The Concept of Locus of Control

Julian Rotter, an American psychologist published the concept of “locus of control” in 1966. This concept defines a a scale on which individuals are measured, to establish their perception of to what degree they feel in control of their own lives.

The concept of a “locus” is a spacial “centre of activity”. So people with an internal locus of control will feel that control over their lives falls largely within them – so they believe they have more control over their lives than anyone else does. While people with an external locus of control will feel that control over their lives falls largely outside of them – hence other people are more in control over their lives, than they are.

According to Rotter, we all map somewhere along that continuum which stretches from people with 100% internal locus of control and zero external locus of control (where those people believe that they have complete control over their own lives), vs people at the other end of the scale, who are the opposite, while most of us map somewhere in between, but may be closer to one side of the spectrum, than the other.

Some essential characteristics of people with an internal locus of control are as follows-

• Individuals with an internal locus of control will take responsibility for their own actions
• They are not as influenced by the opinion of others
• They are more ready to work hard towards their own goals and complete tasks they set themselves
• They tend to value self-reliance, with more confidence in their own abilities
• They tend to take initiative themselves
• They will work extremely hard to make things work in their favour and achieve the things they desire
• They tend to be more willing to invest time and effort in improving their own abilities and thus are more confident in taking on challenges.
• They tend to be more successful in their professional careers.
• They believe that it is within their power to maximize the chance of good outcomes and minimize the possibility of adverse outcomes

Some characteristics of people who subscribe to an external locus of control are as follows:

• Individuals with an external locus of control will be more likely to blame outside forces, or others, for their circumstances. They will perhaps not want to take responsibility for their own circumstances.
• The opinions of others will have more influence on individuals with an external locus of control, because they might feel those other people have some level of control over them.
• They may not believe their own hard work will make any difference, or be worth it. So they may not be willing to make as much effort.
• They may feel helpless, or anxious, in the face of what they perceive as uncontrollable external forces. They may be more willing to cast themselves as helpless victims in any difficult scenario.
• They might be less willing to face challenges or persevere on their own, during adverse situations. They will look for support, or intervention from others.
• They may not feel that they can easily change the outcomes in their lives.
• They may look for some external superior authority, to protected them from the actions of other people, by imposing controls and regulations upon those other people. For example they may expect the government, or other local authority, to solve all their problems for them.
• They may seek the shelter and protection of the group, where they abdicate responsibility to the collective power of the group.
• Some studies have found that people who adopt an external locus of control are more prone to depression and poor health.

Whether being one type of person, or the other, is a “good” thing, seems to to depend on the orientation of the person trying to make the judgement.

For example, some people suggest that it’s beneficial to rely on the people around you, build support structures and cooperate with other people as much as possible, which is one of the aspects of adopting an external locus of control. Which is not unreasonable, especially when suffering some sort of a set back in life.

But in general, most research seems to indicate that people with an external locus of control are happier, healthier and more successful in life.

What Causes One to Have an Internal, or External Locus of Control?

If the research shows that people who adopt an internal locus of control enjoy better long term outcomes in life, what causes those people to adopt that approach?

Is it a voluntary choice, or is it an inherent character trait, that cannot be easily learned, or adopted by choice?

That question seems inconclusive from what can be gleaned from available sources.

There is some research which has found that Locus of Control is correlated with some of the big five character traits. And given that where you map on the five character traits has been found to be largely stable throughout a person’s life, and thus not something one can simply change by choice, then that seems to imply that where you map on the locus of control spectrum is also something which is not a choice, but a part of your character.

However, other sources state that as one gets older, one tends to shift your position towards the Internal Locus of Control end of the spectrum. Which implies that as one accumulates experience, abilities, resources and skills, that enables one to take more control of one’s own life. Which in turn implies that where you are positioned on the spectrum is at least partly a choice one can make for one’s self, it is not something predetermined by biology?

So perhaps while your inherent character traits might bias your choice towards one side of the spectrum over the other, it seems to be possible to change your position, if you wish to, or when you perceive yourself as being more capable than before?

That would perhaps be consistent with what one observes in the behaviour of some people in normal everyday life. They clearly seem to decide to take control of their own lives, even when faced with considerable adversity. These usually are people we all admire. And we should, because if we follow their examples, according to the research on the long term benefits of adopting an Internal Locus of Control, our own lives will improve accordingly.

Surely when faced with adverse events and situations, one can choose to either blame that on other people, or do something about it yourself? There does not seem to be anything preventing you from making a choice, one way or the other?

Of course, while there are many things that are definitely beyond your own control, what you always control is your own response to outside events, and how you deal with them. The objective, if one is trying to move towards a more Internal Locus of Control, is to try take as much control as you can, over that part of your life that you do indeed have influence over. You might find that scope of influence is also perhaps larger than you might initially expect, and as you grow in ability and confidence, that perceived scope of influence may grow accordingly.

There is even an old saying which summarises this entire debate, which is “God helps those, who help themselves”.

Deciding to take more control over your own life would imply making an attempt to take on more responsibility, set yourself some meaningful goals, and put in the effort to try learn the skills and abilities that would help you along the path towards achieving them. This would also imply increasing your own self reliance, which is the main theme of this website.

How exactly to do that, when one is not naturally inclined towards an internal locus of control, is perhaps not a trivial question.

Deciding to change you approach may not be easy, especially if you are unfortunate enough to be suffering considerable difficulties, where many factors may really be beyond your control, as happens to us all in life, from time to time. Of course that would be specially true if you were taught, or encouraged to be helpless, by those who, for whatever reason, wanted to prevent you from taking control of your own life. Perhaps because they have want to keep you dependent on them?

But ultimately, it is up to you, and you alone, to make the effort, to take control, or not.

Trying to Control Others, Instead of Yourself

If you feel that other people have more control over your life than you do, then it would be only natural to want those other people to be controlled in such a way that they do not pose a risk to you. If that is true, in your case, then a side effect of an External Locus of Control, is the desire to impose control over other people, so that they are prevented from doing anything which could make you feel out of control.

People who feel that they cannot control themselves often try control others, because of this.

The less you feel in control of your own life, the more anxious you might be about what other people are doing around you. But it is not their life which is necessarily out of control, it is you who feel that way about your own life.

And maybe, because you do not feel able to impose control over those other people yourself, perhaps you might call upon some higher authority, to impose control on your behalf?

From a systems point of view this “control loop” is potentially completely ineffective, because holding other people responsible for your own feelings about your life, and expecting them to change their behaviour to make you feel better, may not in fact result in the desired outcome, even if you can have them forced to change their behaviour, in the way you want them to.

All control systems use a feedback loop where the output of the system is measured, and then that measurement fed back into the control inputs of the system, using some function that changes the inputs to the system in such a way that the output converges onto the desired result. This convergence towards the desired outcome is the ONLY indication that the control loop works, any other result means the system simply does not work, and is useless.

An example is steering your car. Your eyes measure the position of your car on the road. As you perceive the car moving away from your desired line of travel along the road, you move the steering wheel with the intention of making the car move back onto that desired line. If your steering movements cause the car to converge back onto that desired line, your inputs are effective and the control loop can be considered to work.

Now, for example, if the view out of your windscreen was replaced with the view from someone else’s car, as they drive around, how would you be able to steer your own car on the road you are driving down, using that view? Clearly the measurements about what was happening to that other car, would have nothing to do with where your own car was actually positioned on the road. Controlling your car in that situation would be impossible, and your inputs to the steering wheel would lead to totally random steering adjustments with respect to the road you were actually travelling down. You would have zero expectation of staying on the road for any length of time, a crash would be inevitable.

The point is, for a control loop to work, the measurements of what is happening (in this example, your view of the where you are in the road) need to be directly related to your inputs to the steering wheel, in a cause-effect manner. Without that direct link between output and input, the control system simply cannot work. Clearly blaming the other driver, when you crash, is completely invalid in that case.

Why do you assume that there is any necessary consistent direct cause-effect link between your feelings about control over your life, and what other people do?

In fact, blaming other people for things that happen in your life, and expecting a third party to impose that control for you, to make you feel better, is like you expecting someone else to steer your car, while you shout instructions from the back seat, which they may, or may not listen to, where your instructions are based on your feelings about what other drivers are doing! In engineering terms, such a system would deliver completely random results. Any perception of actual control on your part, would be an illusion. And how would you know if the person steering on your behalf actually wants to go where you do? Maybe they are just using your car for their own benefit? Are you just a passenger in your own car, allowing others to drive it where they wish, and then blaming them, or someone else chosen randomly, if you do not like the destination?

It may make you feel better to blame others for the problems in your life, but are those people really responsible to the degree you would want them to be?

The problem with that question, is that if one does not want to take responsibility for the problems in your life, maybe because it’s easier to blame other people, it becomes imperative for you to find evidence to justify your blame. Thus all your energy is spent trying to convince yourself of how those other people are adversely affecting you, rather than using that energy to do something positive about actually steering your own car, down your own road, to get to where you want to go to, as it where.

Enforcing Your Feelings of Helplessness Upon Others

If you feel that you need to control other people, because you feel those other people have more control over your life than you do, and you feel helpless as a result, then what would you want done to keep those other people from seeming to pose a risk to you? Could it be that you would want them rendered at least as equally helpless as you feel? That way they could not possibly pose a risk to you. And in addition, if they are rendered helpless maybe you will feel more in control of your own life?

Essentially this would mean a race to the bottom in terms of helplessness. Until everyone is completely and utterly helpless.

You can actually see this sort of thinking in action, especially when it comes to laws about self defence. Where an External Locus of Control is subscribed to on a large scale (or used an excuse to grab power by ambitious politicians), then you see laws which remove the legal right of ordinary people to defend themselves against others. Where ever that trend takes hold, it often continues until the whole of society is rendered completely and utterly helpless, unable to take any legal action themselves, when attacked by criminals.

Obviously this creates a very criminal friendly environment, and violent crime explodes accordingly. Ordinary citizens are prevented by law from doing anything about criminal activity. While criminals, who do not obey laws, can thus do what ever they want, without fear of any immediate consequences. And then, as long as criminals do not commit a crime right in front of a policeman, criminals can expect to get away with anything they like. In fact in some incidents, if the law abiding citizens resist in any way, it is those citizens who might be the target of investigation and subject to arrest by the police, while the criminals are ignored, because everyone knows that criminals are not subject to the law, only law abiding citizens are expected to act within the law. There are many real world examples of this thinking in action.

It’s also convenient that the more ordinary citizens are disarmed and rendered helpless, the less those citizens pose any sort of collective risk to ambitious politicians, who yearn to take complete control of society and become royalty, against the will of the people, if necessary. So any calls to render the population helpless are often enthusiastically responded to by politicians, who yearn for absolute power.

Not only that, but the more the population can be persuaded to hand over power to the authorities, and become dependent on the government, the more powerful those politicians become. Further note this is almost always a one-way, and one-time only, transfer of power. Most politicians are in the business of accumulating power. They are very reluctant to give up any powers they have gained, and they seldom do so without a fight.

So beware of politicians who seem ever eager to grab any opportunity to restrict the rights of ordinary people to defend themselves, and who are ever eager to further disarm ordinary people.

This could be why, when this cycle is in full swing, and violent crime is exploding, as citizens are rendered ever more helpless by controls imposed by politicians, the crime problem just keeps getting worse. Could it be that those power hungry politicians are not really concerned about reducing crime at all? High crime levels provide a convenient persistent excuse to take ever more control of society, so why would an ambitious power hungry politician actually want to solve that problem?

We have these sorts of problems here in South Africa, right now. You can also see similar policies enacted by the authorities in many cities and countries world wide, all with the same predictable results – an explosion of crime and violence. Those policies may be welcomed by politicians, but the ordinary citizens are definitely suffering as a result. Why do ordinary people put up with that? Perhaps a societal shift towards the External Locus of Control side of the spectrum is the explanation?

Liberty is a Prerequisite for Internal Locus of Control

One of the consequences of imposing control over other people’s lives, by force, is that those people lose control themselves. So in that situation, many people that happened to subscribe to an Internal Locus of Control, have external control imposed upon them against their will, and unasked for.

Thus the more External Locus of Control people get their way, to have others around them controlled, to make the External Locus of Control people feel better about themselves, the more society is forced into an External Locus of Control situation overall.

Essentially what happens is by denying other people the right to liberty, an overall policy of External Locus of Control is forced upon even people who would not choose that option themselves.

Thus a high degree of individual liberty is required to enable those who would choose to adopt an Internal Locus of Control, themselves.

The Importance of Courage

Taking responsibility for your own life is not easy. It can be very hard making your own decisions, accepting the inherit risks, making mistakes and learning the hard lessons life teaches you so ruthlessly.

One also has to face and acknowledge your own inadequacies, and then admit that you have much to learn before you could become the person you would like to be. Which can be very humbling. It takes a lot of time, effort and diligence to learn the skills and abilities you might need to build your capabilities to the level that you might need, or desire.

It can be very tempting to take the easy way out and hand all of that responsibility to someone else. As soon as you do that, you might also feel entitled to blame other people when you do not get the results you wish for, because you expect those other people to deliver those results for you.

It takes courage to accept the challenge of life head on. Especially after suffering set backs and other tribulations which we all have to face in our lives.

But without courage, how can you ever achieve anything difficult, or worthwhile?

Winston Churchill, famously said “courage is rightly considered the first of all virtues, because upon it all others depend”.

If you shrink and retreat from the issues you face, that behaviour may develop into a habit.

However, the nice thing about courage, is that it’s hardest in the beginning, when you first make the decision to do something challenging, which you fear may overwhelm you, which may turn out to be a failure, but once you take those first steps, a self-reinforcing cycle starts within you, and being courageous can turn into it’s own habit. Courage is an act of faith. Faith that what you are doing is something worthwhile, regardless of the consequences and hardships that might result.

Without some level of courage, an Internal Locus of Control becomes very difficult to maintain.

This might be why we instinctively admire courageous people. But many of those people will tell you, after being asked about some act of valour, that they did not necessarily set out to be courageous. They just happened to do something courageous, sometimes simply because the circumstances demanded that from them, and they chose to face the challenge and attempt to achieve something positive, rather than retreat to safety. Surely this is what being alive is all about?

The other thing about courage is other people cannot do it for you. You have to enact it yourself. But courage can be contagious, where one person shows courage in the face of adversity or danger, then others might be inspired to as well.

The word “encourage”, literally means “to put courage into”. What would society be like if we all were encouraging each other, instead of allowing the collective fears of others to dominate our policies, decisions and actions?

Instead of constantly retreating to safety, when faced with difficulty and adversity, perhaps we should turn and face the dragons that we have allowed to grow within us? Remember, the more you run from the dragon in your head, the bigger it gets, and the smaller you get, in your perception. Have you ever thought about why so many popular stories involve monsters chasing us? And why the satisfying ending to those stories, is when some hero, or heroine, develops the courage to face the dragon and slay it, regardless of the cost to themselves?