Download - A scale on the Locus of Control

7/27/2019 A scale on the Locus of Control

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-scale-on-the-locus-of-control 1/44

The Locus of Control 1

The Locus of Control

Vince Patrick R. Gochan

University of San Carlos – Talamban Campus

A requirement in Psyc 122Y – Advanced Psychometrics

Ms. Ruby Ilustrisimo

March 14, 2013




Abstract

Creation of a new measuring tool meant to measure the degree of one‟s locus of control

was made and tested on 200 students from the University of San Carlos, 136 females and 64

males, with ages ranging from 16 to 26 and having a mean age of 21. Varied courses were

subject to the testing of the new tool but all were within the same university. The tool itself

contained 60 items but underwent a reduction to 30 items in an attempt to increase what its item

reliability may be. Cronbach‟s Alpha reliability analysis was done on the tool and a Cronbach‟s

alpha of .884 was obtained. The original item roster of 60 proved to have a stronger Cronbach‟s

alpha altogether since the new obtained Cronbach‟s alpha for the 30 item tool was .865, a

decrease in .019. Factor analysis was done on the 30-item tool and 8 factors were extracted

within it. Those new factors are assumed to be: self-determination, fatalism, circumstantial

submission, „grit‟, complacency, certainty, openness and circumstantial pre judice.




CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Being human is not without its subjective individual personalities. Within these

individual personalities, people are influenced differently and, in that sense, have different

perspectives on events and other human beings – in other words, it is what makes people unique.

That uniqueness serves as the root for individualism; and, in the point of perspective and

individualism, people attribute events and actions very differently. Some people may be more

attuned to blaming circumstances for their misfortune as well as gratifying others or perceived

deities for fortunate happenings. Though, others have a tendency to consider all their actions as

something created by them, whether it is considered fortunate or misfortunate. These

attributions are not what this paper will cover about; instead, it will cover the influential aspect

of creating these attributions. Attribution is described as the extent to which an individual

perceives and interprets events and actions. These perceived attribute systems range from

external (uncontrollable and situational) and internal (dispositional), are known as “Locus of

Control” or “Loci of Control”. The Locus of Control will be the main topic discussed in this

paper.

Strictly speaking, Rotter (1966) states that, The Locus of Control is an individual‟s ability

to believe just how much of the world they control. Whether it be through the belief that their

lives are in the hands of fate and lady luck and that all actions happening to them are by chance –

externally (Myers, 2006) or whether their lives are controlled solely by them and that all that has

happened to them is a result of the consequences of their actions – choice – internally.




This paper will mainly focus on these two aspects with respect to different individuals.

The idea of the locus of control is a common one for studies; therefore, this paper does not aim to

expand the already vast topic of locus of control.

This paper aims to properly convey three main goals or points. The first goal of this paper

is to discuss attribution. More importantly and directly, the paper will have discussions on why

people would create certain attributions towards others or certain events. Discussion will carry

aspects such as the impact and influence of one‟s personality in creating attributions, whether

attributions are instinctive as a social being, a social need per se, finally it seeks to uncover the

implications of attributing things differently as the unique individuals that people are. Secondly,

the paper wishes to discuss the locus of control itself – the differences between internal and

external as well as the modus operandi of each respective type of locus of control. Finally, the

paper will talk about factors that may affect one‟s loci of control, factors such as personality

traits and/or characteristics,

Fritz Heider (1958) states in his theory of attribution, that attribution is how people

explain the behaviour of others through , either attributing it internally – dispositional (motives

and attitudes) or externally – situational. In Weiner‟s theory of attribution (1974), he expands

the topic on attribution by saying that people attempt to understand why people do what they do.

This includes the idea that a behaviour may be caused be certain attributes as well as being

related with the concept of motivation. Later on, Weiner (1992) said that causal attribution is

strongly subjective in the sense that an individual‟s biases as well as other personal factors.

Causal attributions also affect an individual‟s perceptions and reactions towards failures and

successes. The concept of attribution affecting reactions towards failures and success was

further explored by Munton, Silvester, Stratton & Hanks (1999). It was stated that attributions




that caused more positive consequences as well as having an increased success expectancy

resulted in an increased willingness to approach similar tasks in the future. From the cited

literatures (Munton et. al 1999, Weiner 1992, Heider 1958) it can be assumed that attribution in

people is strongly subjective to their own understandings of the event being judged as well as

their own biased perspectives on the person(s) being judged along with their own perspectives,

environmental knowledge and motivation carry roles in the formation of the attribution itself.

Some behaviour caused by attribution have tendency to be repeated or avoided depending on

previous experiences and/or prior knowledge towards the attributed behaviour or object itself as

well as its perceived positive or negative weighted consequences. A fine example would be: A

person who attributes good grades to studying and a monetary reward from said person‟s parents

pushes the individual to study harder for the positive achievement that comes with it.

As far as Attributions go, Myers (2006) has operationally defined attribution to be one of

two types. The First type being “Dispositional Attribution,” more commonly witnessed by most

as internal attribution. This refers to describing an individual‟s actions directly through the

individual‟s personal traits, characteristics and disposition. The second type of attribution is

“Situational attribution” wherein an individual‟s actions are attributed to environmental factors

or certain circumstances.

Attribution is written mainly in the first few paragraphs of this paper as a means of

introducing the locus of control as well as a preview of the modus operandi of the locus of

control explaining attribution itself. Attribution was written in the initial parts of this paper in

order to demonstrate how locus of control will come to explain attribution. Now that the first

major goal/point has been properly given, the second goal to discuss the locus of control and




how it relates directly to attribution as well as having insights on both types of loci, internal and

external.

Now that we have closed off the part where we discuss attribution, let us get to the part

where we start discussing the main topic, the locus of control. Myers (2006) has stated that the

locus of control is defined as to what extent people perceive results as something they internally

control themselves through their own hard work and perseverance or as something controlled

externally by chance or rather a kind of outward force. Alternately, it is referred to as control

orientation and functions as something like a filter for perception when an individual tries to

perceive control over costs and rewards in communicating with others (Taylor, 2010).

Differentiating between either loci is fairly simple but is never truly defined directly. As

far as the concern towards inward, internal locus of control is concerned, Rotter (1966) explains

that it is an individual‟s extent to attributing behaviour and event‟s outcomes as by-products of

his or her own capacity or lack there-off to achieving said outcome. It goes as believing the idea

that one has a great deal of control over one‟s fate and consequences (Taylor, 2010). As

Asonibare (1985) put it, it is one‟s perceptions of one‟s behaviour, including one‟s belief in a

causal relationship in one‟s behaviours and the events that follow it. Moving towards the other

half of the locus of control, the external loci, it can be assumed that it would be the complete

opposite of what would be considered as internal. This suggests that the external locus of control

is a method of attributing events and behaviours, as well as outcomes, toward the outside world.

Yearning to use fate as a means of explaining why a certain event or consequence had occurred.

It can be said that it is an individual‟s perception of a certain behaviour, event or outcome with

the belief that there would be no causal relationship between the behaviour and the events that

soon followed it (Asonibare, 1985). This indicates that judgment is based on the importance of




the situation at hand or the external factors that may affect the behaviour or event in question.

Personifying the two loci, let us put it into a solid example through a situation: a man walking

down the street is suddenly smashed by a twelve-wheeler truck and is disintegrated from the face

of the world. If one were to judge it through the internal locus of control, one could say that the

man had been killed due to his own carelessness. If the man bothered to look before crossing the

street, he could have been saved. Alternately, if one were to judge the situation through an

external locus of control, one could say that it might have been the man‟s time to die or that

perhaps an invisible deity, a God per se, had chosen this day to claim the man‟s life.The Locus of

control is defined by many so it may be rather confusing as to which one would be the most

proper; nonetheless, they all have a similar gist and should one should not be confused as to a

technical definition. Though, summarizing the gathered information, Rotter (1966) originally

thought of the idea of the locus of control. Most other definitions regarding the locus of control

were formulated mainly through the use of his original idea. Operationally defining the locus of

control has been said in multiple studies but, again, they all carry the same idea. For this paper

though, as much as possible, the main focus as far as definitions and sourcing goes, Julian

Rotter‟s works will be used for basis.

From what we have read so far, we can safely say that the locus of control would be

linked rather closely to attribution. Putting it into an analogy, the external locus of control would

be to situational attribution as the internal locus of control would be to dispositional attribution.

On the other hand, some believe the locus of control is not fully concerned with predicting

outcomes and creating judgments but is instead a „problem-solving‟ generalized expectancy,

addressing issues of behaviour whether they‟re perceived as an instrument in order to attain a

desired outcome regardless of the nature of the desired outcome (Furnham, 2010).




Now that the locus of control has been discussed and explained comprehensively, it is

good to know what factors or processes affect one‟s locus of control. Let us ask, does one‟s

personality influence one‟s locus of control? How about one‟s culture and ethical practices? If

one were raised in the west, would one‟s locus of control have a significant difference com pared

to those raised in the east? What other factors may be able to affect one‟s loci affinity?

Some studies done by Cohen et, al (1976), Suwarsi and Budianti (2009), Montgomery

(2010) and Wood et, al. (2010) have been attempting to unnerve the idea that the locus of control

does affect and change learned helplessness.

Considering that the population being tested at the moment are Filipinos, let us discuss

the Eastern/Asian ways of raising a person, their culture and ethics then compare it to someone

from the West. From observed context, the Filipino culture is one that is collectivist and may be

considered very fatalistic. This fatalism stems from the cultural trait, “The bahalana” attitude –

such a trait roughly translates to “Whatever will be, will be.” In relation to the Filipino culture, it

is one that is very religious. These trait are so persistent in some Filipinos that if someone gets

strongly ill, they may go as far as ignoring medical assistance as it is “the will of God.” This

indicates that classic Filipino culture has an affinity for developing an external locus of control.

In other collective cultures in Asia, such as Japan and China, contain having strong family ties

and interdependence among friends and relatives. This shows strong encouragement and power

from other people rather than from within.

In contrast to collective, Asian, cultures, the west has developed a more individualistic

ideology. Ideals stemming from self-reliance and independence dictate that western cultures see

strength in being able to stand firmly on one‟s own two feet. An internal locus of control may be




more developed in these cultures and it shows why westerners are more likely to admit their own

mistakes and pride themselves for their achievements. Though, in western culture, the general

perception is that if one were to display external loci, one would be perceived as being „weak‟ in

comparison to one with internal loci.

Deciphering an individual‟s locus of control is considered a significant aspect when it

comes to some cases like alcohol dependents (Yeh, 2008), Trauma and Loss (Mellon, 2009),

learning disabilities (Goodman et, al. 2007) and Cancer patients (Bettencourt, 2008). It seems

that despite cultural backgrounds, illness and disabilities tend to ignite more external loci and

some, after overcoming said illnesses and/or disabilities, begin to show signs of a stronger

internal locus of control.

From the above articles, the locus of control, shows that regardless of an individual‟s

background, the desire to predict an event‟s outcome based on the individual‟s own actions or be

it through other people‟s actions or the environment itself is innate in all people. The construct

seems so innate that it goes as far as affecting how some people may communicate with others or

how they make decisions all through the person‟s perception of control over life‟s events and

consequences. Innate enough to even become something like a personal characteristic of

individuals or, to become something like a trait per se. In context, the internal locus of control

concerns itself more with traits a person desires whereas the external locus of control concerns

itself with communicating and relating with other people. Individuals with an internal locus of

control may approach problems with a problem-solving attitude while individuals with an

affinity for the external locus of control may exhibit non-confrontational and an avoidant attitude

– avoidant in the sense that they may perceive that others or something greater may have more

power over their lives compared to them; thus, avoiding involving themselves due to a lack of




self-efficacy (Taylor, 2010). Skinner indicates through Learned helplessness that when people

believe they have no say in a situation, they remain passive and give less effort as well as giving

up more easily (Yeh, 2008). One thing that locus of control strongly correlates with is self-

efficacy. Testing for these two constructs has even been argued to be practically the same thing

(Judge et, al., 2002). Self-efficacy is the measuring of one‟s ability to be able to undertake and

complete tasks and goals. Directly in correlation to the locus of control is Albert Bandura‟s

destiny idea. The destiny idea conceptualized that self-efficacy is correlated to different,

perceived world views – that one with higher self-efficacy feels more in control of their lives; in

contrast, those with lower self-efficacy saw the events happening in their lives as something that

was beyond their control. This strongly suggests that being able to discover the measure of one‟s

self-efficacy may unearth their loci of control. In accordance to their loci of control, their

personalities may attribute to one or the other. Rotter (1975) states that control internality and

externality are two ends of the same thing – In other words, the edge of the continuum on the

locus of control. People with internal locus of control, „internals‟, and people with external locus

of control as „externals.‟ Internals, as being attuned to internal loci of control, believe the results

of their actions and achievements, as well as failures, are their own doing – an increased level of

self-efficacy; whereas, externals, towards the outside world. Internals are linked with higher

need for achievement as well as being more motivated to do a job. Externals on the other hand,

believing they have no control over their fates, are more easily demotivated and prone to stress –

indicating low levels of self-efficacy.

Having established the relation between self-efficacy and locus of control, findings done

by Roddenberry et, al. (2010) showed that a factor of locus of control may be stress, whether it

be physical, mental or both – self-efficacy in conjunction with locus of control moderates illness




in some cases, which in turn is affected by stress levels. This is due to both constructs being

perceived as something to mediate stress. Bolliniet, al. (2004) found that individuals who have

affinities for an external locus of control contracted increased level of psychological and more

perceived physical ailments. Due to externals affinity towards the outside world, they may be

more easily influenced by simple and trivial things and in turn become more responsive to stress.

Now that everything that need be covered has been covered, let us go ahead with

a small summary as well as a tight conclusion towards defining what we wish to achieve through

this paper. Locus of control is the way a person attributes the events around him or herself.

Internal loci is when a person or something‟s disposition is attacked and external when the

circumstances of the event are what the party wishes to blame. With us Filipinos, it has been

known that we are truly fatalistic, as far as the traditional Filipino goes. The determination of an

individual‟s locus of control turns significant when certain cases are taken into account when it

comes to treating a person or when determining a person‟s personality. Certain examples of these

cases are: alcohol dependents (Yeh, 2008), people with learning disabilities (Goodman et. al.,

2007), cancer patients ( Bettencourt, 2008) and people who have experienced trauma and loss

(Mellon, 2009). A person‟s loci of control may shift from one to another through those special

cases and through the understanding of these special cases, we can assume that it may transcend

cultural difference – that the locus of control itself is subjective to the person in terms of how he

or she wishes to predict the outcome of an event. Whether it be from the initiator‟s actions or

through the many environmental factors surrounding the event.




Conceptual Framework

The diagram is one created like a hierarchy, the top being the locus of control and below

that, the two main facets of the construct, internal and external loci of control. Under both

internal and external loci are the main factors that may affect one‟s loci of control. There is

emphasis on five factors towards developing either an internal or external loci of control. The

five factors are: personality, attribution, culture, stress and self-efficacy.

Going through the diagram, the locus of control is situated at the top because it is the

main topic of the paper. The things below it, being the factors are what come next. Below the

main topic of the locus of control, are the two primary factors which are internal and external.

That‟s because people have a tendency to generate an affinity for one or the other. If one were to

be more internalized with oneself, then one may be more attuned towards the internal locus of

control. If one were to be more externalized and in tune with one‟s environment and other

people, one may develop an external locus of control.




CHAPTER 2

Method

200 participants were gathered in the University of San Carlos – Talamban Campus.

They were students in varying courses throughout the university. The population measured was

64 males and 136 females with ages ranging from 16 to 26 and a mean age of M=20.

The research design was done mainly through a survey. Participants were tasked to

answer a 60-item questionnaire and told to kindly take their time in answering to ensure as much

honesty as possible.

The measuring tool in question is a newly formulated scale with strong basis on Rotter‟s

locus of control scale (1966). Question creation was strongly influenced by said scale and some

questions were derived from it. The newly composed 60-item scale composed itself of 28

recoded items in SPSS. 28 of the items were meant to serve as external locus of control and the

remaining 32 were questions for internal locus of control. The questionnaire uses a Likert scale

ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 labeled as Strongly Disagree, 2 as Disagree, 3 as neither agree nor

disagree, 4 as Agree and 5 as Strongly Agree. The participants were tasked to simply place a

check or mark in the cell below the scales columns.

Questionnaires were given to participants through snowball and convenient sampling –

participants were asked if they were available for answering the questionnaire and were

requested to do so as soon as they became available.




CHAPTER 3

Results

The results show a standardized Cronbach‟s alpha of .884 derived from a reliability

analysis of the 60-item test questionnaire. On the other hand, basing from the 30-item

questionnaire weeded out to try and get a higher Cronbach‟s alpha, the Cronbach‟s alpha reduced

to .865. This was taken from deleting the top 30 items from the item-total statistics under the

column ‘Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted.’ Unfortunately, the top 30 items began to drop below

the .884 mark and began to reduce the Cronbach‟s alpha instead. Items that would have

increased Cronbach‟s alpha if deleted were item 34 (from .884 to .887), item 57 (from .884 to

.891) and item 59 (from .884 to .885). All other items would decrease the Cronbach‟s Alpha.

Table 1 exhibits the Cronbach analysis for both the 60-item test and the 30-item test.

Table 1. Reliability coefficients of the 60-item test and the 30-item test

Cronbach‟s Cronbach‟s Alpha Based N of items

Alpha on Standardized items

.884 .887 60

.865 .864 30

Table 2. Reliability coefficients of internal locus of control (27 items) and external locus of

control (33 items) domains.

Cronbach‟s Alpha Cr onbach‟s Alpha based on Standardized Items

Internal Locus of Control .852 .867

External Locus of Control .855 .853

Table 2 shows that the Cronbach‟s alpha for both domains are practically alike. The

figures that do not stray too far off, with the difference in Cronbach‟s alpha between domains

being only a measly .003. This further is further shown back in table 1 with the Cronbach‟s alpha




of the 60-item test being high. Such is a product of both domains being almost identical and

high.

With so much written about the 60-item test, it would only be fair to display all 60 items

here. The following 60 items are what make up the test. Items number 1, 5. 6. 7, 8, 9, 13, 17, 20,

22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 55, 56 and 57 are items that make up the

External locus of control domain of the test. All other numbers, (items number 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12,

14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59 and

60) are the items that make up the other domain, Internal locus of control.

The following 27 statements are what comprise of the External locus of control domain.

At the end of every statement, their original number in the test will be indicated.

1. Bad things happen to me due to bad luck. (1)

2. Achievements are hardly recognizable even through hard work. (5)

3. Sometimes, I think the only way to get a proper decision is through a coin flip (6)

4. I believe in ghosts. (7)

5. I hide my faults. (8)

6. I have „bad days.‟ (9)

7. I do not try something if I am unsure of it. (13)

8. Getting chosen for something (i.e: A job) means being at the right place at the right time

(17)

9. I believe in chance rather than choice. (20)

10. I believe in destiny (22)

11. I think that taking a gamble can bring fruitful results. (23)




12. I never know how other people perceive me to be. (24)

13. I usually go with the advice of other people. (27)

14. I feel like my life is a string of random events put together. (30)

15. I believe that some people will not like me no matter how hard I try to please them. (31)

16. I only prepare for things I think are going to happen. (32)

17. I sometimes feel that I don‟t have enough control over where my life is headed. (34)

18. I believe that we are victims of forces we cannot understand nor can we control. (37)

19. My fate was sealed at birth. (39)

20. I would rather go with the flow than create a well laid-out plan. (42)

21. If something is meant to happen, it will. (44)

22. I think that once somebody gets elected into something, there is little I, or anybody, can

do about it. (46)

23. The main reason for my stress is the mistakes of other people. (48)

24. I am the way I am because of the people around me. (50)

25. I feel like I‟m constantly being judged by other people. (55)

26. Some people‟s worth is just too unrecognizable no matter how hard they try. (56)

27. I tend to blame environmental factors whenever I do something wrong. (57)

For the next domain, the following 33 statements are what comprise of the Internal Locus

of control domain. At the end of every statement, their original number in the test will be given.

1. The effort I give in doing something dictates how well I do. (2)

2. The consequences of my actions are my responsibility (3)

3. When I get something done right, it is not because of luck. (4)

4. I openly accept my mistakes. (10)




5. I think being successful in its own right has nothing to do with luck. (11)

6. I strive to get what I want in life. (12)

7. I earn people‟s respect. (14)

8. I do not believe in superstitious beliefs (15)

9. If I want something done right, I do it myself. (16)

10. I believe there is a direct connection to how hard I work and the results of my efforts.

(18)

11. Getting what I want is a matter of personal skill and dedication – not luck. (19)

12. Good things happen to me because of good luck. (21)

13. If I failed at pursuing something, I assume that I did not put enough effort into it. (25)

14. I think that being prepared for anything and everything helps. (26)

15. I admit my mistakes (28)

16. When I make plans, I‟m sure I can make it push through. (29)

17. I think disappointments may stem from the outcomes of my actions. (33)

18. If I put enough effort, things can change for the better. (35)

19. I believe there is some good in everyone. (36)

20. I think that doing the right thing is a matter of choice (38)

21. My own advice is all I need (40)

22. Destiny if a load of trash. (41)

23. I believe that there is always a choice (43)

24. I get disappointed due to mistakes I‟ve done (45)

25. No matter how hard some people try, they are just purely unlikable. (47)

26. Life is a set of opportunities to grab (49)




27. It is hard for me to believe that luck carries a significant role in the events that happen in

my life. (51)

28. I am who I am due to the decisions I‟ve made myself and not due to life‟s circumstances.

(52)

29. People tend to be lonely because they fail to reach out to other people. (53)

30. What happens to me is due to my own actions (54)

31. I think that people who can‟t get others to tolerate or like them just don‟t understand

social protocol. (58)

32. People are responsible for electing officials who turn out to be corrupt. (59)

33. I believe in the quote: “The circumstances of one‟s birth are irrelevant – It is what we do

with the gift of life that determines who we are.” (60)

Table 3. Items of External Locus of Control (27) amd Internal Locus of Control (33 items)

dimensions with corresponding Cronbach Alpha is item deleted.

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach

Alpha if item

deleted

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach

Alpha if item

deletedEX 01 .351 .881 IL 02 .317 .882

EX 05 .370 .881 IL 03 .173 .883

EX 06 .270 .883 IL 04 .360 .881

EX 07 .307 .882 IL 10 .320 .882

EX 08 .296 .882 IL 11 .376 .881

EX 09 .496 .879 IL 12 .341 .882

EX 13 .394 .881 IL 14 .360 .882

EX 17 .456 .880 IL 15 .333 .882

EX 20 .354 .881 IL 16 .314 .882

EX 22 .436 .880 IL 18 .406 .881

EX 23 .313 .882 IL 19 .392 .881

EX 24 .372 .881 IL 21 .218 .883

EX 27 .316 .882 IL 25 .385 .881

EX 30 .452 .880 IL 26 .268 .883

EX 31 .337 .882 IL 28 .330 .882

EX 32 .345 .882 IL 29 .380 .881

EX 34 -.012 .887 IL 33 .211 .882

EX 37 .429 .880 IL 34 -.012 .887

EX 39 .235 .883 IL 35 .356 .882

EX 42 .322 .882 IL 36 .308 .882

EX 44 .475 .880 IL 38 .232 .883

EX 46 .390 .881 IL 40 .321 .882




To be Continued

EX 48 .246 .883 IL 41 .430 .880

EX 50 .391 .881 IL 43 .318 .882

EX 55 .397 .881 IL 45 .203 .883

EX 56 .405 .881 IL 47 .386 .881

EX 57 .548 .891 IL 49 .256 .883

IL 51 .391 .880IL 52 .324 .882

IL 53 .334 .882

IL 54 .376 .881

IL 58 .545 .883

IL 59 .357 .885

IL 60 .530 .881

EX = Item on External Locus of Control; IL = Item on Internal Locus of Control

The following External Locus of Control items were deleted due to their low inter-item

correlation values and high cronbach alpha it item deleted values: EX 6 (α=.883), EX 7 (α=.882),

EX 8 (α=.882), EX 23 (α=.882), EX 27 (α=.882), EX 31 (α=.882), EX 32 (α=.882), EX 34

(α=.887), EX 39 (α=.883),EX 42 (α=.882), EX 48 (α=.883), EX 56 (α=.881), EX 57 (α=.891).

The following Internal Locus of Control items were deleted as well for the same reasons: IL 3

(α=.882), IL 14 (α=.882), IL 15 (α=.882), IL 16 (α=.882), IL 21 (α=.883), IL 26 (α=.883), IL 27

(α=.882), IL 28 (α=.882), IL 33 (α=.882), IL 40 (α=.882), IL 43 (α=.882), IL 45 (α=.883), IL 49

(α=.883), IL 52 (α=.882), IL 53 (α=.882), IL 58 (α=.883) and IL 59 (α=.885). They were chosen

as a means to minimize the anticipated drop in Cronbach‟s alpha reliability. Returning to table 1,

the Cronbach dropped from .884 to .865 after the items were dropped. As shown in table 4, the

standard deviation of the chosen items were chosen due to them having the lowest deviation

from the mean. In table 4, it is shown that all items are ranged as 4 due to the fact that the highest

possible attainable value is 5 and the lowest attainable value is 1. Going in between those

extremes, a range of 4 is obtained.




Table 4. Univariate analysis for the 30-item scale

Range Mean

Std.

Deviation Variance

1.) Bad things happen to me due to bad luck.4.00 3.7350 1.19663 1.432

2.) The effort I give in doing something dictates how well I

do. 4.00 4.1050 .91001 .828

4.) When I get something done right, it is not because of

luck. 4.00 4.0550 1.00849 1.017

5.) Achievements are hardly recognizable even through hard

work. 4.00 3.2350 1.25204 1.568

9.) I have „bad days‟4.00 1.9300 1.18834 1.412

10.) I openly accept my mistakes.4.00 3.9600 1.04107 1.084

11.) I think being successful in its own right has nothing to

do with luck. 4.00 3.9200 1.09984 1.210

12.) I strive to get what I want in life.4.00 4.2600 .83419 .696

13.) I do not try something if I am unsure of it.4.00 2.9750 1.22141 1.492

17.) Getting chosen for something (i.e: A job) means being at

the right place at the right time. 4.00 2.6150 1.22650 1.504

18.) I believe there is a direct connection to how hard I work

and the results of my efforts. 4.00 4.4150 .76531 .586

19.) Getting what I want is a matter of personal skill and

dedication – not luck. 4.00 4.2600 .89240 .796

20.) I believe in chance rather than choice4.00 3.6650 1.08103 1.169

22.) I believe in destiny. 4.00 2.8350 1.31010 1.716

24.) I never know how other people perceive me to be.4.00 2.8300 1.25658 1.579

25.) If I failed at pursuing something, I assume that I did not

put enough effort into it. 4.00 3.9200 1.04838 1.099

29.) When I make plans, I‟m sure I can make it push through. 4.00 3.6150 1.06887 1.14230.) I feel like my life is a string of random events put

together. 4.00 2.6350 1.27669 1.630

35.) If I put in enough effort, things can change for the better.4.00 4.3200 .84330 .711

36.) I believe there is some good in everyone.4.00 4.3550 .85594 .733

37.) I believe that we are victims of forces we cannot

understand nor can we control. 4.00 2.9900 1.27595 1.628

41.) Destiny is a load of trash.4.00 2.5450 1.22289 1.495

44.) If something is meant to happen, it will.4.00 2.2150 1.26760 1.607

46.) I think that once somebody gets elected into something,

there is little I, or anybody, can do about it. 4.00 2.8950 1.23759 1.532

47.) No matter how hard some people try, they are just

purely unlikable. 4.00 2.9500 1.35895 1.847

50.) I am the way I am because of the people around me.4.00 2.7300 1.26296 1.595

51.) It is hard for me to believe that luck carries a significant

role in the events that happen in my life. 4.00 3.1850 1.24035 1.538

54.) What happens to me is due to my own actions.4.00 4.1200 .90537 .820




To be Continued

55.) I feel like I‟m constantly being judged by other people 4.00 2.6850 1.29000 1.664

60.) I believe in the following quote: “The circumstances of

one‟s birth are irrelevant – It is what we do with the gift of

life that determines who we are.” 3.00 4.5550 .65507 .429

Thus; the final 30 item scale is composed of 16 items from the Internal Locus of Control

and 14 items from the External Locus of Control domain. The following items statements are

what comprise the final test. Right next to the statement will be their original number in the

original 60-item test. The final 14 items of the external locus of control domain are as follows:

1. Bad things happen to me due to bad luck. (1)

2. Achievements are hardly recognizable even through hard work. (5)

3. I have „bad days.‟ (9)

4. I do not try something if I am unsure of it. (13)

5. Getting chosen for something (i.e: A job) means being at the right place at the right time

(17)

6. I believe in chance rather than choice. (20)

7. I believe in destiny (22)

8. I never know how other people perceive me to be. (24)

9. I feel like my life is a string of random events put together. (30)

10. I believe that we are victims of forces we cannot understand nor can we control. (37)

11. If something is meant to happen, it will. (44)

12. I think that once somebody gets elected into something, there is little I, or anybody, can

do about it. (46)

13. I am the way I am because of the people around me. (50)




14. I feel like I‟m constantly being judged by other people. (55)

The final 15 items of the internal locus of control domain are as follows:

1. The effort I give in doing something dictates how well I do. (2)

2. When I get something done right, it is not because of luck. (4)

3. I openly accept my mistakes. (10)

4. I think being successful in its own right has nothing to do with luck. (11)

5. I strive to get what I want in life. (12)

6. I believe there is a direct connection to how hard I work and the results of my efforts.

(18)

7. Getting what I want is a matter of personal skill and dedication – not luck. (19)

8. If I failed at pursuing something, I assume that I did not put enough effort into it. (25)

9. When I make plans, I‟m sure I can make it push through. (29)

10. If I put enough effort, things can change for the better. (35)

11. I believe there is some good in everyone. (36)

12. Destiny if a load of trash. (41)

13. No matter how hard some people try, they are just purely unlikable. (47)

14. It is hard for me to believe that luck carries a significant role in the events that happen in

my life. (51)

15. What happens to me is due to my own actions (54)

16. I believe in the quote: “The circumstances of one‟s birth are irrelevant – It is what we do

with the gift of life that determines who we are.” (60)




After obtaining all the data needed to create the 30-item scale, a factor analysis was conducted in

order to try and obtain factors that may have been measured by the two domains in the construct.

After the analysis was obtained, it was discovered that 8 factors were hiding within the test. The

factor analysis data is shown in table 5. In the 8 factors, the following data has been deduced:

Factor 1 correlates with items number 1, 18, 29 and 35 and strongly correlates with items

11, 12, 19 and 54. Factor 2 correlates with items 9, 17, 25, 30, 44, 51 and strongly correlates with

item 22. Factor 3 correlates moderately with items 9, 29, 37 and 44 and strongly correlates with

items 24 and 55. Factor 4 moderately correlates with items 2 and 18 and strongly correlates with

items 25, 35 and 36.factor 5, has moderate correlations with item numbers 2, 17, 20,30, 47 and

strongly correlates with items 5 and 46. Factor 6 moderately correlates with items 2, 13, 17, 19,

20 and 55 and strongly correlates with item 1. Factor 7 moderately correlated with items 4, 13,

36 and 47 and strongly correlated with item 10. Finally, factor 8 correlates with item 47 and

strongly correlates with item 60.

Table 5. Factor analysis

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1.) Bad things happen to me due to bad luck..327 .708

2.) The effort I give in doing something dictates

how well I do. .542 .310 -.372

4.) When I get something done right, it is not

because of luck. .587

5.) Achievements are hardly recognizable even

through hard work. .604

9.) I have „bad days‟.314 .538




To be Continued

10.) I openly accept my mistakes..641

11.) I think being successful in its own right has

nothing to do with luck. .696

12.) I strive to get what I want in life..727

13.) I do not try something if I am unsure of it..354 .486

17.) Getting chosen for something (i.e: A job)

means being at the right place at the right time. .397 .410

18.) I believe there is a direct connection to how

hard I work and the results of my efforts. .583 .348

19.) Getting what I want is a matter of personalskill and dedication – not luck. .685 .462 .329

20.) I believe in chance rather than choice.308 .492

22.) I believe in destiny..627

23.) I think that taking a gamble can bring fruitful

results.

24.) I never know how other people perceive me

to be. .709

25.) If I failed at pursuing something, I assume

that I did not put enough effort into it. .302 .714

29.) When I make plans, I‟m sure I can make it

push through. .467 .588

30.) I feel like my life is a string of random

events put together. .457 .377

35.) If I put in enough effort, things can change

for the better..367 .671

36.) I believe there is some good in everyone..722 .343

37.) I believe that we are victims of forces we

cannot understand nor can we control. .572

To be continued




41.) Destiny is a load of trash..854

44.) If something is meant to happen, it will..582 .404

46.) I think that once somebody gets elected into

something, there is little I, or anybody, can do

about it. .676

47.) No matter how hard some people try, they

are just purely unlikable. .389 .441 .479

50.) I am the way I am because of the people

around me.

51.) It is hard for me to believe that luck carries a

significant role in the events that happen in my

life..563

54.) What happens to me is due to my own

actions. .637

55.) I feel like I‟m constantly being judged by

other people .645 .300

60.) I believe in the following quote: “The

circumstances of one‟s birth are irrelevant – It is

what we do with the gift of life that determines

who we are.”

.739

Note: Factor loadings < .299 are suppressed.

Rotation converged in 32 iterations.




CHAPTER 4

Discussion

Based on the results, the newly crafted scale to measure the degree of an individual‟s

locus of control of both internal and external loci is moderately reliable. Indicated by a strong

.884 Cronbach‟s alpha in its initial 60-item test while still maintaining a fairly moderate .865

after the items were deleted for the 30-item test – the measuring tool seem s to be reliable. The

reliability may be attributed to the participants being from the same population. Most people

selected for testing also sent the test to friends and the friends of those friends and so on. Being

friends, they may have conformed to each other‟s answers thus the increased reliability. Another

factor may be memory, some participants may have answered an item and recalled their answers

when confronted with a similar item. The items removed from the 60-item test ranged mostly

from variables 40 to 59. This may indicate that participants began to show fatigue upon

answering questions in that variable range and began to answer randomly.

After the removal of 30 items, the Cronbach‟s Alpha was reduced to .865 from .884. This

is most likely due to the every item‟s reliability being naturally well-off in the original testing

and removing them could have ruined the reliability overall. It is possible that most items may

have been very close to the scale mean, reducing the number of items meant reducing the mean

and in turn, reducing the Cronbach‟s Alpha as well.

Comparing the inter-item correlation between the 60-item test (table 3) and the 30-item

test (table 4), it shows that the original .116 correlation had increased to .174. This indicates that




the 30-item test has a considerably higher inter-item correlation compared to the 60-item test.

Though the Cronbach‟s Alpha has reduced, the correlation of each item did increase.

Delving more into their variance, it shows that there isn‟t much inter -item correlation

variance in either test despite the drop in reliability. The 60-item test yielded an inter-item

correlation variance of .018 and the 30-item test yielded an inter-item correlation variance of

.017. The 60-item test gained a very slightly higher variance compared to the 30-item test, this

consistently goes with the notion that the variance and correlation are indirectly proportional.

Strangely, even with the increase in correlation, the 60-item test still contains a higher reliability.

The 60-item questionnaire has comparably higher reliability than the final 30-item

questionnaire. Despite the drop in its Cronbach‟s Alpha, the drop is fairly low and thus shows

that the newly crafted measuring tool has relatively high consistency to which it can give an

accurate score across a range of measurement. With both tests, participants were able to

consistently answer scores. The tool, having an inter-rater reliability, meant that different people

answering the test would still give consistent results. Additionally, the new measuring tool has

construct validity, indicating that the tools use is specifically meant to measure the theoretical

backgrounds cited in the review of related literature.

The scores imply that researchers wishing to replicate measuring the same construct (the

locus of control) can viably use this tool. Future researchers may even add filler questions that

still direct it towards the locus of control. As the tool was meant to measure the degree of one‟s

locus of control, whether internal or external, it is not meant to measure anything else. Constructs

such as dispositions, attribution, self-efficacy, etc, cannot be measure by this measuring tool.

Future researchers may even rephrase some of the items in the tool to better record a desired




focus in the locus of control. Items in the measuring tool are comfortably suited to match the

respondent‟s desired responses which in turn cleanly suit the construct.

Moving on towards the factor analysis in table 5, it shows that 8 factors were extracted

from the test. The first factor (factor 1) moderately correlates with items 1, 18, 29 and 35 and

strongly correlates with items 11, 12, 19 and 54. This factor may be self-determination. This is

due to the fact that the items this factor has correlated with are based strongly on personal effort.

Some sample items it has correlated with state, “Being successful in its own right has nothing to

do with luck,” (Item 11), “I strive to get what I want,” (Item 12) and “Getting what I want is a

matter of dedication – not luck,” (Item 19). Returning to our main construct, self-determination

may play a role in one‟s degree of locus of control, considering that one with a determined

attitude will be likely to attribute events and situations internally and may want to take control

into one‟s own hands in order to efficiently show one‟s worth.

The second factor, factor 2, may be indicative of fatalism. The items that factor 2 strongly

correlate with have things to do with one‟s fate and luck. The items it correlates moderately with

are items 9, 17, 25, 30, 44 and 51 and it strongly correlates with items 22 and 41. Items within

this factor range show much to do with fate, items such as item 22 say, “I believe in destiny” and

item 37, “I believe we are victims of forces we cannot control nor can we control.” Returning to

our literature, fatalism in itself is something indicative of one with an external locus of control.

The third factor, factor 3, correlates moderately with items 9, 29, 37 and 44 and strongly

correlates with items 24 and 55. Samples of this factor include: “If something is meant to

happen, it will,” (item 44) “When I make plans, I make sure I can make them push through,”

(item 29). Give the sample items, the factor may be something more along the lines of




“Circumstantial submissiveness.” In a sense, the factor tries to indicate that the circumstances of

certain events or individuals dictates one‟s su bmission to said circumstances. This returns to

locus of control‟s external facet as well as relating to the previous factor, fatalism.

The fourth factor, factor 4, is concerned more on needs of achievement. In a sense, it may

be referred to as being hardworking; but, for now, we will call the fourth construct as “grit” or

one‟s passion for achieving a goal. Factor 4 moderately correlates with items 2 and 18 and

strongly correlates with items 25, 35 and 36. Sample questions for this factor include: item 25,

“If I failed at pursuing something, I assume I did not put enough effort into it,” and item, 35 “If I

put enough effort, things can change for the better.” Grit would be something similar to self -

determination but grit focuses more on trying to achieve something to create a change. This

returns to locus of control in a way similar to self-determination in the sense that grit may

attribute itself towards being more individualistic in goal achievement; thus, showing a relation

towards internal locus of control.

The fifth factor, factor 5, has moderate correlations with item numbers 2, 17, 20,30, 47

and strongly correlates with items 5 and 46. Factor 5 may be something along the lines of

complacency. Complacency is described as self-satisfaction given the circumstances or facts.

Examples of items that give this factor its roots are ones like item 46, “I think that once

somebody gets elected into something, there is little I or anybody can do about it.” And item 30,

“I feel like my life is a string of random events put together.” Complacency may relate back to

the locus of control in ways that people with external locus of control would theoretically

exemplify this quality within them.




The sixth factor, factor 6, may be along the lines of certainty – certainty in the sense that

the items that correlate with this factor have items asking things such as choosing or ensuring an

outcome. Some examples include, item 13, “I do not try something if I am unsure of it,” and item

55, “I feel like I am constantly being judged.” Taking item 55 into consideration, factor 6 may be

social certainty. This factor may embody the idea that some people wish to be socially desirable

and this only assure themselves of choices that would make them appeal much better socially.

Factor 6 moderately correlates with items 2, 13, 17, 19, 20 and 55 and strongly correlates with

item 1.

The seventh factor, factor 7, would be classified as something similar to openness. Items

that correlate well with this factor include questions that have something to do with either

accepting something within oneself or in others. Some items, such as item 10 state, “I openly

accept my mistakes,” and item 36, “I believe there is some good in everyone,” evidently show

that this factor may relate in some way to how open one would be. Taking this back to the locus

of control, one‟s openness may affect how one attributes his achievements and mistakes as well

as other people. This again jumps back to the correlation between attribution and the locus of

control, considering that it stems from attribution. Factor 7 moderately correlated with items 4,

13, 36 and 47 and strongly correlated with item 10.

The final factor, factor 8, is something we will note as “circumstantial prejudice.” It

correlates only with 2 items, being moderately correlated to item 47 and being strongly

correlated to item 60. These two items have basis on the a target‟s disposition. Item 47 states,

“No matter how hard some people try, they are just purely unlikable,” and item 60 states, “I

believe in the following quote: “The circumstances of one‟s birth are irrelevant – it is what we do

with the gift of life that determines who we are.”” Both items carry strong ideas on judging who




one is and whether those ideas persist. This again relates to the locus of control due to its

attribution based nature. Whether one were to attribute who one may become to one‟s birth or to

the unlikable nature of another, it is still based on attribution which then directly correlates

towards the locus of control.

One limitation of this tool is that it has been limited to students only from the University

of San Carlos. The result is simply plausible and cannot be generalized for another population.

These students also cannot generalize the population of the school simply because they share the

common ground which is the school they are studying in. With only 200 participants with an age

range of 16 to 26 and a mean age of 20, other age ranges may show different results. Future

research may improve on the scale considering the limitations stated above. Using other scales

regarding the same construct may supplement this scale and may increase reliability.




References:

Asonibare, J.B.(1985), "Superstitions, Locus of control and the Nigerian child", Nigerian journal

of guidance and counselling,1 (1&2), 24-33

Bettencourt, B. A., Talley, A., Molix, L., Schlegel, R. & Westgate, S. (2008). Rural and urban

breast cancer patients: health locus of control and psychological adjustment. Psycho-

Oncology, (17) 932 – 939).

Bollini, A. M.; Walker, E. F.; Hamann, S; Kestler, L. (2004) "The influence of perceived control

and locus of control on the cortisol and subjective responses to stress". Journal of

Biological Psychology, 67 (3): 245-260.




Cohen, S., Rothbart, M. & Philips, S. (1976). Locus of control and the generality of learned

helplessness in humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (6), 1049-

1056

Furnham, A. (2010). A parental locus of control scale.Individual Differences Research.8 ( 3),

151-163.

Goodman et, al. (2007). Mental health of children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities

in Britain.The British Journal of Psychiatry, 19, 493-491

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations

Judge, Timothy A.; Erez, Amir; Bono, Joyce E.; Thoresen, Carl J. (1 January 2002). "Are

measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy

indicators of a common core construct?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

83 (3): 693 – 710.

Mellon, R., Papanikolau, V. &Prodromitis, G. (2009). Locus of control and psychopathology in

relation to levels of trauma and loss: self-reports of Peloponnesian wildfire survivors.

Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22 (3), 189-196.

Munton, A.G., Silvester, J., Stratton, P. & Hanks, H. (1999) Attributions in Action: a practical

approach to coding qualitative data. Chichester, Wiley

Myers, D. (2006). Psychology in modules

Nadal, K. L. (2010) (Ed.). Filipino American psychology: A Collection of personal narratives.

Bloomington, IN: Author House Publishing.




Roddenberry, A.; Renk, K. (NaN undefined NaN). (2010). "Locus of Control and Self-Efficacy:

Potential Mediators of Stress, Illness, and Utilization of Health Services in College

Students". Child Psychiatry & Human Development 41 (4): 353 – 370.

Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal

versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

43, 56-67.

Suwarsi, S. &Budianti, N. (2009). Influence of locus of control and job involvement to

organizational culture applied by employees on bank x. World Academy of Science,

Engineering and Technology, 60.

Taylor, M. (nd). (2010). Does locus of control predict young adult conflict strategies with

superiors? An examination of control orientation and the organizational communication

conflict instrument. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, 444-456.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories, and Research. Sage

Publications. ISBN 0-7619-0491-3

Wei ner , B . ( nd ) . A t t r i bu t i on t heor y . Re t r i eved f r om

http://tip.psychology.org/weiner.html

Wood, A., Saylor, C. & Cohen, J. (2006). Locus of control and academic success among

ethnically diverse baccalaureate nursing students. Nursing Education Research.289-294.

Yeh, M. (2008).Measurning readiness to change and locus of control belief among male

alcohol-dependent patients in Taiwan: comparison of the different degrees of alcohol

dependence. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 62, 533-539

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0761904913









Appandix A

Univariate analysis for the 60-item questionnaire

Range Mean

Std.

Deviation Variance1.) Bad things happen to me due to bad luck.

4.00 3.7350 1.19663 1.432

2.) The effort I give in doing something dictates how well I

do. 4.00 4.1050 .91001 .828

3.) The consequences of my actions are my responsibility. 4.00 4.4300 .79893 .638

4.) When I get something done right, it is not because of

luck. 4.00 4.0550 1.00849 1.017

5.) Achievements are hardly recognizable even through hard

work. 4.00 3.2350 1.25204 1.568

6.) Sometimes, I think the only way to get a proper decision

is through a coin flip. 4.00 3.9550 1.22494 1.500

7.) I believe in ghosts. 4.00 2.9850 1.34679 1.814

8.) I hide my faults.4.00 3.2500 1.18088 1.394

9.) I have „bad days‟4.00 1.9300 1.18834 1.412

10.) I openly accept my mistakes. 4.00 3.9600 1.04107 1.084

11.) I think being successful in its own right has nothing to

do with luck. 4.00 3.9200 1.09984 1.210

12.) I strive to get what I want in life.4.00 4.2600 .83419 .696

13.) I do not try something if I am unsure of it.4.00 2.9750 1.22141 1.492

14.) I earn people‟s respect. 4.00 4.0550 .79696 .635

15.) I do not believe in superstitious beliefs.4.00 3.1850 1.30741 1.709

16.) If I want something done right, I do it myself. 4.00 4.0850 .87843 .772

17.) Getting chosen for something (i.e: A job) means being at

the right place at the right time. 4.00 2.6150 1.22650 1.504

18.) I believe there is a direct connection to how hard I work

and the results of my efforts. 4.00 4.4150 .76531 .586

19.) Getting what I want is a matter of personal skill and

dedication – not luck. 4.00 4.2600 .89240 .796

20.) I believe in chance rather than choice4.00 3.6650 1.08103 1.169

21.) Good things happen to me because of good luck.4.00 2.5400 1.21067 1.466

22.) I believe in destiny. 4.00 2.8350 1.31010 1.716

23.) I think that taking a gamble can bring fruitful results. 4.00 3.2300 1.29828 1.686

24.) I never know how other people perceive me to be. 4.00 2.8300 1.25658 1.579

25.) If I failed at pursuing something, I assume that I did not

put enough effort into it. 4.00 3.9200 1.04838 1.099

26.) I think that being prepared for anything and everything

helps. 4.00 4.4800 .72264 .522

27.) I usually go with the advice of other people. 4.00 2.8800 1.18856 1.413




To be continued

55.) I feel like I‟m constantly being judged by other people 4.00 2.6850 1.29000 1.664

56.) Some people‟s worth is just too unrecognizable no

matter how hard they try. 4.00 3.0850 1.33291 1.777

57.) I tend to blame environmental factors whenever I do

something wrong. 4.00 2.5600 1.18041 1.393

58.) I think that people who can‟t get others to tolerate or like

them just don‟t understand social protocol. 4.00 3.3200 1.19782 1.435

59.) People are responsible for electing officials who turn out

to be corrupt. 4.00 4.0250 1.11381 1.241

60.) I believe in the following quote: “The circumstances of

one‟s birth are irrelevant – It is what we do with the gift of

life that determines who we are.” 3.00 4.5550 .65507 .429




Appendix B

(60 Item Questionnaire)

Greetings and salutations! My name is Vince Patrick R. Gochan., a Psychology major taking up

his 3

rd

year in the University of San Carlos. At the moment, I am creating an instrument thathopes to measure certain personality traits. It would be lovely if I may ask to have at least 5 to

10 minutes of your time to thoroughly answer this 60-item questionnaire.

Please take note that all your answers and your identity will be kept strictly confidential

and will only be used for this study.

If you would like to know the results as well as if you may have any other questions

regarding the questionnaire, you may contact me through the following:

(Sun) 0922 – 822 – 9866

(Smart) 0918 – 962 – 2628

[email protected]

If you wish to participate in this study and opt to answer the questionnaire, please sign below

and fill out as much as you can. Please answer it as honestly and as properly as possible.

*If at any time you feel uncomfortable answering the survey, please feel free to stop

anytime; but, please return the test questionnaire for record.

Instructions: Please place a check mark on the cell of the answer of your choice.

Name [optional]: _____________________________ Age: _____

Gender: M / F

___________________

Signature

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

1.) Bad things happen to me due to badluck.

2.) The effort I give in doing something

dictates how well I do.

3.) The consequences of my actions are my

responsibility.

4.) When I get something done right, it is

not because of luck.

mailto:[email protected]






Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

5.) Achievements are hardly recognizable

even through hard work.

6.) Sometimes, I think the only way to geta proper decision is through a coin flip.

7.) I believe in ghosts.

8.) I hide my faults.

9.) I have ‘bad days’

10.) I openly accept my mistakes.

11.) I think being successful in its own right

has nothing to do with luck.

12.) I strive to get what I want in life.

13.) I do not try something if I am unsure

of it.14.) I earn people’s respect.

15.) I do not believe in superstitious

beliefs.

16.) If I want something done right, I do it

myself.

17.) Getting chosen for something (i.e: A

job) means being at the right place at the

right time.

18.) I believe there is a direct connection

to how hard I work and the results of myefforts.

19.) Getting what I want is a matter of

personal skill and dedication – not luck.

20.) I believe in chance rather than choice

21.) Good things happen to me because of

good luck.

22.) I believe in destiny.

23.) I think that taking a gamble can bring

fruitful results.

24.) I never know how other people

perceive me to be.

25.) If I failed at pursuing something, I

assume that I did not put enough effort

into it.

26.) I think that being prepared for

anything and everything helps.




Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

27.) I usually go with the advice of other

people.

28.) I admit my mistakes.29.) When I make plans, I’m sure I can

make it push through.


events put together.

31.) I believe that some people will not like

me no matter how hard I try to please

them.

32.) I only prepare for things I think are

going to happen.

33.) I think disappointment may stem from

the outcomes of my actions.

34.) I sometimes feel that I don’t have

enough control over where my life is

headed.

35.) If I put in enough effort, things can

change for the better.

36.) I believe there is some good in

everyone.

37.) I believe that we are victims of forces

we cannot understand nor can we control.

38.) I think that doing the right thing is a

matter of choice.

39.) My fate was sealed at birth.

40.) My own advice is all I need.

41.) Destiny is a load of trash.

42.) I would rather go with the flow than

create a well laid out plan.

43.) I believe there is always a choice

44.) If something is meant to happen, it

will.

45.) I get disappointed due to mistakes I’ve

done.

46.) I think that once somebody gets

elected into something, there is little I, or

anybody, can do about it.




Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

47.) No matter how hard some people try,

they are just purely unlikable.

48.) The main reasons for my stress is themistakes of other people.

49.) Life is a set of opportunities to grab.

50.) I am the way I am because of the

people around me.

51.) It is hard for me to believe that luck

carries a significant role in the events that

happen in my life.

52.) I am who I am due to the decisions

I’ve made myself and not due to life’s

circumstances.53.) People tend to be lonely because they

fail to reach out to other people.


actions.

55.) I feel like I’m constantly being judged

by other people

56.) Some people’s worth is just too

unrecognizable no matter how hard they

try.

57.) I tend to blame environmental factors

whenever I do something wrong.

58.) I think that people who can’t get

others to tolerate or like them just don’t

understand social protocol.

59.) People are responsible for electing

officials who turn out to be corrupt.


circumstances of one’s birth are irrelevant

– It is what we do with the gift of life that

determines who we are.”

Items recoded: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50,

55, 56, 57

Items deleted from the 60-item questionnaire: 3, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33,

34, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59




Appendix C

(30-Item Questionnaire)

Greetings and salutations! My name is Vince Patrick R. Gochan., a Psychology major taking up

his 3

rd

year in the University of San Carlos. At the moment, I am creating an instrument thathopes to measure certain personality traits. It would be lovely if I may ask to have at least 5 to

10 minutes of your time to thoroughly answer this 30-item questionnaire.

Please take note that all your answers and your identity will be kept strictly confidential

and will only be used for this study.

If you would like to know the results as well as if you may have any other questions

regarding the questionnaire, you may contact me through the following:

(Sun) 0922 – 822 – 9866

(Smart) 0918 – 962 – 2628

[email protected]

If you wish to participate in this study and opt to answer the questionnaire, please sign below

and fill out as much as you can. Please answer it as honestly and as properly as possible.

*If at any time you feel uncomfortable answering the survey, please feel free to stop

anytime; but, please return the test questionnaire for record.

Instructions: Please place a check mark on the cell of the answer of your choice.

Name [optional]: _____________________________ Age: _____

Gender: M / F

___________________

Signature

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

1.) Bad things happen to me due to bad

luck.

2.) The effort I give in doing something

dictates how well I do.

4.) When I get something done right, it is

not because of luck.







Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

5.) Achievements are hardly recognizable

even through hard work.

9.) I have ‘bad days’10.) I openly accept my mistakes.

11.) I think being successful in its own right

has nothing to do with luck.

12.) I strive to get what I want in life.

13.) I do not try something if I am unsure

of it.

17.) Getting chosen for something (i.e: A

job) means being at the right place at the

right time.

18.) I believe there is a direct connectionto how hard I work and the results of my

efforts.

19.) Getting what I want is a matter of

personal skill and dedication – not luck.

20.) I believe in chance rather than choice

22.) I believe in destiny.

23.) I think that taking a gamble can bring

fruitful results.

24.) I never know how other people

perceive me to be.25.) If I failed at pursuing something, I

assume that I did not put enough effort

into it.

29.) When I make plans, I’m sure I can

make it push through.


events put together.

35.) If I put in enough effort, things can

change for the better.

36.) I believe there is some good in

everyone.

37.) I believe that we are victims of forces

we cannot understand nor can we control.

41.) Destiny is a load of trash.

44.) If something is meant to happen, it

will.




Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

46.) I think that once somebody gets

elected into something, there is little I, or

anybody, can do about it.47.) No matter how hard some people try,

they are just purely unlikable.

50.) I am the way I am because of the

people around me.

51.) It is hard for me to believe that luck

carries a significant role in the events that

happen in my life.


actions.

55.) I feel like I’m constantly being judgedby other people


circumstances of one’s birth are irrelevant

– It is what we do with the gift of life that

determines who we are.”