The Influence of Causal Elements of Locus of Control

on Academic Achievement Satisfaction

Uget Apayo Uguak, Habibah Bt. Elias, Jegak Uli and Turiman Suandi

This study attempted to explore the influence of causal elements (ability, effort, task
difficulty, and luck) as the strongest elements of locus of control predicting students'
academic achievement satisfaction among foreign students. Based on locus of control
scale invented by Rotter (1966), the findings obtained from 210 foreign students in
primary school supported majority of the previous studies. The evidence obtained
from descriptive statistics and correlational analysis indicated that the reliability and
validity of the locus of control scale were relatively valid and reliable. The results
indicated that the majority of the students attribute their causes of success to inter-
nal elements that is 96% of the respondents were characterized as internal. Based
on correlational analysis, the result revealed that locus of control is significant and
positively related to academic achievement satisfaction with moderate strength. The
implications of the study were based on the conclusions of the findings.

A number of previous studies' findings The purpose of the current study is to

have identified significant relationships be-
tween locus of control and academic achieve-
ment (Weiner, 1979;MillarandIrving, 1995).
From these studies it was concluded that
internals tend to show superior achievement
in comparison to their external counterparts.
Another research presented by Guthde (1998)
confirmed the evidence that there is a relation-
ship between locus of control and academic
achievement levels. Also many researches
on academic achievement had focused on
students' perceptions of the psychological fac-
tors related to academic achievement (Butter
and Orion, 1990). Their research identified
two main approaches such as the concept of
locus of control, which was primarily con-
cerned with identifying individual differences
and with studying the relationship between
such tendencies and broad outcomes such as
academic achievement.
Uget Apayo Uguak, Habibah Bt. Elias, Jegak
Uli and Turiman Suandi, Faculty of Educational
Studies, University of Putra Malasia.
Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Uget Apayo Uguak, 18A
- 2 V FL. JLN 18/35, TMN Sri Serdang, Postal
code: 43300, Seri Kembangan, Selangor D. E.
Malaysia; email: uguak2001@yahoo.co.uk
120
suggest that causal elements (ability, effort,
task difficulty, and luck) are the strongest fac-
tors of academic locus of control in predicting
students' academic achievement satisfaction.
Based on this model, the locus of control as-
sists in increasing student potential to achieve
academic satisfaction. This was confirmed
by the study done by Wiener (1979) that
the success of ability, effort, task difficulty
and luck, was frequently shown by students'
academic achievement at the end as the mean
causal elements of locus of control. However,
the two approaches of locus of control and
students' perception were grouped by Weiner
under one heading of locus of control as one
of the psychological factors that have high
impact on academic achievement.
One of the interesting things about the
causes identified earlier by Weiner (1979) as
critical elements in determining academic
achievement as related to locus of control,
was that they fell into two separate dimensions
(locus of control and stability). He explained
how those causal elements operate as dimen-
sions of locus of control that contribute to
academic achievement. He divided the causes
into two dimensions: locus of Control and
Stability dimensions. His explanation was
based mainly on the role of those causes

towards the achievement patterns among the
achievers in schools.
Locus of Control Dimension
The locus of control was perceived as lo-
cation of control over our lives. For example,
one who made his own decisions and feelings
was in control of his decisions and behaviors
had an internal locus of control (Weiner 1992).
This concept was explained by Rotter 1954
in his studies that a person who entered a
situation with expectancies concerning the
probable outcome of his possible behaviors
was either internal or external in nature. Shinn
(1973) was of the opinion that at one extreme
of locus of control (internal), the individual
thought of himself as being responsible for
his own behavior. At the other extreme
(external), the individual would see others,
luck or circumstances beyond his control as
responsible for his behavior. Millar and Irving
(1995) incorporated the prediction of causal-
ity in their self-reinforcement model of scale
with internal and external control factors.
They argued that an individual's subjective
probability of success was determined by
perception of competence in relation to an
internalized standard of excellence. They also
suggested that success-oriented individuals
preferred tasks and activities with an inter-
mediate level of difficulty.
Academic achievement satisfaction
attributed mainly to internal factors (effort
and ability), which Weiner (1979), Wyatt
and Medway (1984) perceived as stable and
controllable. Stevenson (1993) found in his
study that failure-oriented individuals con-
tributed outcomes to be caused by external
factors namely, the difficulty level of the tasks
or bad luck. Those failure-oriented persons
were strongly influenced by prior negative
expectancies; they usually had low success
expectancy and set themselves unrealistic
goals, which were either too high or too
low. Ford and Thomas (1997) supported the
findings found by Shinn that when students
occasionally experienced success, they
Locus of Control.. / 727
considered it as good luck or as the result of
too easy a task but when they experienced
failure they attributed it to internal, stable
and uncontrolled factors such as having low
ability of themselves. Weiner (1979) referred
to whether individuals saw an event as being
caused by their own behavior demonstrat-
ing an internal locus of control or as being
caused by environmental factors that were
independent of them; demonstrating an ex-
ternal locus of control. Referring to the four
factors identified by Weiner as being related
to academic achievement, ability and effort
were associated with internal locus of control,
and task difficulty and luck with external locus
of control (Lowenstein, 1997).
However, Stipek and Iver (1989) also
argued that achievers would not perform
well academically and despite tremendous
amounts of effort would still not produce high
achievement if ability was low. He also had
the opinion that high effort, relative to others,
put low ability on display. Only if students
were socialized to value academic achieve-
ment and to feel obligated to themselves and
others to pursue it, they would be concemed
about their revealing low ability.
Stability Dimension
The stability dimension can also be used
to clarify the four perceived causal elements
of success as related to achievement patterns
(Messina, 2002). He stressed that in any given
task, stability, which was related to a factor's
invariance over time, was relatively high for
ability and task difficulty.
In contrast, effort and luck were rather
unstable, since they were likely to vary a
great deal over time (Slavin, 1994). Weiner
(1979) argued that the four elements and two
dimensions were considered simultaneous.
It can be deduced that ability was stable and
internal; task difficulty as stable and external;
effort as unstable and internal; and luck as
unstable and external. Weiner (1979) pointed
out that what was important about his model
was that a good deal of research had shown
 722/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 2
that the locus of control dimension influenced
people's feelings of pride (in the event of suc-
cess) and shame (as a result of failure).
Kivilu and Rogers (1997) supported
Weiner's model by saying that pride is in-
creased when one attributed one's success
to one's internal qualities (ability and effort)
and decreased correspondingly when one
perceived success to be caused by external
circumstances (task difficulty and luck).
He also argued that feelings of shame were
maximized when failure was explained by
internal determinants, and minimized when
failure was attributed to external causes.
Chandha (1989) explained that the di-
mension of stability was closely related to
an individual's expectations of success or
failure in the future. However, attributing
performances to stable causes (ability and task
difficulty) led to the expectation of similar
performance was it good or bad in the future,
while unstable causal explanation (effort and
luck) resulted in the expectation that future
achievement may vary from previous experi-
ences of success and failure. Weiner (1979)
elaborated on the stability dimension by
showing that possible outcome of academic
achievement is aresult of students' attribution.
On the other hand, if success was thought
to be caused by luck (an external, unstable
cause), there was decreased pride as well as an
expectation of future changes in the trend of
the achievement patterns among the students
in school (Russell, 1992). Since luck was one
of the external causes of achievement, then
the achievement patterns would show almost
low level of achievement.
Method
Sample
The questionnaires were administered
to 210 from 6 - 9 forms primary students
studying in Libyan international school in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The majority of
the students were male (63%). The age of the
respondents ranges from 1 1 - 1 4 years old.
The questionnaires were administered in the
classes and all students were informed about
the importance of the questionnaire. As only
16 students were not included in the sample
still the sample was very representative of
the school population.
Procedures
Foreign students' Locus of control was
measured using locus of control scale (Rotter,
1966). It comprised 23 forced-choice ques-
tionnaire in which each statement or item is
followed by a set of two responses or a pair
of alternatives lettered A or B. Students are
requested to select only one statement of
each pair which he "more strongly believe
to be the case". The reliability coefficient
was 0.75 and its content validity has been
checked and was found valid and accurate
in measuring internal and external locus of
students' control. It is scored in the "external"
direction, that is, one point is given for each
"external" statement selected; the higher the
score the more external the individual will be
regarded (Rotter, 1966).Thescoringis that'0'
for internal and' 1' for external which resulted
into the possible range of scores from 0 to
23. This means that items of locus of control
scale, was on a yes or no (A or B) basis to
indicate the degree of one's agreement with
each statement.
Results
Based on this scale, the minimum com-
posite scores of locus of control rating was
1.00 and a maximum of 11.00 and this gives
a range of 10.00. The median locus of control
rating value was 3.50. The mean locus of con-
trol rating was 3.80 with a standard deviation
of 1.51 implying that overall level of locus of
control is internal. However, the variations
among the students' scores on locus of control
items are presented in Table 1.
 Locus of Control.. 1123

Table 1
Means and standard deviations of items measuring academic
Locus of control's levels

Item Mean SD
.A. Many of the unhappy achievement levels in student's academic 0.3 0.45
performance is partly due to bad luck.
B. Student's poor performance result from the mistakes they make.

!.A. One of the major reasons why students have low achievement 0.3 0.45
pattern is because they do not have enough interest in studies.
B. There will always be low achievement pattern, no matter how
hard students try.

i.A. In the long run students get the high achievement they deserve 0.4 0.48
in the academic performance.
B. Unfortunately, a student's worth often passes unrecognized, no
matter how hard he tries.

\.A. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense. 0.4 0.48
B. Most students don't realize the extent to which their
achievement patterns are influenced by accidental factors.

i.A. With the right motivation, one can be an effective achiever. 0.3 0.48
B. Capable students who fail to become high achievers have not
taken advantage of their opportunities.

i.A. No matter how hard you try, some students just do not like you. 0.4 0.49
B. Students who can not get others to like them, do not understand
how to get along with others.

^A. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. 0.4 0.50
B. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as
making a decision to perform well.

i.A. In the case of the well-prepared student there is rarely ever such
a thing as an unfair test. 0.3 0.46
B. Many times examination questions tend to be so unrelated
to course work that studying is really useless.

).A. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or 0.3 0.47
nothing to do with it.
B. Getting a good achievement pattern depends mainly on luck.

O.A. The average student can have an influence in his performance. 0.3 0.46
B. The average pattern of achievement is obtained by few students.

l.A. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them 0.3 0.44
work.
B. It is not always wise to plan far ahead because many
things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune.
1241 Journal oi Instructional Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 2

12. A. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do 0.3 0.46
with luck.
B. Many times we might just as well decide on what to do by
flipping a coin.

13. A. The one gets high achievement pattern often depends on 0.3 0.48
who was lucky enough to be in the right place.
B. Getting students to do the right thing depends upon ability;
luck has little or nothing to do with it.

14. A. As far as academic affairs are concerned, most of us are the 0.3 0.48
victims of examinations we can neither understand nor control.
B. By taking an active part in academic affairs, the students
can expect a good examination outcome.

15. A. Most students do not realize that the extent of 0.3 0.48
academic performance is controlled by certain factors.
B. There is really no such thing as "luck".

16. A. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. 0.4 0.50
B. The number of friends you have, indicate how nice a person you are.

17. A. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced 0.3 0.44
by the good ones.
B. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance,
laziness, or all three.

18. A. With enough effort we can wipe out low achievement pattern. 0.2 0.43
B. It is difficult for students to have much control over their
low achievement pattern.

19. A. Sometimes I cannot understand how teachers arrive at the 0.3 0.46
achievement levels they give.
B. There is a direct connection between hard work and my
achievement levels.

20. A. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things 0.4 0.48
that happen to me.
B. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays
an important role in life.

21. A. Students are lonely because they do not like to be friendly. 0.4 0.48
B. There is not much use in trying too hard to please students,
if they like you.

22. A. What happens to me is my own doing. 0.3 0.47

B. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over
the direction my life is taking.

23. A. Most of the time I can't understand why students behave the 0.3 0.46
way they do.
R Tn fhp InnfJ nin thp. stiirlpnts arp rpspnnsihlp for thpir arhipvpmpnt levels
 Locus of Control.. / 125

In accordance with the ratings 0.00 is Discussion

an internal control, and 1.00 is an external A number of studies have identified
control as the indication of the locus of control significant relationships between locus of
results, it was found that the majority of stu- control and academic achievement satisfac-
dents appeared to be internal locus of control tion. In a discussion of locus of control level,
individuals. The results indicated that 96.2% it could be concluded that internal students
students were internal, and 3.8% students tended to show highest academic achievement
were external locus of control (Table, 2). satisfaction in comparison to the external
This means that the internal locus of control students. These findings confirmed the study
influences students' academic achievement by Millar and Irving (1995) that the internals
satisfaction positively rather than external show superior performance in comparison to
locus. their external counterparts. However, internal
The findings revealed that there is a locus of control had significantly, increased
relationship between locus of control and the amount of variance explained in academic
academic achievement satisfaction among achievement satisfaction. The general trend
the foreign students. The results of correla- in the literature suggested an advantage of
tion analysis indicated that the relationship holding internal rather than external locus
between locus of control towards academic of control beliefs with respect to academic
achievement satisfaction was significant (i achievement satisfaction. The results indi-
= 0.52; p = 0.0001). Table 2 summarizes the cated that internal locus of control had also
results of this correlation. Thus, the purpose demonstrated significant correlations with
of the current study is confirmed. Therefore, it academic achievement satisfaction scores.
could be concluded that there is a significant Therefore, the current research has
relationship between locus of control and tended to suggest that locus of control scale
academic achievement satisfaction among developed by Rotter (1966), is significantly
the foreign students. This means that aca- related to and predictive of academic achieve-
demic achievement satisfaction depends on ment satisfaction among the international
student's causal elements towards leaming. students. In this sense locus of control that
However, the magnitude of the relationship possess some predictive capability, contrib-
between students' locus of control towards uted to the identification of students with
their academic achievement satisfaction was low and high level of academic achievement
moderate. From these findings, there is a ten- satisfaction. And therefore, locus of control
dency for students to experience the moderate assisted in maximising student potential to
level of academic achievement satisfaction. achieve academic satisfaction. However, it is

Table 2
Students' Locus of Control Levels

Level I"requency Percent

Internal 0.00 202 96

External 1.00 8 04

Total 210 100.0

Note: r = 0.52 p<0.01
1261 Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 2
by no means certain that such interventions
prevented students from dropping out of the
system altogether.
Salo (1995) argued that locus of control
appeared to be closely related to students
academic out-comes of which one may claim
as the positive relationship between locus of
control and student's behavior. This study
focuses mainly on the existing relationship
between locus of control and academic
achievement satisfaction as the important
link between the individual and his ability to
perform the task. Based on locus of control,
it is possible for student to control his own
environment since success depends on him,
he could achieve more than the external
students who feel that they are dependent
on the whims and fancies (desires) of other
people or events. Another example to explain
this relationship was that children from dif-
ferent socio-economic levels might differ in
their perceptions of locus of control. Indeed,
a number of studies had pointed to a strong
relationship between perception of locus of
control and achievement patterns (Schneider
and Lee 1990).
More specifically, numerous investiga-
tors had reported that locus of control predicts
academic achievement among the students
(Bar-Tal, 1980). Those findings were in line
with the currentfindingsthat conceivably, the
perception of lack of control of an individual
induces a certain amount of factors that might
be strengthened by the external or internal do-
mains to perceive external controlling forces.
In addition, perception of locus of control
had been observed to be related to academic
achievement satisfaction. For example, it
was observed that students whose orientation
was internal were characterized by higher
achievers in educational expectations and
aspirations than students whose orientation
was external that marked the low academic
achievement among students.
Weymer (2002) justified in his findings
that locus of control was firmly related to
academic achievement; he mentioned that
more than 40 studies had investigated the
relationship between perceptions of locus
of control and students' academic achieve-
ment. Although the results were somewhat
inconsistent, internal perception of control
tends is positively correlated with academic
achievement. Mcllroy 2000) suggested that
perception of locus of control was an impor-
tant personality variable which predicts aca-
demic achievement patterns among students.
This view was in line with the current findings
that internal perception of locus of control
was systematically related to behaviors
which increased the probability of successful
academic achievement satisfaction.
However, Millar and Irving (1995)
were of the idea that the general trend in the
literature suggested an advantage of holding
internal rather than external locus of control.
The reason was that internal control related
to high academic achievement satisfaction as
confirmed by the present study about the influ-
ence of causal elements of locus of control
on academic achievement satisfaction among
foreign students in Libyan international
school in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Conclusion
In summary, the findings of the current
study supported the proposed model by Millar
and Irving (1995). The results were consistent
partially withfindingsby Shinn (1973) which
found that the individual thought of himself as
being responsible for his own behavior. The
present results confirmed the argument by
Weiner (1979) that the four elements (ability,
effort, task difficulty, and luck) were related
to students behavioral out-comes.
This study concluded that the problem of
effort was probably more at the heart of those
achievement differences than were competing
demands or wishful thinking. For example,
learning will not be possible without efforts
to learn. To relate all those findings to the
present study, also concluded that the study
was highly related to the previous studies.
However, the study also contributed posi-

tively to the previous findings that were not
covered in their findings such as the reasons
and criteria that determine students' behav-
ioral outcomes on performing a task. This
means that the existing relationships between
locus of control and academic achievement
satisfaction among achievers will clarify
some missing links of the previous studies
which were not well-focused by the previous
researches.
Implications
From the findings and discussions of
the results of the current study, it would be
logical to deduce the following implications.
For a student, the most important point of
the model is that students have characteristic
causes to which they attribute their success
or failure (Millar and Irving, 1995). Thus,
some students typically think their academic
achievement satisfaction is caused by ability,
while others might have a tendency to rely
on explanations of effort, task difficulty, or
luck. While some elements may lead student
to work harder, others may be maladjusted.
For instance, students who characteristically
attribute failure to low ability are likely to feel
displeased with their academic achievement
satisfaction and to expect similar performance
in the future. Likewise attributing success
to task difficulty leads to decrease pride in
academic achievement satisfaction.
The Attributional analysis of locus of
control and the findings of the current study,
should correct maladjustment attributions,
which lead students to perform below their
potential. Thus students may benefit by the
encouragement of internal explanations for
unsatisfactory academic achievement.
Based on these findings, the study pro-
vides some validations of using an attribution
theory as the theoretical framework on the
study of academic achievement satisfac-
tion. The findings supported the theory that
psychological factors have a great impact on
academic achievement satisfaction and do
influence students' reactions to their failures
Locus of Control.. / 127
and successes. Because attributions influence
students reactions to their failures and suc-
cesses, Russell (1992) attempts to reshape
these attributions might help undo some of
the harmful psychological consequences of
failure. The findings indicated that adjust-
ment, attribution, motivation, self-efficacy,
and attitude were among the best contributing
factors to students' academic achievement
satisfaction.
In the educational realms, educators
should help their students arrive at the most
adaptive, educationally beneficial causal con-
clusions as possible. For example, the bulk
of the evidence obtained from these findings
of the current study, indicated a student's
first attribution inclination for failure. These
findings supported the attribution theory in
its assumptions that extemalization did not
facilitate leaming, help-seeking, or increased
persistence (Rotter, 1966). In addition, as
some students clearly took blame for their
dismal failures, it could result in debilitating
losses in motivation, adjustment, attitude,
self-efficacy, attribution, locus of control,
and so on. To counteract those "natural"
attribution tendencies, educators should
encourage students to explore the causes of
their academic achievement dissatisfaction,
while guiding them towards achievement-
promoting conclusions about causality.
Although additional research was needed,
several studies suggested that psychological
factors such as locus of control (controllable,
unstable) factors might facilitate academic
achievement satisfaction. Those students
tended to explain their academic achievement
dissatisfaction by making external elements
as the causes of their failure. They should be
therefore exposed to some different internal
elements to change their attributions from
external to internal locus of control.
Finally, the study suggests that students
would probably feel and experience higher
levels of causal elements were they have
longer exposure to influence their academic
achievement satisfaction. Furthermore, the
 128/ Journal of Instmctional Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 2

experience of being psychologically influ- Messina, J. J., 2002. Tools for personal
enced to achieve satisfactorily is primarily Growth handling fear of Success, PhD. Thesis,
individualized and therefore, would tend to accessed in 2002.
be a better refiection of how students in this Millar, B. and Irving, P. (1995). Academic
locus of control in British undergraduate students,
study personally feel about their academic
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65,
achievement satisfaction. 331-340.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies
References for Internal versus External: Washington D. C :
Bar-Tal, D. et al. (1980). The Relationship American Psychological Association.
between Locus of Control and Academic Achieve- Russell, D. W. (1992). Reactions to success
ment, Anxiety, and Level of Aspiration: Journal and failure: An Attributional Analysis: Research
of Educational Psychology, 50, 53-60. Success and Failure, 1 -9.
Butter, R. and Orion, R. (1990). When pupils Salo, K. (1995). Teacher-stress processes:
do not understand of the determinants of their suc- How can they be explained? Scandinavian Journal
cess and failure in school: relationship between of Educational Research, 39: 205-222.
internal, teacher and unknown perceptions of Schneider,B. andLee, Y. (1990). Amodelfor
control and school achievement, British Journal academic success: the school and home environ-
of Educational Psychology, 60, 63-75. ment of East Asian students. Anthropology and
Chandha, N. K. (1989). Causal antecedents Education Quarterly, 21: 358-377.
of self- concept, locus of control and academic Shinn, M. 1973. Secondary school coeduca-
achievement: a path analysis. Psychology, 32, tion and the fear of success and failure, MA. Thesis,
264-268. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Ford, D. Y. and Thomas, A. (1997). Under- Slavin, R. E. (1994). Educational Psychol-
achievement among Gifted minority students: ogy: Theory and Practice, A\lynand'Bacon,\JSA.
problems and promises: the ERIC clear house on 4-^. Ed. P: 2-562.
disabilities and gifted education (ERIC EC) - the Stevenson, H. W. et al. (1993). Mathematics
council for exceptional children, 1-7. achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American
Guthrie, J. T. et al. (1998). Does concept- children: Ten Years Later Science, 259:53-58.
oriented reading instruction increase strategy use Stipek, D. & Iver, D. (1989). Developmental
and conceptual learning from text? Journal of changes in children's assessment of intellectual
Educational Psychology, 90, (2): 261-278. competence: A Review of Child Development,
Kivilu, J. M. and Rogers, W. T. (1997). A 60: 521-538.
multi-level analysis of cultural experience and Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for
gender influences on causal attributions to per- some classroom experiences. Journal of Educa-
ceived performance in mathematics: International tional Psychology, 71: 3-25.
Development Research Centre (IDRC): 25-37. Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation:
Lowenstein, D. (1997). Understanding and metaphors, theories, and research. USA. Sage
helping the slow learner, PhD. Thesis, San Narciso Publication, p. 1-364.
Community, college, accessed in 1997. Weymer, R. A. (2002). Factors Affecting
Mcllroy, B., Bunting, B., and Adamson, Students' Performance in Sixth Grade Modular
G. (2000). An evaluation of the factor structure Technology Education: Journal of Technology
and predictive utility of a test anxiety scale with Education, 13, (2): 34-47.
reference to students' past performance and per- Wyatt,S. A. andMedway,F.J. (1984). Causal
sonality indices: British Journal of Educational attributions of students and student-proctors for
Psychology,10: 17-32. performance on a University Examination: Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 9, 2 5 - 3 7 .