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.