MSU

LIBRARIES
m

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wil]
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TENDENCIES TO ASCRIBE
LOCUS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTELLECTUAL
ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN TWO GROUPS
OF MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS

By

Musa Isa Mohammad Barhoum

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1986

ABSTRACT

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE TENDENCIES TO ASCRIBE
LOCUS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTELLECTUAL
ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN TWO GROUPS
OF MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS

By

Musa Isa Mohammad Barhoum

The focal point of the study was to investigate if
statistically' significant differences existed between
two groups of students--those identified as "Emotionally
Impaired," and those identified as "Regular"--in terms
of their ascriptions of locus of responsibility
regarding both academic successes and failures.

The two groups of students, ages twelve to fifteen,
were: a group who \_v_e_r_e_ pg; "Emotionally Impaired" were
for purposes of this study identified as "Regular"
(n-27). The other group, drawn from the same papula-
tion, had been identified as "Emotionally Impaired"
(n-Zl) according to criteria established by P.L.

94-142. Both groups attended middle school in a

midwestern city.

Musa Isa Mohammad Barhoum

The Intellectual.[Achievement Responsibility Scale
was the tool used in estimating students' beliefs. A
high score represents internal responsibility, a low
score, external responsibility. The values of t test
were computed to determine if statistically significant
differences existed between groups on the means
compared. The values of z-score for items' proportions
were computed to determine if there were statistically
significant differences between the two groups on each
item.

According to study findings, no statistically
significant differences existed between the "Emotionally
Impaired" ‘and the "Regular" groups in terms of their
locus of responsibility ascription. Statistically signi-
ficant differences (alpha-.05), or differences close to
being significant (alpha-.07), between the two groups
were found on eleven of thirty-four items. Examination
of these item-by-item differences displayed a possible
tendency for greater proportions of E1 students to
ascribe locus of responsibility for intellectual achieve—

ment to external sources.

DEDICATION

To my parents, Sara and Isa, who gave a lot of their
time struggling to help their children get the best and
highest education possible, despite the poor conditions
and circumstances they were passing through. To my
brothers Ahmed and Mahmood, who sacrified for their

younger brothers.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my faithful gratitude to Dr.
Ben Bohnhorst, whose unrestrictive and yet instructive
supervision and guidance helped create this disserta-
tion. I also would like to thank my committee members,
Dr. Charles Blackman and Dr. Kenneth Neff, for their
encouragement. Special thanks to Dr. Eugene Pernell who
taught me twice, first when he made me take the
comprehensive, and second when he asked me to reformat
this dissertation according to the A.P.A. style.
Special thanks to the Ministry of Education in the
United Arab Emirates, and ex-minister of education Mr.
Saeed Salman for their generous scholarship, and Dr.
Aysheh Alsayyar and colleagues in the department of
educational services. My gratitude to the Barhoum
family, especially Yousef and Mohammad. I would like to
extend my thanks to my brother Khalil, his wife, Ann
Francis Barhoum, and their daughters Laura and Nadia for
their encouragement. Finally to my editor Terry Schmit,
for her editorial assistance. I would like to thank
Marilyn Higgins for her help, and the student coordina-
tor and the teachers who helped with this document.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O I O O O O O 0

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .

Purpose of the Study . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . .
Research Questions of the Study
The Rationale for the Study . .
Need for the Study . . . . . .
The Hypotheses . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . .
Overview of Remaining Chapters

BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RESEARCH

Introduction
Section One .
Section Two .
Section Three
Section Four
Section Five
Summary . .

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

General Design of the Study
Subjects . . . . . . . . .
The Instrument . . . .
Reliability of the Scale .
Procedure . . . . .

Data Collection and Scale
The Statistical Treatment .
Summary . . . . . . . . . .

cage-coo

>
O-
0050....

iv

F“

f?
ooflooooo
m

0 O "O O I I O

Ho

0000....

5

Page

vi

IV. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSES
Summary . . . . . . .

V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND

Summary of Objectives
Summary of Findings -
Discussion . . . . .

RECOMMENDATIONS

and Methods

Recommendations and Suggestions

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . .
A. The IAR Scale . . . .
B. The Consent Form . . .
C. The Instructions . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . .

Page

48
59
6O
6O
61
61
63
65
65
74

75

Table

1.

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of Respondents According
to Age 0 O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 0

Distribution of Respondents According
to Grade D O O O I O O O O O O O I O O O 0

Distribution of Respondents According
to Gender 0 O O O O O O O D I I O O O O 0

Patterns of Students' Responses to the
IAR scale Items 0 O C C C O C O C O O O C

Total Score of I: A Computational
Illustration of the t Test Results for
the Total Scores of a Group of "E1" and
a Group of "REG" Students . . . . . . . .

A Computational Illustration of z-values for
the IAR Scale's Thirty-Four Items . . . .

EI and REG Responses to IAR Items Selected

Because of Proportional Differences in
Response 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

Page

44

44

44

45

48

SO

57

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Study

This study contains findings comparing the data
gathered from two subsamples of middle school students.
The data were collected in November 1985 from a school
in a midwestern city (150,000+ population) in the United
States.

The sample of students, forty-eight in number, was
between the ages of twelve and fifteen years. Of these,
twelve were female, and twenty-six were male. Ten did
not specify their sex.

The subsamples of primary interest to this study,
however, were (a) a group of twenty-one students who had
been identified as "emotionally impaired" (ET) in accord-
ance with provisions of P.L. 94-142, and (b) a group of
twenty-seven students from the same school who had not
been so identified. The EI students were recipients of
specially designed programs, whereas the other twenty-
seven students received the "regular" curriculum of the

l

school. The latter will hereinafter be referred to as
regular (REG) students.

A considerable body of research and theory had been
develOped by 1985 regarding effective programming for E1
students. No previous study, however, had investigated
whether EI students differed from REG students in their
tendencies to ascribe responsibility for their academic
intellectual successes and failures to "internal
sources" (e.g., their own abilities, efforts, or capaci-
ties) or to "external sources" (e.g., luck, environment,
teachers, etc.).

The chief intent of the present study has been to
ascertain whether tendencies concerning these primary

ascriptions differ between the E1 and REG subgroups.

Statement of the Problem

If academic achievement correlates significantly
with an internal view of one's own responsibility for,
and effort involved in, intellectual achievement, then
it may be possible to attribute disrupted educational
performances among students identified as emotionally
impaired to their external ascriptions. If the study
demonstrated that students receiving special programming
because of their identification as EI tended to make
significantly more external ascriptions of intellectual
achievement responsibility than do the REG students,

this study might provide information that could impact

EI curriculum and instruction decisions. This could
include programs for skills and experiences to increase
the self-concept of E1 students and reinforce the notion
of a student's own efforts directly affecting success.
Furthermore, if discrimination between the two groups
regarding the internal/external ascriptions were made
using the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale
by Crandall, Katkovsky, and Preston (1962), then this
instrument might be considered for inclusion in the
assessment battery identifying students who need to
receive special help.

The hunch is that the student who perceives his/her
responsibility for intellectual achievement as contin-
gent on his/her own behavior tends to make better adjust-
ments, is inclined to cope better with the environment,
and such students do not as frequently show the charac-
teristics which might label them emotionally impaired.
On the other hand, the student who does not perceive
his/her behavior to be responsible for intellectual
achievement does not cope as successfully with his/her
environment and tends frequently to exhibit the charac-
teristics which may identify him/her as an emotionally
impaired student.

The research challenge for this study revolves
around discovering if there are discernible differences

in ascribing a responsible source for one's intellectual

achievement. The EI and the REG student's orientations
for academic success and failure were assessed using the

Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale (IAR).

Research Questions of the Study
The major research question for the study is:
Are there significant differences in the ascrip-

tion of intellectual achievement responsibility

between two groups of REG and EI students, ages
12 to 15?

Both groups were attending a middle school in the
midwest. Their responses were evaluated by the Intel-
lectual Achievement Responsibility Scale (IAR).

Answers to the following specific questions con-
cerning the sex of the respondents were also sought.
The reason for including sex as an independent variable
in this study is based on the fact, as revealed in the
review of the literature which is reported in Chapter
II, that sex has sometimes figured significantly in
previous studies.

1. Are there significant differences between the
males of the ET group and the males of the REC
group?

2. Are there significant differences between the
females of the EI group and the females of the
REC group?

3. Are there significant differences between males

and females of the BI group?

4. Are there significant differences between males
and females of the REC group?

5. Are there significant differences between the
males of the El and the females of the REG
group?

6. Are there significant differences between the
females of the E1 group and the males of the REC
group?

Finally, the IAR test provides scores which are
designated I+ (ascriptions of internal responsibility in
positive situations) and I- (ascriptions of internal
responsibility in negative situations). Analyses were
made to see if EI and REG students differ on these two
sets of scores as total subsets. Also z-test analyses
were made of E1 and REG responses to each item on the

IAR scale.

The Rationale for the Study

The relevance for this study is underscored by the
fact that programs designed to train children to alter
their ascriptions for causes of failures have been suc-
cessful, as stated by Dweck (1975). It would clearly be
more efficient and effective, Dweck said, to prevent the
develOpment of self-defeating ascriptions and expecta-
tions in the first place.

The importance of the knowledge of the ascription

trait is also stressed by Stipek and Hoffman (1980) who

suggested some educational implications. They say that
it is virtually impossible in any classroom to avoid
failure experiences for some children (particularly
since failure is often defined in terms of relative
performance). They claim it is also important that
teachers encourage children to attribute their failures
to factors over which they have control. They propose
that it is possible to teach children to change their
ascriptions for failure from ability to effort. Tech-
niques to reverse children's ascription biases should be
useful in preventing maladapted biases from developing
in younger children. They also suggest that teachers
begin to use these techniques from the onset of the
students' experiences in academic settings.

Crandall et al. (1962) mentioned studies suggesting
that reinforcement of responsibility beliefs hold the
promise of being predictive of individual differences in
reinforcement sensitivity, in attitudes, and in social
behavior. Lawrence and Winschel (1975) also contended
that internalizing the locus of control must become a
conscious goal in the education of handicapped children.
They go on to say that if handicapped children are to be
educated within regular school programs, educators must
maximize those intellectual and personal attributes
which will facilitate their acceptance by age peers and

increase their potential for academic success. They also

emphasize the importance of being aware of the develop-
mental aspects of locus of control. They claim that
awareness of the developmental aspects of locus of
control is a crucial need for educators, and call on
educators to promote this awareness in children, a
necessity they consider a progression toward internality
for both success and failure. They emphasize that we
must help the child see the causal relationship between
his performance and outcome and to assume responsibility
for both.

If it can be determined which condition of action
--ability, effort, intention, luck--is given the primary
weight for academic achievement among emotionally
impaired students, educators will be in a better posi-
tion to determine the focus of educational intervention.
It would be beneficial to know to what extent both EI
students and REG students link their own intellectual
achievement to external or internal forces. It would
also be useful to know how each of these two groups
differ in explaining their successes and failures.

Dweck and Reppucci (1975) saw that an instructional
program for children who have difficulty dealing with
failure would do well not to skirt the issue by trying
to insure success or by glossing over failure. Instead,
it should include procedures for dealing with this prob-

lem directly. They do not suggest that failure should

be included in great amounts or that failure, per se, is
desirable; rather, that errors should be capitalized on
as vehicles for teaching the child how to deal construc-
tively with failure.

If the above claims are valid, information about the
existence of external ascription of intellectual
achievement among EI students would presumably be useful
to the special education educator in planning interven-
tions. Such information should indicate whether the
focus of education should be directed toward ability,
effort, redesigning the task, or toward all of these
factors. The basic notion would be that if the person
perceives himself/herself as externally controlled, then
the emphasis of education should be directed toward
equipping the child with an internal locus of control,
alleviating self-responsibility for failure and
attributing it to insufficient effort, and teaching
him/her to perceive a causal relationship between one's

own behavior and the occurrence of the event.

Need for the Study
Since little research is available on comparing the
ascription trait between EI students and REG students,
it appeared that a study of the nature of the students'
ascriptions would be worth pursuing. It is important

that EI students be assessed on this trait and compared

to REG students. An attempt to make valid generaliza-

tions about the nature of their ascription trait would

also be beneficial.

The results, if positive, might prove to be valuable

in the following ways:

1.

Data obtained from this study could serve as a
basis for curriculum modification, focusing on
internality in specific areas. It could also
have implications for curriculum development,
instructional methods, and counseling.

The data concerning the ascription trait could
be utilized in training programs.

Data derived from this study could provide
helpful insights and information to special
educators in general.

This study could add to basic understanding of
the nature of students' ascriptions and their
perceptions (fl? their reinforcements, both
intrinsic and extrinsic.

This study may encourage Arab educators to
investigate the ascription trait among Arab
students, especially since some educators, like
Al-Azem (1969), referred to the phenomena of
external locus of responsibility as a chronic
sickness in the Arab world. Also, a scale for

adults was standardized by Barhoum (1979) and it

10

is in use in Jordan. Tillman and Lord (1975)
also employed a modified revision of the locus
of control scale to consider the origins and
sources of control orientations by comparing
subjects' scores along demographic dimensions
between two Egyptian and Tunisian samples.

6. Finally, the findings could inform and alert
educators to possible Intellectual Achievement
Responsibility differences between an EI and REG
student and help avoid any stereotypical
behaviors that might deter both educators and

learners from functioning appropriately.

The Hypotheses

 

The difference between the E1 students and the REG
students in their ascriptions of intellectual achieve-
ment responsibility is worth pursuing. It is possible
that students exposed to emotional problems would be
different from the REG, resulting in differences in
their ascriptions of responsibility for both academic
success and failure. Thus, the major null hypothesis
for this present investigation would be:

H01: There are no significant differences (at .05
level of significance) between groups of EI
and REG students in their mean scores
concerning their perceptions of intellectual
achievement responsibility.

Additional null hypotheses regarding sex differences

are as follows:

H02:

H03 :

H04:

H05:

H06:

H07:

11

There are no significant differences (at .05
level of significance) between the males of
the E1 group and the males of the REG group
in their mean scores on the Intellectual
Achievement Responsibility Scale (IAR).

There are no significant differences (at .05
level of significance) between the females of
the BI group and the females of the REC group
in their mean scores on the Intellectual
Achievement Responsibility Scale (IAR).

There are no significant differences (at .05
level of significance) between the males and
females of the "emotionally impaired" group
in their mean scores on the Intellectual
Achievement Responsibility Scale (IAR).

There are no significant differences (at .05
level of significance) between the males and
females of the REC group in their mean scores
on the Intellectual Achievement Responsi-
bility Scale (IAR).

There are no significant differences (at .05
level of significance) between the males of
the E1 group and the females of the REC group
in their mean scores on the Intellectual
Achievement Responsibility Scale (IAR).

There are no significant differences (at .05
level of significance) between the females of
the BI group and the males of the REG group
in their mean scores on the Intellectual
Achievement Responsibility Scale (IAR).

Finally, null hypotheses regarding I+/I- scores and

z-test analyses of each item are as follows:

H08 :

H09:

H10:

There are no significant differences (at .05
level of significance) between EI and REG
students in their Mean I+ scores on the IAR.

There are no significant differences (at .05
level of significance) between EI and REG
students in their I- scores on the IAR.

There are no significant differences (at .05
level of significance) between EI and REG
students on each of the particular items in
the IAR.

12

Limitations of the Study

 

The extent to which the findings can be generalized

is restricted by the following limitations:

1.

The sample is limited to a particular selection
of students enrolled in one middle school in the
midwest in 1985.

The assessment of the students' beliefs of
Intellectual Achievement Responsibility is
limited to the students' mean scores derived
from their performance on the IAR scale, and the
computation of a t test to examine the
differences between the means.

The identification of the samples is limited to
the school's system of sorting out the students
and its placement procedures.

The student's awareness of his/her participation
in the study may have affected his/her answers.
The length of the questionnaire may have
affected the students' responses.

The school district understandably would not
allow the writer to administer the (IAR) scale
on an individual basis because of undue
intrusion into school activities.

It was assumed that students would respond to
all the items in the IAR as intended by the test

designers. This assumption proved not to be

13

correct under the conditions of test administra-
tion. Hence it may be (one cannot tell for
sure) that this shortcoming prevented, perhaps
in part, the discovery of differences between EI
and REG students. Nevertheless, the data which
were obtained were analyzed to try to discern

what they had to reveal.

Definition of Terms

 

Terms in this study requiring definition are the
following:

Achievement behavior, as defined by Crandall et a1.

 

(1965), is any behavior directed toward attaining
approval or avoid disapproval (the goal of the behavior)
in respect to competent or incompetent performances (the
attribute of the behavior is either rewarded or pun-
ished) in situations where standards of excellence are
applicable (the unique characteristic of achievement
situations).

Determination of Emotionally Impaired, is measured

 

by the Revised Special Education Rules (R 340.1706).
They define the emotionally impaired as follows:

1. The emotionally impaired shall be determined
through manifestation of behavioral problems
primarily in the affective domain, over an
extended period of time, which adversely affect
the person's education to the extent that the
person cannot profit from regular learning
experiences without special-education support.
The problems result in behaviors manifested by
one or more of the following characteristics:

14

a. Inability to build or maintain satisfactory
interpersonal relationships with the school
environment.

b. Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings
under normal circumstances.

c. General pervasive mood or unhappiness or
depression.

d. Tendency to develop physical systems associ-
ated with personal or school problems.

The term "emotionally impaired" also includes
persons who, in addition to the above character-
istics, exhibit maladaptive behaviors related to
schizophrenia or similar disorders. The term
"emotionally impaired" does not include persons
who are socially maladjusted, unless it is
determined that such persons are emotionally
impaired.

The emotionally impaired shall not include
persons whose behaviors are primarily the result
of intellectual, sensory, or health factors.

A determination of impairment shall be based on
data provided by a multidisciplinary team, which
shall include a comprehensive evaluation by both
of the following:

a. A psychologist or psychiatrists.
b. A school social worker.
A determination of impairment shall not be based

solely on behaviors relating to environmental,
cultural, or economic differences.

Emotionally disturbed, is defined according to the

United
1.

2.

States Office of Education as follows:

An inability to learn that cannot be explained
by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.

An inability to build or maintain a satisfactory
interpersonal relationship with {were and
teachers.

Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings
under normal conditions.

15
4. A general, pervasive mood of unhappiness or
depression.
5. A tendency to develop physical symptoms, pain,
or fear associated with personal or school

problems.

Normal population, is defined as those students who

 

are attending regular classes and progressing through
the educational system without prior referral for
special needs. The students in this study identified as
REG would be included in this population.

Locus of Control, falls within the framework of

 

Rotter's Social Learning Theory. Locus of Control (LOC)
refers to the degree to which an individual perceives
that the outcome of events are a result of his/her own
actions (internal control) or determined by outside
factors, such as fate, luck, or other people (external
control). Therefore, internal locus of control refers
to the individual's tendency to ascribe responsibility
for reinforcement to self, and external locus of control
refers to the ascription of responsibility to outside
factors, such as luck, powerful others, the "system,"
and so on.

Behavior potential, may be defined as the potential-
ity for any behavior to occur in any given situation
relative to any single reinforcement or set of reinforce-
ments.

Expectancy, is the individual's perception that a

particular reinforcement will occur as a result of

16

specific behavior on his/her part in a certain situation
or situations. Expectancy is systematically independent
of the value or importance of the reinforcement.

Reinforcement value, of any one (of a) group of

 

potential external reinforcements may be ideally defined
as the degree of the person's preference for that rein-
forcement to occur if the possibility of occurrence of
all alternatives were equal.

1+ and I- Scores on the IAR, 1+ is a subscore

 

provided by the IAR which measures the child's ascrip-
tion of responsibility to himself as responsible for the
reinforcement he receives in positive intellectual
achievement situations.

I- is a subscore provided by the IAR which measures
the child's ascription of responsibility to himself as
responsible for his reinforcement in negative intellec-

tual achievement situations.

Overview of Remaining Chapters

 

This chapter presented the purpose of the study, the
statement of the problem, the research questions, the
rationale for the study, the need for the study, the
hypotheses, the limitations, and the definition of
terms. The second chapter gives the theoretical
framework and the related literature. In the third
chapter the design of the study is presented. The

fourth chapter cites the results of the analyses. The

l7

fifth chapter includes the summary, discussion, and

recommendations for future research.

 

CHAPTER II

BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RESEARCH

Introduction

 

This chapter is divided into five sections. The
first discusses in detail the theoretical framework of
the social learning theory which is used as a basis for
this present study, including some studies which are in
line with the theory. The second section focuses on the
studies which related locus of control to emotional
disturbance. The third summarizes some studies dealing
with the relationship between locus of control and
learned helplessness. The fourth reports some of the
studies which prOpose intervention techniques, and the
fifth discusses some of the studies involving use of the

Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale.

Section One: Social Learning Theory Framework

 

A specific base for this research is Rotter's social
learning theory (Rotter, 1972). There are six general
principles for this theory which essentially state the
rules by which scientists proceed to studyhuman behavior
and to gain an understanding of the human personality.

18

19

The unit of investigation for the study of per-
sonality is the interaction of the individual
and his/her meaningful environment.

Personality constructs cannot be depended on for
an explanation of constructs in any other field
(including physiology, biology, or neurology).
Scientific constructs for one mode of descrip-
tion should be consistent with constructs in any
other field of science, but no hierarchy of
dependency exists among personality constructs
and those in other fields.

Behavior, as described by personality
constructs, takes place in space and time.
Although all such events may be described by
psychological constructs, it is presumed that
they may also be described by physical con-
structs, as they are in such fields as physics,
chemistry, and neurology. Any conception that
regards the events themselves, rather than the
description of the events as different, is
rejected as dualistic.

Not all behavior of an organism may be usefully
described with personality constructs. Behavior
that may be usefully described by personality

constructs appears in organisms of a particular

20

level or stage of complexity and a particular
level or stage of development.

4. A person's experiences (or his interactions with
his meaningful environment) influence each
other. Otherwise stated, personality has unity.

5. Behavior, as described by personality con-
structs, has a directional aspect. It may be
said to be goal-directed. The directional
aspect of behavior is inferred from the effect
of reinforcing conditions.

6. The occurrence of a behavior of a person is
determined not only by the nature or importance
of goals or reinforcements, but also by the
anticipation or expectancy that these goals will
occur. Such expectations are determined by
previous experience and can be quantified.

It is in Rotter's social learning theory that
perceived control occupies a central theme within a
systematic formulation. Rotter (1966) refers to per-
ceived control as generalized expectancy of internal or
external control of reinforcement. From his view, the
role of reinforcement, reward, or gratification in the
determination of human behavior is a significant one in
the acquisition and performance of skills and knowledge.
Such effects of reinforcement do not follow from a

stamping-in process, at least with human beings. The

21

effects depend on whether or not the person perceives a
causal relationship between his own behavior and the
reward.

Rotter (1975) and his colleagues have presented
considerable evidence that people learn differently in
situations where rewards depend on chance or luck than
they do in situations where they perceive that skill or
their own characteristics determine whether or not rein-
forcement will occur. He believes that the perception
of causal relationship need not be all or none, but can
vary in degree. He also hypothesized that the locus of
control variable is of major significance in under-
standing the nature of the learning process in different
kinds of learning situations and also that consistent
individual differences exist among individuals in the
degree to which they are likely to attribute personal
control to reward in the same situation.

Rotter's (1966) focus is on the expectancy that the
behavior will lead to the reinforcement. He stated that
if one individual is subjected to a series of situations
in which he has less control than another, then these
expectancies for lack of control would become general-
ized, at least to some degree. Consequently, there may
well be significant and important individual differences
in the degree to which people see their own lives as

determined by their own behavior and characteristics or

22

see their own lives as controlled by luck, chance, fate,
or powerful others. In other words, peOple may differ
in dimension of generalized expectancy for internal ver-
sus external control reinforcement. Rotter hypothesizes
that the develOpment of a person's locus of control
orientation depends on the individual's reinforcement
history, both painful and pleasurable. Individuals
would, then, differ in the degree to which reinforce-
ments were attributed to his/her own actions.

Rotter (1966) also hypothesizes that when the
reinforcement is seen as not contingent on the person's
own behavior, then its occurrence will not increase an
expectancy as much as when it is seen as contingent. He
contends that a generalized attitude, belief, or expec-
tancy regarding the nature of the causal relationship
between one's own behavior and its consequences might
affect a variety of behavioral choices in a broad band
of life situations. He also presents a number of
psychological variables which appear to bear some
relationship to the concept of the belief in internal
versus external control of reinforcements. The first of
these major conceptions is that of need for achievement.
Rotter sees that the work of many researchers with
adults and children suggests that people who have a
great need for achievement, in all probability, have

some belief in their own ability or skill to determine

23

the outcome of their efforts. The second variable,
which may bear some genuine relationship from his point
of view, is the concept of "field determined" versus
"body oriented." He perceives that the work of many
researchers suggests that people can be ordered on a
continuum in some perception experiments, describing
whether they derive most of their cues from the field or
from internal sources. The third conception is the
notion of "ego control." This concept from Rotter's
point of view is considered as less clear and not always
defined similarly. It seems to contain the ideas of
confidence and ability to deal with reality.

The point of view of Roueche et a1. (1982) was in
line with Rotter when they said that individuals build
up expectations about the degree to which they control
events and then generalize these expectations to their
entire life situations, depending on the overall
patterns of their existence. Repeated specific failures
make people expect to fail at everything, but if people
experience early successes at controlling outcomes, they
expect to continue to be successful and are most
dismayed by an associated failure.

It might appear that getting a reward or reinforce-
ment as a result of putting out some effort would later
lead to more active efforts. The person would be

motivated to repeat a similar act and expect to receive

24

the same reward or positive reinforcement again. Thus,
he may build a belief in an internal locus of control.
On the other hand, the student who believes that luck
and external forces control his/her other reinforcements
will tend to yield to this idea of helplessness and not
be as likely to try again.

The concept of Crandall et a1. (1962) regarding
personal beliefs seems similar to the previous mentioned
notions. They perceive these personal beliefs to be
important determiners of the reinforcing effects of many
experiences. As an example, they cite the individual
who is convinced that if he/she had little control over
the rewards and punishments received, then he/she has
little reason to modify behavior in an attempt to alter
the probability that those events will occur. Because
rewards and punishments will have lost much of their
reinforcing value, they will not be as effective in
strengthening or weakening the subject's response.

The relationship between the individual's behavior
and the occurrence of certain events was also emphasized
by other researchers (Dweck & Reppucci, 1975). They
contend that cognitive-personality variables, such as
the manner in which a person perceives the relationship
between his/her behavior and the occurrence of certain
events, indeed appear to be important determinants of

the way in which pe0ple react to events.

25

This sort of linkage between the individual's
behavior and the expectancy of the reward would appear
to play a crucial role in our own daily lives, mainly in
the learning process. It influences our future behavior
and may explain why a certain student believes that
regardless of whatever effort he/she puts out, there
will be failure. The student is certain that external
forces are the determiners of behavior and thus ascribes
failure or even success to those forces rather than to
himself/herself.

It may be more important for the individual to
develop a belief in his/her own ability rather than a
belief in luck, especially if the student believes that
the more effort put forth, the better the results.
Believing that it is the individual's responsibility if
one fails or succeeds may be much better than ascribing
the responsibility to others. This, in fact, is in line
with Phares' (1976) point of view, which suggests that
an internal belief system should lead to reactions of
pride following success or to a variety of negative
emotions following failure. In either case, the effects
on subsequent behavior could well be positive. The
belief system of externals, however, denies one an
emotional experience, thus providing one little basis
for the pursuit of excellence. After all, if one

ascribes success to outside forces, why would one either

26

take pleasure in the attainment of success or make
further efforts to achieve it?

Roueche and Mink (1982) summarized some of the
results showing that internality, compared to external-
ity, results in greater health and personal potency.
Internals have a higher self-concept than externals;
they are also generally better adjusted, more inde-
pendent, more successful and more realistic in their
aspirations, more open to new learning, more creative,
more flexible, and more self-reliant. The internals
also show more initiative and effort in controlling
their environment, are less anxious, earn higher grades,
and show more interest in intellectual activity and
achievement.

Al-Azem (1969) focuses on the ascription trait and
the domination of externality among Arab students when
he mentions the street-wise (shirker) Arab student who
fails but does not blame himself; instead, he blames his
luCk, the teacher, difficult questions, the government,
discipline, God, etc. From Al-Azem's point of view,
this trait which is characteristic of the Arab student
is also characteristic of the Arab nation. He goes on
to say that when the Arab nation is defeated, it blames
the enemy, colonialism, treason, luck, and whatever else
comes to mdnd, instead of probing the internal origin of

the failure and extracting it.

27

Section Two: Locus of Control and
Emotional Disturbance

 

The ascription of responsibility idea falls under
the concept of locus of control discussed by the social
learning theorists. The literature in this field is
replete with studies and research designed to define its
meaning, as well as implications for the process of
learning and the classroom setting. Some of the litera-
ture shows a concern over the relationship between locus
of control and behavior disorders.

The number of studies concerning the relationship
between emotional impairment and locus of control are
minimal. Finch, Nelson, Montgomery, and Stein (1975)
compared impulsive emotionally disturbed children with
reflective, emotionally disturbed children according to
their perceived locus of control. They intended to form
a relationship between the cognitive dimension of
reflection-impulsivity and locus of control by hypothe-
sizing that the reflective child would be more internal
in his/her locus of control than the impulsive child.
The results of their study, however, did not indicate
any significant differences between children employing
an impulsive style and those employing a reflective,
cognitive style regarding locus of control.

In another study conducted by Finch, Kendall,
Deardorff, Anderson, and Sitarz (1975), the researchers

examined the relationship among three variables:

28

reflection, impulsivity, and locus of control in a group
of emotionally disturbed children. Results indicated
that children who were more internal responded more
slowly and made fewer errors on the Matching Familiar
Figures Test. Also, the older they were, the more
persistence they displayed when taking the test. The
variables of locus of control, persistence behavior, and
reflection-impulsivity were related to each other and to
a problem-solving approach. Girls responded more slowly
on the Matching Familiar Figures Test than boys. Indi-
viduals who were more external responded faster and made
more errors on the Matching Familiar Figures Test.

Finch, Deardorff, Sitare, and Anderson (1975)
investigated the effects of the affective relationships
based on locus of control and imitative behavior. They
exposed twenty-eight boys to their most liked and least
liked peers, utilizing a simple imitative task. A signi-
ficant correlation was found between the observer's
locus of control (internality score) and the number of
limitation responses emitted to the most liked peer.

In a study conducted by Kendall et a1. (1976), the
Nowicki-Strickland locus of control scale was adminis-
tered to institutionalized emotionally disturbed boys
and noninstitutionalized normal boys. Locus of control
and separate factor scores were calculated. Helpless-

ness factor scores differentiated the two groups.

29

Baken (1978) did not find significant differences in
the locus of control as measured on the children's
Internal/External Control Scale of Reinforcement between
three groups of 81 homebound children (emotionally
disturbed/socially maladjusted, physically handicapped,
and health impaired).

In another study by Finch et a1. (1975), the gener-
ality of research on the relationship between locus of
control in children and achievement was extended to a
group of emotionally disturbed children. Results
indicated that the emotionally disturbed children who
perceived a relationship between their behavior and its
consequences obtained higher achievement scores.

In a study conducted by Perna et al. (1983), which
investigated the relationship of internal locus of
control, academic achievement, and IQ in emotionally
disturbed boys, the researchers studied 63 emotionally
disturbed boys (10-15 years old). The results revealed
that subjects with a higher degree of internal locus of
control (LOC) made greater gains in academic achieve-
ment. The subjects' chronological age and IQ scores did
not affect their degree of internal locus of control.

Section Three: Locus of Control
and LearnediHelplessness

 

 

The relationship between locus of control and

learned helplessness has been investigated by some

3O

researchers. Tollefson (1982) reformulated a theory of
learned helplessness suggesting that helplessness may be
the outcome of learning disabled students' belief in
personal or universal helplessness. Motivational, cogni-
tive, and emotional deficits may result. Research on
locus of control and persistence, as well as the con-
trast between mastery (achievement) oriented and learned
helplessness behavior indicates that successful,
achievement-oriented students take personal responsi-
bility for success rather than ascribing it to external
forces. They can account for failure while still
maintaining high expectations. Parents can help their
learning disabled children decrease their helpless
behavior by following a three step program: helping to
set realistic achievement goals, helping to develop a
plan to achieve the goals, and teaching the child to
accept personal responsibility for success or failure by
attributing the outcome to effort.

In a paper titled "Verbal Self-Instruction for the
Mentally Retarded: The Missing Link," Walters et al.
(1983) examined the research on locus of control,
learned helplessness, and attribution theory, and
discussed the implications of the mentally retarded
child's attitude toward his failures and successes.
Studies were cited linking internal locus of control

with achievement, suggesting that more attention be paid

31

to promoting students' internal orientations. Learned
helplessness research was reviewed in terms of its
effect on learning and the ability to cope with
failure. Attribution theory research revealed that
causal attributions are learned, and students can be
taught to make attributions that will help rather than
hinder their academic progress. Specific interventions
may be more effective when matched accordingly with the
child's specific attributions. Verbal monitoring was
advocated as one way to help children who seem unmoti-
vated, appear to have given up, and/or have learned
helplessness.

Friedlander (1984) proposed that helplessness
results from a perception of uncontrollability. With
children, uncontrollability is often synonymous with
failure. A review of selected studies from the
developmental literature concerning uncontrollability,
failure, and causal attribution, indicates that
cognitive develOpment factors tend to render the child

relatively resistant to the develOpment of helplessness.

Section Four: Intervention Techniques
This section deals with different types of inter-
vention and ways of promoting internality and the
awareness of the individual's personality changes.
Dean (1984) focused on the black youth with an

external locus of control proposing action counseling as

32

a technique. She suggested that of because these
youth's perceptions of having little control over their
environment and of lacking the competence to gain
control it was necessry for counselors, especially
non-blacks, to develop techniques and strategies that
would assist black youths in deve10ping greater self-
esteem. The approach was a seven-step process that
highlighted achievement of short term goals and active
behavioral change. She recommended that counseling
techniques take into consideration the black experience
and build positive self-identification and racial pride,
with career counseling including an exposure to and
awareness of a variety of occupational options and
achievements of blacks in those occupations. These
techniques would help the black youths' transition from
an external to an internal locus of control.

Cellini and Kantorowski (1984) administered Rotter's
Internal-External locus of control scale and the career
decision scale to 113 male and 177 female undergradu-
ates. Their intent was to study the relationship
between locus of control and career decidedness. The
researchers suggested that the student's locus of
control be determined in career counseling so that
counseling intervention could be designed accordingly.

Walden and Ramey (1983) compared a group of
academically high-risk children who had participated in

33

an efficacy-oriented intervention program to a group of
high-risk non-intervention children and a low-risk com-
parison group. The high-risk intervention and low-risk
children had stronger beliefs in personal control over
academic success. These beliefs were good predictors of
achievement.

Katkovsky et a1. (1966) studied parent-child inter-
actions in relation to the child's belief in internal
control. The findings indicated that a combination of
protection, nurturance, and loving from the mother and
praise from the father will increase the child's belief
in internal control. In contrast, parental dominance,
rejection and criticism from the father have a negative
impact on the child's belief in internal control.

Section Five: Use of the
Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale

This section discusses different studies correlating
the intellectual achievement responsibility scale to
different personality traits. Comparing achievers with
underachievers in respect to locus of control and
self-concept, Kanoy et a1. (1980) discovered that
achievers had significantly higher self-concepts than
underachievers in the intellectual and school status
subscale. Achievers also had significantly higher
internal locus of control scores than underachievers.

No sex differences were revealed.

34

Stanwyck and Felker (1971) assessed 373 school
children in grades three through six using 1) Piers-
Harris Self-Concept Scale; 2) the Children's Manifest
Anxiety Scale; and 3) the Intellectual Achievement
Responsibility Scale. Their intent was to establish
self-concept as the basis for acceptance of responsi-
bility for intellectual achievement and anxiety over
intellectual failure. The research design included age
and gender variables. The results showed that, regard-
less of grade level, students with low self-concepts
gradually assumed less responsibility for academic
success. Students with high self-concept gradually
increased their acceptance of responsibility for success
from grades three to five and maintained a high measure
of acceptance in grade six. The implications of this
study support the need to enhance self-concept at the
beginning of a child's school experience.

The relationship between a child's perception of the
causes of academic success or failure and achievement
behavior and reading ability were examined by Butkowsky
(1980). He used Crandall's Intellectual Achievement
Responsibility scale (IAR) and a measure of the
motivation behind a student's performance of a single,
Specific task. The subjects were fifth grade boys of
good, average, or poor reading ability. An assessment

was made of the subject's initial expectation of success

35

and persistence in the face of difficulty. The IAR
yielded scores representing total internal locus of
control, internality of success, and internality of
failure, as well as subscores reflecting causal attri-
butions of ability or effort. The IAR indicated a more
global perception of locus of control.

Reed (1970) administered Crandall's Intellectual
Achievement Responsibility Scale and a children's
achievement motivation scale to a group of elementary
school children. She discovered that both achievement
motivation and belief in self-responsibility for success
were found to predict school performance.

The effect of gender in predicting academic achieve-
ment from internal/external controls was studied by
Hollis and Woods (1975). The study was designed to
investigate the relationship between internal-external
locus of control and academic achievement for boys and
girls over a nine-month period. A total of 279 third-
grade children were tested on I-E control and academic
achievement in September and again in May. Achievement
measure was demonstrated by the reading and arithmetic
batteries of the California Tests of Basic Skills. The
comparison revealed that improvements in measures of the
I-E trait could result in an important predictor of

academic performance for boys.

36

Slade, Steward, Morrison and Abramowitz (1984)
assessed helplessness in relation to persistence. They
compared 16 students with 16 abused, 8-12 year olds,
homebound, age and sex-matched. The latter group showed
no less persistence in working for rewards, made
equivalent use of contingency information to maintain
persistence, and assumed equivalent responsibility for
success. However, they took less responsibility for
failure. Family environment may cause abused children
to feel helpless avoiding aversive outcomes.

Studies were done in the Arab countries using
different scales. Tillman and Lord (1975) administered
a modified version of Locus of Control to Egyptian and
Tunisian samples in which they compared locus of control
scores along with demographic variables. Barhoum (1979)
also administered a standardized Rotter I-E Scale to a

Jordanian sample.

Summary

This chapter was divided into five sections. The
first section focused on the social learning theory as
the theoretical framework for this study.

The second section summarized various studies
relating locus of control to emotional disturbance. The
results stressed the importance of the relation between
internality trait and factors such as academic achieve-

ment. Others indicate that there are no significant

37

differences between EI children and REG children
employing impulsive and reflective styles. Perhaps the
most astonishing result in the section indicated that
"emotionally disturbed" children who perceived a rela-
tionship between their behavior and its consequences
obtained higher achievement scores.

Section three reviewed studies that compared the
relationship between locus of control and learned
helplessness. Results, in general, showed that disabled
children can be helped to decrease their helpless behav-
ior by setting realistic achievement goals, developing a
plan to achieve the goals, and teaching the child to
accept responsibility for success or failure by ascrib-
ing the outcome to effort. The findings of another
study revealed that those students who perceive them-
selves as having little or no control as a group, spent
less time studying, attended fewer classes, and felt it
was not important to do well academically. It was also
revealed that learning-disabled children are more likely
than normal achievers to ascribe success, but not
failure, to external forces.

Section four included studies that dealt with
different methods of intervention. One result indicated
significant correlations between events that were
perceived as being undesirable, but under personal

control, and psychological symptoms.

38

The fifth section summarized studies utilizing the
Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale for
different purposes. In one study, the scale failed to
show a greater predictive validity relating reading test
performance to general reading ability. Another study
revealed that self-responsibility for success predicted
school performance.

In general, the chapter summarized many studies
revolving around the locus of responsibility trait. It
began with Rotter's theory, which promotes the internal-
ity idea, and ended with researchers who used his theory
as a basis for their researches. Most of the results
confirmed the importance of internal responsibility and
focused on the promotion of this trait. As noticed from
the previous mentioned studies, the El children were
involved in many of them, but few studies compared the
E1 with the REC children, if the results of the previous
studies hold some truth. It is justifiable then to
compare the two groups in terms of their internal locus
of responsibility, considered by many researchers as
crucial in the learning process. It would be nice to

know what each group thinks about this ascription trait.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

General Design of the Study

 

The data for this study consist of the responses of
forty-eight middle school students from the midwest, to
thirty-four items from the Intellectual Achievement
Responsibility Scale (see Appendix A).

In this study, the research design included
ascriptions of locus of responsibility as the dependent
variables, and sex of the respondents and their identifi-
cation as E1 or REG as the independent variables. These

variables formed the major hypotheses of this study.

Subjects

The subjects of this study consisted of a sample of
forty-eight middle school students--twenty-one EI and

twenty-seven REG.

The Instrument
The IAR scale was developed by Crandall, Katkovsky,
and. Preston (1962) in) measure children's beliefs

39

4O

concerning their ascriptions of Intellectual Achievement
Responsibility. The thirty-four items measure reinforce-
ments in a number of motivational and behavioral areas
such as affiliation, dominance, achievement, and
dependency. Each item on the scale describes either a
positive or negative achievement experience that occurs
frequently in the daily lives of the children. This is
followed by two alternatives, one ascribing the cause of
the event to someone or to some external condition in
the child's environment (external responsibility) and
the other to some aspect of his/her own behavior,
motivation, or attitude (internal responsibility).

The scale was constructed to sample an equal number
of positive and negative events. The authors claim that
the dynamics used in assuming credit for causing good
things to happen might be very different from those used
in accepting blame for unpleasant consequences.

There are two subscale scores and a total score.
The 1+ subscale measures the child's tendency to see
himself as responsible for the reinforcements he
receives in positive intellectual achievement situa-
tions. The I- subscale measures his tendency to see
himself as responsible for his reinforcements in
negative situations. The total I score--the sum of the
subscores--measures the child's general acceptance of

responsibility for the outcome of his achievement

41

efforts. A high score on each of these scales represents
internal responsibility; a low score represents external
reaponsibility. The scale is limited to intellectual
academic situations and focuses on significant persons in
the environment as reinforcing agents. It limits the
source of external control to those persons who most
often come in face-to-face contact with a child.

It was developed within the context of a larger
research program dealing with children's achievement
development and aims at assessing children's beliefs in

reinforcement responsibility exclusively in intellectual-

 

academic achievement situations.

Reliability of the Scale

 

The consistency (test-retest reliability) of the
children's IAR responses over time is moderately high.
The correlations were .69 for total I, .66 for 1+, and

.74 for I-. These correlations were all significant at

the level of .001.

Procedure

An application to administer the study on an
individual basis was turned down by a review committee
of the participating school district. They believed
that scheduling each student individually would put an

undue burden on an already busy staff. Moreover, they

42

judged that the students' absence from instruction could
not be justified.

A second application to administer the scale on a
group basis was later approved. The school's coordina-
tor and this writer met with the teachers of the El
students to explain the purpose of the study, describe
the test, and answer their inquiries. The coordinator
asked the teachers of REG students who were willing to
volunteer to administer the scale. It is noteworthy
that the participating REG classrooms did not contain
any mainstreamed El students.

The process by which EI students were identified
required testing by a school psychologist and observa-
tion and an interview by a school social worker. If
they both deemed the student eligible, the case was
referred to a multidisciplinary evaluation team. The
team included the teacher, the parent, and either the
psychologist or social worker. The team consequently
decides if the child is eligible.

Signed consent forms were acquired from the parents

or guardians of each student participating in the study.

Data Collection and Scale Administration

 

The data for this study consist of the responses of
forty-eight middle school students. They were given the
Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale (IAR) by

43

their teachers. The students having difficulty reading
and/or comprehending the written material were assisted
by the teachers. Students were instructed to select
answer "a" or "b", choosing the one which best described
his/her feelings or experiences. They were told that
there was no right or wrong answer. Example: When you
read a story and remember most of it, is it usually:

a) because you were interested in the story, or

b) because the story was well written?

Forty-eight questionnaires were returned for
analyses. Age, educational levels, and sex distribu-
tions are presented in Tables, 1, 2, and 3. Eighteen of
the REC and one of the El students did not complete all
of the demographic items requested.

The scores were calculated as fOllows: the internal
alternatives were designated by an I. Positive-event
items were indicated by a plus sign. The student's I+
score was obtained by summing all positive events for
which he/she assumed credit. Negative events were
indicated by a minus sign following the I, and the I-
score was the total of all negative events for which
he/she assumed blame. The total I score was the sum of
the 1+ and the I- subscores.

The students' patterns of responses are summarized
in Table 4. Unfortunately, very few of the students

responded wholly as intended by the scale designers. On

44

Table 1. Distribution

of Respondents

According to Age.

 

 

 

 

 

Age Regular Emotionally Impaired
15 4 2

l4 7 5

13 12 8

12 -- 6

Blank 4 -

Table 2. Distribution of Respondents
According to Grade

Grade Regular Emotionally Impaired
9th -- ' 2

8th 23 8

7th -- 4

6th -- 6

Blank 4 1

Table 3. Distribution of Respondents
According to Gender

Gender Regular Emotionally Impaired
Male 9 17

Female 8 4

Blank 10 --

 

45

Table 4. Patterns of Students' Responses to
the IAR Scale Items

 

 

 

 

 

REG (N=27) EI (N=21)

Item Patterns of Response Patterns of Response
No. a b a/b c - a b a7b c -
1 0 27 2 18 1
2 25 2 15 5 l
3 10 15 l l 5 14 l 1
4 0 25 2 3 16 1 1
5 24 3 19 2
6 25 1 1 l6 4 1
7 l7 7 2 1 l7 3 1
8 9 15 l 2 8 12 1
9 12 14 l 3 17 l

10 18 3 3 3 10 10 1

ll 15 9 3 l4 6 l

12 14 9 4 12 7 2

l3 3 24 3 l7 1

14 17 8 l 1 10 11

15 9 16 1 l 6 11 l 3

l6 1 23 l 2 4 17

17 21 4 l 1 l4 7

18 18 7 l l 12 8 1

l9 6 l7 2 2 4 16 l

20 19 6 l l 13 6 1 l

21 9 15 l l l 11 8 2

22 7 18 2 4 16 l

23 12 12 2 l 5 13 3

24 13 12 2 6 l3 1 1

25 7 15 4 1 3 16 l l

26 18 7 2 l7 3 l

27 14 10 2 1 ll 7 2 l

28 5 20 l l 8 11 l l

29 12 11 2 l 1 10 9 1 l

30 14 8 5 ll 9 l

31 2 23 l l 6 14 1

32 9 13 4 l 8 ll 1 1

33 9 15 l 2 6 14 l

34 3 16 5 3 7 12 l l

10 - no gender

1 - no gender

 

46

only four items (l,2,5,l3) did the students restrain

H H H b" .

themselves to answering either a or Similarly, on

only four items (5,14,16, and 17) did the El students
restrain themselves to "a" or "b" answers. Variations
included (i) marking b_o_t_h "a" and "b", (ii) writing in an
alternative answer of their own - a "c" response, or (iii)
leaving the item blank. Nevertheless, most students

answered most items as intended.

The S tatis tical Treatment

 

The scores of each student were computed including

"t" test was used as

means and standard deviations. A
the main statistical tool to examine any significant
differences between each pair of means. Two-tailed t
tests determined whether significant differences existed
between means at .05 level of significance. The z-test
of proportion was also employed to ascertain significant
differences between ascriptions of locus of responsi-

bility and the independent variables on each item

between the two major groups.

Summary
The chapter discussed the design of the study, the

subjects, the scale, scale administration and data col-

lection, and statistical treatment.

47

The study was not as successful as had been haped in
gathering the data as it was planned. Many limitations
intruded. Nevertheless enough data were collected to

warrant analyses as intended.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OF THE ANALYSES

This chapter presents the results of the statis-
tical analyses of the responses to the Intellectual

Achievement Responsibility Scale.

Table 5. Total Score of I: A Computational
Illustration of the t Test Results for
the Total Scores of'a Group of "EI"
and a Group of "REG" Students.

 

Group n mean sd
EI 21 20.8 3.568
REG 27 20.1 5.17
t - .09

 

As shown, the means and standard deviations of the two
groups are very close and the value of the observed 5 (.09)
is less than the critical value of 2.96, when alpha - .05.
No statistically significant differences were discovered
between the means of the two groups regarding their
ascription of responsibility for intellectual achievement.
There were similar failures in finding significant

48

49
differences between comparisons of male and female
students. In summary, none of the comparisons made
revealed significant differences, including comparisons
of I+/I- subscore totals.

Nevertheless, in order to look still more closely at
the data, z-tests of pr0portion were made for each item
on the IAR scale. Two items showed highly significant
differences (less than .01) and three more were
significant (less than .05). An additional six items,
though failing to show differences at .05 levels,
nevertheless came close (less than .07), and they were
considered worth examining to see if they contained any
suggestive patterns of response.

Hence, the results of the z-test of proportions
showed statistically significant and close to statis-
tically significant differences for eleven of the
thirty-four items. Table 6 illustrates the proportions
and z-values for each item, and the results on each of

the eleven items are described in more detail below.

Item No. 9.

 

If you solve a puzzle quickly, is it:
a) because it wasn't a very hard puzzle, or

I+ b) because you worked on it carefully?

50

Table 6. A Computational Illustration

of z-values for the IAR Scale's

Thirty-Four Items

 

 

 

 

Item EI REG z-value Significance
Z X Level
I+ Scores

1 90 100 -1.4907 .14

2 75 93 -l.8590 .06*
5 90 89 .1528 .88

6 80 96 -.7889 .07

9 85 54 3.8826 .00***
12 57 61 -.3703 .71
13 85 85 0 1.00
16 81 96 -l.7522 .08
17 67 84 -l.6568 .10
20 68 76 - .7475 .45
21 42 63 -1.8546 .06*
24 32 52 -1.8689 .06*
25 84 67 2.0213 .04**
28 58 80 -l.9429 .05*
29 53 52 .0873 .94
31 70 92 -2.l470 .03**
32 42 41 .0883 .94

I- Scores

3 74 60 1.3912 .16

4 84 100 -l.9024 .06*
7 15 32 -2.1292 .03**
8 40 38 .1826 .86
10 50 14 3.2199 .00***
11 70 63 .6831 .50
14 48 68 -l.8345 .07
15 65 64 .0864 .93
18 60 72 -l.0954 .27
19 80 74 .6708 .50
22 80 70 1.1180 .27
23 28 50 -2.0788 .27
26 85 72 1.6282 .10
27 39 43 - .3479 .73
30 55 64 - .8090 .42
33 70 63 .6831 .50
34 63 84 -l.8959 .06*

* - <.07, ** - <.05, *** - <.01

 

51
The z-value for this item (3.8826) is higher than
the (1.96) critical value. Eighty-five percent of the
El who answered this item chose alternative "b", and
fifty-four percent of the REG chose the same alter-

native.

Item No. 10.

 

If a boy or girl tells you that you are dumb, is it
more likely that they say that:

a) because they are mad at you, or

I- b) because what you did really wasn't very bright?

The z-value for Item 10 (3.2199) is higher than the
critical value (1.96). Fifty percent of the E1 students
who answered this item chose alternative "b", and
fourteen percent of the REG chose the same alternative.

According to Table 6, three of the items--7, 25, and
3l--show statistically significant differences between
the two groups at (.05) level of significance. These

items read as follows:

Item No. 7.

 

When you lose at a game of cards or checkers, does
it usually happen:
a) because the other player is good at the game, or

I- b) because you didn't play well?

52
The z-value for this item (-2.1292) is less than the
critical, value (-l.96). Fifteen percent of the El who
answered the item chose alternative "b", and thirty- two

percent of the REG chose the same alternative.

Item No. 25.

 

Suppose you become a famous teacher, scientist, or
doctor. Do you think this would happen:

a) because other people helped you when you needed

it, or
I+ b) because you worked hard?

The z-value for this item (2.0213) is greater than
the critical value (1.96). Eighty-four percent of the
BI who answered this item chose alternative "b", and
sixty-seven percent of the REG chose the same alter-

native.

Item No. 31.

 

If your parents tell you that you are bright or
clever, is it more likely:
a) because they are feeling good, or
1+ b) because of something you did?
The value of 2 (-2.1470) is less than the critical
value (-l.96). Seventy percent of the E1 who answered
this item chose alternative "b", and ninety-two percent

of the REG chose the same alternative.

53
Items 2, 4, 21, 24, 28, and 34 show differences in
pr0portions at the (.07) level of significance, which is

very close to (.05). Those items are:

Item No. 2.

 

When you do well on a test at school, is it more
likely to be:
I+ a) because you studied for it, or
b) because the test was especially easy?
Seventy-five percent of the El who answered this
item chose alternative "a", and ninety-three percent of
the REG chose the same alternative. The value of z

(-l.859) is greater than (-l.96) but it is significant
only at the (.07) level.

Item No. 4.

 

When you read a story and can't remember much of it,
is it usually:

a) because the story wasn't well written, or

I- b) because you weren't interested in the story?

Eighty-four percent of the E1 who answered this item
chose alternative "b" while one hundred percent of the
REG chose the same alternative. The value of the
z-score (-1.9024) is greater than (-l.96) but signifi-

cant only at the (.07) level.

54
Item No. 21.

 

If people think you're bright or clever, is it:

a) because they happen to like you, or
I+ b) because you usually act that way?

Forty-two percent of the BI who answered this item
chose alternative "b", while sixty-three percent of the
REG chose the same alternative. The observed z-value
(-l.8546) is greater than (-l.96) but it is significant

only at the (.07) level.

Item No. 24.

 

If a boy or girl tells you that you are bright, is it
usually:
I+ a) because you thought up a good idea, or
b) because they like you?
Thirty-two percent of the E1 who answered this item

chose alternative "a", while fifty-two percent of the

REG chose alternative "a". The observed value of 2
(-1.8689) is greater than (-l.96) but it is significant

only at the (.07) level.

Item No. 28.

When you find it easy to work arithmetic or math
problems at school, is it usually:

a) because the teacher gave you especially easy

problems, or

55
1+ b) because you studied your book well before you
tried them?

The z-value (-l.9429) is greater than (-l.96)
critical value but it is significant only at the (.07)
level. Fifty-eight percent of the El who answered the
item chose "b", and eighty percent of the REG chose the

same alternative.

Item No. 34.

 

' would i t

If a teacher says to you, "Try to do better,’
be:

a) because this is something she might say to get

pupils to try harder, or
I- b) because your work wasn't as good as usual?

On this item, sixty-three percent of the E1 who
answered it chose alternative "b", and eighty-four
percent of the REG chose the same alternative. The
value of the observed 2 (-l.8959) is greater than the
critical value (-l.96), but it is significant only at
the (.07) level.

Table 7 summarizes the above pattern of responses on
IAR items where the differences were significant or
close to significant.

In Table 7, the first seven of the items ask for

responses which include an I+ choice. The right-hand

column shows whether the El group or the REG group had

56
the greater proportion making the I+ choice. The
remaining four items ask for responses which include an
I- choice.

Notice in the right-hand column in Table 7 that in
each case either REG or E1 has been underlined. Notice
also that in every case REG is underlined and in no case
is El underlined.

These underlinings are based on the researcher's
perceptions of how respondents who, in fact, do possess
a sense of internal responsibility should have answered
the item in question. These perceptions differ from the
IAR scoring key in three of the significant cases--on
Items 9 and 25 among the 1+ items and on Item 10 among
the I- items.

Rationales for these interpretations might go as
follows:

Item 9 asks if you solve a puzzle quickly (perceived
to be a key word), whether you solved it because it
wasn't hard or because you worked carefully. The I+
choice in the key is for choosing carefulness. However,
an equal, indeed possibly stronger, argument for
internality could be based on the notion that easy
puzzles can readily be solved "quickly" by nearly any-
one, but care is to be reserved for harder puzzles that
cannot be solved "quickly." In short, quickly-solved
puzzles are no test of internality, and one possessing

internality would dismiss them as "too easy."

57

Table 7. EI and REG Responses to IAR Items
Selected Because of PrOportional
Differences in Response.

 

Item Item I+/I- Level of PrOportions
No. Content Significance of Response

9 Quick puzzle

solution 1+ .01 El > REG
25 Become famous 1+ .05 El > REG
31 Parents say you
are bright 1+ .05 REG > El
2 Do well on a test 1+ .07 REG > El
21 PeOple think you
are bright 1+ .07 REG > El
24 Child says you
' are bright 1+ .07 REG > El
28 Find math easy at
school I+ .07 REG > El
10 Told you are dumb I- .01 El > REG

7 You lose at card
game I- .05 REG > El

4 Can't remember
story I- .07 REG > El

34 Teacher saysh

"Do better I- .07 REG > El

 

58

Item 25 asks if in becoming famous you did so
because other people helped you or because you worked
hard. Hard work is keyed as the 1+ choice. Yet again,
an argument could be mounted that a person possessing
internality could readily perceive that persons who have
in fact achieved fame have characteristically done so
with the help of others, while at the same time many
persons who have in fact worked hard have not achieved
fame. In short, this item may be no test of one's sense
of internality, and those who tend to choose hard work
as the source of fame may be deluding themselves.

Item 10 asks the respondent, when accused of being
dumb by a peer, whether it is "more likely" (key words)
that the peer is mad or that the respondent is really
not bright. The not bright choice is keyed as 1-. But
this situation again can be argued to be no test of
internality, since it is surely the experience of most
children that they most often are called "dumb" by
another child when that child is angry at them. Indeed,
jealousy of one's brightness might often prompt the
accusation of one's being "dumb." Hence the respondents
who possess externality might well choose the I- alter-
native in this case, believing that external persons may
possess the better judgment.

In any case, the underlinings in Table 7 are based

on what the researcher considered to be the "most

59
logical" response for an "internal" respondent to make,
even though in three cases his choice differs from
Crandall et al. In the other eight cases in Table 7,
the researcher's perceptions readily agree with the IAR
answer key.

As a result, a consistent pattern clearly emerges:
on every one of those eleven items of the IAR which
significantly distinguished (or came close to doing so)
between EI and REG responses, greater proportions of REG
students chose "internal" responses. If one accepts the
arguments on Items 9, 10, and 25 above, the pattern is
unvarying.

The implications of the findings reported in this

Chapter will be discussed in Chapter V.

Summary

The chapter summarized the results of the analyses
with the emphasis on the z-test results. Eleven items
show statistically significant differences or differ-

ences close to being significant between the two groups.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Objectives and Methods

The main objective of this study was to explore
differences in the students' ascriptions of their locus
of responsibility for intellectual successes and fail-
ures in an attempt to answer the following question:

Are there significant differences in the ascriptions
between two groups of REG and E1 students, ages 12 to
15, attending a middle school in the midwest? Their
ascriptions were sampled by using the IAR Scale.

The major null hypothesis was:

H0: There are no significant differences (at .05
level of significance) between two groups of E1 and REG
students concerning their ascriptions of locus of
responsibility.

Subordinate hypotheses were also presented to
examine the differences among the groups and subgroups
with respect to sex, with respect to I+/I- subtest
scores, and with respect to individual item differences.

60

61

Rotter's social learning theory constituted the
theoretical background and a literature review was
presented.

A detailed description of the scale (IAR) used in
the study was presented, along with the general design
of the study, data collection methods, and the

statistical treatments used.

Summary of Findings

The results of the _t_ test comparisons revealed no
statistically significant differences between the E1
group and REG group in their ascriptions of locus of
responsibility. This also applies to the comparisons of
the means for subordinate hypotheses concerning gender
and 1+/I- scores.

The results of the z—test of proportions indicate
that five of thirty-four items show statistically
significant differences between the two groups at (.05)
level of significance, and six more show differences
which are close to being significant, below the (.07)

level of significance.

Discussion

 

The major null hypothesis of this study cannot be
rejected. This is supported, not only by the findings,
but also by several limitations including: group

administration versus individual administration, the

62

relatively small number and unequal distribution of
subjects sampled, and the failure of the respondents to
specify all their demographic data and to answer all
items as requested.

Not only were there no significant statistical
differences noted between E1 and REG students, there
were none found between the responses of males and
females. This latter discovery coincides with findings
of Kanoy et a1. (1980) and Finch et a1. (1975).

The z-test analyses of response proportions to
individual items provide the only meaningful, yet minor,
findings of this study. According to Table 7, a consis-
tent pattern emerges as EI students ascribe cause of
events to others and REG students ascribe cause of
events to themselves, on eight of the selected eleven
items. This pattern may suggest that (a) valid differ-
ences in ascribing responsibility between E1 and REG
students might exist, the specifics of which could be
gleaned from further research, and (b) development of
new or improvement on current testing methods might
provide clearer and stronger arguments in support of, or
against similar hypotheses.

While valid generalizations cannot be drawn from
this study, it has raised questions and challenged our

desire to engage in further research.

ti-

EXI

63

Recommendations and Suggestions for
Future Research

 

 

If further studies are to be attempted, recommenda-

tions

for future research based on this study and

existing literature are:

l.

A larger number of respondents and broader base
of distribution.

Focus future research on other countries. In
the Arab countries, what is applicable to the
American culture is not always applicable to the
Arab culture. The external ascription trait
appears to In: more prevalent in the Arab
culture, as described by Al-Azem in Chapters 1
and 11. Accordingly, further investigations are
recommended in the Arab countries.

Confirm or refute the findings of this study,
taking into consideration the scale's limita-
tions. The thirty-four items with two alter-
native answers are long, tedious, and time
consuming. Eliminating "either or" alternatives
might be considered. Some of the students'
indicated the potential for this by adding a
third written choice. Many added the word
"both" as a third alternative, some regarded
certain items as open-ended and completed the
alternative with their own words and others left

items unanswered.

64

4. Finally, the above study was carried out to see

if certain expectations might be confirmed - but

they were not confirmed.

a.

b.

One cannot assert on the basis of this
study that curricular interventions aimed
at increasing EI students' "internality"
will make any beneficial difference in
their capacities to cope with experience.
One cannot say that the IAR (especially if
administered 1J1 the above fashion)
effectively differentiated between EI and
REG students. It may even be that
whatever "E1" validly means is unrelated
to whatever "internality" validly means.
In any case, on the basis of this study
alone, one cannot say.

Hence the hunches noted at the outset on
page 3 above are not borne out; one cannot
say whether sex makes a difference in
ascriptions of intellectual responsi-
bility; and there are no bases in this
study for either supporting or refuting
claims which are made in the literature as

reported in Chapter 11 above.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
THE IAR SCALE

This is not a test. 1 am trying to find out how
persons your age think about certain things. I am
making a study for a doctor's degree at Michigan State
University. I am going to ask you some questions to see
how you feel about certain things. There are no right
or wrong answers to these questions. Each question has
two answers and you are to choose one of those two.
Remember, different persons give different answers. 1
want to be sure you know that you do not have to answer
these questions and you may stop at any time. If you
answer these questions as I read them to you, and then
give me your paper when you are finished, 1 will under-
stand that you are willing to help me and to let me use
your answers for my study. Your name will be kept secret
and no one besides you will know what answers you make.

Thank you for your help.

1. If a teacher passes you to the next grade, would it
probably be:
a) because she like you, or

65

66

b) because of the work you did?

When you do well on a test at school, is it more

likely to be:

a) because you studied for it, or

b) because the test was especially easy?

When you have trouble understanding something in

school, is it usually:

a) because the teacher didn't explain it clearly,
or

b) because you didn't listen carefully?

When you read a story and can't remember much of it,

is it usually:

a) because the story wasn't well written, or

b) because you weren't interested in the story?

Suppose your parents say you are doing well in

school, is it likely to happen:

a) because your school work is good, or

b) because they are in a good mood?

Suppose you did better than usual in a subject at

school, would it probably happen:

a) because you tried harder, or

b) because someone helped you?

When you lose at a game of cards or checkers, does

it usually happen:

a) because the other player is good at the game,

01‘

10.

ll.

12.

13.

67

b) because you don't play well?

Suppose a person doesn't think you are very bright

or clever:

a) can you make him change his mind if you try to,
or

b) are there some people who will think you're not
very bright no matter what you do?

If you solve a puzzle quickly, is it:

a) because it wasn't a very hard puzzle, or

b) because you worked on it carefully?

If a boy or girl tells you that you are dumb, is it

more likely that they say that:

a) because they are mad at you, or

b) because what you did wasn't really bright?

Suppose you study to become a teacher, scientist, or

doctor and you fail. Do you think this would

happen:

a) because you didn't work hard enough, or

b) because you needed some help and other people
didn't give it to you?

When you learn something quickly in school, is it

usually:

a) because you paid close attention, or

b) because the teacher explained it clearly?

If a teacher says to you, "Your work. is fine," is

it:

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

68

a) something teachers usually say to encourage
pupils, or

b) because you did a good job?

When you find it hard to work arithmetic or math

problems at school, is it:

a) because you didn't study well enough before you
tried them, or

b) because the teacher gave problems that were too
hard?

When you forget something you heard in the class, is

it:

a) because the teacher didn't explain it very
well, or

b) because you didn't try very hard to remember?

Suppose you weren't sure about the answer to a

question your teacher asked you, but your answer

turned out to be right. It is likely to happen:

a) because she wasn't as particular as usual, or

b) because you gave the best answer you could
think of?

When you read a story and remember most of it, is it

usually:

a) because you were interested in the story, or

b) because the story was well written:

If your parents tell you you're acting silly and not

thinking clearly, is it more likely to be:

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

69

a) because of something you did, or

b) because they happen to be feeling cranky?

When you don't do well on a test at school, is it:

a) because the test was especially hard, or

b) because you didn't study for it?

When you win at a game of cards or checkers, does it

happen:

a) because you play real well, or

b) because the other person doesn't play well?

If people think you are bright or clever, is it:

a) because they happen to like you, or

b) because you usually act that way?

If a teacher didn't pass you to the next grade,

would it probably be:

a) because she "had it in for you," or

b) because your school work wasn't good enough?

Suppose you don't do as well as usual in a subject

at school. Would this probably happen:

a) because you weren't as careful as usual, or

b) because somebody bothered you and kept you from
working?

If a boy or girl tells you that you are bright, is

it usually:

a) because you thought up a good idea, or

b) because they like you?

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

70

Suppose you become a famous teacher, scientist or

doctor. Do you think this would happen:

a) because other people helped you when you needed
it, or

b) because you worked hard?

Suppose your parents say you aren't doing well in

your school work. Is this likely to happen more:

a) because your work isn't very good, or

b) because they are feeling cranky?

Suppose you are showing a friend how to play a game

and he/she has trouble with it. Would that happen:

a) because he/she wasn't able to understand how to
play, or

b) because you couldn't explain it well?

When you find it easy to work arithmetic or math

problems at school, is it usually:

a) because the teacher gave you especially easy
problems, or

b) because you studied your book well before you
tried them?

When you remember something you heard in class, is

it usually:

a) because you tried hard to remember, or

b) because the teacher explained it well?

If you can't work a puzzle, is it more likely to

happen:

71

a) because you are not especially good at working
puzzles, or
b) because the instructions weren't written

clearly enough?

 

31. If your parents tell you that you are bright or
clever, is:it:

a) because they are feeling good, or
b) because of something you did?

32. Suppose you are explaining how to play a game to a
friend and he/she learns quickly. Would that happen
more often:

a) because you explained it well, or
b) because he/she was able to understand it?

33. Suppose you're not sure about the answer to a
question your teacher asks you and the answer you
give turns out to be wrong. Is it likely to happen:
a) because he/she was more particular than usual,

or
b) because you answered too quickly?

34. If a teacher says to you, "Try to do better," would

it be:
a) because this is something he/she might say to
get pupils to try harder, or
b) because your work wasn't as good as usual?
age
gender

grade

APPENDIX B
CONSENT FORM

1, , hereby give my permission -
do not give my permission for my child, ,
to participate in the dissertation research project which
will be done by Ph.D. candidate Musa Barhoum as a
complementary part for his Ph.D. degree.

The purpose of the research is to determine students'
perspective of their own responsibility for classroom
achievement.

I understand that my child will be asked, in a group
setting, 34 questions. None of the questions are of a
personal nature. For example: question number 15:

When you forget something you hear in class, is it

a) because the teacher didn't explain it very well,
or

b) because you didn't try very hard to remember?

My child will be asked to choose the answer which
fits his/her own perception.

This procedure will necessitate my child to be part
of a group of students with the researcher outside the
classroom for approximately 35 minutes.

72

73

I understand that the procedure will be explained to
my child and that my child understands it, and there
will be no inherent risks involved.

I understand that my child will be asked verbally to
participate. I understand that my child can freely
consent to participate, and he/she is free to discon-
tinue the procedure at any time without recrimination.
There is no penalty for not participating.

I understand that all results will be treated with
strict confidence and my child will remain anonymous.
My child's name will not be used because the answers
will be treated as pooled answers not as individual
data.

The aim of the research is the comparison of two
groups of students and not individuals.

Results may be made available to the child upon

request, within the above restrictions.

 

Parent's signature/date

APPENDIX C

THE INSTRUCTIONS
(To be read aloud with the participants when the test is
administered)

This is not a test. I am just trying to find out
how persons your age think about certain things. The
reason that I am doing this is for a doctor's degree at
Michigan State University. 11 am going to ask you some
questions to see how you feel about certain things.
There are no right or wrong answers to these questions.
Each question has two answers and you are to choose one
of these two. Remember, different persons give differ-
ent answers. These questions will take about 35 minutes
to answer. I want to be sure you know that you do not
have to answer these questions and you may stop at any
time.

If you answer these questions as I read them to you,
and then give me your paper when you are finished, I
will understand that you are willing to help me and to
let me use your answers for my study. Your name will be
kept secret and no one besides you will know what
answers you give.

Thank you for your help.

74

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Azem, S. J. (1969). Alpakd Alphatee Ba'ed Al-Hazeemah
(2nd ed.). Beirut: Dar Al-Taleejah.

Baken, J. W. (1978). Locus of control: Characteristics
of a homebound population. Exceptional Children,
45(3), 208-210.

Barhoum, M. 1. (1979). Standardization of Rotter
internal-external locus of control scale as
applied to’Jordanian population sample. Unpub-
lished Master's thesis, University of Jordan,
Amman.

Butkowsky, I. S. (1980). General versus task-specific
measures of childrenrs causal attributions: Their
relationship to achievement and readin ability.
Alexandria, VA: (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 189128).

Cellini, J. V., & Kantorowski, L. A. (1984). Locus of
control and career decidedness. Some methodo-
logical notes. Psychological Reports, 55(2),
613-614.

Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W. C., & Crandall, V. J.
(1965). Children's beliefs in their own control
of reinforcements in intellectual academic achieve-
ment situations. Child Development, 55, 91-109.

Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W. C., & Preston, A. (1962).
Motivational and ability determinants of young
children's intellectual achievement behaviors.
Child Deve10pment, 55, 643-660.

Dean, S. A. (1984). External locus of control and
career counseling for black youth. Journal of
Non-White Concerns in Personel and Guidance,
55(3), 110-116.

 

75

76

Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1975). The role of
expectations and attributions in the alleviation
of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 55, 674-685.

Finch, A. J., Jr., Kendall, P. C., Deardorff, P. A,
Anderson, J., & Sitarz, A. M. (1975). Reflection-
impulsivity, persistence behavior, and locus of
control in emotionally disturbed children.
Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology,
fi5(5),748.

Finch, A. J., Jr., Pezzuti, K. A., & Nelson 111, W. M.
(1975). Locus of control and academic achievement
in emotionally disturbed children. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(15, 103.

Finch, A. J., Jr., Nelson, W. M., Montgomery, L. E., &
A. B. Stein. (1975). Reflection-impulsivity and
locus of control in emotionally disturbed
children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 555,
273-275.

Finch, A. J., Jr., Deardorff, P. A., Anderson, J., &
Sitare, A. M. (1975). Affective relationship,
locus of control, and imitative behavior. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 551, 71-74.

Friedlander, S. (1984-1985). Learned helplessness in
children: Perception of control and causal attri-

butions. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,
4(1), 99-116.

Hollis, R. E., & Woods, E. M. (1975). Sex differences
in predictability of academic achievement from
internal-external control. Alexandria, VA: (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 139505).

 

 

Kanoy, R. C., Johnson, B. W., & Kanoy, K. W. (1980).
Locus of control and self-concept in achieving and
under-achieving bright elementary students.
Psychology in the Schools, 51, 395-399.

Katkovsky, W., Cranda, V. C., & Good, S. (1966).
Parental antecedents of children's beliefs in
internal-external control of reinforcementsiin
intellectual achievement situations. Alexandria,
VA: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
24447 .

 

 

 

77

Kendall, P. C., Finch, A. J., Jr., & Mahoney, J.
(1976). Factor specific differences in locus of
control for emotionally distrubed and normal

children. Journal of Personality Assessment,
49(1), 42-45.

Lawrence, E., & Winschel, J. (1975). Locus of control:

Implications for special education. Exceptional
Children, 45, 483.

 

Perna, S. J., Jr., et al (1983). The relationship of
internal locus of control, academic achievement,
and IQ in emotionally disturbed boys. Behavioral
Disorders, 5(1), 36-42.

 

Phares, E. J. (1976). Locus of Control in Personality.
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Reed, L. (1970). Achievement motivation and self-
attribution related to schoollachievement.
ResearEh pro acts in early childhood learning.
Alexandria, VA: (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service, No. ED 063040).

 

 

 

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for
internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 59, 809.

Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. E., & Phares, E. J. (1972).
Applications of a Social Learnin Theory of
Personality. New York: Holt, Rine art, &7Winston.

Rotter, J. B., & Hochreich, D. J. (1975). Personality.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

 

Roueche, J. E., & Mink, O. G. (1982). Overcoming learned
helplessness in community college students.
Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education,

2(3) 7 2'5-

Revised Special Education Rules. (1983). Definition of
emotionally impaired. East Lansing, MI: State of
Michigan.

 

Slade, B. B., Steward, M., Morrison, T. L., &
Abramowitz, S. I. (1984). Locus of control,
persistence, and use of contingency information in
physically abused children. Child Abuse and
Ne lect, 8(4), 447-452.

 

78

Stanwyck, D. J., & Felker, D. W. (1971). Intellectual
achievement responsibility and anxiety as
functions of self-concept of’third to sixth grade
BOys and girls. Alexandrid, VA: (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 080903).

 

Stipeck, D. J., & Hoffman, J. M. (1980). Children's
achievement-related expectancies as a function of
academic performance histories and sex. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 555(6), 862.

Tillman, W. S., & Lord, E. E. An examination of locus
of control orientations in Egypt and Tunisia.
Human Organization, 54(4), 408.

Tollefson, N. (1982). Parental strategies for reducing
learned helplesslbehaVior among learning disabled
students. Alexandria, VA: (ERIC Document Reproduc-
tion Service No. ED 226547).

Walden, T. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1973). Locus of control
and academic achievement: Results from a
preschool intervention pro ram. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 55 3), 347-358.

Walters, E., Walters, G., & Bonnington, S. (1983).
Verbal self-instruction for the mentall retarded:
The missing link. Alexandria, VA: (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 230016).

 

d4

   

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIIIILIII IILILILI LIIIIIL II III IILIILIILILILIILIIIIIIII