Post on 16-Oct-2021
INSTITUTIONALIZED VERSUS NON-INSTITUTIONALIZED MILDLY RETARDED
POPULATIONS: DETERMINATION AND COMPARISON, BASED ON ROTTER'S
PERSONAL CONTROL THEORY, AND A TEST OF INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE
APPROVED:
Graduate Committee:
M aj or ofelsor
M in o r .rof or
Committee mber
L L/
Commi t')e Member
Dean orfthe SchooY of E'ddcation
Dean of he Graduate School
379Ale'jII0/ /g5
INSTITUTIONALIZED VERSUS NON-INSTITUTIONALIZED MILDLY RETARDED
POPULATIONS: DETERMINATION AND COMPARISON, BASED ON ROTTER'S
PERSONAL CONTROL THEORY, AND A TEST OF INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
By
Manoutchehr Moazami, B. A., M. S.
Denton, Texas
May, 1976
Moazami, Manoutchehr, Institutionalized Versus Non-insti-
tutionalized Mildly Retarded Populations: Determination and
Comparison, Based on Rotter's Personal Control Theory, and a
a Test of Interpersonal Distance. Doctor of Philosophy (College
Teaching), May, 1976, 91 pp., 13 tables, bibliography, 93 titles.
The problem with which this study was concerned was that of
evaluating and comparing of locus of control scores and inter-
personal distance among the institutionalized and non-institu-
tionalized mildly retarded populations. The hypothetical assump-
tions specifically stated that the institutionalized retardates
will be more externally oriented, will show a greater interper-
sonal distance towards stimuli with no specific expectancies,
and will show a closer interpersonal distance towards stimuli
with specific expectancies.
A total of one hundred and twenty subjects was included in
this study. Sixty subjects were selected from a residential
setting governed by the Texas Department of Mental Health and
Mental Retardation and the other sixty subjects were from a
public school. All of the subjects' intellectual functioning
was in the mild range of mental retardation (I.Q. 50-75), with
the chronological age range between thirteen and twenty-one years.
The subjects with gross perceptual-motor disorders were excluded
from this study.
In order to quantitatively assess the differences between
the two groups, every subject was individually administered
the Nowick-Strickland Locus of Control Scale and the Comfortable
Interpersonal Distance Scale. The analysis of variance technique
was used to analyze the data statistically. The .05 level of
significance was chosen as the level at which the hypotheses
would be accepted or rejected.
No differences were found among the institutionalized and
non-institutionalized retardates in regard to the internal-exter-
nal locus of control and the interpersonal distance towards stimuli
with no specific expectances. However, significant differences
were found in regard to the stimuli with specific expectancies
among the two groups.
In view of the findings of the study, the following recom-
mendations are offered:
1. Determination and evaluation of locus of control
in retardates may be a useful technique in assessing their
personality and understanding their psychological needs.
Several investigations have been attempted with neurotics
and subjects with character disorders, but none is reported
with retarded populations. Such information may contribute
to planning and programming for this particular group.
2. Determination of the retardates' interpersonal space
may be an important approach in assessing their personality
structure. Such studies have been conducted with the emotionally
disturbed children, schizophrenics and normal subjects; however,
none has been conducted with retardates.
3. The instruments used for this study have been designed
for and standardized on samples of normal populations. To
achieve more accurate results, these instruments should be
designed for and standardized on a sample consisting of
retarded subjects.
4. The only validity and reliability studies available
have been conducted with normal subjects. To determine appli-
cability of these instruments with retarded populations, further
validity and reliability studies are needed.
5. Samples of more comparable average ages may be more
suitable for the replication of this study. Previous research
by Bailer has clearly indicated that there is a positive corre-
lation between chronological ages of the subjects and the degree
of internal locus of control. Therefore, in future studies this
factor must seriously be considered.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION.................-...-.-.-.-...'......
Statement of the ProblemSpecific Purposes of the StudyHypothesesDefinition of TermsSignificance and Background
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . ................ 17
Internal and External Locus of Control
Locus of Control and Personality Factors
Locus of Control and Achievement Behavior
Locus of Control and Reaction to Social Stimuli
Locus of Control and Cognitive ActivityChanges in Locus of ControlLocus of Control and Mental RetardationInterpersonal DistanceInterpersonal Distance and Personality Factors
Interpersonal Distance and Environment
III. METHODOLOGY.. . . ...............-.- -49
Research SettingsSubjectsDescription of InstrumentsTesting ProcedureProcedure for Analysis of Data
IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS . . . . . . . . 57
Discussion of the Results
V. SUMMARY, RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 72
SummaryResu1 tsConclusionsImplicationsRecommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY.. . ...............-.-.-. . . 84
i i i
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I. Means and Ranges of Groups. ... ,. ....... 51
II. Locus of Control Score and the Number of Subjectsfor Groups I and II... ..-.-.-.. -.-..... 58
III. Summary of One-Way Analysis of Variance of Locus
of Control Scores Among Institutionalized and
Non-Institutionalized Retarded. ......... 59
IV. Scores for Type GE Stimuli ..........-............ 59
V. Summary of One-Way Analysis of Variance of Scores forType GE Stimuli .,.............- - - -60
VI. Scores for Type SE Stimuli . . . . ., .- - 61
VII. Summary of One-Way Analysis of Variance of Scores
for Type SE Stimuli . . , . . .- - , .- - ,. ,4 61
VIII. Number of External and Internal Retardates in
Group I and II....................-.- - - . . ,62
IX. Summary of Analysis of Variance for External andInternal Locus of Control Scores as Related
to Type GE Stimuli.,. .*... .. 63
X. Number of Subjects, Means, and Standard Deviations
for Locus of Control (LC), Type SE, and Type GEScores ...............-.-.-.-.-.-.-........ , 64
XI. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Both Sexes in
Group I and II regarding Locus of Control . . . 65
XII. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Both Sexesin Group I and II regarding Type SE Stimuli . . 66
XIII. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Both Sexesin Group I and II in regard to Type GE Stimuli . 67
iv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Numerous investigators have concerned themselves with man's
ability to control his own environment. The theorist who has
done the most writing in this area is thought to be Adler (2).
His concept of "striving for superiority" has been the topic of
extensive research over the last few decades. Adler's concern
was for man to become more effective in controlling his personal
world. Research conducted by Adler and his followers in the
area of superiority-inferiority construct mainly emphasized that
behavior could arise only from the analysis of the individual's
own "inner nature." Rather than seeking for the antecedents of
behavior in objective events "outside of the skin of the indi-
vidual," Adler proposed that all behavior was immediately deter-
mined by events occurring "within the skin." Further, he proposed
that the crucial internal determinants were values, attitudes,
interests, and ideas. Thus, different kinds of thoughts, which
are the individual's approximations of and interpretations of
reality, are the primary determinants of the ways in which people
behave (13, p. 309).
Rotter (37, p. 247), in the process of developing his "Social
Learning Theory," stated:
In the half a century or more that psychologistshave been interested in predicting the behavior of
human beings in complex, social situations they have
persistently avoided the incontrovertible importanceof the specific situation on behavior. They have
1
2
assumed that if they could only produce a somewhat
better schema for attempting to describe an indi-
vidual's personality from a purely internal pointof view they could somehow or other overcome this
failure to predict. So they have gone from facul-
ties and instincts and sentiments to traits, drives,
needs, and interaction of these within the individual,
producing schema for personality organization and
classification of internal status, but ignoring an
analysis of the psychological situations in which
human beings behave (37, p. 247).
The basic concepts of social learning theory are behavior
potential, expectancy, and reinforcement value (37, p. 105).
Measurement of generalized expectancies was an outgrowth of
this theory. The construct of locus of control is a major ex-
pectancy and was defined by Rotter as:
When a reinforcement is perceived by the
subject as following some action of his own, butnot being entirely contingent upon his action,
then, in our culture, it is typically perceivedas the result of luck or as unpredictable because
of the great complexity of the forces surroundinghim. When the event is interpreted in this way
by an individual, we have labeled this a beliefin external control. If the person perceived that
the event is contingent upon his own behavior orhis own relatively permanent characteristics, we
have termed this a belief in internal control (38,p. 1).
During the last fifteen years the construct of locus of con-
trol has been subjected to extensive empirical investigation.
Partial reviews have been reported by MacDonald and Davis (28),
Lefcourt (22), and Rotter (38). The research up to this point
has dealt primarily with elementary, high school, and college
students. However, the model has rarely been used with the re-
tarded population. Some scattered studies with inconclusive
results have been reported by Bailer (5), Massari (26), Wooster (47),
3
and Shipe (39). Therefore, it is the purpose of this study to
assess and compare the locus of control orientation in an in-
stitutionalized and non-institutionalized retarded population,
to determine whether it is possible to measure preferred inter-
personal distance, and, finally, to determine whether the social
learning model for interpersonal distance, as applied to normal
children, is also applicable to retardates.
Statement of the Problem
The problem was concerned with
1. The determination and comparison of the locus of control
in institutionalized and non-institutionalized mildly retarded
populations and
2. Application of this measurement to the social learning
model for interpersonal distance.
Specific Purposes of the Study
The specific purposes of the study were
1. To determine and compare the locus of control in insti-
tutionalized and non-institutionalized educable retarded popu-
lations, using the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale.
2. To determine preferred interpersonal distance by using
the Comfortable Interpersonal Distance Scale, and
3. To determine whether the social learning model for inter-
personal distance is applicable to retardates.
4
Hypotheses
To carry out the purposes of the experiment the following
hypotheses were tested:
1. There will be a significant difference between the locus
of control scores of institutionalized and non-institutionalized
retardates, with the scores being more external for the institu-
tionalized retarded population.
2. The institutionalized retardates will show a significantly
greater interpersonal distance towards stimuli with no specific
expectancies (Type GE) than the non-institutionalized retardates.
3. The institutionalized retardates will show a closer in-
terpersonal distance towards stimuli with specific expectancies
(Type SE) than the non-institutionalized retardates.
4. There will be significantly greater interpersonal dis-
tance for the externally oriented institutionalized and non-
institutionalized retardates in regard to Type GE Stimuli than
for the internally oriented institutionalized and noninstitu-
tionalized retardates.
Definition of Terms
Type SE Stimuli: The stimuli for which there are specific
expectancies available are referred to as Type SE Stimuli (1).
Type GE Stimuli: The stimuli for which there are no specific
expectancies available are referred to as Type GE Stimuli (1).
5
Behavior Potential: Behavior potential is defined as the
potentiality of any behavior occurring in any situation or situ-
ations as calculated in relation to any single reinforcement or
set of reinforcements (37, p. 105).
Expectancy: Expectancy is defined as the probability held
by the individual that a particular reinforcement will occur as
a function of a specific behavior on his part in a specific situ-
ation or situations. Expectancy is independent of the value or
importance of the reinforcement (37, p. 107).
Reinforcement Value: The reinforcement value of any
external reinforcement is defined as the degree of preference for
any reinforcement to occur if the possibilities of their occurring
were all equal (37, p. 107).
External Locus of Control: External locus of control refers
to the perception of positive and/or negative events as being
unrelated to one's own behavior and, therefore, beyond personal
control (38).
Internal Locus of Control: Internal locus of control refers
to the perception of positive and/or negative events as being a
consequence of one's own actions, and thereby under personal
control (38).
Mildy Retarded Person: Any individual who has an Intelli-
gence Quotient between 50 and 75 as measured by the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale.
Institutionalized Retarded Person: Whoever has been residing
for a minimum of two years in any of the residential facilities
6
governed by the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental
Retardation.
Non-Institutionalized Retarded Person: Any person who has
been attending the special education programs in independent
school districts and has been residing with family or guardian.
Personal Space or Interpersonal Distance: Personal space
or interpersonal distance is defined as the area immediately
surrounding the individual in which the majority of his inter-
actions with others take place. It has no fixed geographic
reference points, moves about with the individual, and expands
and contracts under varying conditions (40).
Schema: When a person indicates that two or more objects
"belong together" he has employed some schema or plan. If these
objects are people or people-symbols, the schem employed is
considered a social schema (20).
Intropunitive response: When a person blames himself for
causing frustrating responses, the response is considered an
intropunitive response (1).
Extrapunitive response: When a person blames someone else
for causing a frustrating response, the response is considered
an extrapunitive response (1).
Facilitative anxiety: When a person with anxiety reacts con-
structively to frustration, then his anxiety is facilitative (1).
Debilitative anxiety: When a person reacts either intro-
punitively or extrapunitively to a frustrating situation, his
anxiety is debilitative (1).
7
Significance and Background
Locus of Control
The locus of control construct originated in social
learning theory research as a part of investigations of the
skill-versus-chance situational categorization which would
affect expectancy learning. Generally, when tasks are given
to subjects and described as requiring skill, the subjects are
found to behave in a more adaptive, achieving fashion that when
the tasks are described as requiring luck or some other external
factors. Subjects tend to make predictions about future successes
based on previous experiences when they believe the tasks are
personally controllable, rather than when they believe the tasks
are externally controlled. Therefore, when subjects realize
that they are responsible for the success of their behavior in a
particular situation, they not only perform more adequately
under similar circumstances, but also are able even to evaluate
their performances.
Such behaviors have also been found in animal laboratories.
Richter (34) reported that even vigorous animals ceased efforts
and rapidly succumbed to death in a stressful situation when
the possibility for effecting a change was eliminated. However,
when conditions were returned to normal and the possibility of
effective behavior was restored, those animals which had not
yet died resumed normal and vigorous responding. Brady (6) in a
8
study with "executive" monkeys reported that those monkeys who
exerted control over an aversive stimulus developed ulcers, while
their partners who were linked in electrical series connections
and passively received the same shock, failed to develop such
difficulties.
However, in a study more deliberately designed to inves-
tigate helplessness, Mowrer and Vick (30) found that rats ex-
hibited less fear-related behavior when a painful stimulus was
controllable by the animal than when it was controlled by the
experimenter (6). Similar findings have also been reported in
social events. Bettelheim's well known observations in Nazi
concentration camps indicated that decreased opportunities for
personal efficacy resulted in prisoners becoming more passive,
irresponsible, and childlike than active and responsible
individuals (4).
Studies of social and racial groups have also concluded
that lack of access to valued societal goals will produce exter-
nally controlled orientations. Generally, Blacks and American
Indians score higher in external control directions than whites,
and lower-class individuals express greater externality than
middle class persons (3, 24). Further, studies with Blacks in-
dicate that those who were willing to become involved in social
actions to improve their circumstances scored as less externally
controlled than their inactive peers (15, 41).
Comparative studies with retardates and normals (5) and
schizophrenics and normal subjects (9) have clearly shown that
9
both retardates and schizophrenics score significantly higher on
measures of external control than their normal counterparts.
Bailer (5) found the locus of control was related to mental
age and preference for delayed gratification, The more external
the orientation, the lower was the mental age and the greater was
the preference for immediate gratification,
Other investigations have reported that perceived control
in children is related to the amount of time spent and the inten-
sity of striving in intellectual free play activities (8).
Lefcourt (23) investigated the effect of directions of certain
tasks on subjects when the tasks were described as external or
internal, according to Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control
Scale. This investigation measured the effect of direction when
the available reinforcements were increasingly clarified. When
minimal directions were given regarding the goals of testing,
internals proved more achieving and goal-striving than externals.
However, when an equivalent group of subjects were given directions
which clearly stated that success in their tasks reflected upon
their achievement abilities and their self-insight, external
control subjects behaved in a more achieving manner than their
internal control peers. It was concluded that external control
subjects fail to perceive opportunities for valued reinforcement
when they occur, and when they are instructed regarding such oppor-
tunities, these subjects proceed at least as effectively as
their internal control peers.
10
Personal Space
The term "personal space" was coined by Katz (19) in the
latter part of the 1930s and was used primarily in animal stu-
dies. It did not receive much scientific attention until the
last two decades.
Hediger (16) investigated the attributes of personal space
in subhumans. He described the variety of flight distances
among different species, the average distance maintained between
members of the same species, and the particular individual bound-
ary, beyond which even fellow species members may not encroach
without being bitten, kicked, pecked, or somewhat rejected.
The most intensive examination of personal space in man
has been made by Hall. As stated by Little (25), Hall has des-
cribed certain marked cultural differences that exist, the vari-
ous sensory cues used to judge distance, and the manipulation
of personal space as a form of non-verbal communication.
Few scientific studies on interpersonal distance were con-
ducted until recently. In fact, there was no adequate measuring
technique until Kuethe developed his social schema using the
feltboard method. Kuethe (20) simply asked his subjects to
place groups of two or three cloth figures, which were cut in
the shape of animals, people, or geometric forms, on a felt
board. The subjects were instructed to place the figures on the
board in any manner they wished, Figures placed in proximity
to one another were assumed to reflect social schemas.
11
Tolor, Brannigan, and Murphy (43) have reported the develop-
ment of a new technique for measuring psychological distance.
This instrument, which is a group-administered paper-and-pencil
test, is called Psychological Distance Scale (43). Using the
scale, they related psychological distance to future time per-
spective and the locus of control (43).
Meisels and Guardo (29) have altered Kuethe's method and
developed a paper-and-pencil test for measurement of interpersonal
distance. However, there have not been any follow-up studies to
determine its validity or reliability.
All the above mentioned scales have been criticized for vari-
ous weaknesses. Duke and Nowicki (10) question the reliability
and validity of Kuethe's original method. Further, there has
been only one attempt to assess its psychometric properties (46).
Duke et al. (10) also criticized the Psychological Distance Scale
(43) for its forced treatment of interpersonal distance as a dis-
crete distribution to what is probably a continuous state of
nature.
Utilizing the above mentioned techniques for determining and
measuring interpersonal distance, the research to this point has
dealt primarily with college students (20, 21), long-term and
short-term hospitalized psychiatric patients (44), normal versus
disturbed children (12, 42), and advantaged versus disadvantaged
children (45). However, this model has rarely, if ever, been
used with retardates. Therefore, this deficit in research with
this special group is particularly dismaying,
12
Presently, the research evidence, both in interpersonal
distance and internal-external locus of control, concludes
that perceived control is a useful variable. Further, in
relation to the experiments noted in the introductory section,
both interpersonal distance and locus of control may be
related to problems such as psychopathology, apathy, and
withdrawal phenomena. Therefore, it is no coincidence that
psychotherapists such as Adler, White, and others have been
concerned with man's development of mastery to cope with his
difficulties (22).
The following chapter reflects an in-depth review of
literature in the locus of control and its relationship
to personality, achievement behaviors, and cognitive
activities. The impact of interpersonal distance on
personality factors and environment is also discussed in
the next chapter.
13
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alpert, R. and R. N. Haber, "Anxiety in Academic Achieve-ment Situations," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,LXI (September, 1960), 207-215.
2. Ansbacher, H. and R. Ansbacher, The Individual Psychologyof Alfred Adler, New York, Basic Books, 1956.
3. Battle, E. and J. B. Rotter, "Children's Feelings of Per-sonal Control as Related to Social Class and Ethnic Group,"Journal of Personality, XXXI (December, 1963), 482-490.
4. Bettleheim, B., "Individual and Mass Behavior in ExtremeSituations," Reading in Social Psychology, edited by G. E.Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hortley, New York,Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1952.
5. Bialer, I., "Conceptualization of Success and Failure inMentally Retarded and Normal Children," Journal of Person-ality, XXIX (September, 1961), 303-320.
6. Brady, J. V., "Ulcers in 'Executive Monkeys," ScientificAmerican, CIC (October, 1958), 95.
7. Butterfield, E. C., "Locus of Control, Test Anxiety, Reac-tion to Frustration, and Achievement Attitudes," Journalof Personality, XXXI (September, 1964), 355-370.
8. Crandall, V. C., W. Katkovsky, and V. J. Crandall, "Children'sBeliefs in Their Own Control of Reinforcement Situations,"Child Development, XXXVI (March, 1965), 91-109.
9. Cromwell, R,, D. Rosenthal, D. Shakow, and T, Kahn, "ReactionTime, Locus of Control, Choice Behavior and Descriptionsof Parental Behavior in Schizophrenics and Normal Subjects,"Journal of Personality, XXIX (December, 1961), 363-380.
10. Duke, M. P. and S. Nowicki, "A New Measure and SocialLearning Model for Interpersonal Distance," Journal ofExperimental Research in Personality, VI (September, 1972),119-132.
14
11. Duke, M. P., J. Sheehan, and S. Nowicki, "The Determinationof Locus of Control in a Geriatric Population and aSubsequent Test of the Social Learning Model for Inter-personal Distance," Journal of Psychology, LXXXVI (March,1974), 277-285.
12. Fisher, R. L., "Social Schema of Normal and DisturbedSchool Children," Journal of Educational Psychology,LVIII (April, 1967), 88-92.
13. Ford, D. H. and H. B. Urban, Systems of Psychotherapy:A Comparative Study, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,1963.
14. Frankel, A. S. and J. Barrett, "Variations in PersonalSpace as a Function of Authoritarianism, Self-Esteem,and Racial Characteristics of Stimulus Situation,"Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, XXXVII(August, 1971), 95-99.
15. Gore, P. M. and J. B. Rotter, "A Personality Correlatesof Social Action," Journal of Personality, XXXI (March,1963), 58-64.
16. Hediger, H., Wild Animals in Captivity, London, Butter-worth, 1950.
17. James, W. and J. B. Rotter, "Partial and 100% Reinforce-ment Under Chance and Skill Conditions," Journal ofExperimental Psychology, LV (May, 1958), 397-403.
18. Johnson, I. "Interpersonal Distancing of Responses ofBlack Versus White Females," paper presented at SouthernPsychological Association Meetings, Atlanta, Georgia, 1972.
19. Katz, D., Animals and Men, New York, Longmans and Green,1937.
20. Kuethe, J., "Social Schemas," Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, LXIV (January, 1962), 31-36.
21. , "Social Schemas and the Reconstruction ofSocial Object Displays from Memory," Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, LXV (July, 1962), 71-74.
22. Lefcourt, H. M., "Internal Versus External Control ofReinforcement: A Review," Psychological Bulletin, LXV(April, 1966), 206-220.
23. , "The Effects of Cue Explication UponPersons Maintaining External Control Expectancies,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, V (March,1967) , 372-373,
15
24. Lefcourt, H. M. and G. W. Ladwig, "The American Negro:A Problem in Expectancies," Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, I (April,' 1965), 377-380.
25. Little, K. B., "Personal Space," Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, I (August, 1965), 237-247,
26. Massari, D. J. and R. S. Mansfield, "Field Dependenceand Outer Directedness in the Problem Solving ofRetarded and Normal Children," Child Development,XXXXIV (June, 1973), 346-350.
27. Martin, W., "Parental and Interpersonal Determinants ofTrust," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Departmentof Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, 1972.
28. MacDonald, A. P. and A. Y. Davis, "Internal-ExternalLocus of Control: A Partial Bibliography: III,"Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, XIV(Spring, 1974), 44.
29. Meisels, M. and C. Guardo, "Development of PersonalSpace Schemata," Child Development, XXXX (December,1969), 1167.
30. Mowrer, 0. H. and P. Vick, "An Experimental Analogueof Fear from a Sense of Helplessness," Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, XXXXIII April, 1948),193-200.
31. Norwicki, Stephen and B. R. Strickland, "A Locus ofControl Scale for Children," Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, XXXX (February, 1973), 148-154.
32. Phares, E. J., "Expectancy Changes in Skill and ChanceSituations," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,LIV (May, 1957), 339-342.
33. , "Perceptual Threshold Decrements as aFunction of Skill and Chance Expectancies," Journal ofPsychology, LIII (April, 1962), 399-407.
34. Richter, C. P., "Sudden Death Phenomenon in Animals andHumans," in H. Fiefel, The Meaning of Death, New York,McGraw Hill, 1959.
35. Rotter, J. B., Social Learning and Clinical Psychology,New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954.
16
36. Rotter, J. B., Generalized Expectancies for InternalVersus External Control of Reinforcement, PsychologyMonographs, LXXX (166 - whole No. 609).
37. , S. Liverant, and D. P. Crowne, "TheGrowth and Extinction of Expectancies in Chance Con-trolled and Skilled Tasks," Journal of Psychology,LII (July, 1961), 161-177.
38. Shipe, Dorothy, "Impulsivity and Locus of Control asPredictors of Achievement and Adjustment in MildlyRetarded and Borderline Youth," American Journal ofMental Deficiency, LXXVI (July, 1971), 12-22.
39. Sommer, R., "Studies in Personal Space," Sociometry,XXII (September, 1959), 247-260.
40. Strickland, B., "The Prediction of Social Action froma Dimension of Internal-External Control," Journal ofSocial Psychology, LXVI (August, 1965), 353-358.
41. Tolor, A., "Psychological Distance in Disturbed andNormal Children," Psychological Reports, XXIII (Decem-ber, 1968), 695-701.
42. , G. Brannigan, and V, Murphy, "PsychologicalDistance, Future Time Perspective, and Internal-External Expectancy," Journal of Projective Techniquesand Personality Assessment, XXXIV (August, 1970), 283-294.
43. and M. Donnon, "Psychological Distance asFunction of Length of Hospitalization," PsychologicalReports, XXV (December, 1969), 851-855.
44. and S, Orange, "An Attempt to Measure Psycho-logical Distance in Advantaged and DisadvantagedChildren," Child Development, XXX (June, 1969), 407-420.
45. and R. Salafia, "The Social Schemata Techniqueas a Projective Device," Psychological Reports, XXVIII(April, 1971), 423-429.
46. Wooster, Arthur, D., "Acceptance of Responsibility forSchool Work by Educationally Subnormal Boys," BritishJournal of Mental Subnormality, XX (June, 1974), 23,-27,
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature pertaining to this study is presented in
the following order:
1. Internal and external locus of control
a. Locus of control and personality factors
b. Locus of control and achievement behavior
c. Locus of control and reaction to social stimuli
d. Locus of control and cognitive activities
e. Changes in locus of control
f. Locus of control and mental retardation
2. Interpersonal distance
a. Interpersonal distance and personality factors
b. Interpersonal distance and environment
Internal and External Locus of Control
The locus of control construct is an integral part of
Social Learning Theory (44). It describes the degree to which
an individual believes that reinforcements are contingent upon
his own behavior. Internal control refers to individuals who
believe that reinforcements are contingent upon the outcome of
their own behavior, while the externally oriented individuals
believe that reinforcements are not under their personal con-
trol but rather under the control of external forces.
17
18
Ever since its formulation about two decades ago, an
increasing number of research investigations have been reported.
Comprehensive reviews have been reported by Rotter (44), Lefcourt
(35), and Joe (29). Even though the research in the area of
locus of control has touched every phase of human life, it seems
that the majority of investigators have centered their attentions
in such areas as cognitive activities, achievement behavior,
resistance to influence, changes in locus of control, and
personality factors. Therefore, it is the purpose of this
study to review significant investigations related to these
areas.
Locus of Control and Personality Factors
The first attempt to measure individual differences in
belief in external control as a psychological variable was
done by Phrase (42) while studying chance and skill effects
on expectancies of reinforcement. He designed a scale to
measure a general attitude or personality characteristic of
attributing the occurrence of reinforcements to chance rather
than to the individual's own efforts. The scale consisted
of 13 items measuring external attitudes and 13 items reflec-
ting internality. Phrase's findings indicated that the items
which were stated in an external direction predicted that
individuals with external attitudes would behave in a fashion
similar to that of subjects placed in a chance situation.
19
James (28) further revised Phrase's scale and found a
significant correlation between his scale and the Incomplete
Sentences Blank personal adjustment score (45). The relation-
ship appeared to be curvilinear, indicating that extreme
internals and extreme externals appeared to be less adjusted
than those who fell in the middle of the continuum.
In another investigation, Butterfield (8) tried to deter-
mine the relationship between the locus of control, frustration-
reaction, test anxiety, and achievement attitudes. Results
indicated that frustration reactions become less constructive
as the locus of control becomes more external. Further, it
was found that the debilitating anxiety-reaction scores in-
creased and the facilitating anxiety-reaction scores decreased
as the locus of control became more external. Therefore, it
was concluded that the more internal one's locus of control,
the more one feels that he has control over the reinforcements
which he receives, and consequently, the more likely his anxiety
response is to be a facilitative one. Conversely, the less
control an individual feels over the reinforcements he receives,
the more debilitating his anxiety responses will be.
In a similar study Feather (16) found a significant posi-
tive correlation between external control and debilitating
anxiety and neurotic symptoms for both sexes. Tolor and
Reznikoff (58) reported that external scores were significantly
related to repression. Further, they noted that internal scores
were significantly correlated with scores on a scale measuring
20
insight and that external scores were related to overt death
anxiety. However, a study by Efran (14) disclosed that the
tendency to repress failure is significantly related to scores
toward the internal end of the continuum. But the results were
interpreted as suggesting that the person who embraces an
external attitude has less need to repress his failures than
the more internally oriented person, since the former already
accepts external factors as the responsible agents for his
failures.
Roy and Katahn (43) investigated the existence of an
anxiety factor within the locus of control scale. They admin-
istered the Manifest Anxiety Scale, the Test Anxiety Scale,
and the Locus of Control Scale to two samples of introductory
psychology students totalling 626 individuals. In an item
analysis, every item on the locus of control scale answered in
external direction correlated positively with the total score
on the anxiety scales. However, the correlation of only three
items from the locus of control scale reached significance.
But, total scores on the locus of control scale and both
anxiety scales were significantly correlated in both samples.
Several investigators have tried to determine the rela-
tionship between the locus of control, authoritarianism, and
aggression. Rotter, Seeman, and Liverant (46) recorded a signi-
ficant relationship between external control and authoritarianism
as measured by the California F-Scale. Similar results are also
reported by Baron (3) in a study with seventy-five undergraduate
21
students. Williams and Vantress (60) correlated hostility with
the locus of control, using 235 undergraduate psychology students.
They found a low, but significant, correlation between the
external scores and the degree of aggression. Their findings
further indicated that the externals scored significantly higher
than internals on the Resentment, Verbal, Suspicion, and Irrita-
bility sub-scales of the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (7).
Collectively, these studies tend to depict externals, in
contrast to internals, as being relatively anxious, dogmatic,
aggressive, and suspicious of others. Further, they tend to have
a low need for social approval, to lack self-confidence, and to
have a greater tendency to use sensitizing modes of defenses.
Locus of Control and Achievement Behavior
Research in regard to achievement behavior has dealt more
with relationship between the locus of control and grade point
average than other areas. The first of these studies was done
by Crandall, Katkovsky, and Preston (10). Administering the
Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire (10), they
found that children with a high internal score spent more time
in free-play activities of an intellectual nature and exhibited
more intense striving in these activities than did children with
low internal scores. Furthermore, it was concluded that the
internal child's greater approach behavior would eventually
result in the acquisition of more facts, concepts, and problem-
solving skills that would then be reflected in measures of
academic competence, i.e., grades and achievement test scores.
22
They also found that boys with high internal locus of control
scores had higher reading achievement test scores, but they
did not find a significant relationship for the girls who made
similar locus of control scores.
In another study by McGhee and Crandall (39), it was
found that the internals on the Intellectual Achievement Respon-
sibility Scale consistently attained higher grades and achieve-
ment test scores than externals. Further, they concluded that
the attainment of higher grades was correlated to the amount
of acceptance of responsibility for attaining academic success
and the acceptance of blame for causing failures.
Lao (24), in a study with over 1,000 Black male college
students from several colleges in the Deep South, noted that
individuals who had a high sense of personal control had higher
achievement test scores and grades, higher academic confidence,
and higher educational expectations and aspirations than did
students who expressed less personal control and focused on
external forces in explaining success or failure, Similarly,
Coleman et al. (9) reported that children of minority origin
who showed a sense of control of the environment had higher
achievement than those who did not, Furthermore, internal
control was reported to be related to achievement for all
minority groups, However, Hjelle (26), in a study with 143
college students did not find any firm evidence of relationship
between the internal-external control construct and academic
achievement variables.
23
Based on the evidence presented in this section, it
appears that internals tend to manifest greater interest and
effort in achievement-related activities than externals do.
However, some researchers have found otherwise. Therefore,
additional investigations of the dynamics between internal-
external control and achievement related variables are
necessary.
Locus of Control and Reaction to Social Stimuli
Several investigators have explored the reaction of
internal and external individuals to social stimuli. Rotter
(44) suggested that internals would be more resistive to mani-
pulation from the environment if they were aware of such mani-
pulation, while externals, expecting control from the outside
world, would be less resistive. Probably the first investiga-
tion in this area was done by Crowne and Liverant (11). Using
110 introductory psychology students, they found in an Asch-
type situation (perceptual discrimination procedure) that sub-
jects who saw themselves as externally controlled conformed to
a significantly greater degree than did internally controlled
subjects. In addition, external subjects behaviorally demon-
strated less confidence in their ability to judge independently.
Gore and Rotter (21) demonstrated a relationship between internal-
external subjects and susceptibility to the examiner's influence.
They found that when the influence was subtle, internals were
significantly more resistant than external and control groups.
24
Getter (19), in a study with 130 undergraduate students, found
that subjects characterized as "internals" were likely to be
those who demonstrated "latent conditioning," that is learning
which is acquired during reinforcement trials, but which is not
manifested until the extinction trials when reinforcement ceased.
The author's explanation for latent conditioners being the most
internal group in this study is that subjects with a generalized
expectancy for internal control have negative feelings toward
being manipulated. They are apparently attuned to the rein-
forcement contingency, since increment eventually occurs, but
they do not allow themselves to show it. It is only during the
subsequent extinction trials when they feed "on their own" that
the conditioning is exhibited.
Strickland (54), in a similar study using 187 female under-
graduate students in regard to individual differences in verbal
conditioning and awareness, hypothesized that internals will
give evidence of more awareness than externals, Even though
the prediction was not supported, the author concluded that the
more external the subject, the more likely she was to be amenable
to influence by the experimenter, providing she was aware of the
situation. The subjects characterized as internals tended to
deny the influence of the experimenter and appear to follow
their own inclination in regard to giving the correct response.
Moreover, similar to Getter's "latent conditioner" mentioned
earlier, the "aware-denied influenced group" showed a significant
25
rise in verbal response toward the end of extinction. Finally,
the author, in regard to psychotherapy, states:
It is conceivable that the persons assessedas internals might be the ones initially denyingthe advice or interpretations of the therapist,but eventually presenting the therapist's sugges-tions as hypotheses of their own. Moreover, theseresults suggest that it is of crucial importanceto have the cooperation of internal clients if thetherapist is attempting overt control of behavior,such as behavior modification techniques might re-quire. At a general level, the results suggestthat externals may be those clients who would moreeasily allow themselves to be manipulated by thetherapist (54).
Jones and Shrauger (30) placed internals and externals
in a group test with two peers, during which they exchanged
evaluations of each other's answers. Each subject received
primarily negative evaluations from one peer and primarily
positive evaluations from the other peer. Half of the subjects
were informed that the test measured an ability, while the other
half were informed that the test measured personal opinions and
that there were no right or wrong responses., They found that
externals reciprocated (agreed with negative and positive evalu-
ators) more frequently than internals in the opinion condition.
It was suggested that the lower reciprocation scores of inter-
nals reflected their attempt to control their social outcome.
Collectively, these studies point out that the locus of
control would appear to be strongly related to the ability to
resist coercion. Persons who view themselves as responsible
for their own fates seem to be more cautious about what they
26
accept from others than those who do not perceive themselves to
be in active control of their fate.
Locus of Control and Cognitive Activity
Probably the earliest investigation providing information
in regard to cognitive activity as the function of the locus of
control was done by Seeman and Evans (48) in a hospital setting.
An "alienation scale" to measure the individual's expectancies
for control and a questionnaire prepared by the National
Tuberculosis Association were administered to a sample of eighty-
six patients. The hypothesis stated that the patient's general
sense of personal control or lack of personal control influences
his learning about tuberculosis, with high alienation being
conducive to poor learning. Results confirmed the prediction
among tuberculosis patients, that internals (less alienated)
had more objective knowledge about their conditions than exter-
nal (highly alienated) subjects. A subsequent study by Seeman
(47) involved memory for various kinds of information among
prisoners in a reformatory. Information was presented to pri-
soners concerning factors related to achieving successful parole,
the reformatory setting, and the long-range prospects for a non-
criminal career. Results indicated that there was a signifi-
cant correlation between their internal-external scores and
the amount of parole material recalled. However, there were
no differences between internals and externals in retention of
other types of information, suggesting that internals are
27
superior in recall only when information is relevant to control
of personal goals.
In view of the previous research, Davis and Phrase (12)
hypothesized that internals and externals not only differ in
attentiveness to, and recall of, information that is immedi-
ately present in the environment, but also in terms of "actively
seeking" additional relevant information. Essentially, the
researchers stated that internals, having a higher generalized
expectancy that reinforcements are contingent upon their own
behavior, should attempt to better control their environment
through seeking out relevant information. Externals, on the
other hand, would have less need to acquire information since
outcomes tend to be perceived as less dependent on their own
actions. To test this hypothesis, they selected forty-two
internal and forty-two external subjects who were randomly
assigned to one of three experimental conditions--skill, chance,
or ambiguous. The subjects were led to believe their task was
to influence the attitude of another person toward the war in
Vietnam. During the procedure, they were given the opportunity
to acquire information both about the other person and about
the Vietnam issue. The findings were that (1) under ambiguous
conditions, internals sought more information than did externals;
(2) under chance conditions, internals and externals did not
differ in information seeking behavior; and (3) under skill
conditions, externals sought significantly less information than
did internals.
28
In another study reported by Phrase (41), internals and
externals were compared in their tendencies to use information
for decision-making, which all subjects had learned to a similar
criterion level. The subjects had to learn ten facts about four
males to errorless recall. A week later subjects had to guess
which of eight girls and which of ten occupations were most
suited to each of the four men. Information utilization was
measured by the number of reasons given for the matches made,
as well as correctness of those reasons. Internals were found
to give more reasons, as well as more correct reasons, than
externals. It was concluded that internals are more likely to
use information than externals are, when both groups are equally
aware; and therefore internals should have a greater potential
for effectiveness in their social environment.
Collectively, this group of studies tends to support the
hypothesis that internals will show more initiative and effort
in controlling their environment and approach problem-solving
situations in a more methodical manner. However, the research in
this area is rather limited and further investigation is needed
for more conclusive results.
Changes in Locus of Control
Another area which has recently become a point of interest
for some investigators involves methods for changes in the locus
of control. These changes have been attributed to natural events,
29
such as age, or specific events such as crisis intervention and
long-term psychotherapy. Penk (40), in a study with five groups
of children, ages from seven to eleven years, found a signifi-
cant relationship between age and internal-external locus of
control. Older children consistently tended to be more inter-
nal than younger ones.
In regard to the effects of specific social events upon
internal-external scores, Gorman (22) conducted a study with
undergraduate psychology students on the day after the 1968
Democratic Party convention. Gorman stated that in situations
in which the person's expectancy of self-directed success
would become diminished, it would be expected that scores on
the internal-external scale would shift in the direction of
external locus of control. Most students selected for this
study were McCarthy supporters and talked to each other before
class about their disappointment with the convention. Results
indicated that the students scored in a more external direction
than Rotter's norms (44) for university students. Gorman's
explanation for his findings is that the external orientation
of this group seems to be a transient shift attributable to the
events of the previous day.
Regarding the effects of therapeutic situation upon external-
internal control, Smith (50) conducted a study with a crisis
group. The subjects consisted of thirty patients who reported
to the U.C.L.A. Medical Center because of acute life crises
and thirty patients in a non-crisis group who were beginning
30
long-term psychotherapy at the same center. Following six weeks
of therapy designed to help clients adapt more effective coping
techniques, crisis patients reported a significant decrease in
externality, whereas regular therapy cases remained at the same
level, despite a more equivalent number of therapy sessions.
Gillis and Jessor (20) conducted a similar study with twenty-
nine patients who were diagnosed as schizophrenics, neurotics,
or having character disorders. Thirteen members of the group
received some form of psychotherapy but the rest did not. Each
subject was administered a locus of control scale prior to and
following ten sessions of psychotherapy. Results indicated that
those who received therapy shifted toward greater internal con-
trol than those who were in the non-therapy group.
The studies mentioned in this section suggest that an
external expectancy of control can be changed to an internal
frame of reference. Therefore, the internal-external control
construct seems to be relevant in the study of behavior pathology
and psychotherapy.
Locus of Control and Mental Retardation
Unfortunately, the locus of control studies using retardates
as subjects are very limited in number and scope. One of the
earliest studies carried out with this group was conducted by
Bailer (4). Administering a locus of control scale to forty-
five educably retarded and forty-four normal children, Bailer
hypothesized that locus of control would change in the direction
31
of internality with the increase in age. The mental ages of
the normal subjects ranged from five years and three months
to fifteen years and nine months, with a mean mental age of
ten years and zero months, Their chronological ages ranged
from six years and three months to fourteen years and three
months, with a mean of ten years and zero months, The retarded
subjects ranged in chronological age from six years and seven
months to fourteen years and three months, with a mean of ten
years and four months, They ranged in mental age from three
years and ten months to ten years and two months, with a mean
of six years and four months, As predicted, there was a signi-
ficant tendency among all the subjects to perceive internal
locus of control with increasing age, Findings also indicated
that the more internal the subject, the more likely he was to
prefer a delayed and longer reinforcement to a smaller and
more immediate reinforcement.
In another study Shipe (49) tried to determine whether
impulsivity and locus of control are predictors of achievement
and adjustment in mildly retarded and borderline youths, To
conduct this study, Shipe selected a sample of forty-six voca-
tional school boys who were residing in the community versus
a sample of forty-five institutionalized residents who were
involved in a vocational rehabilitation program. The I.Q.
ranged from 50 to 85 for both groups, Results indicated that
subjects who were most able to delay the impulse to action, to
32
use foresight, and to plan ahead, tended to be individuals
who saw themselves as being responsible for the outcome of
events concerning themselves. The evidence further indicated
that the community group subjects who exhibited internal at-
titudes and were low in conceptual impulsivity also showed the
highest achievement level. However, the same results failed
to appear for the institutionalized group. The author's ex-
planation was that the environmental factor of life in any
institution means fewer opportunities for choice and decision-
making by the residents, and consequently fewer staff opportuni-
ties to observe behaviors most relevant to extra-institutional
success.
To determine whether incidental and intentional learning in
the mentally retarded is a function of internal-external locus of
control, Brubakken (6) conducted a study with thirty-five insti-
tutionalized mildly retarded males ranging in age from seventeen
to thirty-four years. The intentional learning task involved
learning a serial list of ten geometric forms exposed at a four-
second rate of presentation on a memory drum. Incidental learning
was measured immediately after the intentional learning task by
means of a recognition test in which subjects matched colors
presented incidentally with each form. The results offered
evidence that mentally retarded persons do learn incidentally, and
incidental learning is positively correlated with the locus
of control. The internally oriented persons tend to be
33
aware of more incidental stimuli during a learning tasks
than do externals. Also, on the intentional learning task,
the subjects with an internal locus of control learned the
task with fewer errors than the externals.
Collectively, these studies indicate that the pattern of
behavior in regard to external-internal orientation among re-
tardates is similar to that of normal subjects. Internal re-
tardates seem to be better adjusted, more aware of their
surroundings, and less impulsive, However, the research in
this particular area is rather meager, and, until further inves,
tigations become available, one must be careful of accepting
a strong stand in either direction,
Interpersonal Distance
The terms "interpersonal distance," "personal space," and
"proxemic behavior" have been interchangeably used in numerous
investigations in the last few decades, Probably the work in
this area which has received the most credit is that of Hall
(23, 24, 25). He coined the term "proxemic behavior" and de-
fined it as "the study of how man unconsciously structures
microspace--the distance between men in the conduct of daily
transactions, the organization of space in his houses and build-
ings, and ultimately the layout of his towns" (23). Hall fur-
ther suggested that the amount of space available and the
distance between people is an important element in the environ-
ment, It has substantial effects on how someone behaves and
34
also indicates to some extent how he is feeling about the
other people who are involved,
Hall (25) developed a classification scheme based on
observations of man and animals, He defined and described
various aspects of behaviors for four different kinds of
interpersonal distance, These are (1) intimate distance, which
is characterized by an increase in sensory input, physical
contact is possible, and the individual is aware of it, (2)
personal distance,which is the distance separating the members
of non-contact species, (3) social distance,which is culturally
defined space customarily maintained between an organism and
others, and (4) public distance,which is the distance beyond
the individual's circle of involvement. Hall believes that
with information concerning space, one can better understand
human behavior and personality,
Interpersonal Distance and Personality Factors
As the result of Hall's early work, several investigators
have researched the relationship between personality variables
and interpersonal distance. Perhaps Kuethe is the most prolific
researcher in the area of interpersonal distance. He tried
to determine whether human beings possess social schemata by
which they tend to think of persons belonging together in much
the same way as they perceive objects as belonging together,
In a study (31) with a normal population, he found out that there
is a strong social schema that men and women belong together,
35
His subjects placed man and woman figures together on a field
and did not permit other objects to intervene, In a similar
study (32), the subjects who were all male undergraduate col-
lege students, were asked to reconstruct from memory a display
containing man and woman figures, The tendency to place a
man figure and a woman figure together was stronger than the
tendency to place two men figures or two women figures together,
However, in another study with homosexual and non-homosexual
penitentiary inmates, Kuethe (33) found that the non-homosexual
group responded similarly to that of the normal population by
not separating men and women figures, but the homosexual group
exhibited a very prepotent male-male schema.
Other researchers have investigated several aspects of
personality disorders as related to interpersonal distance.
In a study with twenty disturbed and twenty normal children,
Weinstein (59) investigated whether or not the emotionally
disturbed children group human figures closer than non-human
objects. Her findings indicated that emotionally disturbed
children have not developed the normal children's schema, which
organizes humans as a close unit, The emotionally disturbed
children place geometrical figures closer together than human
figures. Weinstein further pointed out that her sample of
emotionally disturbed children, in contrast to the normal chil-
dren, placed mother-child pairs farther apart than either father-
child or child-child pairs, The behavior of the disturbed
36
children was also unlike that of Kuethe's (31) adult group,
who placed mother-child pairs closer than father-child pairs
and, in forming father-mother-child triads, rarely put the
father between the mother and child.
In a similar study, Fisher (17) compared the social schema
of normal children with those characterizing children with
school problems. Fisher anticipated that children showing
disruptive behavior in the classroom would portray interaction
schemata differently than would normally behaving children.
It was also expected that the disturbed children would expe-
rience themselves as having fewer meaningful ties to others.
Using Kueth's technique, Fisher found that normal children
placed figures with human characteristics closer together
than did children with serious school problems, suggesting
that the former group feels closer and more related to
others than the latter group. In the same study Fisher also
found that the children who placed human figures at a rela-
tively large distance from each other have mothers who are
depicted as angry and hostile.
Several researchers have investigated the relationship
between interpersonal distance and more severe behavior dis-
orders such as neurosis and psychosis. A number of studies
(5, 15, 36) have shown that the families of schizophrenic
patients have interpersonal relationships that are severely
disturbed, often characterized by divisive aggression and
This page has been inserted during digitization.
Either the original page was missing or the
original pagination was incorrect.
38
conflictual undertones. Even though there is no evidence
that directly links the interpersonal relationships of the
family with the development of schizophrenic pathology, it
might be expected that schizophrenics would perceive people
existing apart rather than belonging together, especially
if social relationships are seen as hostile and aggressive,
Based on these factors, Horowitz, Duff, and Stratton (27)
performed an experiment to determine the "body-buffer zone"
among the normal and schizophrenic subjects. Subjects were
asked to approach an object person and to stop when they felt
that closer proximity to the object person would make them
feel uncomfortable. Measurements were taken of the final
distance between the subject and the object person, It was
noted that schizophrenics, who are known for withdrawal
and avoidance behavior, tended to place greater distances
around themselves and others than the non-schizophrenic group,
Therefore, it appears that defensive withdrawal, as a mechanism
for dealing with unconscious impulses and conflicts, may be
expressed through a variety of channels, one of which is
spatial usage,
Dosey and Meisels (13), in another study, hypothesized
that greater distances between individuals would be obtained
under conditions of threat, whether the threat stemmed from
environmental or intrapsychic sources They manipulated
stress to self-esteem and found that college students whose
39
physical attractiveness was called into question used larger
spatial distances than peers in a non-threatened control
group.
On the other hand, Tolor (55) conducted a study to deter-
mine and compare psychological distance between disturbed and
normal children. His findings clearly indicated that there
is no significant difference in replacement distances for
emotionally disturbed as compared to non-disturbed children.
However, Tolor (56), in a similar study with emotionally dis-
turbed and normal adults, found significant differences be-
tween the psychological distance of two groups. It must be
pointed out that in the latter case a verbal scale of psycho-
logical distance (57) was employed, while in the former study
the social schemata technique was applied. It is also note-
worthy to mention that the scale used in the latter study was
devised by the author.
Frankel and Barrett (18) investigated the effects of pre-
sentations of white and black human stimuli on personal space,
and the relationship between personal space, authoritarianism,
and self-esteem. Their findings supported the hypothesis that
the largest area of personal space would be used by individuals
who are high in authoritarianism and low in self-esteem,
and that these individuals would also show the largest dis-
crepancy between personal space used in response to white
and black stimuli. Specifically, the subjects who were
high in authoritarianism and low in self-esteem used a
40
larger area of personal space when approached by a black man
than by a white man.
Collectively, these studies indicate that personal space
certainly plays an important role in regard to personality
variables. In most cases it appears that personality abnor-
mality is associated with the use of large interpersonal dis-
tances. However, it seems quite clear that there is a need
for a reliable and valid measure of interpersonal distance.
Interpersonal Distance and Environment
Environment encompasses a broad set of factors. These
factors range from physical distance between people to the
arrangement of furniture in a room, to more delimited areas
such as libraries, to housing developments, and finally, to
a community as a whole.
Until a few years ago, there was a very limited amount of
experimental work in the area of interpersonal space. The work
of Sommer (51, 52) in this area may be considered a signifi-
cant step in scientifically studying interpersonal distance
among human subjects, His primary concern was with the dis-
tances most effective in eliciting conversational interactions.
Results simply indicated that communication tends to take
place between neighbors, They also showed that the corners
of a table are the loci of most of the interactions, In
another experiment Sommer (51) selected twenty-six pairs of
schizophrenic patients and compared their pattern of interaction
41
with eleven pairs of non-schizophrenic mental patients (de-
pressives, alcoholics, and psychopaths). The results showed
that the non-schizophrenic patients resembled the normal group
in that they used the corner positions. However, the schizo-
phrenics made considerable use of distance arrangements and
faced away from the other members of the group, and at times
even refused to talk.
Based on Sommer's findings, Little (37) conducted a study
to determine whether or not interactions between two persons
classified variously as friends, acquaintances, or as stran-
gers would take place at an increasing rank order of distances.
He also predicted that average interaction distances would in-
crease with increased impersonality of the setting, that is,
as the transaction shifts from a living room to an office and
finally to a street corner. The results indicated that per-
ceived interaction distances among two people is markedly
influenced by the degree of acquaintance of the two members.
If the pair are labeled as "friends," they will be seen as
interacting at significantly closer distance than if labeled
as "acquaintances," and if they are labeled as "strangers,,"
then they are perceived at a significantly greater distance,
In regard to the setting in which meetings took place, Little's
findings indicated that maximum distances occurring in an
office waiting room, and street corners or similar open air
settings will elicit the closest interaction distance.
42
Some investigators have suggested the possibility of a
curvilinear relationship between interpersonal distance and
social ties. That is, social bonds may be enhanced by decreased
distance up to a point, and, beyond that, the relationships may
draw apart. Altman and Haythorn (1) compared spatial habits
of pairs of men socially isolated in a small room for ten days
with those of matched non-isolated groups. They were inter-
ested in territoriality patterns with respect to beds, chairs,
parts of the room, and social distances maintained by team-
mates in free-time activities. Further, they investigated
whether or not isolated and non-isolated groups would differ
in spatial behavior according to different personality compo-
sition. The results indicated that the isolated group showed
continually high, exclusive, non-reciprocal use of particular
beds from the outset. Territoriality for specific chairs and
areas was low at first but steadily grew as days in isolation
progressed. The non-isolated group showed a different pattern,
with chair and side of table territoriality high at first, but
dropping dramatically in a matter of days. Bed territoriality
was initially low but gradually rose to the same level comparable
to isolates.
Regarding personality compositions, the data suggested
that incompatible dominant subjects, when isolated, tend to
develop an active interpersonal interaction along with high
territoriality. The authors characterized this relationship
43
as active, competitive, and volatile. The dyads who were
incompatible and exhibited affiliation need showed a marked
social withdrawal. They had a relatively subdued, quiet, and
private relationship. However, they exhibited a high terri-
toriality need.
The subjects who were incompatible on dogmatism and
achievement were characterized by showing no differential
territorial behaviors. The incompatible dogmatic subjects
displayed active social interaction but the incompatible
achievement group withdrew socially from one another,
Physiological responses have also been measured in
regard to interpersonal distance. McBride, King, and James
(38) conducted a study with twenty male and twenty female
college students to measure the effects of social proximity
on galvanic skin responses. Their findings reflected that
the galvanic skin responses will increase as the examiner
gets closer to the subjects. The galvanic skin response
was greatest when the subject was approached frontally, and
side approach yielded a greater effect than rear approach,
However, Argyle and Dean (2) reported a decrease in eye con-
tact as the interpersonal distance became closer.
Collectively, these studies seem to reflect that close
interpersonal distance mediates feelings of compatibility or
liking. It also operates to affect social relationships; that
is, physical proximity seems to lead to social bonds.
44
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Altman, I. and W., W. Haythorn, "The Ecology of Isolated
Groups," Behavioral Science, XII (May, 1967), 169-182.
2. Argyle, M. and J. Dean, "Eye-Contact and Affiliation,"Sociometry, XXXVIII (September, 1965), 289-304,
3. Baron, R. A., "Authoritarianism, Locus of Control and
Risk Taking," Journal of Psychology, LXVIII (January,1968), 141-143.
4. Bailer, I. "Conceptualization of Success and Failure in
Mentally Retarded and Normal Children," Journal of
Personal ity, XXXIX (September, 1961), 303-320,
5. Bowan, M., "A Family Concept of Schizophrenia," TheEtiology of Schizophrenia, edited by D. D. Jackson,New York, Basic Books, 346-372.
6. Brubakker, D. M., "Incidental and Intentional Learningin the Mentally Retarded as a Function of InternalExternal Locus of Control," Dissertation AbstractsInternational, XXXIII (December, 1972), 2804.
7. Buss, A., and A. Durkee, "An Inventory for AssessingDifferent Kinds of Hostility," Journal of ConsultingPsychology, XXX (August, 1957), 343-348.
8. Butterfield, E. C., "Locus of Control, Test Anxiety,Reaction to Frustration, and Achievement Attitudes,"Journal of Personality, XXXII (September, 1964), 355-370.
9. Coleman, J. S., E. Q. Campbell, C. J. Hobson, J. McPort-land, A. M. Mood, F. D. Weinfeld, and R. L. York,Equality of Educational Opportunity, Washington, D. C.,U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
10. Crandall, V. C., W. Katkovsky, and A. Preston, "Motiva-tional and Ability Determinants of Young Children'sIntellectual-Academic Achievement Behaviors," ChildDevelopment, XXXIII (1962), 643-661.
11. Crowne, D. D. and S. Liverant, "Conformity Under VaryingConditions of Personal Commitment," Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, LXVI (June, 1963), 547-555.
45
12. Davis, W. L. and E. L. Phrase, "Internalq-External Con-
trol as a Determinant of Information Seeking in aSocial Influence Situation," Journal of Personality,XXXV (December, 1967), 547-561.
13. Dosey, M. A. and M. Meisels, "Personal Space and Self-
Protection," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,XI (January, 1963), 93-97.
14. Efran, J. S., "Some Personality Determinants of Memoryfor Success and Failure," unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Ohio State University, 1963.
15. Farina, A., "Patterns of Role Dominance and Conflict in
Parents of Schizophrenic Patients," Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, LXI (July, 1960), 31-38.
16. Feather, N. T., "Some Personality Correlates of ExternalControl," Australian Journal of Psychology, XIX (Decem-
ber, 1967), 253-260.
17. Fisher, R. L., "Social Schema of Normal and DisturbedSchool Children,' Journal of Educational Psychology,LVIII (April, 1967), 88-92.
18. Frankel, A. S. and J. Barrett, "Variations in Personal
Space as a Function of Authoritarianism, Self-Esteem,and Racial Characteristics of a Stimulus Situation,"Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, XXXVII(August, 1971), 95-99.
19. Getter, H., "A Personality Determinant of Verbal Condi-tioning," Journal of Personality, XXIV (September,1966) , 397-405.
20. Gillis, J. S. and R. Jessor, "Effects of Brief Psycho-therapy on Belief in Internal Control: An ExplanatoryStudy," Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice,VII (1970), 135-137.
21. Gore, P. M. and J. B. Rotter, "A Personality Correlateof Social Action," Journal of Personality, XXXI (1963),58-64.
22. Gorman, B. W., "An Observation of Altered Locus of Con-
trol Following Political Disappointment," PsychologicalReports, XXV (December, 1969), 856.
23. Hall, E. E., "A System for the Notation of Proxemic Be-havior," American Anthropologist, LXV (October, 1963),1003-1027.
46
24. Hall, E. T., The Silent Language, Gordon City, New York,Doubleday, 1959,
25. , The Hidden Dimension, Gordon City, New York,Doubleday, 1966.
26. Hjelle, L. A., "Internal-External Control as a Deter-minant of Academic Achievement," Psychological Reports,XXVI (1970), 326.
27. Horowitz, J. D., D. F. Duff, and L, 0. Stratton, "Body-buffer Zone," Archives of General Psychiatry, XI(December, 1964), 651-656.
28. James, W. H., "Internal Versus External Control ofReinforcement as a Basic Variable in Learning Theory,"unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State Univer-sity, 1957.
29. Joe, V. D., "Review of the Internal-External ControlConstruct as a Personality Variable," PsychologicalReports, XXVIII (April, 1971), 619-640.
30. Jones, S. C. and J. S. Shruger, "Locus of Control andInterpersonal Evaluations," Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, XXXII (December, 1968), 664-668.
31. Kuethe, J., "Social Schemas," Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, XXXII (December, 1968), 664-668.
32. , "Social Schemas and the Reconstruction ofSocial Object Displays from Memory," Journal of Abnor-mal and Social Psychology, LXV (July, 1962), 71-74.
33. and H. Weingartner, "Male-Female Schemata of
Homosexual and Non-Homosexual Penitentitary Inmates,"Journal of Personality, XXXII (March, 1964), 23-31.
34. Lao, R. C., "Internal-External Control and Competentand Innovative Behavior Among Negro College Students,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, XIV(March, 1970), 263-270.
35. Lefcourt, H. M., "Internal Versus External Control ofReinforcements: A Review," Psychological Bulletin,LXV (April, 1966), 206-220.
36. Lids, T. and S. Fleck, "Schizophrenia, Human Integrationand the Role of the Family," The Etiology of Schizophrenia,edited by D. D. Jackson, New York, Basic Books, 323-345.
47
37. Little, K. B., "Personal Space," Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, I (August, 1965), 237-247.
38. McBride, F., M. G. King, and J. W. James, "Social ProximityEffects on Galvanic Skin Responses in Adult Humans,"Journal of Psychology, LXI (September, 1965), 153-157.
39. McGhee, P. E. and V. E. Crandall, "Beliefs in Internal-External Control of Reinforcement and Academic Performance,"Child Development, XXXIX (Septembe,r 1968), 91-102.
40. Penk, W., "Age Changes and Correlates of Internal-ExternalLocus of Control Scale," Psychological Reports, XXV(December, 1969), 856.
41. Phares, E. J., "Differential Utilization of Informationas a Function of Internal-External Control," Journal ofPersonality, XXXVI (December, 1968), 649-662.
42. , Expectancy Changes in Skill and ChanceSituations," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,LIV (May, 1957), 339-342.
43. Roy, W. J. and M. Katahm, "Relation of Anxiety to Locusof Control," Psychological Reports, XXIII (December,1968), 1196.
44. Rotter, J. B., Generalized Expectancies for InternalVersus External Control of Reinforcement, PsychologicalMonographs, LXXX (166 - whole No. 609).
45. and J, E. Rafferty, The Rotter IncompleteSentences Blank Manual , New York, Psychological Corpora-tion, 1950.
46. , M. Seeman, and S. Liverant, "Internal Ver-sus External Control of Reinforcement: A Major Variablein Behavior Theory," Decisions, Values, and Groups, (2vols.), II, edited by N. Washburne, New York, PergamonPress, 1962, 473-516.
47. Seeman, M., "Alienation and Social Learning in a Reforma-tory," American Journal of Sociology, LXIX (September,1963), 270-284.
48. and J. W. Evans, "Alienation and Learning ina Hospital Setting," American Sociological Review, XXVII(December, 1962), 772-783.
49. Shipe, Dorothy, "Impulsivity and Locus of Control as Pre-dictors of Achievement and Adjustment in Mildly Retardedand Borderline Youth," American Journal of Mental Defi-ciency, LXXVI (July, 1971), 12-22.
48
50. Smith, R. E., "Changes in Locus of Control as a Function
of Life Crisis Resolution," Journal of Abnormal Psychology,LXXV (June, 1970), 328-332,
51. Sommer, R., "Studies in Personal Space," Sociometry, XXII
(September, 1959), 247-260.
52. , "The Distance for Comfortable Conversation:A Further Study," Sociometry, XXV (March, 1962), 111-116.
53. Strickland, B. R., "The Relationship of Awareness to Ver-
bal Conditioning, Extinction, and Awareness," unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962.
54. 1, "Individual Differences in Verbal Con-
ditioning,; Extction, and Awareness," Journal of Person-ality, XXXVII (September, 1970), 364-379,
55. Tolor, A., "Psychological Distance in Disturbed and NormalChildren," Psychological Reports, XXIII (December, 1968),695-701.
56. , "Psychological Distance in Disturbed and NormalAdAulTs," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XXVI (April,1970), 160-162.
57. , "Reason, Research and Reflection on Psychologi-cal Distance," Psychological Reports, XXVI (February, 1970),302.
58. and Reznikoff, M., "Relation Between Insight
Repression-Sensitization, Internal-External Control and
Death Anxiety," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, LXXII(October, 1967), 426-430.
59. Wienstein, L., "Social Schemata of Emotionally DisturbedBoys," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, LXX (December,1965), 457-461.
60. Williams, C. B. and F. E. Vantress, "Relation BetweenInternal-External Control and Aggression," Journal ofPsychology, LXXI (January, 1969), 59-61.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Research Settings
The subjects for this study were selected from the Denton
State School and the Congress Junior High School, which are
located in Denton, Texas. The Denton State School is a resi-
dential facility for approximately 1500 students and is oper-
ating under the auspices of the Texas Department of Mental
Health and Mental Retardation. An Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.)
of 75 or less is one of the primary criteria for admission to
the school. The students in this school are classified accord-
ing to their level of functioning. There are approximately
200 residents who obtained I.Q. scores between 50 and 75, and
they are classified as educably or mildly retarded. The sub-
jects for this study were selected from this group.
The Congress Junior High School functions under the
auspices of the Denton Independent School District and pro-
vides educational programs for approximately 900 students who
are within the seventh, eighth, and ninth grade levels. There
are also 65 students who are enrolled in the programs especially
designed for the educationally handicapped. The I.Q. range for
this group of children is also from 50 to 75.
49
50
Subjects
A total of 120 subjects was randomly selected for this
study--sixty subjects from the Denton State School and sixty
from the Congress Junior High School. A subject's final
selection was based on three factors: (1) an I.Q. score be-
tween 50 and 75, as measured by the Wechsler Intelligence
Scales, (2) chronological age of 21 or less, and (3) reading
ability at the third grade level as measured by the Wide
Range Achievement Test. Parental consent for the residents
of the Denton State School was also required in order to par-
ticipate in this project. Students who manifested overt signs
of perceptual-motor impairment were excluded. Members of both
sexes were selected for this study. Seventy-four subjects
from the Denton State School and sixty-five subjects from the
Congress Junior High School were found eligible to participate
in this study. The final selection consisted of forty-one
males and nineteen females from the Denton State School and
thirty-six males and twenty-four females from the Congress
Junior High School. Table I gives the description of two
groups of students who participated in this project. For
further clarification, each group is broken down according
to sex also.
51
TABLE I
MEANS AND RANGES OF GROUPS
I.Q. Mean C.A. Mean
Group Sex N=120 Range I.Q. Month/Range C.A./Month
Male 41 51-75 62 157-248 208
DentonStateSchool Female 19 53-75 62 161-232 192
Male 36 53-75 65 156-228 178CongressJuniorHighSchool Female 24 50-74 63 157-200 175
Description of Instruments
The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scales is a paper-
and-pencil measure consisting of 40 questions that are answered
either "yes" or "no" by placing a mark next to the question.
This form of the measure derived from work which began with
a large number of items (N=102), constructed on the basis
of Rotter's definition of the internal-external control of
reinforcement dimension. The items describe reinforcement
52
situations across interpersonal and motivational areas such
as affiliation, achievement, and dependency. School teachers
were consulted in the construction of items. The goal was
to make the items readable at the fifth grade level. A team
of clinical psychologists at Emory University selected fifty-
nine items. This form of the test was then given to a sample
of children (N=152) ranging from the third through ninth grades.
Test-retest reliabilities for a six-week period were .67 for
the eight- to eleven-year-old group (N=98) and .75 for those
in the twelve- to fifteen-year-old group (N=54). An item
analysis was then computed to make a somewhat more homogenous
scale and to examine the discriminative performance of the
items. The results of this analysis, as well as comments from
teachers and pupils in the sample, led to the present form of
the scale, consisting of 40 items (6).
Reliability measures were obtained by administering the
test to over 1,000 elementary and high school students from
the third to the twelfth grade. Estimates of internal con-
sistency by the split-half method, corrected by the Spearman-
Brown Formula, were r=.63 (for grades 3, 4, 5), r=.63 (for grades
6, 7, 8), r=.74 (for grades 9, 10, 11), and r=.81 (for grade
12). Test-retest reliabilities sampled at three grade levels,
six weeks apart, were .63 for the third grade, .66 for the
seventh grade, and .71 for the tenth grade (6).
The construct validity of the Nowicki-Strickland Scale
has also been examined. The correlation with the Bialer-Cromwell
53
score was significant (r=.41, P>05) in a sample of white
children (N=29) aged nine to eleven, The relation between
the Rotter and the Adult version of this test was also signi-
ficant in two studies with college students (N=.76, N=.61,
P >01, N=46, r=.38, P>01). These relations suggest added
support for the construct validation of the Nowicki-Strick-
land Scale (5).
The Comfortable Interpersonal Distance Scale is also a
paper-and-pencil measure corresponding to and derived from
actual body-boundary rooms as used by Frankel and Barrett (3).
The figural layout is in the form of a plane with eight radii
emanating from a common point, each eighty-millimeter radius
being associated with a randomly numbered "entrance" to what
is presented as an imaginary "round room." Distance between
the center point and any location on a given radius is easily
measurable (in millimeters) and reflects the assumption that
interpersonal space is a continuous variable. Construct vali-
dation studies, as reported by Duke and Nowicki (2), were done
by Martin (5) and Johnson (4). Martin related Comfortable
Interpersonal Distance responses to actual approach in a body
boundary room. He reported correlations ranging from .65 for
same sex to .71 for opposite sex stimuli in a group of twenty-
six male and twenty-five female white college students. Johnson
reported correlations of .83 and .84 between Comfortable Inter-
personal Distance responses and actual approaches for same and
54
opposite sex, respectively, in a sample of black college
students. Test-retest reliabilities reported by Duke and
Nowicki (2) were .86 for males using same sex stimulus and
.75 for opposite sex; and for females .84 for same sex and
.85 for opposite sex.
Testing Procedure
Both the Locus of Control Scale for Children and the
Comfortable Interpersonal Distance Scale were administered
individually in this study. To complete the locus of control
scale, each subject was instructed to answer either "yes" or
"no" depending upon what he believed. Following the comple-
tion of the locus of control questionnaire, he or she received
two copies of the Comfortable Interpersonal Distance Scale
instructions:
I want you to imagine that this picturerepresents a round room with eight doors and that
you are standing in the center of the room. Iam going to tell you about several persons who
will be entering through the doors and walkingtowards you. I want you to make a mark on theline leading from the door through which the
person enters to the center where you are stand-ing. Make this mark at the place where you think
you would want the person I describe to stopcoming toward you (1).
The subjects were instructed to "face" the entrance, and
a different entrance was used for each stimulus. The five stimuli
of type SE used for this study were father, mother, same-sex
friend, opposite-sex friend, and person of the same race. The
five stimuli of type GE used were stranger of same sex and same
55
age, stranger of opposite sex and same age, policeman,
teacher, and a person of opposite race. This group of
stimuli has been used and recommended by Duke and Nowicki
(2).
Procedure for Analysis of Data
Hypothesis I, II, and III were tested using the one-way
analysis of variance for two independent samples. Two-dimen-
sional factorial analysis of variance was utilized in an ef-
fort to determine significant difference and mean gain on the
variables of hypothesis IV, The statistical computations in-
volved were performed at the North Texas State University
Computer Center using its standard statistical formula for
analysis of variance. The .05 significance level was selected
as the level of significance required for acceptance of all
hypotheses.
56
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Duke, M. P., J. Sheehan and S. Nowicki, "The Determina-
tion of Locus of Control in a Geriatric Population and
a Subsequent Test of the Social Learning Model for
Interpersonal Distance," Journal of Psychology, LXXXVI
(March, 1974), 277-285.
2. and S. Nowicki, "A New Measure and SocialLearning Model for Interpersonal Distance," Journal of
Experimental Research in Personality, VI (September,197 2)9, 119-132.
3. Frankel, A. S. and J. Barrett, "Variations in PersonalSpace as a Function of Authoritarianism, Self Esteem,and Racial Characteristics of a Stimulus Situation,"Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, XXXVII
(August, 1971), 95-99.
4. Johnson, I., "Interpersonal Distancing of Responses ofBlack Versus White Females," paper presented at Southern
Psychological Association Meetings, Atlanta, Georgia,1972.
5. Martin, W., "Parental and Interpersonal Determinantsof Trust," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Depart-ment of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia,1972.
6. Nowicki, S. and B. R. Strickland, "A Locus of ControlScale for Children," Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, XXXX (February, 1973), 148-154.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to present and analyze
the statistical results based on the data collected in this
study. The investigation was a comparative study between a
group of retarded children in a state supported institution
and a group of retarded children attending public schools in
the community. The research dealt with difference or similari-
ties in locus of control and the interpersonal distance among
the two groups. After sixty subjects from the institutional-
ized group (I) and sixty subjects from the community group (II)
were randomly selected, the final sample used in the statisti-
cal analysis consisted of 120 subjects.
Hypothesis I stated that there would be a significant
difference between the locus of control scores of institution-
alized and non-institutionalized retardates, with the scores
being more external for the institutionalized retarded popu-
lation. Table II presents the median, the mean, and the stan-
dard deviation for the locus of control scores, and the number
of subjects in group I and II. The median was selected as the
dividing point for internal and external subjects.
57
58
TABLE II
LOCUS OF CONTROL SCORE AND THE NUMBER OF SUBJECTSFOR GROUPS I AND II
I-E Locus Median Mean S.D.Groups of Control
Ni = 29
I NE = 31 18 18.1666 3.2057
NT = 60
NI = 31
II NE = 29 18 17.6166 4.2629
NT = 60
The results of analysis of variance are summarized in
Table III. The results of testing the hypothesis that the
institutionalized retardates are more external than the non-
institutionalized retardated population were found to be less
than the desired level of significance and the hypothesis was
therefore rejected.
59
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF QNE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIATION OF LOCUSOF CONTROL SCORES AMONG INSTITUTIONALIZED AND
NON-INSTITUTIONALIZED RETARDED
Source of Sum of df Variance F PVariation Squares Estimate
Between 9,0750 1 9.0750 0.6380 '0.4261
Within 1678.5167 118 14.2247
Total 1687.5917j119
Hypothesis II stated that the institutionalized retardates
would show a significantly greater interpersonal distance towards
stimuli with no specific expectancies (Type GE) than the non-
institutionalized retardates. Table IV presents the means and
standard deviations for the two groups,
TABLE IV
SCORES FOR TYPE GE STIMULI
Mean Standard Deviation
I 170.7166 68.6736
II 183.1000 76.8524
60
Table V reflects the summary of analysis of variance and
indicates that the results of testing Hypothesis II wereless
than the desired level of significance. Therefore Hypothesis II
was rejected.
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF ONE-WAY ANALYSIS VARIANCE OFSCORES FOR TYPE GE STIMULI
Source of Sum of df Variance F P
Variation Squares Estimate
Between 46.000 1 4600.4083 0.8662 0.3539
Within 626719.5833 118 5311.1829
Total 631319.9917 119
Hypothesis III stated that the institutionalized retardates
would show a closer interpersonal distance towards stimuli with
specific expectancies (Type SE) than the non-institutionalized
retardates. Table VI presents means and standard deviations
for both groups in regard to specific expectancies.
61
TABLE VI
SCORES FOR TYPE SE STIMULI
Mean Standard Deviation
I 125.0500 62.6089
II 100.9166 67.3851
The results of analysis of variance are presented in
Table VII. The results of testing Hypothesis III were significant
at the .05 level, therefore the hypothesis was accepted.
TABLE VII
SUMMARY OF ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCEOF SCORE FOR TYPE SE STIMULI
Source of Sum of df Variance F P
Variation Square Estimate
Between 17472.5333 1 17472.5333 4.1303 0.0444*
Within 499177.4333 118 4230.3172
Total 516649.9667 119
*P is significant at the .05 level.
62
Hypothesis IV stated that there would be significantly
greater interpersonal distance for the externally oriented
institutionalized and non-institutionalized retardates in
regard to Type GE stimuli. Table VIII presents the number
of external and internal subjects, means, and standard de-
viations in each category for both groups.
TABLE VIII
NUMBER OF EXTERNAL AND INTERNALRETARDATES IN GROUP I AND II
External Internal
N= 31 N= 29
I M=176.6452 M=191 .6552
S.D.= 70.9415 S.D.= 81.7759
N= 39 N= 31
II M=164.3794 M=175,0968
S.D.= 66.8187 S.D.= 72.3691
The summary of the analysis of variance is presented in
Table IX. The results indicate that there was no significant
difference between the externally oriented institutionalized
and non-institutionalized retardates in regard to Type GE
stimuli.
63
TABLE IX
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR EXTERNALAND INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL SCORES AS
RELATED TO TYPE GE STIMULI
Sum of df Mean F PSquares Squares
Row 6224.3565 1 6224.3565 1.1639 0.2829
Column 4958.7565 1 4958.7565 0.9272 0.3376
Interaction 138.0412 1 138.0412 0.0258 0.8726
Within 620357.1858 116 5347.9068
Differences according to sex concerning the locus of
control scores, and interpersonal distance regarding Type GE
and Type SE were also investigated. Table X presents means,
standard deviations, and number of subjects for locus of con-
trol, Type SE, and Type GE scores.
64
TABLE X
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS, MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONSFOR LOCUS OF CONTROL (LC), TYPE SE, AND
TYPE GE SCORES
IIr
= 41
= 17
= 3.2802
= 124.7317
= 67.7584
= 169.3415
= 71.0516
= 19
= 18.7895
= 3,0291
= 125.7368
= 51.4305
= 173.6842
= 65.0086
I I
N = 36
MIc = 17.0833
S.D.lc = 4,4936
Mse = 77.1667
S.D.se = 53.9701
Mge = 170.4722
S.Dge = 76.2382
N = 24
Mic = 18.4167
S.D.lc = 3.8439
Mse = 136.5417
SD.se = 70.7694
Mge = 202.0417
S.,D,ge = 75,3805
MALE
N
Mic
S.D.lc
Mse
S.D.se
Mge
S.D.ge
FEMALE
N
MIc
S.D.lc
Mse
S.D.se
Mge
S.D.ge
65
The result of two-way analysis of variance comparing
both sexes in group I and group II on the variable Locus of
Control are presented in Table XI.
TABLE XI
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR BOTH SEXES IN
GROUP I AND II REGARDING LOCUS OF CONTROL
Sum of df Mean F P
Squares Squares
Row
Col umn
Interaction
Within
9.3066
34.4034
1.2153
1642.1315
1
1
1
116
9.3066
34.4034
1.2153
14.1563
0.6574
2.4303
0.0859
0.4191
0.1217
0.7700
The P. value regarding main effects for both sexes and
interaction effects among sexes was not significant at the ,05
level.
66
TABLE XII
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR BOTHSEXES IN GROUP I AND II REGARDING TYPE
SE STIMULI
Sum of df Mean F PSquares Squares
Row 9226.1078 1 9226.1078 2.3868 0.1251
Column 24891.4713 1 24891.4713- 6.4394 0.0125*
Interaction 23261.6112 1 23261.6112 6.0177 0.0156*
Within 448398.6913 116 3865.5060
*Significant at the .05 level
The P value regarding main effects for both sexes and
interaction effects among sexes was not significant at the
.05 level.
The results of two-way analysis of variance, comparing
both sexes in regard to Type SE stimuli, are presented in
Table XIII.
As reflected, significant differences were found among
sexes in group II,as well as significant interactions between
67
sexes in both groups. However, a significant difference was
not noted between sexes in group I.
Finally, the results of two-way analysis of variance,
comparing both sexes in group I and II, in regard to Type GE
stimuli, are presented in Table XIII.
As reflected, there were no significant differences of
main effects or interaction effects among sexes in both group
I and II.
TABLE XIII
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR BOTHSEXES IN GROUP I AND II INREGARD TO TYPE GE STIMULI
Sum of df Mean F PSquares Squares
Row 5936.8951 1 5936.8951 1.1251 0.2910
Column 88053420 1 8805.3420 1.6687 0.1990
Interaction 5061.1865 1 5061.1865 0,9591 0.3294
Withn 611232553116 5276924116 5276.9246With in 612123.2553
68
Discussion of the Results
The data resulting from the statistical procedures of
computing analysis of variance led to the rejection of Hypo-
theses I, II, and IV and acceptance of Hypothesis III. Be-
fore any conclusions can be drawn concerning the outcome of
this researchseveral factors must be considered.
Regarding Hypothesis I, which compared the locus of con-
trol between groups I and II, it was quite apparent that the
two groups scored at similar levels (MI = 18.1666, M2 = 17.6166).
Further, the number of external and internal subjects in each
group was practically the same (ELC1 = 31, ILC1 = 29; ELC2 = 29,
ILC2 = 31). Therefore, it is quite possible that the treatment
of the institutionalized retardates is similar to the treatment
of non-institutionalized retardates at home and in educational
settings, in that both environments create the same atmosphere
for development of the locus of control variable, contrary to
Hypothesis I in this study.
Further, it is quite possible that the Nowicki-Strickland
Locus of Control Scale is not a very sensitive instrument when
applied to the retardates. The standardization for this instru-
ment did not include retarded subjects. Its validity can only
be acceptable for normal subjects, until further reserach can
be obtained with using the retardates.
Another factor that might have strongly contributed to
the rejection of Hypothesis I is the chronological age of the
69
institutionalized residents. As reflected in Table I, the
average ages of male and female subjects in Group I were re-
spectively thirty months and eighteen months higher than the
averages of male and female subjects in Group II. An inves-
tigation by Bialer (1) has clearly indicated that the older
subjects tend to score in the direction of internality more
often than the younger subjects.
Hypotheses II and IV compared interpersonal distance
of Groups I and II in regard to stimuli with no specific
expectancies. These hypotheses were also rejected. Once
again, the similarity between two groups may have been the
contributing factor for lack of significance. Subjects in
Group I may possess some of the same characteristics as the
subjects in Group II. While the environmental setting for
the two groups is different, it appears that the training
programs are similar. It is also quite apparent that the
subjects in both groups are reared in protective environ-
ments,and there is a likelihood that members of each group
would respond with caution to stimuli with no specific
expectancies (i.e., a stranger).
However, Hypothesis III,which dealt with interpersonal
distance towards stimuli with specific expectancies, was ac-
cepted. The contributing factor to this result may be the
institutionalized retardates' strong need for attention from
significant people. It appears that the institutionalized.
70
retarded persons' need for attention is considerably higher
than that of the non-institutionalized retarded person. As
crowded as the institutions tend to be, it is very difficult to
create a home-life environment. Therefore, the retarded
individual in a residential setting will tend to develop a
closer relationship with persons in his immediate physical
environment than the non-institutionalized retarded person.
71
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Bialer, I., "Conceptuatization of Success and Failure
in Mentally Retarded and Normal Children," Journal of
Personality, XXXIX (September, 1961), 303-320.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This investigation was concerned with the determination
and comparison of the locus of control in institutionalized
and non-institutionalized mildly retarded populations,and
application of this measurement to the social learning model
for interpersonal distance.
The subjects for this study were selected from the Denton
State School and the Congress Junior High School, which are
located in Denton, Texas. A total of 120 subjects was selected
for this study--sixty subjects from the Denton State School
and sixty from the Congress Junior High School. The selection
was based on three factors: (1) an I.Q. Score between 50 and
75, (2) chronological age of twenty-one or less, and (3)
reading ability at the third grade level. Members of both
sexes were included in this study. There were forty-one males
and nineteen females from the Denton State School and thirty-
six males and twenty-four females from the Congress Junior High
School.
72
73
The instruments used for this study were The Nowicki-
Strickland Locus of Control Scale and the Comfortable Inter-
personal Distance Scale. The former is a paper-and-pencil
measure consisting of forty questions that are answered either
"yes" or "no." The latter is also a paper-and-pencil measure.
The figural layout for the Comfortable Interpersonal Distance
is in the form of a plane with eight radii emanating from a
common point. Each eighty-millimeter radius is associated
with an "entrance" to what is presented as an imaginary "round
room." Typical instruction is to ask subjects to imagine
themselves at the center point of the diagram (room) and to
respond to imaginary persons (stimuli) approaching them along
a particular radius by making a mark on the radius indicating
where they would prefer the specific stimulus to stop; that
is, where they think they might begin to feel uncomfortable
with the approaching stimulus. To achieve more accurate results
both instruments were administered individually.
Following the review of the literature in the area of
interpersonal distance and the locus of control, the following
purposes were specifically formulated:
1. To determine and compare the locus of control in in-
stitutionalized and non-institutionalized educable retarded
populations,
2. To determine preferred interpersonal distance among
retardates, and
74
3. To determine whether the social learning model for
interpersonal distance is applicable to retardates.
In order to carry out the specific purposes of this
experiment the following hypotheses were tested:
1. There will be a significant difference between the
locus of control scores of institutionalized and non-insti-
tutionalized retardates, with the scores being more external
for the institutionalized retarded population.
2. The institutionalized retardates will show a signi-
ficantly greater interpersonal distance towards stimuli with
no specific expectancies (Type GE) than the non-institutional-
ized retardates.
3. The institutionalized retardates will show a closer
interpersonal distance towards stimuli with specific expec-
tancies (Type SE) than the non-institutionalized retardates.
4. There will be significantly greater interpersonal
distance for the externally oriented institutionalized and
non-institutionalized retardates in regard to Type GE stimuli
than for the internally oriented institutionalized and non-
institutionalized retardates.
In order to statistically analyze the experimental data,
the analysis of variance design was used. The .05 level of
significance was established as criterion for accepting or
rejecting the research hypotheses.
75
Results
The first hypothesis, which was concerned with differences
in locus of control among institutionalized and non-institu-
tionalized retardates, was not accepted, since the results of
testing the hypothesis were less than significant (p = .42).
The second hypothesis, which dealt with interpersonal
distance towards stimuli with no specific expectancies (Type GE)
among institutionalized and non-institutionalized retardates,
was not accepted, since the results of testing were less than
significant (p = .35).
The third hypothesis dealt with interpersonal distance
towards stimuli with specific expectancies (Type SE) among two
groups of retardates. The results of testing this hypothesis
proved to be significant (p = .04). Therefore, it was accepted.
The fourth hypothesis was concerned specifically with
interpersonal distance for the externally oriented institution-
alized and non-institutionalized retardates in regard to Type GE
stimuli. The results of testing of this hypothesis were not
significant. The hypothesis was not accepted.
Comparison of sexes in each group in regard to the locus
of control and Type GE stimuli reflected insignificant results.
However, in regard to Type SE stimuli, significant differences
were found among sexes in the non-institutionalized group, but
not in the institutionalized group.
76
Conclusions
The study was designed to determine if there are differ-
ences between a group of institutionalized retardates and a
group of non-institutionalized retardates regarding such vari-
ables as the locus of control and interpersonal distance.
The hypotheses specifically stated that the institutionalized
retardates will be more externally oriented, will show a
greater interpersonal distance towards stimuli with no spe-
cific expectancies, and will show a closer interpersonal dis-
tance towards stimuli with specific expectancies. Quantita-
tive treatment of the raw data confirmed the hypothesis that
there are differences in interpersonal distance among the
two groups in regard to stimuli with specific expectancies.
However, the other hypotheses were not supported.
While acknowledging the statistical results achieved in
this study, it is important to discuss some causative factors
that may be attributed to the lack of significant findings:
1. Higher average age of the institutionalized retar-
dates can be considered an important factor. Previous re-
searchers have concluded that there is a positive relationship
between age and degree of internality.
2. The society is becoming more aware of the retardate's
potentials, and consequently the retarded population is
77
becoming more responsive to the society mode and its culture
as well as being more responsible for its actions.
3. Ever since a class action suit was filed in the United
States District Court in Alabama in 1972, the conditions of resi-
dential facilities all over the country have improved. The
case, which is better known as Wyatt versus Stickney (2), was
filed due to the deteriorating conditions of retarded residents.
The Court, being impressed by the emergency of the situation,
issued an order in behalf of the residents of Portlow State
Schoollocated in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. In that order, the
Court stated that:
The evidence has vividly and undisputedlyportrayed Portlow State School as a warehousinginstitution which, because of its atmosphere of
psychological and physical deprivation, is whollyincapable of furnishing habilitation to the men-
tally retarded and is conducive only to the de-terioration and the debilitation of the residents,The evidence has reflected further that safety andsanitary conditions at Portlow are substandard to
the point of endangering the health and lives ofthose residing there, that the wards are grosslyunderstaffed, rendering even simple custodial care
impossible, and the overcrowding remains a danger-
ous problem often leading to serious accidents,some of which have resulted in death of residents(page 5).
The Court also made a favorable rule on the plaintiff's motion
seeking an injunction against the expenditure of state funds
for nonessential functions of the state if the state did not
comply with the order to provide minimum medical and consti-
tutional standards due to financial difficulties. As a result
of this case, numerous states across the nation were taken to
78
courts due to similar conditions. Further, a great number of
institutions have restructured their programming and upgraded
their living conditions. For example, the Denton State School
has increased its staff by approximately 35 per cent since
1972. The number of community-based residential living units
have increased ten times (from two to twenty homes) during the
last three years. There are nine new programs with the primary
purpose to return the institutionalized residents back to the
community. Moreover, the residents' rights in the institutions
are fully recognized and respected. They no longer will have
to be confined in the institutions. They are provided with
frequent trips to the surrounding communities and are becoming
more acquainted every day to the life outside. Therefore,
community awareness and increase in intellectual functioning
might have been the contributing factors in developing the
institutionalized retarded toward internality. Such changes
are also reported by Crandall et al. (2) and Shipe (3), as
reported earlier in this investigation.
Based on such changes and acceptance of retardates by the
communities, it can be concluded that the mildly institutional-
ized retardates are no longer identifiable figures in the society.
They have slowly molded in the deeper fabrics of our society.
This trend may eventually eliminate the existence of insti-
tutions for the mentally ill and mentally retarded in their
present forms.
79
Even though progress has been made, the institutionally
retarded has a long path to go in order to achieve total
habilitation. A large minority of people still consider the
retardates as a helpless population, and consequently treat
them as such. Therefore, the retardates receive, inadvertently,
a great deal of undue attention. As a result, they develop
a tremendous desire for attention in a gregarious manner.
Thus, the insignificant results of Hypothesis II, which stated
that institutionalized retardates will show a greater inter-
personal distance towards stimuli with no specific expectan-
cies (i.e., strangers) than the non-institutionalized retardates;
and the significant results of Hypothesis III, which states
that the institutionalized retardates will show a closer in-
terpersonal distance towards stimuli with specific expectan-
cies (i.e., Mother) than the non-institutionalized retardates,
may be indicative of institutionalized retardates' strong
need for attention. This attention would be satisfying whe-
ther it is from significant or insignicant people. There-
fore, it seems apparent that the institutionallly retardates'
craving for attention is considerably more than that of
non-institutionalized retarded person's. Occurrence of
such behaviors can partially be contributed to institu-
tionalization and its mode of programming and treatment.
80
Even though the majority of institutions are now providing
programs such as community-based workshops and application
of modeling principles to modify behavior for purpose of
adequate functioning in the community, there is one important
aspect which has been fully neglected. That is the development
of a miniature community within the institution.
It is a recognized fact that the more similar two sets
of stimuli are, the more likely that behavior learned in the
presence of one set will be transferred to a second. However,
the dormitories found in the institutions have very little
similarities to community homes. Thus, every dormitory in
an institution is in need of physical modification. Such
factors as kitchens, dining rooms, and living rooms, which
are found in middle-class homes in the community, are non-
existent in institutions. Educational programs must change
from mere academic to money management, sex education, pro-
per use of leisure time, and personal hygiene. Community
resources must be sought for possible placement of residents
in educational, vocational, and occupational programs, as well
as religious. Even though, for some institutions, such pro-
cedures may not economically be feasible, efforts must be made
by administrators to direct their attention toward such goals.
Implications
Although not based on statistical findings, several impli-
cations were derived from observation of subjects' responses
81
and from inspection of the non-statistical data resulting
from this study. These implications are as follows;
1. The locus of control as a personality variable can
be studied with institutionalized retarded populations.
2. Interpersonal studies can be conducted psychometri-
cally to determine the retardate's reactions to significant
people around him.
3. Studies concerning personality abnormality as rela-
ted to increased interpersonal distance can be conducted with
retardates.
4. Studies concerning physical environment as an inde-
pendent determinant of interpersonal distance may indicate
that physical proximity can serve to foster interpersonal bonds.
Recommendations
On the basis of subjective observation and statistical
findings in this study, the following recommendations are
offered:
1. Determination and evaluation of locus of control
in retardates may be a useful technique in assessing their
personality and understanding of their psychological needs.
Several investigations have been attempted with neurotics (4)
and subjects with character disorders (7) but none is reported
with retarded populations. Such information may contribute
to planning and programming for this particular group.
82
2. Determination of the retardate's interpersonal
space may be an important approach in assessing their per-
sonality structure. Such studies have been conducted with
the emotionally disturbed children (9), schizophrenics, and
normal subjects (5); however, none has been conducted with
retardates.
3. The instruments used for this study have been designed
for and standardized on samples of normal populations (6).
To achieve more accurate results these instruments should be
designed for and standardized on a sample consisting of
retarded subjects.
4. The only validity and reliability studies available
have been conducted with normal subjects (6). To determine
applicability of these instruments with retarded populations,
further validity and reliability studies are needed.
5. Samples of more comparable average ages may be more
suitable for the replication of this study. Previous research
by Bailer (1) has clearly indicated that there is a positive
correlation between chronological ages of the subjects and
the degree of internal locus of control. Therefore, in future
studies this factor must seriously be considered.
83
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Bailer, I., "Conceptualization of Success and Failurein Mentally Retarded and Normal Children," Journalof Personality, XXIX (1961), 303-320.
2. Civil Action Number 3195-N., "Ricky Wyatt versus Stone-
wall B. Stickney et al.," Alabama Reporter, Birmingham,Alabama, March, 1972.
3. Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., and V. C. Crandall,"Children's Beliefs in Their Control of Reinforce-ments in Intellectual-Academic Achievement Behaviors,"Child Development, XXXVI (1965), 91-109.
4. Feather, N. T., "Some Personality Correlates of ExternalControl," Austrailian Journal of Psychology, XIX(December, 1967), 253-260.
5. Horowitz, J. D., D. F. Duff and L. 0. Stratton, "Body-buffer Zone," Archives of General Psychiatry, XI(December, 1964), 651-656.
6. Nowicki, S. and B. R. Strickland, "A Locus of ControlScale for Children," Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, XXXX (February, 1973), 148-154.
7. Seaman, M., "Alienation and Social Learning in a Reforma-tory," American Journal of Sociology, LXIX (September,1963), 270-284.
8. Shipe, Dorothy, "Impulsivity and Locus of Control asPredictors of Achievement and Adjustment in MildlyRetarded and Borderline Youth," American Journal ofMental Deficiency, LXXVI (July, 1971), 12-22.
9. Weinstein, L., "Social Schemata of Emotionally DisturbedBoyx," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, LXX (December,1965), 457 -461.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Ansbacher, H. and R. Ansbacher, The Individual Psychology ofAlfred Adler, New York, Basic Books, 1956.
Bettleheim, B. , "Individual and Mass Behavior in Extreme Situ-
ations," Reading in Social Psychology_, edited by G. E.
Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hortley, New York,
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1952.
Bowan, M., "A Family Concept of Schizophrenia," The Etiologyof Schizophrenia, edited by D. D. Jackson, New York,Basic Books.
Coleman, J. S. and others, Equality of Educational Opportunity,Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
Ford, D. H. and H. B. Urban, Systems of Psychotherapy: A
Comparative Study, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1963.
Hall, E. T., The Silent Language, Gordon City, New York,Doubleday, 1959.
, The Hidden Dimension, Gordon City, New York,Doubleday, 1966.
Hediger, H., Wild Animals in Captivity, London, Butterworth,1950.
Katz, D., Animals and Men, New York, Longmans and Green, 1937.
Lids, T. and S. Fleck, "Schizophrenia, Human Integration and
the Role of the Family," The Etiology of Schizophrenia,edited by D. D. Jackson, New York, Basic Books.
Richter, C. P., "Sudden Death Phenomenon in Animals and Humans,"
The Meaning of Death, edited by H. Fiefel, New York,McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Rotter, J. B., Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, NewYork, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954.
84
85
Rotter, J. B., Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus
External Control of Reinforcement, Psychology Monographs,LXXX (166 - whole No. 609).
-and J. E. Rafferty, The Rotter Incomplete Sen-
tences Blank Manual, New York, Psychological Corporation,1950.
,_M. Seeman, and S. Liverant, "Internal Versus
External Control of Reinforcement: A Major Variable in
Behavior Theory," Decisions, Values, and Groups, (2 vols.), II,
edited by N. Washburne, New York, Pergamon Press, 1962.
Articles
Alpert, R. and R. N. Haber, "Anxiety in Academic Achievement
Situations," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,LXI (September, 1960) , 207-215.
Altman, I. and W. W. Haythorn, "The Ecology of Isolated Groups,"Behaviorial Science, XII (May, 1967), 169-182,
Argyle, M. and J. Dean, "Eye-Contact and Affiliation," Socio-
metry, XXXVIII (September, 1965), 289-304.
Baron, R. A., "Authoritarianism, Locus of Control and Risk
Taking," Journal of Psychology, LXVIII (January, 1968)141-143.
Battle, E. and J. B. Rotter, "Children's Feelings of Personal
Control as Related to Social Class and Ethnic Group,"Journal of Personality, XXXI (December, 1963), 482-490.
Bialer, I., "Conceptualization of Success and Failure in Men-
tally Retarded and Normal Children," Journal of Person-ality, XXIX (September, 1961), 303-320.
Brady, J. V., "Ulcers in 'Executive' Monkeys," ScientificAmerican, CIC (October, 1958), 95.
Buss, A. and A. Durkee, "An Inventory for Assessing DifferentKinds of Hostility," Journal of Consulting Psychology,XXX (August, 1957), 343-348.
Butterfield, E. C., "Locus of Control, Test Anxiety, Reactionto Frustration, and Achievement Attitudes," Journal of
Personality, XXXII (September, 1964), 355-370.
86
Civil Action Number 3195-N, "Ricky Wyatt versus Stonewall B.
Stickney et al.," Alabama Reporter, Birmingham, Alabama,March, 1972.
Crandall, V. C., W. Katkovsky, and V. J. Crandall, "Children's
Beliefs in Their Own Control of Reinforcement Situations,Child Development, XXXVI (March, 1965), 91-109.
, W. Katkovsky and A. Preston, "Motivational
and Ability Determinants of Young Children's Intellectual-
Academic Achievement Behaviors," Child Development,XXXIII (1962), 643-661.
Cromwell, R., D. Rosenthal, D. Shakow, and T. Kahn, "Reaction
Time, Locus of Control, Choice Behavior and Descriptions
of Parental Behavior in Schizophrenics and Normal Subjects,"Journal of Personality, XXIX (December, 1961), 363-380.
Crowne, D. D. and S. Liverant, "Conformity Under Varying Condi-
tions of Personal Committment," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, LXVI (June, 1963), 547-555.
Davis, W. L. and E. L. Phrase, "Internal-External Control as
a Determinant of Information Seeking in a Social Influ-
ence Situation," Journal of Personality, XXXV (December,1967), 547-561.
Dosey, M. A. and M. Meilsels, "Personal Space and Self-Protection,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, XI (January,1963), 93-97.
Duke, M. P., J. Sheehan, and S. Nowicki, "The Determination of
Locus of Control in a Geriatric Population and a SubsequentTest of the Social Learning Model for Interpersonal Dis-
tance," Journal of Psychology, LXXXVI (March, 1974), 277-385.
and S. Nowicki, "A New Measure and Social Learning
Model for Interpersonal Distance," Journal of ExperimentalResearch in Personality, VI (September, 1972), 119-132.
Farina, A., "Patterns of Sole Dominance and Conflict in Parents
of Schizophrenic Patients," Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, LXI (July, 1960)-, 31-38.
Feather, N. T., "Some Personality Correlates of External Con-
trol," Australian Journal of Psychology, XIX (December,1967), 253-260.
87
Fisher, R, L., "Social Schema of Normal and Disturbed School
Children," Journal of Educational Psychology, LVIII
(April, 1967y, 88-92.
Frankel, A. S. and J. Barrett, "Variations in Personal Spaceas a Function of Authoritarianism, Self-Esteem, and Racial
Characteristics of a Stimulus Situation," Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, XXXVII (August, 1971),95-99.
Getter, H., "A Personality Determinant of Verbal Conditioning,"Journal of Personality, XXXIV (September, 1966), 397-405.
Gillis, J. S. and R. Jessor, "Effects of Brief Psychotherapyon Belief in Internal Control: An Explanatory Study,"
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, VII (1970),135-137.
Gore, P. M. and J. B. Rotter, "A Personality Correlate of
Social Action," Journal of Personality, XXXI (March,1963), 58-64.
Gorman, B. S., "An Observation of Altered Locus of Control
Following Political Disappointment," Psychological Reports,
XXV (December, 1969), 856.
Hall, E. T., "A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior,"American Anthropologist, LXV (October, 1963), 1003-1027.
Hjelle, L. A., "Internal-External Control as a Determinantof Academic Achievement," Psychological Reports, XXVI(1970), 326.
Horowitz, M. J., D. F. Duff, and L. 0. Stratton, "Body Buffer
Zone," Archives of General Psychiatry, XI (December,1964), 651-656.
James, W. and J. B. Rotter, "Partial and 100% ReinforcementUnder Chance and Skill Conditions," Journal of Experimen-
tal Psychology, LV (May, 1958), 397-403.
Joe, V. D., Review of the Internal-External Control Constructas a Personality Variable," Psychological Reports, XXVIII(April, 1971), 619-640.
Jones, S. C. and J. S. Shruger, "Locus of Control and Inter-
personal Evaluations," Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, XXXII (December, 1968), 664-668.
88
Kuethe, J., "Social Schemas," Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, LXIV (January, 1962), 31-36.
, "Social Schemas and the Reconstruction of Social
Object Displays from Memory," Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, LXV (July, 1962), 71-74.
and H. Weingartner, "Male-Female Schemata of Homo-
sexual and Non-Homosexual Penitentiary Inmates," Journalof Personality, XXXII (March, 1964), 23-31.
Lao, R. C., "Internal-External Control and Competent and Inno-vative Behavior Among Negro College Students," Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, XIV (March, 1970),263-270.
Lefcourt, H. M., "Internal Versus External Control of Rein-forcements: A Review," Psychological Bulletin, LXV(April, 1966), 206-220.
__ _ "The Effects of Cue Explication Upon Persons
Maintaining External Control Expectancies," Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, V (March, 1967 372-373.
and G. W. Ludwig, "The American Negro: AProblem in Expectancies," Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, I (April, 1965), 377-380.
Little, K. B., "Personal Space," Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, I (August, 1965) , 237-247.
MacDonald, A. P. and A. Y. Davis, "Internal-External Locus ofControl: A Partial Bibliography: III," Catalog of Se-lected Documents in Psychology, XIV (Spring, 1974) , 44.
Massari, D. J. and R. S. Mansfield, "Field Dependence andOuter Directedness in the Problem Solving of Retardedand Normal Children," Child Development, XXXXIV (June,1973), 346-350.
McBride, G., M. G. King, and J. W. James, "Social ProximityEffects on Galvanic Skin Responses in Adult Humans,"Journal of Psychology, LXI (September, 1965), 153-157.
McGhee, P. E. and V. E. Crandall, "Beliefs in Internal-ExternalControl of Reinforcement and Academic Performance," ChildDevelopment, XXXIX (September, 1968), 91-102.
89
Meisels, M. and C. Guardo, "Development of Personal Space
Schemata," Child Development, XXXX (December, 1969), 1167.
Mowrer, 0. H, and P. Vick, "An Experimental Analogue of Fear
from a Sense of Helplessness," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, XXXXIII (April., 1948), 193-200.
Nowicki, Stephen and B. R. Strickland, "A Locus of Control
Scale for Children," Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, XXXX (February, 1973), 148,-154.
Penk, W., "Age Changes and Correlates of Internal-External
Locus of Control Scale," Psychological Reports, XXV
(December, 1969), 856.
Phares, E. J.,, "Differential Utilization of Information as a
Function of Internal-Esternal Control," Journal of Person-
ality, XXXVI (December, 1968), 649-662.
_ _ "Expectancy Changes in Skill and Chance Situa-
tions," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIV
(May , 1957) 339-342.
5_"Perceptual Threshold Decrements as a Function
of Skill and Chance Expectancies," Journal of Psychology,
LIII (April, 1962), 399-407.
Roy, W. J. and M. Katahm, "Relation of Anxiety to Locus of
Control," Psychological Reports, XXIII (December, 1968)
1196.
Rotter, J. B., S. Liverant, and D. P. Crowne, "The Growth and
Extinction of Expectancies in Chance Controlled and Skilled
Tasks," Journal of Psychology, LII (July, 1961), 161-171.
Seeman, M., "Alienation and Social Learning in a Reformatory,"
American Journal of Sociology, LXIX (September, 1963),27 0-284.
and J. W. Evans, "Alienation and Learning in a
Hospital Setting," American Sociological Review, XXVII
(December, 1962), 772-783.
Shipe, Dorothy, "Impulsivity and Locus of Control as Predictors
of Achievement and Adjustment in Mildly Retarded and Bor-
derline Youth," American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
LXXVI (July, 1971), 12--22.
90
Smith, R. E., "Changes in Locus of Control as a Function of
Life Crisis Resolution," Journal of Abnormal Psychology,LXXV (June, 1970), 328-332.
Sommer, R., "Studies in Personal Space," Sociometry, XXII
(September, 1959), 247-260.
"The Distance for Comfortable Conversation: A
Further Study," Sociometry, XXV (March, 1962), 111-116.
Strickland, B. R., "Individual Differences in Verbal Condition-
ing, Extinction, and Awareness," Journal of Personality,XXXVII (September, 1970), 364-378.
, "The Prediction of Social Action from a
Dimension of Internal-External Control," Journal of
Social Psychology, LXVI (August, 1965), 353-358.
Tolar, A., "Psychological Distance in Disturbed and Normal
Children," Psychological Reports, XXIII (December, 1968),
695-701.
, "Psychological Distance in Disturbed and Normal
Adults," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XXVI (April,
1970), 160-162.
._"Reason, Resarch and Reflection on Psychological
Distance," Psychological Reports, XXVI (February, 1970),302.
,9 G. Brannigan, and V. Murphy, "Psychological Dis-
tance, Future Time Perspective, and Internal-External
Expectancy," Journal of Projective Techniques and Per,
sonality Assessment, XXIV (August, 1970), 283,294.
and M. Donnon, "Psychological Distance as Function
of Length of Hospitalization," Psycholgoical Reports,
XXV (December, 1969), 851-855.
and S. Orange, "An Attempt to Measure PsychologicalDistance in Advantaged and Disadvantaged Children," Child
Development, XXX (June, 1969), 407-420.
and M. Reznikoff, "Relation Between Insight Repression-Sensitization, Internal-External Control and Death Anxiety,"
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, LXXII (October, 1967), 426-430.
91
Tolor, A. and R, Salafia, "The Social Schemata Technique as
a Projective Device," Psychological Reports, XXVIII
(April , 1971), 423-429.
Wienstein, L., "Social Schemata of Emotionally Disturbed Boys,"
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, LXX (December, 1965), 457-
461.
Williams, C. B. and F. E. Vantress, "Relation Between Internal-
External Control and Aggression," Journal of Psychology,
LXXI (January, 1969), 59-61.
Wooster, Arthur D., "Acceptance of Responsibility for School
Work by Educationally Subnormal Boys," British Journal
of Mental Subnormality, XX (June, 1974)-, 23-27.
Unpublished Material s
Brubakker, D. M., "Incidental and Intentional Learning in the
Mentally Retarded as a Function of Internal External Locus
of Control," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXIII
(December, 1972), 2804.
Efran, J. S., "Some Personality Determinants of Memory for
Success and Failure," unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Ohio State Univeristy, 1963.
James, W. H., "Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement
as a Basic Variable in Learning Theory," unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1957.
Johnson, I., "Interpersonal Distancing of Responses of Black
Versus White Females," paper presented at Southern Psycho-
logical Association Meetings, Atlanta, Georgia, 1972.
Martin, W., "Parental and Interpersonal Determinants of Trust,"
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology,
Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, 1972.
Strickland, B. R., "The Relationship of Awareness to Verbal
Conditioning, Extinction, and Awareness," unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962.