualistic bias in studies of locus of control. In A. R.
Buss (Ed.), Psychology in social context (pp. 169–190). NewYork: Irvington.
Ganellen, R. J., & Blaney, P. H. (1984). Stress, externality, and depres-
sion. Journal of Personality, 52, 326–337.
Garza, R. T., & Widlak, F. W. (1977). The validity of locus of control
dimensions for Chicano populations. Journal of Personality Assessment,
41, 635–643.
Gatz, M., & Karel, M. J. (1993). Individual change in perceived control over
20 years. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 305–322.
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern
psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.
Goodman, S. H., Cooley, E. L., Sewell, D. R., & Leavitt, N. (1994). Lo-
cus of control and self-esteem in depressed, low-income African Ameri-
can women. Community Mental Health, 30, 259–269.
Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R. C., & Beattie, M. (1969). Internal-external
control in the motivational dynamics of Negro youth. Journal of So-
cial Issues, 25(3), 29–53.
Gurin, P., Gurin, G., & Morrison, B. M. (1978). Personal and ideological
aspects of internal and external control. Social Psychology, 41, 275–296.
Helms, J. E., & Giorgis, T. W. (1980). A comparison of the locus of control
and anxiety level of African, Black American, and White American col-
lege students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 21, 503–509.
Hill, D. J., & Bale, R. M. (1980). Development of the Mental Health
Locus of Control and Mental Health Locus of Origin scales. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 44, 148–156.
Hill, D. J., & Bale, R. M. (1981). Measuring beliefs about where psycho-
logical pain originates and who is responsible for its alleviation: Two
new scales for clinical researchers. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research
with the locus of control construct (Vol. 1, pp. 281–320). New York:
Academic Press.
Holder, E. E., & Levi, D. J. (1988). Mental health and locus of control:
SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
44, 753–755.
Husa, H. E. (1982). The effects of rational self-counseling on college stu-
dents’ locus of control. Journal of College Student Personnel, 23, 304–307.
Jensen, L., Olsen, J., & Hughes, C. (1990). Association of country, sex,
social class, and life cycle to locus of control in western European
countries. Psychological Reports, 67, 199–205.
Joffe, P., & Naditch, M. P. (1977). Paper-and-pencil measures of coping
and defense processes. In N. Haan (Ed.), Coping and defending: Pro-
cesses of self-environment organization (pp. 280–297). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Kelley, K., Cheung, F. M., Rodriguez-Carrillo, P., Singh, R., Wan, C. K.,
Becker, M. A., & Eberly, C. (1986). Chronic self-destructiveness and
locus of control in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 126, 573–577.
Kilmann, P. R. (1974). Locus of control and preference for type of group
counseling. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 226–227.
Kilmann, P. R., Albert, B. M., & Sotile, W. M. (1975). Relationship be-
tween locus of control, structure of therapy, and outcome. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 588.
Koeske, G. F., & Kirk, S. A. (1995). Direct and buffering effects of inter-
nal locus of control among mental health professionals. Journal of So-
cial Science Research, 20, (3/4), 1–28.
Krause, N., & Stryker, S. (1984). Stress and well-being: The buffering role
of locus of control beliefs. Social Science and Medicine, 18, 783–790.
Kumar, S. K. K. (1986). Are Indians trans-personal in locus of control
belief?—I. Indian Journal of Behaviour, 10(4), 25–31.
Lau, R. R. (1982). Origins of health locus of control beliefs. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 322–334.
Lazarus, R. L., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
York: Springer.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1980). Locus of control and coping with life’s events.
In E. Staub (Ed.), Personality: Basic aspects and current research (pp.
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 1998 • VOLUME 76
Deconstructing Locus of Control
200–235). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lefcourt, H. M. (Ed.). (1981). Research with the locus of control construct
(Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and
research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1991). Locus of control. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver,
& L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psycho-
logical attitudes (pp. 413–499). New York: Academic Press.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1992). Durability and impact of the locus of control
construct. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 411–414.
Lester, D., Castromayor, I. J., & Icli, T. (1991). Locus of control, depres-
sion, and suicidal ideation among American, Philippine, and Turkish
students. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 447–449.
Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within
the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 38, 377–383.
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful oth-
ers, and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of
control construct (Vol. 1, pp. 15–63). New York: Academic Press.
Levenson, H., & Miller, J. (1976). Multidimensional locus of control in
sociopolitical activists of conservative and liberal ideologies. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 199–208.
Lewis, V. G., & Borders, L. D. (1995). Life satisfaction of single middle-aged
professional women. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 94–100.
Martin, J. K., & Hall, G. C. N. (1992). Thinking Black, thinking internal,
thinking feminist. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 509–514.
Miller, P. C., Lefcourt, H. M., & Ware, E. E. (1983). The construction
and development of the Miller Marital Locus of Control Scale. Cana-
dian Journal of Behavioral Science, 15, 266–279.
Mirels, H. L. (1970). Dimensions of internal versus external control.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 226–228.
Mirels, H. L., & Garrett, J. (1971). The Protestant ethic as a personality
variable. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 40–44.
Mooney, S. P., Sherman, M. F., & Lo Presto, C. T. (1991). Academic locus of
control, self-esteem, and perceived distance from home as predictors of
college adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 445–448.
Neeman, L. (1995). Using the therapeutic relationship to promote an
internal locus of control in elderly mental health clients. Journal of
Gerontological Social Work, 23, (3/4), 161–176.
Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1974). A locus of control scale for noncollege
as well as college adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 136–137.
Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1978). Examination of counseling variables within
a social learning framework. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 1–7.
Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1983). The Nowicki-Strickland Life-Span
Locus of Control Scales: Construct validation. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.),
Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 2, pp. 9–51). New
York: Academic Press.
Oler, C. H. (1989). Psychotherapy with Black clients’ racial identity and
locus of control. Psychotherapy, 26, 233–241.
Padilla, A. M., Wagatsuma, Y., Lindholm, K. J. (1985). Acculturation and
personality as predictors of stress in Japanese and Japanese-Ameri-
cans. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 295–305.
Park, S. E., & Harrison, A. A. (1995). Career-related interests and values,
perceived control, and acculturation of Asian-American and Cauca-
sian-American college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
25, 1184–1203.
Parsons, O. A., Schneider, J. M., & Hansen, A. S. (1970). Internal-external
locus of control and national stereotypes in Denmark and the United
States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 30–37.
Petrosky, M. J., & Birkimer, J. C. (1991). The relationship among locus of
control, coping styles, and psychological symptom reporting. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 47, 336–345.
Presson, P. K., & Benassi, V. A. (1996). Locus of control orientation and
depressive symptomatology: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behav-
ior and Personality, 11, 201–212.
Renn, R. W., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1991). Differences in employee atti-
tudes and behaviors based on Rotter’s (1966) internal-external locus
of control: Are they all valid? Human Relations, 44, 1161–1178.
259
Marks
Reynaert, C., Janne, P., Vause, M., Zdanowicz, N., & Lejeune, D. (1995).
Clinical trials of antidepressants: The hidden face: Where locus of
control appears to play a key role in depression outcome. Psychophar-
macology, 119, 449–454.
Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Cockerham, W. C. (1983). Social class, Mexi-
can culture, and fatalism: Their effects on psychological distress. Ameri-
can Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 383–399.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York:
Prentice-Hall.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus exter-
nal control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and
Applied, 80,(1, Whole No. 609).
Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the
construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 56–67.
Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A
case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45, 489–493.
Rotter, J. B., Seeman, M., & Liverant, S. (1962). Internal versus external
control of reinforcements: A major variable in behavior theory. In N. F.
Washburne (Ed.), Decisions, values and groups: Proceedings of a conference
held at the University of New Mexico (pp. 473–516). New York: Pergamon.
Sampson, E. E. (1983). Justice and the critique of pure psychology. New
York: Plenum Press.
Sandler, I., Reese, F., Spencer, L., & Harpin, P. (1983). Person x environ-
ment interaction and locus of control: Laboratory, therapy, and class-
room studies. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of con-
trol construct (Vol. 2, pp. 187–251). New York: Academic Press.
Schulz, R., Heckhausen, J., & Locher, J. L. (1991). Adult development, con-
trol, and adaptive functioning. Journal of Social Issues, 47(4), 177–196.
Schwartz, C. E., & Rogers, M. (1994). Designing a psychosocial interven-
tion to teach coping flexibility. Rehabilitation Psychology, 39, 57–72.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and
death. San Francisco: Freeman.
Shapiro, D. H., Schwartz, C. E., & Astin, J. A. (1996). Controlling our-
selves, controlling our world: Psychology’s role in understanding posi-
tive and negative consequences of seeking and gaining control. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 51, 1213–1230.
Sodowsky, G. R., Kwan, K. K., & Pannu, R. (1995). Ethnic identity of
Asians in the United States. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A.
Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counsel-
ing (pp. 123–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stam, H. J. (1987). The psychology of control: A textual critique. In H. J.
Stam, T. B. Rogers, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The analysis of psychological theory:
Metapsychological perspectives (pp. 131–156). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Strong, S., Yoder, B., & Corcoran, J. (1995). The 1993 Leona Tyler award
address: Counseling: A social process for constructing personal pow-
ers. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 374–384.
Strupp, H. H. (1970). Specific vs. non-specific factors in psychotherapy and
260 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 1998 • VOLUME 76
the problem of control. Archives of General Psychiatry, 23, 393–401.
Thomas, K., & Althen, G. (1989). Counseling foreign students. In P. B.
Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling
across cultures (3rd ed., pp. 205–241). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.
Thompson, C. L., & Campbell, S. B. (1992). Personal intervention pref-
erences for alleviating mild depression. Journal of Counseling & Devel-
opment, 71, 69–73.
Thompson, S. C., & Spacapan, S. (1991). Perceptions of control in vul-
nerable populations. Journal of Social Issues, 47(4), 1–21.
Thornhill, M. A., Thornhill, G. J., & Youngman, M. B. (1975). A comput-
erized and categorized bibliography on locus of control. Psychological
Reports, 36, 505–506.
Tobacyk, J. J. (1992). Changes in locus of control beliefs in Polish uni-
versity students before and after democratization. Journal of Social
Psychology, 132, 217–222.
Trice, A. D. (1990). Adolescents’ locus of control and compliance with
contingency contracting and counseling interventions. Psychological
Reports, 67, 233–234.
Vickers, R. R., Jr., Conway, T. L., & Haight, M. A. (1983). Association
between Levenson’s dimensions of locus of control and measures of
coping and defense mechanisms. Psychological Reports, 52, 323–333.
Vincent, N., & LeBow, M. (1995). Treatment preference and acceptabil-
ity: Epistemology and locus of control. Journal of Constructivist Psychol-
ogy, 8, 81–96.
Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M., & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out
and standing in: The psychology of control in America and Japan.
American Psychologist, 39, 955–969.
Wenzel, S. L. (1993). Gender, ethnic group, and homelessness as predic-
tors of locus of control among job training participants. Journal of
Social Psychology, 133, 495–505.
Wilson, L. L., & Stith, S. M. (1993). Culturally sensitive therapy with
Black clients. In D. R. Atkinson, G. Morten, & D. W. Sue (Eds.), Coun-
seling American minorities: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 101–111).
Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Wong, O. C., & Piran, N. (1995). Western biases and assumptions as
impediments in counseling traditional Chinese clients. Canadian Jour-
nal of Counselling, 29, 107–119.
Wong, P. T. P., & Sproule, C. F. (1984). An attributional analysis of the
locus of control construct and the Trent attribution profile. In H. M.
Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 3, pp.
309–360). New York: Academic Press.
Young, C. (1993). Psychodynamics of coping and survival of the African
American female in a changing world. In D. R. Atkinson, G. Morten,
& D. W. Sue (Eds.), Counseling American minorities: A cross-cultural
perspective (pp. 75–87). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Young, T. W., & Shorr, D. N. (1986). Factors affecting locus of control in
school children. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,
112, 405–417.