Psychological Reports, 1975, 37, 717-723
@ Psycho!ogical Reports 1975
LOCUS O F CONTROL OF REINFORCEMENT AND ATTRACTION I N SENSITIVITY G R O U P SETTINGS1 STEPHEN B. LEVENBERG' AND J. WILLIAM SPAKES Social Problems Rerearch lnrtitute University of South Carolina Summary.-In five sensitivity groups 64 undergraduate and graduate students participated. It was predicted that internal Ss would indicate greater interpersonal acttaction for other internals while externals would be anracted to group members with an external orientation. Results showed that amount of verbalizations was related to attractiveness but not to own locus of control score. Ss showed no preference for others having a locus of conrrol orientation similar to their own. Internals preferred others with locus of control orientations similar to each other but in no clear relation to their own internal orientation. Methodological problems with locus of control research were discussed. T h e purpose of this study was to examine the effect of Locus of Control of Reinforcement (Rotter, 1966) on judgrnencs of interpersonal attraction. T h e concept of Locus of Control of Reinforcement (Rotter, 1 9 6 6 ) , which has grown out of the social learning theory (Rotter, 1954), refers to a generalized set of expectations along a continuum. A n individual is said to have internal locus of control if he usually appraises positive and negative reinforcements to be contingent upon his own action and thus under his own (internal) control; a person is described as having external locus of control if he usually appraises reinforcements to be beyond personal control, not contingent upon his own behavior and residing in outside (external) agencs. T h e Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, as designed by Rotter, Seemanj and Liverant ( 1 9 6 2 ) , measures individual differences along the continuum. Joe ( 1 9 7 1 ) reviewed a number of studies in which belief in internal locus of control had been positively associated with "adjustment," using a variety of dependent measures. Intuiuvely, one could predict that Ss, regardless of their own locus of control orientation, would be attracted to the "better adjusted" internally oriented individual. However, evidence from a number of scudies suggests that a key variable in the interpersonal attraction process is the similarity of individuals' attitudes and personality traits (Lindzey & Byrne, 1968; Goldstein, Heller, & Sechrest, 1966; Byrne & Griffitc, 1969; Griffitt, 1969). 'The authors wish to thank Dr. Robert V. Heckel of the Social Problems Research Institute, University of South Carolina, for his assistance throughouc the study. Portions of this srudy were presented at the 1773 Convention of the southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans. 'Reprints should be requested from the first author, now at the University of Alabama Medical Center, Box 314, Universirg Station, Birmingham, Alabama 35294.
720
S. B. LEVENBERG & J. W. SPAKES
Jones and Shrauger (1968) found that internals attempted to control social evaluations they received from others, concurring- more often than externals with peers' responses to a sham opinion inventory. The findings were interpreted as indicating that internals were more ingratiating, presumably in order to be favorably perceived by peers. Although useful in predicting style of verbal behavior of internals, the findings fail to shed light on interpersonal attractiveness as a function of dyadic locus of control score patterns. Phares and Wilson ( 1971) found that internals preferred internals but no similar relationship could be found for externals' preferences. However, attractiveness ratings were based only on written locus of control responses and a vignette (portraying an incident from the internal or external point of view) of a fictitious person. The authors suggested that the disappointing results might have been due to Ss interpreting the rating task as problem-solving in nature. Internals, they argued, would have expended more effort to discriminate clearly their perceptions of the fictional person (see Joe, 1971). As Phares and Wilson pointed out, the appropriate methodological correction would be to assess attractiveness in an environment devoid of problemsolving implications. Thus, in the present study, an encounter group experience was utilized as the interpersonal arena in which attraction could develop naturally, and all data were gathered post hoc. Attractive features of this ecological design were: ( 1) lack of problem-solving implications, ( 2 ) face-to-face contact between Ss, and ( 3 ) duration and intensity of the experience. It was predicted that the absence of a problem-solving atmosphere would result in both internals and externals being more attracted to others with orientations similar to their own. Brecher and Denmark (1969) demonstrated that internals are more verbally fluent than externals. Thus, it was predicted that attractiveness would be affected by the amount of verbalization. Sixty-four graduate and undergraduate students participated in one of five encounter groups as part of class requirements. Each encouncer group met weekly for periods of 2 to 4 hr. ( M = 2.8 hr.) for durations of 7 to 14 wk. ( M = 11.2 wk.). Both authors participated in two of the groups and did not contribute to the data pool. Group leaders were faculty members of the Department of Psychology, each with extensive training and experience in encouncer group theory and practice. The four remaining groups were led by advanced doctoral students in the clinical program. All leaders were excluded from the data pool. The "leaderless leader" model (Heckel, 1972) was adhered to by all leaders, and a minimum of structure was provided. Leaders were unanimous in independently assessing their groups as not atypical from most other encouncer groups in terms of "group growth." The following data, in counterbalanced order, were gathered anonymously
LOCUS OF CONTROL, ATTRACTION IN SENSITIVITY GROUP
721
following each group's final meeting: ( 1) Locus of Control for Interpersonal Relationships (Lewis, Dawes, & Cheney, 1974), a variation of the Rotter version which assesses differences along interpersonal dimensions; ( 2 ) forced-choice ranks of all members of the group according to ( a ) amount of verbalization during group sessions ("Rank the members of your group according to who talked the most") and ( b ) interpersonal attractiveness ("Rank the members of your group according to whom you would like to have for a friend."). RESULTS Verbalizations
Ss' verbal contributions to the group were also assessed by means of objective statement counts, recorded by observers during random sessions of several groups. This measure correlated highly (Pearson r = .95) with Ss' subjective ratings, and all statistical comparisons were made on the basis of the ranks of subjective verbalization. Attractiveness As suspected, the amount of verbal contribution to S s group did contribute to his attractiveness to the group. Table 1 shows that correlations between S's verbosity and his attractiveness to others were consistently positive. Within-S comparisons, however, were less definitive. There was no evidence that either high or low verbal Ss had a preference for others with similar verbal behavior (x2,n.s.). Highly verbal Ss were consistently preferred equally by both verbal and non-verbal Ss. TABLE 1 CORRELATIONS BEWEEN VERBALIZATIONA N D ATTACTIVENESS RANKINGS* Group
N
R
P
*Combining rhese five groups would yield a significant P, but the statisrical methods used do nor allow for a legitimate combining procedure.
Locils of Control Locus of control scores were unrelated to amount of verbalization. Across groups there was no significant relationship between amount of verbal contribution and locus of control scores. Locas of Conlrol and Attractivenes~ There was no significant correlation between Ss' own locus of control scores
722
S . B. LEVENBERG
&
J. W. SPAKES
and those of Ss chosen mosc or least attractive by that S; 7s ranged from .20 (mosc preferred other) to -.07 (second mosc preferred other). There were, however, distinct relationships between those pairs of Ss rated by each S as most and second-most attractive, and least and second leasc attractive. Locus of control scores of the two other group members found most attractive showed a small tendency to be similar ( r = .23, p < . l o ) , and the scores of the two other group members rated as least atcractive were significantly correlated though 7 was only .37 ( p < .01). Thus, although the locus of control scale failed to discriminate similarity or contrast between S's internal-external scores and those he liked or disliked, there was a trend towards identifying a specific kind of other (locus of concrol orientation) who was liked or disliked. A further analysis was made of Ss having extreme locus of control scores (greater than f 1 SD from the mean). Internal Ss tended to like or dislike other internal Ss (x" 2.0, p < .15; x2 = 3.3, p < .08, respectively). External Ss showed no preferences for either group extreme (x' = .25; = 1.6, respectively). The results shed additional light on the finding of Phares and Wilson (1971) that internals preferred internals but externals did not discriminate in their preferences. In an encounter-group setting devoid of demand characteristics and implications of problem solving, internals were attracted to others with orientations similar to each other. The finding that internals also tended to dislike other internals would indicate that similarity may account for only a portion of the data. In regard to internals, the argument for similarity might be restated to suggest that internals are attracted to internals inasmuch as their strongest feelings are for people similar to each other, but the valence of this feeling may depend on other, as yet unexplored variables. Incorporating additional personality measures in future studies might help our understanding. The Phares and Wilson findings regarding externals were essentially replicated. The possibility thac externals were less motivated to make accurate interpersonal judgments on the questionnaire does, of course, remain. A more parsimonious explanation could be made in terms of characteristics of the locus of control scales. It may be that items in the scale do not discriminate those characteristics which externals may become aware of in an interpersonal setting. In other words, externals may actually prefer individuals similar to themselves but do not discriminate those similarities from the items on the scale. The evidence from this study is consistent with a number of negative findings regarding the utility of the locus of control concept (Hersch & Scheibe, 1967; Best & Steffy, 1971; Gootnick, 1974). Finally, highly verbal Ss were generally seen in a positive light by others. However, in contrast to Brecher and Denmark ( 1969), those Ss demonstrating greater verbal behavior were not of any particular orientation.
x2
LOCUS OF CONTROL, ATTRACTION I N SENSITIVITY GROUP
723
REFERENCES BEST, J. A., & STBFFY,R. A. Smoking modification tailored to subject characteristics. Behavior Therapy, 1971, 2, 177-191. BRECHER,M., & DENMARK,P. L. Internal-external locus of control and verbal fluency. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25, 707-710. BYRNE,D., & GRIFPITT,W. Similarity and awareness of similarity of personality characteristics as determinants of attraction. Journal o f Experimental Research in Pmsonality, 1969, 3, 179-186. GOLDSTEIN,A. D., HELLER,K., & SECHREST,L. Psychotherapy and the psychology of behavior change. New York: Wiley, 1966. GOOTNICK,A. T. LOCUSof control and political participation of college s t u d e n t s a comparison of unidimensional and multi-dimensional approaches. Journd o f Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 1974, 4 2 , 54-58. G R I F F I ~W. , B. Personality similarity and self-concept as determinants of interpersonal attraction. Journal o f Social Psychology, 1969, 78, 137-146. HECKEL, R. V. Leudership: a brief introduction. Columbia, S.C.: Social Problems Research Instimte, 1972. HERSCH,P. D., & SCHEIBE,K. E. On the reliability and validity of internal-external control as a personality construct. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 609-
614. JOE, V. C. Review of the internal-external control construct as a personality variable. Psychological Reports, 1971, 28, 619-640. (Monogr. Suppl. 3-V28) of control and interpersonal evaluations. Journal ]ONES, S. C., & SHRAUGER, J. S. LOCUS o f Consulting and Clivical Psychology, 1968, 32, 664-668. LEWIS, P., DAMES, A. S., & CHENEY,T. Effects of sensitivity training on belief in internal control of interpersonal relationships. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1974, 11, 282-285. LINDZEY,G., & BYRNE,D. Measurement of social choice and interpersonal attractiveness. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook o f social psychology. Vol. 2. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968. Pp. 452-525. PHARES,E. J., & WILSON, K. G. Internal-external control, interpersonal attraction, and empathy. Psychologdcd Reports, 1971, 28, 543-549. ROITER, J. B. Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
1954. ROTTER, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80, No. 1 (Whole No. 609). R O ~ E RJ., B., SEEMAN,M.. & LIVERANT,S. Internal versus external conrrol of reinforcements: a major variable in behavior theory. In N. F. Washburne (Ed.), Decisions, values, and groups. Vol. 2. London: Pergamon, 1962. Pp. 473-516. Accepted July 28, 1975.
@ Psycho!ogical Reports 1975
LOCUS O F CONTROL OF REINFORCEMENT AND ATTRACTION I N SENSITIVITY G R O U P SETTINGS1 STEPHEN B. LEVENBERG' AND J. WILLIAM SPAKES Social Problems Rerearch lnrtitute University of South Carolina Summary.-In five sensitivity groups 64 undergraduate and graduate students participated. It was predicted that internal Ss would indicate greater interpersonal acttaction for other internals while externals would be anracted to group members with an external orientation. Results showed that amount of verbalizations was related to attractiveness but not to own locus of control score. Ss showed no preference for others having a locus of conrrol orientation similar to their own. Internals preferred others with locus of control orientations similar to each other but in no clear relation to their own internal orientation. Methodological problems with locus of control research were discussed. T h e purpose of this study was to examine the effect of Locus of Control of Reinforcement (Rotter, 1966) on judgrnencs of interpersonal attraction. T h e concept of Locus of Control of Reinforcement (Rotter, 1 9 6 6 ) , which has grown out of the social learning theory (Rotter, 1954), refers to a generalized set of expectations along a continuum. A n individual is said to have internal locus of control if he usually appraises positive and negative reinforcements to be contingent upon his own action and thus under his own (internal) control; a person is described as having external locus of control if he usually appraises reinforcements to be beyond personal control, not contingent upon his own behavior and residing in outside (external) agencs. T h e Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, as designed by Rotter, Seemanj and Liverant ( 1 9 6 2 ) , measures individual differences along the continuum. Joe ( 1 9 7 1 ) reviewed a number of studies in which belief in internal locus of control had been positively associated with "adjustment," using a variety of dependent measures. Intuiuvely, one could predict that Ss, regardless of their own locus of control orientation, would be attracted to the "better adjusted" internally oriented individual. However, evidence from a number of scudies suggests that a key variable in the interpersonal attraction process is the similarity of individuals' attitudes and personality traits (Lindzey & Byrne, 1968; Goldstein, Heller, & Sechrest, 1966; Byrne & Griffitc, 1969; Griffitt, 1969). 'The authors wish to thank Dr. Robert V. Heckel of the Social Problems Research Institute, University of South Carolina, for his assistance throughouc the study. Portions of this srudy were presented at the 1773 Convention of the southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans. 'Reprints should be requested from the first author, now at the University of Alabama Medical Center, Box 314, Universirg Station, Birmingham, Alabama 35294.
720
S. B. LEVENBERG & J. W. SPAKES
Jones and Shrauger (1968) found that internals attempted to control social evaluations they received from others, concurring- more often than externals with peers' responses to a sham opinion inventory. The findings were interpreted as indicating that internals were more ingratiating, presumably in order to be favorably perceived by peers. Although useful in predicting style of verbal behavior of internals, the findings fail to shed light on interpersonal attractiveness as a function of dyadic locus of control score patterns. Phares and Wilson ( 1971) found that internals preferred internals but no similar relationship could be found for externals' preferences. However, attractiveness ratings were based only on written locus of control responses and a vignette (portraying an incident from the internal or external point of view) of a fictitious person. The authors suggested that the disappointing results might have been due to Ss interpreting the rating task as problem-solving in nature. Internals, they argued, would have expended more effort to discriminate clearly their perceptions of the fictional person (see Joe, 1971). As Phares and Wilson pointed out, the appropriate methodological correction would be to assess attractiveness in an environment devoid of problemsolving implications. Thus, in the present study, an encounter group experience was utilized as the interpersonal arena in which attraction could develop naturally, and all data were gathered post hoc. Attractive features of this ecological design were: ( 1) lack of problem-solving implications, ( 2 ) face-to-face contact between Ss, and ( 3 ) duration and intensity of the experience. It was predicted that the absence of a problem-solving atmosphere would result in both internals and externals being more attracted to others with orientations similar to their own. Brecher and Denmark (1969) demonstrated that internals are more verbally fluent than externals. Thus, it was predicted that attractiveness would be affected by the amount of verbalization. Sixty-four graduate and undergraduate students participated in one of five encounter groups as part of class requirements. Each encouncer group met weekly for periods of 2 to 4 hr. ( M = 2.8 hr.) for durations of 7 to 14 wk. ( M = 11.2 wk.). Both authors participated in two of the groups and did not contribute to the data pool. Group leaders were faculty members of the Department of Psychology, each with extensive training and experience in encouncer group theory and practice. The four remaining groups were led by advanced doctoral students in the clinical program. All leaders were excluded from the data pool. The "leaderless leader" model (Heckel, 1972) was adhered to by all leaders, and a minimum of structure was provided. Leaders were unanimous in independently assessing their groups as not atypical from most other encouncer groups in terms of "group growth." The following data, in counterbalanced order, were gathered anonymously
LOCUS OF CONTROL, ATTRACTION IN SENSITIVITY GROUP
721
following each group's final meeting: ( 1) Locus of Control for Interpersonal Relationships (Lewis, Dawes, & Cheney, 1974), a variation of the Rotter version which assesses differences along interpersonal dimensions; ( 2 ) forced-choice ranks of all members of the group according to ( a ) amount of verbalization during group sessions ("Rank the members of your group according to who talked the most") and ( b ) interpersonal attractiveness ("Rank the members of your group according to whom you would like to have for a friend."). RESULTS Verbalizations
Ss' verbal contributions to the group were also assessed by means of objective statement counts, recorded by observers during random sessions of several groups. This measure correlated highly (Pearson r = .95) with Ss' subjective ratings, and all statistical comparisons were made on the basis of the ranks of subjective verbalization. Attractiveness As suspected, the amount of verbal contribution to S s group did contribute to his attractiveness to the group. Table 1 shows that correlations between S's verbosity and his attractiveness to others were consistently positive. Within-S comparisons, however, were less definitive. There was no evidence that either high or low verbal Ss had a preference for others with similar verbal behavior (x2,n.s.). Highly verbal Ss were consistently preferred equally by both verbal and non-verbal Ss. TABLE 1 CORRELATIONS BEWEEN VERBALIZATIONA N D ATTACTIVENESS RANKINGS* Group
N
R
P
*Combining rhese five groups would yield a significant P, but the statisrical methods used do nor allow for a legitimate combining procedure.
Locils of Control Locus of control scores were unrelated to amount of verbalization. Across groups there was no significant relationship between amount of verbal contribution and locus of control scores. Locas of Conlrol and Attractivenes~ There was no significant correlation between Ss' own locus of control scores
722
S . B. LEVENBERG
&
J. W. SPAKES
and those of Ss chosen mosc or least attractive by that S; 7s ranged from .20 (mosc preferred other) to -.07 (second mosc preferred other). There were, however, distinct relationships between those pairs of Ss rated by each S as most and second-most attractive, and least and second leasc attractive. Locus of control scores of the two other group members found most attractive showed a small tendency to be similar ( r = .23, p < . l o ) , and the scores of the two other group members rated as least atcractive were significantly correlated though 7 was only .37 ( p < .01). Thus, although the locus of control scale failed to discriminate similarity or contrast between S's internal-external scores and those he liked or disliked, there was a trend towards identifying a specific kind of other (locus of concrol orientation) who was liked or disliked. A further analysis was made of Ss having extreme locus of control scores (greater than f 1 SD from the mean). Internal Ss tended to like or dislike other internal Ss (x" 2.0, p < .15; x2 = 3.3, p < .08, respectively). External Ss showed no preferences for either group extreme (x' = .25; = 1.6, respectively). The results shed additional light on the finding of Phares and Wilson (1971) that internals preferred internals but externals did not discriminate in their preferences. In an encounter-group setting devoid of demand characteristics and implications of problem solving, internals were attracted to others with orientations similar to each other. The finding that internals also tended to dislike other internals would indicate that similarity may account for only a portion of the data. In regard to internals, the argument for similarity might be restated to suggest that internals are attracted to internals inasmuch as their strongest feelings are for people similar to each other, but the valence of this feeling may depend on other, as yet unexplored variables. Incorporating additional personality measures in future studies might help our understanding. The Phares and Wilson findings regarding externals were essentially replicated. The possibility thac externals were less motivated to make accurate interpersonal judgments on the questionnaire does, of course, remain. A more parsimonious explanation could be made in terms of characteristics of the locus of control scales. It may be that items in the scale do not discriminate those characteristics which externals may become aware of in an interpersonal setting. In other words, externals may actually prefer individuals similar to themselves but do not discriminate those similarities from the items on the scale. The evidence from this study is consistent with a number of negative findings regarding the utility of the locus of control concept (Hersch & Scheibe, 1967; Best & Steffy, 1971; Gootnick, 1974). Finally, highly verbal Ss were generally seen in a positive light by others. However, in contrast to Brecher and Denmark ( 1969), those Ss demonstrating greater verbal behavior were not of any particular orientation.
x2
LOCUS OF CONTROL, ATTRACTION I N SENSITIVITY GROUP
723
REFERENCES BEST, J. A., & STBFFY,R. A. Smoking modification tailored to subject characteristics. Behavior Therapy, 1971, 2, 177-191. BRECHER,M., & DENMARK,P. L. Internal-external locus of control and verbal fluency. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25, 707-710. BYRNE,D., & GRIFPITT,W. Similarity and awareness of similarity of personality characteristics as determinants of attraction. Journal o f Experimental Research in Pmsonality, 1969, 3, 179-186. GOLDSTEIN,A. D., HELLER,K., & SECHREST,L. Psychotherapy and the psychology of behavior change. New York: Wiley, 1966. GOOTNICK,A. T. LOCUSof control and political participation of college s t u d e n t s a comparison of unidimensional and multi-dimensional approaches. Journd o f Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 1974, 4 2 , 54-58. G R I F F I ~W. , B. Personality similarity and self-concept as determinants of interpersonal attraction. Journal o f Social Psychology, 1969, 78, 137-146. HECKEL, R. V. Leudership: a brief introduction. Columbia, S.C.: Social Problems Research Instimte, 1972. HERSCH,P. D., & SCHEIBE,K. E. On the reliability and validity of internal-external control as a personality construct. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 609-
614. JOE, V. C. Review of the internal-external control construct as a personality variable. Psychological Reports, 1971, 28, 619-640. (Monogr. Suppl. 3-V28) of control and interpersonal evaluations. Journal ]ONES, S. C., & SHRAUGER, J. S. LOCUS o f Consulting and Clivical Psychology, 1968, 32, 664-668. LEWIS, P., DAMES, A. S., & CHENEY,T. Effects of sensitivity training on belief in internal control of interpersonal relationships. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1974, 11, 282-285. LINDZEY,G., & BYRNE,D. Measurement of social choice and interpersonal attractiveness. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook o f social psychology. Vol. 2. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968. Pp. 452-525. PHARES,E. J., & WILSON, K. G. Internal-external control, interpersonal attraction, and empathy. Psychologdcd Reports, 1971, 28, 543-549. ROITER, J. B. Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
1954. ROTTER, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80, No. 1 (Whole No. 609). R O ~ E RJ., B., SEEMAN,M.. & LIVERANT,S. Internal versus external conrrol of reinforcements: a major variable in behavior theory. In N. F. Washburne (Ed.), Decisions, values, and groups. Vol. 2. London: Pergamon, 1962. Pp. 473-516. Accepted July 28, 1975.
