J . .J. :37! y. THE-ibis NM \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| 3 1293 10389 5532 This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CAPACITY T0 INVESTIGATE LOCUS OF CONTROL IN FOUR-, FIVE-, AND SIX-YEAR-OLDS presented by Eiizabeth Butler StapIeford has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .0. degree in Secondary Education and Curriculum /€§§1LZ:1: ééigif1c4éégéif Major professor Date f£ZVMLcL 241 ,QZ’L/Vfo / . 0-7 639 l\l§(3:* "V‘. '« .’l"n A) ta-c 1"] fl--\\\\ 3;; 'v! , ‘5 WW” . K Sift-[fir ulty f“? OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIAL. S: #— Place in book return to remwe charge from circulation re: or AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CAPACITY TD INVESTIGATE LOCUS OF CONTROL IN FOUR-, FIVE-, AND SIX-YEAR-OLDS By Elizabeth Butler Stapleford A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1980 ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CAPACITY TO INVESTIGATE LOCUS OF CONTROL IN FOUR-, FIVE-, AND SIX-YEAR-OLDS By Elizabeth Butler Stapleford This study was designed to explore the efficacy of gather- ing and analyzing data regarding the locus of control preference in children aged four, five, and six. The Preschool and Primary Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External locus of control scale (PPNSIE), an instrument designed to assess locus of control pref- erence in children of this age, was administered to lSO preschool and kindergarten children in a United States Department of Defense Dependents School in West Germany. The following research hypotheses were developed to investi- gate the locus of control construct in very young children. 1. Children by the age of four, five, and six will indicate a preference for internal locus of control which will not change over a five week period. 2. The differences in the ages of the children will be unrelated to their locus of control preference. 3. The sex of children between the ages of four, five, and six will be unrelated to their locus of control preference. 4. Teacher academic ratings of the children will be unrelated to their locus of control preference. Elizabeth Butler Stapleford A match paired t-test and a 2 x 3 x 2 analysis of variance were used to analyze the data from the control scale. The kindergarten portion of the sample was the entire population of five- and six-year-olds on Sembach Air Base. Unlike the kindergarten children, the preschool age children were not the entire four-year-old population on the base. The four-year-olds used in this study came exclusively from the preschool classrooms. The major findings of the study may be summarized as follows: Results from this study do not deny that children's locus of control status is stable. It would appear to be consistent with child development theory that locus of control is established in the four-year-old child. This study was not able to deny or confirm stability, and therefore the locus of control construct in four-, five-, and six-year-olds must necessarily remain a presumption. Age was found in this study to be a factor in locus of control preference. Four-year-old children were significantly more internally controlled than either five- or six-year-olds. This is in contrast with findings of earlier studies and develop- ment theory that older children were more internal than younger children. Consistent with similar findings by earlier researchers, this study did not find sex to be a factor on locus of control status. Elizabeth Butler Stapleford Academic ratings of children by their teachers were found to affect locus of control preference with the lower academically ranked children being more internal than those rated as high. This is in contrast with findings of earlier studies which found that students who were internal tended to be higher academically ranked. Boys aged four, regardless of academic standing, were the most internally controlled in this study. But at five years of age regardless of academic standing, they were the most external of all groups. At six they remained external, but slightly less external than five-year-olds. Also, low academically~ranked boys, regardless of age, were the most internally controlled in this study. But low aca— demically ranked girls were more external than girls ranked as academically high. The nature of the test instrument, PPNSIE, from which all data was obtained may have adversely affected the reliability of the data obtained from it. Also, since the PPNSIE authors did not field test the instrument with four-year-olds, reliability of scores for this age group is questionable. In addition to these findings, suggestions for future research are presented. © Copyright by ELIZABETH BUTLER STAPLEFORD T980 DEDICATION To Helen Gaunt Butler, my dear mother and to the memory of Hiram Kaufman Butler, my gentle father. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to those who gave their encouragement and assistance in my work: To Dr. Ben Bohnhorst, Committee Chairperson: for his criti- cal reading and expert editing on this dissertation, and for his support and humor. To Dr. Louise Sause, Committee Member: for the great amount of time in sharing her wealth of keen insight and understanding of the young child and for many hours of patient consulting during frustrating times. To Dr. Richard Gardner, Committee Member: for his timely recommendation so that I could pursue my degree, and for believing in me. To Dr. Glen 0. Cooper, Committee Member: for being a constant source of support and encouragement, and for the chance to try. These four are more than excellent academic advisers; they are friends. Their influence and memory will be with me always. To my husband, David, and our son, Todd, thank you. LIST OF LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES . FIGURES APPENDICES PROBLEM Introduction . . Theoretical Framework. . Justification for the Study. Purpose Hypotheses . Definition of Key Terms Underlying Assumption . . Limitations of the Study. Overview . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . Definition of Locus of Control Construct Development of Locus of Control Previous Studies and Their Findings Resistance to Influence Cognitive Activity . Deferred Gratification Achivemenet Behavior . Response to Success and Failure Familial and Social Antecedents of Locus of. Control . . . . . . . . Familial origins Social origins . . Changes in Locus of Control . Locus of Control and Age Change Locus of Control Scale . . Summary and Implications for Present Study. iv Limited Amount of Research with Young Children. Page vi vii viii d OKOLOCDNVO‘O‘d-d Chapter Page III. PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Design and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 63 IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Interaction Effects . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 V. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . 72 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Summary of the Study . . . . . 72 Discussion of the Findings for the Hypotheses . . . 72 Discussion of Findings for the Interaction Effects . 8l Limitations . . . . . . . . . 83 Suggestions for Future Research . . . . . . . 87 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Table 4-l. 4-3. 4-4. 4-5. E-Z. LIST OF TABLES Means and Standard Deviations on PPNSIE Control Scale Scale Analysis of Variance on the PPNSIE Control Scale Analysis of Variance on the PPNSIE Control Scale Analysis of Variance on the PPNSIE Control Scale Analysis of Variance on PPNSIE Control Scale Cell Means and Standard Deviations on PPNSIE Control Scale--Measure l . . . . . . . . . . . Cell Means and Standard Deviations on PPNSIE Control Scale--Measure 2.. . . . . vi Page 65 66 67 68 69 118 119 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Interaction of Sex and Age on Measure 1 Only Keyed for Externality . Interaction of Sex and Academic Standing on Measure 2 Only Keyed for Externality . . . . . Distribution of PPNSIE Scores for 4-Year-Old Boys Distribution of PPNSIE Scores for 4-Year-Old Girls . Distribution of PPNSIE Scores for 5-Year-Old Boys Distribution of PPNSIE Scores for 5-Year-Old Girls . Distribution of PPNSIE Scores for 6-Year-Old Boys Distribution of PPNSIE Scores for 6-Year-Old Girls . vii Page 75 80 111 112 113 114 115 116 Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES A Preschool and Primary Internal-External Control Scale . . . . . . Breakdown of Population by Sex, Age, and Academic Standing . . . . . . . . . Instructions for PPNSIE Control Scale Distributions of PPNSIE Scores for Four-, Five-, and Six-Year-Old Boys and Girls . . . . . Tables E-l and E-2 . viii Page 92 103 105 110 117 CHAPTER I PROBLEM Introduction The purpose of this investigation was to explore whether it is possible to examine the locus of control in the four- to six-year-old child. Whether an individual sees himself as basically in control of the myriad situations of daily life or on the other hand at the mercy of factors outside his control, describes a personality trait that has been called locus of control (Rotter, 1954). Rather than being an either/or situation, people can be situated somewhere along a continuum between the two extremes of internal and external con— trol. Depending on the manner in which learning has been experi- enced, there is a tendency for individuals to be closer to one end of the continuum than the other (Nowicki and Stirckland, 1971). Just how early this gravitating effect occurs, when we can describe someone as being internally controlled or externally controlled, has yet to be established. Theoretical Framework The set of ideas that led to a theory of internal and external locus of control has been around for a long time. More than two centuries ago Locke, Leibnitz, and Rousseau had given 1 their views as to the nature of man‘s mind. For Locke (1959), man's mind was essentially passive in nature. For Leibnitz (1972) and Rousseau (l976), man's mind was essentially active in nature. John Locke assumed the mind of the individual to be a tabula rasa at birth. And the intellect itself was a passive thing acquiring content and structure only through the impact of sensa- tion and the crisscross of associations; that is, imprinting. Locke insisted that there can be nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses. Like Leibnitz and unlike Locke, Rousseau theorized that the child responded actively to the world around him, engaging his environment, using it to suit his interest. The child fits his abilities to the world in play and in the solving of problems, not as a passive recipient of the tutor's instruction . . . but as a busy, testing, motivated explorer. Knowledge is not an invention of adults poured into willing or unwilling vessels; it is a joint construc- tion of the child in nature and natural world. . . . The active searching child, hence, setting his own problems, stands in contrast to the receptive one (Rousseau, l976). To Leibnitz and Rousseau the intellect was perpetually active in its own right, addicted to rational problem solving, and bent on manipulating sensory data according to its own inherent nature. For Locke the organism was reactive when stimulated; for Liebnitz it was self-propelled. It may well be that both philo- sophical points of view were accurately seeing man in his process of becoming. Locke theorized that man passively received knowledge and relied on external controls to stimulate his becoming. Liebnitz and Rousseau on the other hand observed and hence theorized that man actively engaged in the pursuit of becoming and was consequently internally controlled. Locke, Liebnitz, and Rousseau's writings were important seminal influences in theories of child development. Contemporary theorists and researchers, like Piaget and Erikson, however, felt the need to check these hypotheses by systematic and careful obser- vations. Piaget's observation of autonomy in moral judgment led him to conclude that it emerged from within the child. But this has to develop, for at first the young child is egocentric and he operates in terms of moral realism. By this term, Piaget means that the child considers all rules to be sacred and unalterable. They come from without. That is, the child's morality is heteronomous (determined by the rules laid down by others, typically his parents). However, autonomous morality occurs later (between two-four years of age) and, Piaget believes, largely because of the give-and-take the child experiences in his peer group where he slowly learns others' points of view. This grows out of his egocentrism through role taking and participating in decisions. Autonomous morality comes from within. Laws are seen, not as sacred and immutable, but as social arrangements that come about through reciprocal agree- ment and that are for the good of all those affected by them. Thus, laws are modifiable in terms of human needs, including social change (Piaget, 1952). Erikson's second stage of personality development, like Piaget's moral autonomy, sees the child of four emerging as the one in charge. In the second stage, the one- to three-year-old child is faced with an important step: the development of either a sense of autonomy or a sense of doubt with which he will face his world. The child's new motor skills, as well as his mental accomplishments and his knowledge of himself as a separate being, cause him to form basic feelings about his own ability to do things for himself (Erikson, 1963). Both Piaget and Erikson see the parents or care- takers as crucial during these stages. Piaget sees that equali- tarian parents who handle their children through reasoning or induc- tion can greatly facilitate moral development (Hoffman, 1970). And likewise the parents are crucial for the development of a sense of autonomy, in that, if the parents do everything for the child, prevent his explorations, or impose too many punishments, he may leave this stage doubting his own abilities (Erikson, l963). Piaget went on to test his observations by carefully inter- viewing children. However, Erikson's theory of psychosocial development (development of autonomy or a feeling of self—control and self—determination) cannot be seen directly. That is, one cannot observe autonomy directly. But if Erikson is correct about the young child's need to direct his own behavior, we should see behavioral evidence, such as the two-year-old's emphatic "No!" to parental requests, the verbal response "He do it." to proffered help, the temper tantrums that sometimes occur when a child's goals are thwarted, and so forth. Erikson's theoretical statement about autonomy predicts these diverse behaviors. Piaget's observations on the development of autonomy in moral judgment and Erikson's theory of autonomy in personality (a child's sense of self-determination) are related. Also related is another dimension, internal locus of control, conceptualized by Julian Rotter and his colleagues (Rotter, l954, 1966; Lefcourt, T966). The child's new motor skills, as well as his mental accom- plishments and his knowledge of himself as a separate being, cause him to form basic feelings about his own ability to do things for himself. However, young children vary greatly in the amount of curiosity they experience and in the way they express it. Bright children, it has been found, are more active in exploring their environment and ask more questions than those of lower intellectual levels (Stone and Church, 1973). The social learning theory of Julian B. Rotter (1954) carries this notion one step further. As an infant develops and acquires more experience he dif- ferentiates events which are causally related to preceding events and those which are not. It follows as a general hypothesis that when the reinforcement is seen as not con- tingent upon the subject's own behavior that is occurrence will not increase an expectancy as much as when it is seen as contingent. Conversely, its nonoccurrence will not reduce an expectancy so much as when it is seen as con- tingent. It seems likely that, depending upon the indi- vidual's history of reinforcement, individuals would differ in the degree to which they attributed reinforcements to their own actions. Justification for the Study Limited Amount of Research With Young Children The literature has been particularly rich in work done on locus of control in high school or college age groups. Beginning in recent years, upper elementary and junior high age groups have held the researchers' attention. But, the literature has been nearly void in the area of the preschooler, and to the author's knowledge nothing has been done with the age group below five. It seems logical that the younger the age one attempts to observe a mental state, the more likely one is to find it less affected by experiences from an external world. This, of course, is not a new idea for philosophers of the mind have held that in the life of an individual it is the "patterns of behavior" percep- tible in infancy that "must be the original endowment from which the purely mental states develop,” and that what is later regarded as "inner," be it an emotion, an effect, or a fantasy, is "a residue" that remains when all forms of associated behavior are reduced to the vanishing point (Hampshire, T962). Since the capacity to restrict associated behavior and influences increases with age, it is evident that the younger the subject the more likely are his behavior and mental state to be in a less affected form. In 1920 Freud pointed out the serious limitations of the retrospective method. He said: So long as we trace the development from its final out- come backward, the chain of events appears continuous, and we feel we have gained an insight which is completely satisfactory or even exhaustive. But if we proceed the reverse way, if we start from the premises inferred from the analysis and try to follow these up to the final result, then we no longer get the impression of an inevi- table sequence of events which could not have been other- wise determined. we notice at once that there might have been another result, and that we might have been just as well able to understand and explain the latter. The syn- thesis is thus not so satisfactory as the analysis; in other words, from a knowledge of the premises we could not have foretold the nature of the result. Purpose It was the purpose of this study to attempt to explore locus of control in four- to six-year-old children. The internal-external locus of control dimension (I-E) as derived from social learning theory (Rotter, l954) describes the degree to which an individual believes that reinforcements are contingent upon his own behavior. According to this theory, people vary along a continuum with respect to how they perceive their ability to control events or not control events. The closer an individual is to one end or the other, the more internal or external he may be said to be. An expectancy that reinforcements depend upon one's own actions describes the internal portion of the continuum. If a person believes that events are unpredictable because of the great complexities of the forces around him, he is described as being somewhere along the external portion of the continuum. Hypotheses The data for the present study were provided by the entire population of 150 four-, five-, and six-year-old children enrolled in the preschool and kindergarten on Sembach Air Base, Sembach, West Germany. A measure of locus of control, Preschool and Primary Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale, was administered to obtain pertinent information. The following research hypotheses were pursued: l. Children by the age of four, five, and six will indi- cate a preference for locus of control that will not change over a five week period. 2. The differences in the ages of the children will be unrelated to their locus of control preference. 3. The sex of children between the ages of four, five, and six will be unrelated to their locus of control preference. 4. Teacher academic ratings of the children will be unrelated to their locus of control preference. Definition of Key Terms For the purpose of this study the terms set forth below are defined as follows: Internal-external locus of control dimension: This dimen- sion (I-E) as derived from Julian B. Rotter's social learning theory describes the degree to which an individual believes that reinforce- ments are contingent upon his own behavior. An expectancy that reinforcement depends upon one's own actions is called internal control. If a person believes that events are unpredictable because of the great complexities of forces around him, he is described as being external in his locus of control. Locus of control: Whether an individual sees himself as basically in control of the myriad situations of daily life or on the other hand at the mercy of factors outside his control describes a personality trait that has been called locus of control. Rather than being an either/or situation, people can be situated somewhere along a continuum between the two extremes of internal and external control. Depending on the manner in which learning has been exper- ienced, there is a tendency for individuals to be closer to one end of the continuum than the other. Preschool: The term preschool as used in this study refers to four-year-old children. Preschool and Primary Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale: This scale (PPNSIE) was the measuring tool adminis- tered in this study. A complete copy of the test is located in Chapter II. Primary: The term primary as used in this study refers to five- and six-year-old children. Underlying_Assumption With respect to the theory underlying the study, the follow- ing assumption is presented: Locus of control as theorized by Julian B. Rotter (1954) formed the theoretical framework for this study. It was assumed that his theory is valid. Limitations of the Study The limitations for generalizability of the findings in this study are in two areas: the population and the locus of control scale used, PPNSIE. 10 The population was unique in the respect that they were all children of U.S. Armed Forces personnel stationed in West Germany. This is a uniqueness not normally found in the general population. The breadwinners of each family working for the same employer and the children living in a foreign culture could have had an effect on this present study's findings. The use of the PPNSIE, the only instrument used to measure locus of control in this study, may have affected the results obtained from the scale. A detailed discussion of these possible limitations is presented in Chapter III. Overview In Chapter II, a comprehensive definition of locus of con- trol is presented as well as a comprehensive discussion of the development of the locus of control concept. In the review of the literature, the theory and research pertinent to locus of control will be explored in depth. The PPNSIE and pertinent information describing its development are also presented. Chapter III des- cribes the subject sample, treatment procedure, materials, analysis, design, and hypotheses. The analysis of data and an interpretation of results for each hypothesis and the interaction effects are pre— sented in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes a summary of this investi- gation, a discussion of the findings, and implications for further research in the area of locus of control. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Definition of Locus of Control Construct Locus of control (Bialer, 1961), or attribution (Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, and Rosenbaum, 1971), refers to the extent to which the individual feels that his successes or failures are due to what he himself does or else to the workings of external forces over which he has little control. Therefore, the concept of locus of control bears on how an individual perceives the world he lives in. At one extreme, he may see it as chaotic and unpredictable; at the other, as orderly and reliable. The way in which a person's world is predicted is likely to play an important role in determining his behavior and its out- comes (Nowicki and Strickland, 1971). Locus of control has been defined as follows: When a reinforcement is perceived by subject as following some action of his own but not being entirely contingent upon his action, then, in our culture, it is typically per- ceived as the result of luck, chance, fate, as under the control of powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great complexity of the forces surrounding him. When the event is interpreted in this way by an individual, we have labeled this a belief in external control. If the person perceives that the event is contingent upon his own behavior or his own relative permanent characteristics, we have termed this belief in internal control (Rotter, 1954). In other words, when a child, a youth, or an adult believes he has primary control over his own fate--produces his own 11 12 reinforcements--and thinks that he can determine the way things turn out by the way he acts, we say he is internally controlled. When he believes that the things that happen to him are the results of the behavior of others (or of the stars, or the fates, or luck), he is externally controlled. It must be pointed out, however, that the concept of locus of control is a very personal concept and it is intimately related to one's notion about himself. It must also be noted that there is much variation in the nature of locus of control from one individual to another, and an individual may likely vary in the degree of internality or extern- ality of his locus of control from one time to another. Human nature being what it is, a person will become more external follow- ing a chain of unfortunate behavior outcomes. Similarly, a person is likely to become more internal following a chain of successes. Locus of control should be distinguished from expectation of success. Expectation of success is one's prediction of how a given endeavor will turn out: "I have a 50-50 chance of making it-- or a 90-10 chance--or a 5-95 chance." Such an objective prediction has little relation to locus of control. Development of Locus of Control The findings to date, summarized in this section, have shown that the particular mother-infant relationship that is formed has a profound influence on various styles of personality development, one being the infant's locus of control. 13 The importance of the mother as a source of intellectual stimulation has been emphasized in a number of different approaches. Hunt (1963), for example, suggested that in the early months the child is responsive primarily to changes in stimulation. Therefore, the extent to which the mother provides for frequent encounters with a wide variety of situations involving change in stimulation influences the infant's early learning. This applies both to the behavior of the mother and the total environment she provides. Thus, frequency and variation of stimulation are seen as the char- acteristics important in early development and the extent to which the mother provides this can depress or enhance the child's subse- quent development. Another view that is represented by Gewirtz (1966) and Watson (1966, 1967) is based on the role of the mother as a source of reinforcement. The infant will tend to repeat those behaviors which are reinforced within his memory span. Since at three months it is estimated to be about five seconds (Watson, 1967), reinforce- ments must follow behavior fairly quickly if the child is to be aware of the contingencies involved. According to this view, the mother can encourage learning of desirable behavior by contingent rein- forcement of these behaviors when they occur. A third approach also centers on the notion of contingency but maintains that contingency is important, not only because it shapes acquisition of specific behavior, but because it enables the child to develop a motive which is the basis for all future learn- ing. The main characteristic of this motive is the infant's belief 14 that his actions affect his environment. In this case, the mother is important because it is the contingency between the infant's behavior and her responses that enable the infant to learn that his behavior does have consequences. The main differentiation between this view and the operant conditioning position is that the latter predicts only change in specifically reinforced behaviors while the former predicts change in behaviors not specifically reinforced (Lewis, Goldberg, and Rausch, 1967). Three theoretical systems have been briefly presented to account for the dynamics of mother-infant interaction: (1) amount and variety of stimulation provided the infant by the mother, (2) reinforcement of behavior of the infant by the mother, and finally (3) a contingency model involving, not the learning of a particular behavior, but a generalized expectancy. This expectancy or motive could effect the environment. This last system has important implication for the researcher's study. Previous Studies and Their Findings There have been many themes investigated about locus of control. This review is directed toward an evaluation of locus of control investigations which have ramifications for five inter- related areas: (1) the resistance to influence; (2) cognitive activity; (3) deferred gratification, achievement behavior, and the response to success and failure; (4) familial and social ante- cedents of locus of control; and (5) changes in locus of control. 15 It is the intent of this review to look at these themes as comprehensively as possible and to restrict the review primarily to those research studies that have used or discussed their results in terms of internal and external control of reinforcement expec- tancies (I-E). The writer wishes to give credit for the major part of this review to Lefcourt's review of locus of control (1974). Resistance to Influence The first two investigations to empirically link locus of control to influence resistance were performed by Odell (1959) and Crowne and Liverant (l963). Odell found a significant relationship between Rotter's Internal-External Control Scale and Barron's Inde- pendence of Judgment Scale, with subjects high in externality show- ing a greater likelihood of conformity. Crowne and Liverant also reported that externals had less confidence in their own judgment abilities when making independent rather than conforming judgments. Gore (1963) found that internals and externals differed in their response to an examiner who was administering the TAT when the examiner, through smiles and intonation, attempted to manipu~ late the subjects. Internals produced shorter TAT stories than externals when the examiner's gestures indicated that subjects were expected to produce longer stories in response to the specific TAT cards being presented. When the examiner made no suggestions, this difference between internals and externals was not obtained. Two other investigations employed a verbal conditioning model in which the locus of control was used to predict the 16 responses to verbal reinforcements. Strickland (1970) found that internality-externality was related to the denial of having been influenced by the verbal reinforcements; internals denied influence more often than externals. Strickland also found that internals who were aware of the reinforcement contingency in her study tended to exhibit less conditioning than internals who were unaware of the contingencies, and less than all external subjects regardless of whether or not they were aware of the contingencies. Getter (1966) found that the most responsive "conditioners" were his most external subjects. Getter's more internal subjects produced the conditioned response mostly during extinction trials, after the experimenter had ceased his own reinforcing responses. In each of these studies, there is some indication that internals behave in a somewhat oppositional manner, doing the reverse of what others would coerce them into doing. Biondo and MacDonald (1971) have examined the effect of subtle versus overt influence attempts upon the tendencies of internals and externals to resist influence. These investigators found no differences as a function of the subtlety of their influence methods. Rather, externals were found to be more accepting of either influence approach in the way they rated the desirability of a given course grading system. Likewise, Hjelle (1970) found that externals manifested greater attitude change than internals when they had been exposed to standard communication advocating positions contrary to their previous atti- tudes. 17 Johnson, Ackerman, Frank, and Fionda (1968) have investi- gated the resistance to temptation. They employed a "complete a story" device in which the story hero experiences social pressure directing him toward the violation of some social norm. Subjects had to complete the stories in which the hero was either at the point of decision making, or had already complied with the pressure and now had to confront the consequences. Among male undergraduates, Johnson et al. found that the more internal the subject, the more likely was he to complete stories in which the hero resisted pres- sure. In addition, when the transgression had already occurred, internals were more likely to have the hero acknowledge guilt about his having yielded to pressure than were externals. These results were not obtained in the female sample, though internality- externality was related to a measure of stability among females, with the more internal scoring as the more stable on Eysenck's Personality Inventory. Ritchie and Phares (1969) found that externals exhibited more conforming attitude changes regarding governmental budgeting than internals only when the influence arguments were attributable to a high-status individual. When arguments were attributed to prominent figures, externals yielded more than did internals. However, internals were not immune to the arguments presented, showing some shift in the direction of the influencer's commentary. However, internals did not vary with influencer status. Neither internals nor externals could be described as uniformly resistant or susceptible. 18 James, Woodruff, and Werner (1965) found that subsequent to the U.S.P.H.S. Surgeon General's report linking cancer with cigarette smoking, among male smokers, those who quit for a speci- fied length of time were more internal than those who believed the report but did not quit smoking. Platt (1969) has reported more success at influencing the smoking behavior of internals than of externals. Platt used the role-playing procedures of Janis and Mann (1965) in which subjects perform as physician, patient, or observer during a medical examination report containing bad medical news for the patient regarding cancer and smoking. Platt found that the greatest changes in smoking behavior occurred among individuals who also believed that there were harmful effects from smoking. A series of experiments by Lefcourt (1967) found that externals performed in accord with directions, while internals did not. Achievement-oriented patterns of performance were obtained from 91% of external subjects when task directions emphasized the achievement-relevance of the task; when achievement characteristics were not so emphasized, only 18% of external subjects responded in an achievement-oriented fashion. Internals, on the other hand, exhibited little variability with directions. In brief, externals were highly responsive to external definitions of the task, whereas internals seemed to be more moved by their own decisions to perform the task varying little with the experimenter's suggestions. In another study Lefcourt, Lewis, and Silverman (1968) initially found no performance differences between internals and externals in response to skill versus chance directions given with 19 the task. However, when examining the subjects' own reports as to whether they actually perceived the task as skill or chance- determined, differences were noted between the groups. Internals were less likely than externals to have accepted directions which stressed chance determination and they were more likely to have accepted skill directions. It was concluded, therefore, that internals are somewhat more responsive to directions that concur with their own impressions and less likely to be influenced by those which challenge their own perceptions of the task at hand. In a reaction time study designed to replicate previously reported differences between internals and externals and externals with self- versus experimenter-controlled conditions, Cromwell, Rosenthal, Shakow, and Zahn (1961), and Lefcourt and Siegel (1970a) found all subjects were quicker with the embellished directions, though externals improved even more than the internals. Again, externals shifted more with experimenter directions that did internals. In the larger number of studies, then, evidence is found to support the contention that persons holding an internal locus of control can withstand pressures directing them to behave in a cer- tain circumscribed manner. This is not true in all instances. Internals do yield to pressures, but not to the same pressure as externals. When acted upon as a subject in an experiment, internals appear to be negativistic, as in the verbal conditioning experiments. Likewise, statements presented by authorities do not seem to capti- vate them. However, internals do respond to reasoned arguments 20 regardless of the status of the source, readily respond to direc- tives that are in agreement with their own perceptions, and shift their own attitudes and behavior when allowed more active partici- pation, as in role playing which brings about internal self- directives. Externals appear to be responsive to more prestigious sources of influence, readily accepting experimenters' suggestions and directions. The merits of the arguments presented seem to be secondary to the prominence of the influencer, and, as reported in the study by Johnson et a1. (1968), the desire for affiliation and dependence may be more important to externals than the maintenance of moral standards. Cognitive Activity Two of the earliest reported investigations providing infor- mation in regard to cognitive activity as a function of locus of control were those by Seeman and Evans (1962) and Seeman (1963). Both studies reported the fact that internals had more information relevant to their personal conditions than did externals. Among tuberculosis patients, internals had come to know more about their own personal conditions than had externals (Seeman and Evan, 1962); and among reformatory inmates, internals exhibited greater learning about the attainment of parole than had externals (Seeman, 1963). Internals did not differ from externals, however, when the informa- tion presented for learning was less personally relevant. Differ- ences were prominent only when the learning concerned means toward a valued end. 21 Davis and Phares (1967) gave their subjects the task of attempting to influence another subject's attitudes toward the Viet Nam war. Subjects were led to believe that the experimenters had a file of data available about each prospective influencee. The main dependent measure consisted of the number of questions that subjects asked of the experimenter about their specific influencees. The authors had hypothesized that internals would be more likely to seek information than externals, so as to become more prepared for their task. Davis and Phares also instructed their subjects as to the likelihood of their being effective. One group received skill directions, another luck directions, and a third were offered no special instructions regarding their likelihood of successful per- suasion. In the group receiving the luck instructions, no differ- ences in information-seeking were found. However, internals did request more information than externals about their influences in both the "skill" and no-instruction groups. The results indicate that internals engage more in the preliminary steps of data gather- ing than externals which, in turn, might increase their probability of success were the task actually to transpire. In another study reported by Phares (1968), internals and externals were compared in their tendencies to use information for decision-making, which all subjects had learned to a similar cri- terion level. Phares concluded that internals are more likely to make use of information than externals are equally aware of and that, therefore, internals should have a greater potential for effectiveness in their social environment. 22 Lefcourt and Wine (1969) have also reported some data about the manner in which internals and externals attend to social cues while attempting to learn about another person. These authors con- cluded that internal subjects are more likely than externals to attend to cues providing information which can help to resolve uncertainties. In another study focusing upon attentiveness, Lefcourt et al. (1968) found that internal and external subjects varied considerably in their attention-related responses, depending upon whether they viewed the level of aspiration task in which they were engaged as skill or chance determined. Internals who perceived the task as skill determined exhibited less inattentiveness, and they reported that they had engaged in more task-relevant and less task- irrelevant thoughts than did internals who believed that the task was more chance determined. Differences among externals as a func- tion of perceived controllability of the task were nowhere as pro- nounced. These findings were supported by results with decision time. Internals took more time to decide upon each subsequent expectancy statement when they had perceived the task as skill determined. Externals, to the contrary, were more deliberate when they perceived the task as chance determined. Similar results, indicating that internals spend more time deliberating about decisions in skill-demanding tasks than chance- determined tasks, while externals tend to show opposite reactions, have been reported in other investigations. Rotter and Mulry (1965) found internals exhibiting longer delays in decision times with 23 skill as opposed to chance directions. Externals did not differ as extensively in that study. Likewise, Julian and Katz (1968) found that internals required longer decision times when the difficulty of decision making increased. Externals, as in the Rotter and Mulry study, did not differ extensively, revealing little decision time differences between easy and difficult choices. In the study by Watson and Baumal (1967), internals were found to make more errors in preparation for a task said to be chance determined. Externals showed a similar error proneness when anticipating a skill-determined task. These authors interpreted their results in terms of anxiety engendered by tasks that offer challenges which are incongruent with subjects' habitual orientation. Rotter (1966) reported that no empirical relationship was found between the internality-externality scale and Gottschalk Figures Test (one measure of Differentiation). Chance and Goldstein (1967) likewise found an insignificant relationship between internality-externality and performance on the Embedded Figures Test, though these latter investigators did find that internals improved steadily from trial to trial as they progressed through the Embedded Figures Test. The research regarding cognitive activity and internality- externality shows that persons with internal control expectancies tend to be more cognitively active than those with external control expectancies. Internals seem to know more about what is important to them, and seem more eager to gain information that would help increase their probabilities for success experiences. In skill 24 task, where control is possible, internals were decidedly more deliberate and cautious than externals. Externals, on the other hand, seem more involved in chance tasks, expending time and effort at decisions which seem of little concern to internals. Deferred Gratification Another research area of relevance to locus of control con- cerns the preference for immediate versus delayed reinforcements. Zytkoskee, Strickland, and Watson (1971) found that locus of control and self-imposed delay of gratification were both related to similar demographic variables. Blacks were found to be more external and more likely to choose immediate reinforcements than were whites, and these findings were the most pronounced between the females of the black and white samples. The researchers found that the direct correlations between these variables were insignificant, and that the experimental design may have had an adverse effect on these correlations. In a subsequent study, in which Strickland (1972) contrasted results obtained from black and white experimenters, delayed reinforcement preference was found to be related to an internal locus of control within the sample of white subjects. Blacks, on the other hand, were significantly more external, as has been reported previously, and their choice between immediate and delayed reinforcement was unrelated to locus of control. Walls and Smith (1970) have found internality-externality to be correlated significantly with the choice of a slightly larger but delayed reinforcement (7 as to 5 pennies); internals chose to 25 wait for the larger amount. These writers also found internality- externality to be related to a measure of time perspective; internals judged more accurately the lapse of a minute. Correctness of time judgment was, in turn, related to the preference for delayed rein- forcements. This replicated study confirmed previously reported results by Mischel (1961) and Spivack, Levine, and Sprigle (1959). In contrast, Walls and Miller (1970) found internality- externality unrelated to delayed reinforcement choice or time per- spective in another study with a small sample of vocational rehabil- itation and welfare clients. However, both locus of control and delayed reinforcement preference were related to grade level; the more educated persons were more internal and more likely to prefer delayed reinforcement. In a study concerned with the prediction of school achieve- ment, Lessing (1969) found that Strodtbeck's Personal Control Scale (Strodtbeck, 1958) and a delay of gratification measure were both related to grade-point average. The studies reported suggest that locus of control and reinforcement preference are related. Achievement Behavior Lessing (1969) has reported that a sense of presonal con- trol predicted grade-point level of students even when 10 scores were partialed out. Lessing, as well as Chance (1965), Crandall, Katkovsky, and Preston (1962), Harrison (1968), McGhee and Crandall (1968), and Nowicki and Roundtree (1971) have found that an internal 26 locus of control generally accompanies various aspects of children's successful academic achievement. One exception to the rule favoring internality has been reported by Katz (1967) who found little rela- tionship between achievement and scores on the Intellectual Achieve- ment Responsibility Scale (Crandall, Katkovsky, and Crandall, 1965) among black children. Except for Katz's work, the studies show positive associa- tion between internality and achievement behavior in spite of a wide range of measuring devices for the locus of control. The strength of this association is exemplified in the study by Harrison (1968), who employed his "View of the Environment Test" and found that a sense of personal control characterized successful students regardless of the socioeconomic status of the home. That is, an internal orientation predicted academic success among both advantaged and disadvantaged children. Although there is some consistency of findings in this area, there is an absence of research concerned with more prolonged achievement activity as might be indicated by types of careers and adult pursuits which require persistence and the willingness to defer gratification. Investigations of achievement behavior beyond the limits of a grade-school year and single administrations of achievement tests are needed to test further the generality of the link between internality-externality and achievement. 27 Response to Success and Failure The earliest studies linking internality-externality to the coping with success and failure employed the level of aspiration model, in which subjects stated their expectancies for success throughout a series of trials in which they experienced failures and successes. Phares (1955) and James (1957) both studied the effect of skill and chance directions upon internals and externals. Externals were found to behave similarly to subjects who had received chance directions. They exhibited less expectancy shifts reflecting their successes and failures, and they produced more unusual shifts-- that is, raising expectancies after a failure to accomplish lesser levels of achievement, or lowering expectancies after attaining success on higher levels of performance. James concluded that the unusual shift exemplifies the failure to develop a measured response to one's success and failure experiences, that such expectancy shifts indicate that a person is not using his prior experiences as a basic for predictions. It is as if one's fortunes were random and one's experiences discrete and unrelated. Investigators concerned with achievement motivation have also used the unusual shift as an indication of withdrawal from achievement challenge, finding that those who fear failure more than they hope for success are more likely to produce unusual shifts of expectancies (Moulton, 1965). Lefcourt et a1. (1968) found that failure-avoidant patterns and abnormal amounts of expectancy shifting made during performance on Rotter's level of aspiration board characterized the subject who believed that performance on that task was chance determined. 28 These investigators also found that unusual shifts were more common among internals who believed the task to be chance determined than among those who perceived it as a skill task, while the reverse tendency was found among externals. Lefcourt (1967) used the level of aspiration board in another study in which the instructions dif- fered in the degree to which achievement characteristics of the task were emphasized. Internals produced fewer failure-avoidant patterns than externals when instructions were vague in regard to achievement. When the directions became more achievement-oriented, significantly fewer externals showed abnormal amounts of shifting and failure-avoidance patterns than other externals who had received nonachievement-stressing instructions. In fact, these achieve- instructed externals surpassed internals in indications of success striving. Feather (1968) has found that internals make more typical changes of confidence statements (up after success and down after failure) than externals during a series of trials with anagrams. Likewise, Ryckman, Gold, and Rodda (1971) found more typical changes in confidence throughout a series of anagrams among internals who were also high in self-esteem. In contrast, this same research group (Ryckman and Rodda, 1971) found the reverse in a task that was obviously less skill-determined than the anagrams test; internals made less typical confidence shifts than externals. Lefcourt and Steffy (1970a) have investigated the manner in which level of aspiration performance such as that noted above is related to performance in other tasks. These investigators found 29 that subjects who made a greater number of unusual shifts when performing on the level of aspiration board also shifted about more in their levels of risk-taking during a gambling task, and were less likely to write TAT-like stories containing sexual themes despite the presence of stimuli relevant to sex in the pictures presented to them. These results were interpreted as reflecting inadequate behavior across three disparate tasks (excessive shifting in risk choices is said to be a less strategic appraoch to the gambling task). At the same time, these authors found no relationships between performance on these tasks and the internality-externality scale, which they attempted to explain in terms of the testing con- ditions that may have helped to generate "defensive internality." These same authors found in a follow-up investigation (Lefcourt and Steffy, 1970b) that the more adequate or success-striving behavior each subject demonstrated on each task, the less well was she rated as a student nurse in a training program that required deference to authority. In general, the level-of—aspiration type research indicates that internals seem to adjust their behavior more appropriately to their accumulated experiences than do externals. However, when the task seems to be more chance- than skill-determined, it is the more external individual who exhibits experience-contingent expectancies, whereas internals seem to become more random. This reversal with chance-determined tasks is found with expressions of confidence as well as in performance measures such as decision time (as exempli- fied in Rotter and Mulry, 1965). Internals, then, do seem to be 30 more measured in their responses to success and failure than externals insofar as expectancy statements made during skill- determined level of aspiration tasks are concerned. However, a few studies have presented data which raise questions as to the manner in which internals cope with failure experiences. The earliest of such studies (Efran, 1963) reported that internal high- school students were more likely to have forgotten failure exper- iences than externals. Rotter (1966) interpreted these results as indicating a lesser need to "repress" by externals who were not as likely to blame themselves for their failures as were internals. Lipp, Kolstoe, James, and Randall (1968) reported a related finding that handicapped externals exhibited lower recognition thresholds for tachistoscopically presented pictures of handicapped persons than more internal handicapped subjects. Externals were said to have a lesser tendency to deny "threatening" stimuli, while inter- nals were seen as more threatened because of the challenge to con- trol that a handicap represents. Phares, Ritchie, and Davis (1968) found a similar kind of result in that externals were able to recall more negative though spurious information that had been presented to them as feedback from their "personality assessments" than were internals. Nevertheless, internals subsequently expressed more interest in making arrangements to confront their assumed personal difficulties than externals. MacDonald and Hall (1969) have examined the perception of disabilities among internals and externals with results suggesting that, contrary to the study by Lipp et al. (1968), externals fear the difficulties associated with handicaps 31 significantly more than internals. Only with regard to "emotional difficulties" do internals register more anticipation of trouble for maintaining successful role fulfillments, though even then they do not exceed externals in their degree of anticipated difficulty. In regard to the ability to recall completed versus incompleted tasks, Butterfield (1965) found no differences between internals and externals. This lack of recall difference was surprising in view of the fact that when subjects were given the opportunity to return to the battery of tasks, internals chose to return to incom- plete tasks more than did externals when directions had emphasized the skill nature of the task. In other words, recall and task behavior were independent, which is similar to the finding of Phares et a1. (1968) whose internals, while recalling less information, were more ready to engage in ameliorative action. In one exception to this data regarding internality-externality and recall of failures, Borer (1969) found that internals recalled more incompleted than completed tasks, whereas the reverse was true of externals. Internals had a higher ratio of recall of interrupted to completed tasks than externals which produced a highly significant main effect for locus of control. While some of the writers mentioned above have advanced the position that internals are more defensive in the face of threat than externals, the larger group of studies concerning cognitive activity, the willingness to defer gratification, and the response to success and failure experiences argue against the interpretation emphasizing defensiveness. 32 Familial and Social Antecedents of'Locus of Control Familial origins.--Among the earliest studies concerned with the development of control expectancies was that by Chance (1965) who matched children's scores on the Crandalls' Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire with their mothers' atti- tudes toward child rearing obtained from interviews and the Parent Attitude Research Inventory. Among boys, internal control expec- tancies were related to permissive and flexible maternal attitudes and to maternal expectations of early independence. A weak tendency was also found for birth order; the earlier born child (male of female) was somewhat more internal than later born children. This finding was also reported by Crandall et a1. (1965) who interpreted this result favoring firstborn children as reflecting upon the fact that the first born are often given more responsibilities in their families, whereas the later born are often in the position of being helped. MacDonald (1971a) obtained a similar result when restrict- ing his analysis to one- and two-child families. Later-born child- ren tended to be more external than first-born children and were decidedly more external than only children. The only negative data reported thus far with regard to birth order is in a study by Eisenman and Platt (1968) who found higher external control expec- tancies among first-born males. Four different studies have been reported bearing some simi- larities, in that each reveals children's locus of control to be less related to parental behavior. Katkovsky, Crandall, and Good 33 (1967) compared children's scores on the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire with home observations of parental behavior, as well as parental attitudes expressed in interviews and on questionnaires. The overall findings indicated that internal control expectancies are related to parental protectiveness, nurtur- ance, and the tendencies to be approving and nonrejecting. Davis and Phares (1969) have found comparisons between extreme groups of internals and externals on the Children's Reports of Parental Behaviors Inventory. Similar to the preceding investi- gation, these authors found that parents of internals were judged as being more accepting, having greater positive involvement, and being less rejecting and exercising of hostile control than parents of externals. In addition, parents of internals were perceived as being more consistent disciplinarians than were parents of externals. 0n the other hand, these same researchers found no significant dif- ferences between parents of internals and externals when parents' attitudes were assessed on the Maryland Parent Attitude Survey. Internal children had fathers who advocated indulgence, independence and self-reliance more than did their mothers, whereas mothers of externals more strongly advocated these child-rearing goals than did their fathers. Shore (1968) used two measures of internality-externality (Bialer and Battle-Rotter) and the Children's Report of Parent Behavior Inventory with grade school boys and had parents complete Rotter's internality-externality scale, a special scale assessing parental expectations of personal control in child rearing, and two 34 measures of parental attitudes. Among parental attitudes, only the fathers' internality regarding child rearing was related to child- ren's internality-externality measures: the more internal the father, the more internal the boy. Children who perceived their parents as exerting more psychological control and being less warm and intrinsically accepting were more external. Again, children's perceptions of parental behavior were more strongly related to children's locus of control than were parental attitudes, and children's perceptions of adult behavior and parental attitudes were unrelated. MacDonald (1971b) used large samples of college students who completed Rotter's internality-externality scale along with a Perceived Parenting Questionnaire. Again, perceived parental nur- turance was positively related to internality on the internality- externality scale as was parental consistency in maintaining stan- dards for children's behavior. One other study employing a somewhat differing methodology has been reported by Epstein and Komorita (1971). These investi- gators found that black children was described their parents as using excessively hostile control, and as being inconsistent dis- ciplinarians on the Children's Report of Parent Behavior, attributed successes in a matching task to external causes. Social origins.--With the exception of two studies in which the Intellectual Achivement Responsibility Scale was employed (Katz, 1967; Solomon, Houlihan, and Parelius, 1969) and one with Rotter's 35 internality-externality scale (Kiehlbauch, 1968), most studies show that blacks score in a more external direction than whites (Lessing, 1969; Owens, 1969; Shaw and Uhl, 1969; Strickland, 1972; Zytkoskee et al., 1971). Solomon et a1. and Katz both interpreted this failure to find differences between racial groups as being due to the nature of the test employed. In regard to class-related differences, Gruen and Ottinger (1969) have found that middle-class children are more internal than lower class children, and Walls et al. (1970) have found educa- tional level to be directly related to internality. Jessor, Graves, Hanson, and Jessor (1968) have found that internal control expec- tancies are positively associated with socioeconomic status, and that objective access to opportunities in a community is positively related to perceived control. These same authors also reported ethnic group differences: Anglo-Americans were more internal than Spanish Americans, with mean internality-externality scores for Indians falling midway between others. On the basis of their respective cultural histories, Hsieh, Shybut, and Lotsof (1969) successfully predicted internality-externality scores of Anglo- Americans, American-born Chinese, and Chinese living in the Republic of China. The results indicated that externality increased significantly from the first- to the last-named group. Changes in Locus of Control Two studies with relevance to changing expectancies have been reported. One demonstrated that explicit directions had a 36 beneficial effect upon the control-related behavior of externals (Lefcourt, 1967); the other illustrated how expectancies in a new challenging situation could be increased when a new task was linked with others in which the subjects had already enjoyed some success (Lefcourt and Ladwig, 1965). Some change studies have examined the effect of specific public events upon internality-externality scores. Gorman (1968) found that undergraduates scored in a more external direction than Rotter's norms for university students on the day after the 1968 Democratic Party convention. A large proportion of Gorman's stu- dent sample had been McCarthy supporters for whom the convention was a severely disillusioning experience. Another national event, the draft lottery, was also found to produce certain predictable effects upon the locus of control scores of college students. McArthur (1970) reported that students who had had the good fortune to become less draft eligible through the draft lottery scored as significantly more external-e Lac mmeoum womzaa co =o_usapeomwo--.P.g menace auwpoceopxo com cozox « eocoum R mm mmemmmmmpmommpm—tm—£322 m cm N. egg e 1 ..¢ P_m.~ 1 am N_ ..o mmm.o_ u z N mczmooz ..m «meoom mu mmmm «NMNNN pm Quay 222 mp: 93 : 2 mm m o m e m N— b Egg mmo.m mmo.m II D (I) N— F mesmooz II 2 sauepnas Io JaqwnN sauapnas Io JaqwnN 111 112 NN mN mN P l. «N mN NN .- .m_LP¢ e_o-zaa>-e Lac maeoum “Hmzaa co cowo=a_eomco--.~-o mezmwa »u__wccouxo so» coxox * accoum NONmmptmpm— ovaNp r N r 4 new.— u om m_ u c r Noc.op u z N moamooz m 1 m «ocoom NN mNmN eNmNNw PNON 23: 323.22 :3 m m N o m e m N ~ h .O.......c-m Lac maeoum womzaa co =o_a=a_eommo--.m-o oL=m_a zwwpmceouxo sow ooxoxa aoeoum NNmNmNeNmNNNZONSSS22:22:Smwem men N e g -. 1 a oo_.m 1 am mm 1 e ..o mmo.Np u z N oczmooz r.m «ogoum sauapnas ;O JaqmnN KN mNmNeNmNNN—NON 2M: 2 33sz NPZS m m s m m e m Np P P p b D p h b NmNd $0.2 u o: o z 3: E E .2 . N ... om u c F ogzmoo: siuapnas Io aaqmnu 114 .m_L_u excucmm>1m gee museum mHmzoa we coxaaapgumwo--.e1a mc:m_m auwxoccmaxo com coaog k aocoum 5N N N N «N NN 5 ON 3 m— 2 2 mx 3 2 N_. p D L b r p b ooe.N —P—.mx kmcoum >< >1 ’I‘ x ’1 >< >< x 5N 0N 3 N N NN 8 ON 2 mx 2 2 mx 3 2 N_. E xmm.m mmm.xx xx xxx xx : 2a xx ox m m .n m e m. N r.N ..¢ 3.0 on u c oezmo N o: ..m m x. o m .e m N [N r.¢ emu: .o x weamooz sauapnqs Io Jaqmnu sauapnas Io aaqmnN 115 .mxom e_o-Laa>-e Loo mmeoam “Hmzaa Lo :o_o=n_eomco11.m-o ae=m_e R N mN «N mN NN xN 8 mx wx xx F P p b P P b — b — max.m oom.Nx ll 2 m ee e a e «e e... xxx can mmm.N mxx.mx II ll 20 U) ox mx «ocoum ox mx Nx xx ox auxxocgooxo cox umxog k m Mw x m m x. m N x 1 N T.¢ oN u c N ocamooz 1 o r N .Z:: 1 N 1 c em 1 e x «cameo: 1 m sauapnzs ;O Jaqmnn sauepnas Io JaqmnN 116 .mxcxu ux01eom>1m Lox museum uxmzoo xo :oxpanxcpmxa11.m1a mesmxm xuxxoceoaxo so» uozox «ocoum xNoN mN eNMNNNxN ONaxwax oxmxexMxNxxx oxm m x o m e m Nx p b p L b L L p .K - 1LLL - «mgoom meme h b N N N N MN NN xN ON ax xx xx ox p P p - mx vx mx Nx xx ox m ....L éa mN u c x oczmooz mwNN ONme II II SO (I) squapnas Io JaqmnN siuapnas Io JaqmnN APPENDIX E TABLES E-1 AND E-2 117 APPENDIX E TABLE E-l.-—Cell Means and Standard Deviations on PPNSIE Control Scale--Measure l. Sex Age Academic Standing M SD Boy 4 Low 7.286 3.147 High 9.200 2.775 5 Low 12.500 3.609 High 13.857 2.627 6 Low 12.400 1.957 High 14.090 3.590 Girl 4 Low 8.571 2.760 High 12.250 2.435 5 Low 10.468 2.875 High 13.429 2.993 6 Low 12.182 2.136 High 12.429 2.472 118 119 TABLE E-2.--Ce11 Means and Standard Deviations on PPNSIE Contro1 Sca1e--Measure 2. Sex Age Academic Standing M SD Boy 4 Low 9.429 1.272 High 12.200 3.701 5 Low 11.318 2.679 High 14.000 2.689 6 Low 11.867 2.900 High 13.364 3.472 Gir1 4 Low 9.857 1.345 High 11.000 2.138 5 Low 13.133 2.615 High 13.190 2.581 6 Low 14.091 2.773 High 12.851 2.656 BIBLIOGRAPHY 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY Batt1e, E. S. and Rotter, J. B. "Chi1dren's Fee1ings of Persona1 Contro1 as Re1ated to Socia1 C1ass and Ethnic Groups." Journa1 of Persona1itx, 1963, 3, 482-490. Bay1ey, N. and Schoefer, E. S. "Re1ationships Between Socioeconomic Variab1es and the Behavior of Mothers Toward Young Chi1dren." Journa1 of Genetic Psycho1ogx, 1960, 96, 61-77. Bai1er, I. “Conceptua1ization of Success and Fai1ure in Menta11y Retarded and Norma1 Chi1dren." Journa1 of Persona1ity, 1961, 29, 303-230. Biondo, J. and MacDona1d, A. P. "Interna1-Externa1 Locus of Contro1 and Response to INf1uence ATtempts." Journa1 of Persona1ity, 1971, 39, 407-419. Borer, A. "Interna1-Externa1 Locus of Contro1 and the Reca11 of Interrupted Tasks." Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psycho1ogica1 Association, Phi1ade1phia, Apri1 1969. Bow1by, J. Attachment and Loss. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1969. Brossard, M. and DeCarie, T. G. "The Effects of Three Kinds of Perceptua1-Socia1 Stimu1ation on the Deve1opment of Insti- tutiona1ized Infants: Pre1iminary Report of a Longitudina1 Study," Ear1y Chi1d Deve1opment and Care, Inc., New York: 1971, 1, No. 1, 110-130. Butterfie1d, E. C. "The Ro1e of Competence Motivation in Interrupted Task Reca11 and Repetition Choice." Journa1 of Experimenta1 Chi1d Psvcho1ogx, 1965, 2, 354-370. Chance, J. E. "Interna1 Contro1 of Reinforcements and the Schoo1 Learning Process." Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Chi1d Deve1opment, Minneapo1is, March 1965. Chance, J. E. and Go1dstein, A. G. "Locus of Contro1 and Perform- ance on Embedded Figures." Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psycho1ogica1 Association, Chicago, May 1967. 121 122 Cranda11, V. C., Katkovsky, N., and Cranda11, V. J. "Chi1dren's Be1iefs in Their Contro1 of Reinforcements in Inte11ectua1- Academic Achievement Behaviors." Chi1d Deve1opment, 1965, 36: 91'109. Cranda11, V. C., Katkovsky, w., and Preston, A. "Motivationa1 and Abi1ity Determinants of Young Chi1dren's Inte11ectua1- Academic Achievement Situations." Chi1d Deve1opment, 1962, 36, 91-109. Cranda11, V. C. and Lace, 8. w. "Chi1dren's Perceptions of Interna1- Externa1 Contro1 in Inte11ectua1-Academic Situations and Their Embedded Figures Test Performance." Chi1d Deve1opment, 1972, 1123-1134. Cromwe11, R. L., Rosentha1, 0., Shakow, 0., and Zahn, T. P. "Reac- tion Time, Locus of Contro1, Choice Behavior, and Descrip- tions of Parenta1 Behavior in Schizophrenic and Norma1 Subjects." Journa1 of Persona1ity, 1961, 29, 363-379. Crowne, D. P. and Liverant, S. "Conformity Under Varying Conditions of Persona1 Commitment." Journa1 of Abnorma1 and Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1963, 66, 547-555. Davis, w. L. and Phares, E. J. "Interna1-Externa1 Contro1 as a Determinant of Information-Seeking in a Socia1 Inf1uence Situation." Journa1 of Persona1ity, 1967, 35, 547-561. Davis, w. L. and Phares, E. J. "Parenta1 Antecedents of Interna1- Externa1 Contro1 of Reinforcement." Psycho1ogica1 Reports, 1969, 26, 753-758. Dennis, W. "Causes of Retardation Among Institutiona1 Chi1dren: Iran." Journa1 of Genetic Psycho1ogy, 1960, 96, 47-59. Dennis, w. and Dennis, M. H. "Infant Deve1opment Under Conditions of Restricted Practice and Minimum Socia1 Stimu1ation." Genetic Psycho1ogica1 Monogram, 1941, 23, 149-155. Efran, J. Some Persona1ity Determinants of Memory for Success and Fai1ure. Unpub1ished'doctora1 dissertation, Ohio State University, 1963. Eisenman, R. and P1att, J. J. "Birth Order and Sex Differences in Academic Achievement and Interna1-Externa1 Contro1." Journa1 of Genera1 Psycho1ogy, 1968, 78, 279-285. Eppes, J. H. The Effect of Varying_the Race of the Experimenter on the LeveTiof Aspiration 6f‘Externa11y Contro11ed Inner City Schoo1 Chi1dren. Unpub1ished doctora1 dissertation, Emory University, 1969. 123 Epstein, R. and Domorita, S. S. "Se1f-Esteem, Success-Fai1ure, and Locus of Contro1 in Negro Chi1dren." Deve1opment Psycho1ogy, 1971, 4, 2-8. Erikson, E. H. Chi1dhood and Society. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Norton, 1963. . Feather, N. T. "Va1ence of Outcome and Expectation of Success in Re1ation to Task Difficu1ty and Perceived Locus of Contro1." Journa1 of Persona1ity and Socia1 Psycho1ggy, 1968, 7, 372-386. Frank1in, R. 0. Youth. Expectancies About Interna1 Versus Externa1 Contro1 of Reinforcement Re1ated to N Variab1es. Unpub1ished doctora1 dissertation, Purdue University, 1963. Freud, S. "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexua1ity," in The Standard Edition of the Compjete Psycho1ogica1 Works of Sigmund Freud. V01. 7, London: 1953. Getter, H. "A Persona1ity Determinant of Verba1 Conditioning." Journa1 of Persona1ity, 1966, 34, 397-405. Gewirtz, J. L. "0n Conceptua1izing the Functiona1 Environment: The Ro1es of Stimu1ation and Change in Stimu1us Conditions in Effecting Behavior Outcomes." Unpub1ished manuscript, Nationa1 Institute of Menta1 Hea1th, 1966. Gi11is, J. S. and Jessor, R. "Effects of Brief Psychotherapy on Be1ief in Interna1 Contro1: An Exp1oratory Study." Psycho- therapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1970, 7, 135-137. Gore, P. M. "Individua1 Differences in the Prediction of Subject Comp1iance to Experimenter Bias." Dissertation Abstracts, 1963, 24, 390. Gormen, B. S. "An Observation of A1tered Locus of Contro1 Fo11owing Po1itica1 Disappointment." Psycho1ogica1 Reports, 1968, 23, 1904. Gottesfie1d, H. and Dozier, G. "Changes in Fee1ings of Power1essness in a Community Action Program." Psycho1ogica1 Reports, 1966, 19, 978. Gruen, G. F. and Ottinger, D. R. "Ski11 and Chance Orientations as Determiners of Prob1em-So1ving Behavior in Lower and Midd1e- C1ass Chi1dren." Psycho1ogica1 Reports, 1969, 24, 207-214. Hampshire, 5. "Disposition and Memory." Internationa1 Journa1 of Psycho-Analysis, 1962, 43, 59-68. 124 Harrison, F. I. "Re1ationship Between Home Background, Schoo1 Success, and Ado1escent Attitudes." Merri11-Pa1mer Quarter1y, 1968, 14, 331-344. Hje11e, L. A. "Susceptibi1ity to Attitude Change as a Function of Interna1-Externa1 Contro1." Paper presented at the conven- tion of the Eastern Psycho1ogica1 Association, At1antic City, Apri1 1970. Hsieh, T. T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E. J. "Interna1 Versus Externa1 Contro1 and Ethnic Group Membership." Journa1 of Consu1ting and C1inica1 Psycho1ogy, 1969, 33, 122-124. Hunt, J. McV. "The Epigenesis of Intrinsic Motivation and the Stim- u1ation of Ear1y Cognitive Learning." American Psycho1ogi- ca1 Association, August, 1963. James, N. H. "Interna1 Versus Externa1 Contro1 of Reinforcement as a Basic Variab1e in Learning Theory." Unpub1ished doctora1 dissertation, Ohio State University, 1957. James, w. H., Woodruff, A. B.,and Werner, H. "Effects of Interna1 and Externa1 Contro1 Upon Changes in Smoking Behavior." Journa1 of Consu1ting_Psycho1ogy, 1965, 29, 127-129. Janis, I. L. and Mann, L. "Effectiveness of Emotiona1 Ro1e-P1aying in Modifying Smoking Habits and Attitudes." Journa1 of Experimenta1 Research in Persona1ity, 1965, 1, 84-90. Jessor, R., Graves, T., Hanson, R., and Jessor, S. Societ , Persona1ity, and Deviant Behavior. New York: Hoit, 1968. Johnson, R. C., Ackerman, J. M., Frank, H., and Fionda, A. J. "Resistance to Temptation and Gui1t Fo110wing Yie1ding and Psychotherapy." Journa1 of Consu1ting and C1inica1 Psycho1ogy, 1968, 32, 619-640. Ju1ian, J. w. and Katz, S. B. "Interna1 Versus Externa1 Contro1 and the Va1ue of Reinforcement." Journa1 of Persona1ity, and Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1968, 76, 43-48. Katkovsky, H., Cranda11, V. C., and Good, S. “Parenta1 Antecedents of Chi1dren's Be1iefs in Interna1-Externa1 Contro1 of Rein- forcement in Inte11ectua1 Achievement Situations." Chi1d Deve1opment, 1967, 28, 765-776. Katz, 1. "The Socia1ization of Academic Motivation in Minority Group Chi1dren." in D. Levine (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Linco1n: University of Nebraska Press, 1967, 133-19 . 125 Kieh1bauch, J. B. Se1ected Changes Over Time in Interna1-Externa1 Contro1 Expectancies in a Reformatory Popu1ation. Dissertation Abstracts, Section B, 1968, 29, 371-372. Lefcourt, H. M. "Be1ief in Persona1 Contro1: Research and Imp1i- cations." Journa1 of Individua1 Psycho1ogy, 1966, 22, 185- 195. Lefcourt, H. M. "Effects of Cue Exp1ication Upon Persons Maintaining Externa1 Contro1 Expectancies." Journa1 of Persona1ity and Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1967, 5, 372-378. Lefcourt, H. M. "Recent Deve1opments in the Study of Locus of Contro1." Psycho1ogica1 Bu11etin, 1974, 1-39. Lefcourt, H. M. and Ladwig, G. N. "The American Negro: A Prob1em in Expectancies." Journa1 of Persona1ity_and Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1965, 1, 377-380. Lefcourt, H. M. and Ladwig, G. N. "The Effect of Reference Group Upon Negroes Task Persistence in a Biracia1 Competitive Game." Journa1 of Persona1ityiand Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1965, 1, 668-671. Lefcourt, H. M., Lewis, L., and Wi1verman, I. w. "Interna1 Versus Externa1 Contro1 of Reinforcement and Attention in a Decision Making Task." Journa1 of Persona1ity, 1968, 36, 663-683. Lefcourt, H. M. and Siege1, J. M. "Reaction Time Behavior as a Function of Interna1-Externa1 Contro1 of Reinforcement and Contro1 of Test Administration." Canadian Journa1 of Behaviora1 Science, 1970, 2, 253-266. Lefcourt, H. M. and Steffy, R. A. "Leve1 of Aspiration, Risk- Taking Behavior, and Projective Test Performance: A Search for Coherence." Journa1 of Consu1ting and C1inica1 Psycho1ogy, 1970, 34, 193-198. (a) Lefcourt, H. M. and Nine, J. "One Man's Adequacy is Another Man's Fai1ure." Psycho1ogica1 Reports, 1970, 26, 289-290. (b) Lefcourt, H. M. and Wine, J. "Interna1 Versus Externa1 Contro1 of Reinforcement and the Dep1oyment of Attention in Experimenta1 Situations." Canadian Journa1 of Behaviora1 Science, 1969, 1, 167-181. Leibnitz. Leibnitz: A Co11ection of Critica1 Essays, Harry G. Frankfurt (ed.1, New York: Doub1eday and Co. Inc., 1972. 126 Lesser, G. S., Pifer, G., and C1ark, D. H. "Menta1 Abi1ities of Chi1dren from Different Socia1 C1ass and Cu1tura1 Groups," in Readings in Chi1d Behavior and Deve1opment. C. S. Lavate11i and F. Stend1er, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1972. Lessing, E. E. "Racia1 Differences in Indices of Ego Functioning Re1evant to Academic Achievement." Journa1 of Genetic Lesyk, J. J. Effects of Intensive Operant Conditioning on Be1ief in Persona1 Contro1 in Schizophrenic Women. Dissertation Abstracts, Section B, 1969, 29, 4849. Lewis, M., Go1dberg, S., and Rausch, M. "Attention Distribution as a Function of Nove1ty and Famiiiarity." Psychonometric Science, 1967, 7, 227-228. Lipp. L., Ko1stoe, R., James W., and Randa11, H. "Denia1 of Dis- abi1ity and Interna1 Contro1 of Reinforcement: A Study Using a Perceptua1 Defense Paradigm." Journa1 of Consu1ting and C1inica1 Psycho1ogy, 1968, 32, 72-75. Lipsitt, L. P. "A Se1f Concept Sca1e for Chi1dren and Its Re1ation- ship to the Chi1dren‘s Form of the Manifest Anxiety Sca1e." Chi1d Deve1opment, 1958, 29, 463-473. Locke, J. "Rewards, Reputation and Curiosity." Reprinted in [he Chi1d, W. Kessen, New York: Wi1ey, 1965. MacDona1d, A. P. "Birth Order and Persona1ity." Journa1 of Con- su1ting and C1inica1 Psycho1ogy, 1971, 36, 171-176: (a1 MacDona1d, A. P. "Interna1-Externa1 Locus of Contro1: Parenta1 Antecedents." Journa1 of Consu1tinggand C1inica1 Psycho1ogy, 1971, 37, 141-147. (ET—V MacDona1d, A. P. and Ha11, J. "Perception of Disabi1ity by the Disab1ed." Journa1 of Consu1ting and C1inica1 Psycho1ogy, 1969, 33, 654-660. MacDona1d, A. P. and Ha11, J. "Interna1-Externa1 Locus of ControI and Perception of Disabi1ity." Journa1 of Consu1ting and C1inica1 Psycho1ogy, 1971, 36, 338-345. Maier, S., Se1igman, M. E., and So1omon, R. L. "Fear Conditioning and Learned He1p1essness," in Punishment and Aversive Behavior. R. Church and B. Campbe11 (éds.1, New York: App1eton-Century-Crofts, 1970. 127 McArthur, L. A. "Luck is A1ive and We11 in New Haven." Journa1 of Persona1ity and Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1970, 16, 316-318. McGhee, P. E. and Cranda11, V. C. "Be1iefs in Interna1-Externa1 Contro1 of Reinforcement and Academic Performance." Chi1d Deve1opment, 1968, 39, 132-149. Mische1, W. "Preference for De1ayed Reinforcement and Socia1 Responsibi1ity.“ Journa1 of Abnorma1 and Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1961, 62, 1-7. Moss, H. A. "Sex, Age and State as Determinants of Mother-Infant Interaction." Merri11-Pa1mer Quarterly, 1967, 13, 19-36. Mouiton, R. W. "Effects of Success and Fai1ure on Leve1 of Aspira- tion as Re1ated to Achievement Motives." Journa1 of Per- sona1ity and Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1965, 1, 399-406. Newhouse, R. C. Factors Re1ated to Be1iefs in Reinforcement Responsibi1itypof Chi1dren in Upper E1ementary Schoo1 Grades. Unpub1ished doctora1 dissertation, University of Oregon, 1972. Nowicki, S. and Duke, M. 'UXPreschoo1 and Primary Interna1-Externa1 Contro1 Sca1eJ' Deve1opmenta1 Psycho1ogy, 1974, 10, 874-880. Nowicki, 5., Jr. and Roundtree, J. "Corre1ates of Locus of Contro1 in Secondary Schoo1 Popu1ation." Deve1opmenta1 Psycho1ogy, 1971, 4, 477-478. Nowicki, S. and Strick1and, B. R. "A Locus of Contro1 Sca1e for Chi1dren." Journa1 of Consu1ting and C1inica1 Psycho1ogy, in press. 0de11, M. Persona1itprorre1ates of Independence and Conformity. Unpub1ished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1959. Owens, M. W. Disabi1ity-Minority and Socia1 Learnipg. Unpub1ished Master's thesis, West Virginia UniVersity, 1969. Penk, W. "Age Change and Corre1ates of Interna1-Externa1 Locus of Contro1 Sca1e." Psycho1ogy Reports, 1969, 25, 856. Phares, E. J. Changes in Expectancy in Ski11 and Chance Situations. Unpub1ished doctora1 dissertation, Ohio State university, 1955. Phares, E. J. "Differentia1 Uti1ization of Information as a Function of Interna1-Externa1 Contro1." Journa1 of Persona1ity, 1968, 36, 649-662. 128 Phares, E. J., Ritchie, 0. E., and Davis, W. L. "Interna1-Externa1 and Reaction to Threat." Journa1 of Persona1ity and Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1968, 10, 402-405. Piaget, J. The Origins of Inte11igence in Chi1dren. M. Cook (tr.) New York: Internationa1 Universities Press, 1952. Piaget, J. Mora1 Judgment of the Chi1d. New York: The Free Press, 1965. Piaget, J. "Piaget's Theory." In Carmichae1's Manua1 of Chi1d Psycho1ogy. P. H. Mussen (ed.), V01. 1, 3rd ed. New P1att, E. S. "Interna1-Externa1 ControI and Changes in Expected Uti1ity as Predictors of the Change in Cigarette Smoking FoI1owing RoIe P1aying." Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psycho1ogica1 Association, Phi1ade1phia, Apri1 1969. Provence, S. and Lipton, R. C. Infants in Institutions. New York: Internationa1 Universities Press, 1962. Ritchie, E. and Phares, E. J. “Attitude Change as a Function of Interna1-Externa1 Contro1 and Communicator Status." Journa1 of Persona1ity, 1969, 37, 429-443. Rotter, J. B. Socia1 Learning_and C1inica1 Psycho1ogy. New York: Prentice-Ha11, 1954. Rotter, J. B. "GeneraIized Expectancies for Interna1 Versus Externa1 Contro1 of Reinforcement and Decision Time." Journa1 of Persona1itypand Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1965, 2, 598-604. Rotter, J. B., Seeman, M., and Liverant, S. "Interna1 Versus Externa1 Contro1 of Reinforcement: A Major Variab1e in Behavior Theory." In Decisions, Va1ues and Groups, N. F. Washburne (ed.), Pergamon Press, 1962, v01. 2. Rousseau, J. J. Emi1e. New York: Du1ton, 1911. Rubenstein, J. "Materna1 Attentiveness and Subsequent Exp1oratory Behavior." Chi1d Deve1opment, 1967, 38, 1098-1100. Ryckman, R. M., Go1d, J. A., and Rodda, W. C. "Confidence Rating Shifts and Performance as a Function of Locus of Contro1, Se1f-Esteem, and Initia1 Task Experience." Journa1 of Persona1ity and Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1971, 18, 305-310. 129 Ryckman, R. M. and Rodda, W. C. "Locus of Contro1 and Initia1 Task Experience as Determinants of Confidence Changes in a Chance Situation." Journa1 of Persona1ity and Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1971, 18, 116-119. Schaffer, H. R. and Emerson, P. E. "The Effects of Experimenta11y Administered Stimu1ation on Deve10pmenta1 Quotients of Infants." British Journa1 of Socia1 and C1inica1 Psycho1ogy, 1968, 7, 61-67. Seeman, M. "A1ienation and Socia1 Learning in a Reformatory." American Journa1 of Socio1ogy, 1963, 69, 270-284. Seeman, M. "Power1essness and Know1edge: A Comparative Study of A1ienation and Learning." Sociometry, 1967, 30, 105-123. Seeman, M. and Evans, J. W. "A1ienation and Learning in a Hospita1 Setting." American SocioIogjca1 Review, 1962, 27, 772-783. Shaw, R. L. and U1h, N. P. "Re1ationship Between Locus of Contro1 Scores and Reading Achievement of B1ack and White Second- Grade Chi1dren from Two Socioeconomic Leve1s." Paper pre- sented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psycho1ogica1 Association, New 0r1eans, May 1969. Shore, R. E. "Some Parenta1 Corre1ates of Boy's Locus of Contro1." Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psycho1ogi- ca1 Association, Washington, 0.C., Apri1 1968. Smith, R. E. "Changes in Locus of Contro1 as a Function of Life Crisis Reso1ution." Journa1 of Abnorma1 Psycho199y. 1970, 3. 328-332. So1omon, 0., Hou1ihan, K. A., and Pare1ius, R. J. "Inte11ectua1 Achivement Responsibi1ity in Negro and White Chi1dren." PsychoIogjca1 Reports, 1969, 24, 479-483. Spivock, G., Levine, M., and Sprig1e, H. "Inte11igence Test Per- formance and the De1ay Function of the Ego." Journa1 of Consu1ting_Psycho1ogy, 1959, 23, 428-431. Stephens, M. W. and De1ys, P. "Externa1 Contro1 Expectancies Among Disadvantaged Chi1dren at PreschooI Age." Chi1d Deve10pment, 1973, 44, 670-674. Stone, L. J. and Church, J. Chi1dhood and Ado1escence. New York: Random House, 1973. 130 Strick1and, B. R. "Individua1 Differences in Verba1 Conditioning, Extinction and Awareness." Journa1 of Persona1ity, 1970, 38, 364-378. Strick1and, B. R. "0e1ay of Gratification as a Function of Race of the Experimenter." Journa1 of Persona1ity_and Socia1 PsychoTOQY. 1970, 38, 364-378. Wa11s, R. T. and Mi11er, J. J. "0e1ay of Gratification in We1fare and Rehabi1itation C1ients." Journa1 of Counse1ingpPpycho- 1091, 1970, 4, 383-384. Wa11s, R. T. and Smith, T. S. "Deve1opment of Preference for De1ayed Reinforcement in Disadvantaged Chi1dren." Journa1 of Educationa1 Psycho1ogy, 1970, 61, 118-123. Watson, 0. and Bauma1, E. "Effects of Locus of Contro1 and Expec- tation of Future Contro1 Upon Present Performance." Journa1 of Persona1ity and Socia1 Psycho1ogy, 1967, 6, 212-215. Watson, J. S. "Memory and 'Contingency Ana1ysis' in Infant Learn- ing." Merri11-Pa1mer QparterLy, 1967, 13, 55-76. Watson, J. S. "The Deve1opment and Genera1ization of Contingency Awareness in Ear1y Infancy:. Some Hypotheses." Merri11- Pa1mer QuarterIy, 1966, 12, 123-135. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kuk1a, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., and Rosenbaum, R. M. "Perceiving the Causes of Success and Fai1ure." In Attribution: Perceivingpthe Causes of Behavior. E. E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. H. Ke11ey, R. E. Nisbett, S. Va1ins, and B. Weiner (eds.), Los Ange1es: McCa1eb-Sei1er, 1971. White, B. L. "An Experimenta1 Approach to the Effects of Experience on Ear1y Human Behavior." Minnesota Symposia on Chi1d Psycho1pgy, J. P. Hi11 (ed.), MinneapoIis: University of Minnesota Press, 1967, V01. 1. White, R. W. "Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence." EsychoIogica1 Review, 1959, 66, 297-323. Zytkoskee, A., Strick1and, B. R., and Watson, J. "De1ay of Grati- fication and Interna1 Versus Externa1 Contro1 Among AdoIes- cents of Low Socioeconomic Status." Deve1opmenta1 Psycho1ogy, 1971, 4. 93-98. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES WIUHLHHIIWIWill?"llIWIHIHIIIHIHIIWNW" 31293103895532