Abstract
The Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Scale, commonly known as the Levenson IPC Scale (Levenson, 1973, 1981), is a premier 24-item psychometric assessment engineered to measure an individual’s generalized expectancies regarding control over life events. Developed as a direct theoretical refinement and psychometric advancement over Julian B. Rotter’s unidimensional Internal-External (I-E) locus of control continuum (Rotter, 1966), the IPC scale conceptualizes perceived control as multidimensional rather than bipolar. Levenson hypothesized that categorizing external attribution into a single unitary construct confounded two distinct causal domains: control attributed to orderly, predictable forces controlled by social actors (Powerful Others) versus control attributed to unordered, random, and unpredictable forces (Chance). Simultaneously, the instrument maintains an independent metric for personal agency (Internality).
The scale consists of three orthogonal or semi-independent 8-item subscales: the Internal (I) Scale, the Powerful Others (P) Scale, and the Chance (C) Scale. Each item is rated on a 6-point, zero-centered Likert-type response format extending from -3 (Strongly Disagree) to +3 (Strongly Agree). Psychometric investigations across clinical, community, and collegiate samples establish satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas generally ranging from .64 to .77 for the I scale, .77 to .82 for the P scale, and .73 to .79 for the C scale) and strong test-retest stability (.60 to .79 across periods ranging from one week to seven weeks). Factor analytic evaluations routinely confirm a three-factor solution that demonstrates construct, convergent, and discriminant validity across psychiatric populations, organizational settings, and behavioral health research.
Keywords
Levenson IPC Scale, Locus of Control, Multidimensional Locus of Control, Internality, Powerful Others, Chance, Attribution Theory, Expectancy Theory, Psychometrics, Julian Rotter, Hanna Levenson
Authors
The Levenson IPC Scale was conceptualized, constructed, and psychometrically validated by Hanna Levenson, Ph.D.
- Institutional Affiliation: Dr. Levenson conducted her foundational empirical work on the scale at Texas A&M University and the University of California, Berkeley. She is currently a Professor at the Wright Institute in Berkeley, California, and maintains leadership at the Levenson Institute for Training (LIFT).
- Professional Background: Dr. Levenson is an internationally acclaimed clinical psychologist, researcher, and author renowned for her foundational contributions to brief dynamic interpersonal psychotherapy and social-personality assessment.
- Contact and Licensing Administration: Levenson Institute for Training (LIFT), 2323 Sacramento St., 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94115.
Purpose
The primary purpose of the Levenson IPC Scale is to provide a granular, differentiated assessment of an individual’s causal attribution system. In historical clinical practice and social psychology, researchers observed marked inconsistencies when utilizing Rotter’s unidimensional I-E Scale. Rotter’s conceptualization forced an individual to choose between personal agency and external determination in a forced-choice format, presupposing that belief in external determination was homogeneous.
Levenson (1973, 1981) recognized that combining faith in powerful sociopolitical agents or authority figures with beliefs in pure luck, fate, or cosmic chaos generated theoretical ambiguity. For example, individuals who perceive that their outcomes are contingent upon powerful others may still perceive the social universe as structured, systematic, and predictable; consequently, they can engage in proactive, strategic behaviors such as political maneuvering, diplomacy, compliance, or coalition-building. Conversely, individuals who believe their life outcomes are dictated entirely by chance, fate, or stochastic events perceive the world as fundamentally chaotic, rendering purposeful planning or cognitive coping futile. The IPC Scale was designed to dismantle this confound, offering three discrete continuous scores rather than a forced binary categorization.
In clinical psychology and neuropsychiatry, the IPC Scale serves as a diagnostic and prognostic tool. It is widely used to evaluate learned helplessness, depressive symptomatology, compliance with medical or therapeutic regimens, coping styles in chronic illness (e.g., oncology, cardiology, chronic pain management), and the psychological sequelae of structural trauma or socio-political disempowerment. In organizational and industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology, the instrument clarifies how managerial leadership, supervisory dynamics, and institutional autonomy influence employee performance, stress resistance, and entrepreneurial drive.
Psychological Construct
The construct assessed by the IPC Scale is perceived generalized expectancies regarding control, partitioned into three theoretically discrete dimensions:
1. The Internal (I) Scale
The Internal (I) Scale evaluates the degree to which an individual believes that personal mastery, effort, cognitive competence, and individual actions dictate the course of their life. High scorers maintain that personal agency is the primary causal agent in obtaining reinforcements and averting negative consequences. Examples within this dimension include believing that becoming a leader depends on personal capability, that personal interests are self-defensible, and that reaching goals is a direct function of hard work. Conversely, low scorers on the I Scale reflect a state of psychological resignation, believing that their personal attributes or behavioral choices exert minimal bearing on consequential outcomes.
2. The Powerful Others (P) Scale
The Powerful Others (P) Scale measures the degree to which an individual perceives their outcomes to be governed by people who possess formal authority, socioeconomic dominance, institutional leverage, or systemic power. These powerful agents may comprise parents, employers, physicians, governmental entities, or social pressure groups. Unlike chance-based fatalism, high scoring on the P Scale reflects an assessment of human social hierarchies. A person with high P expectancies views the environment as ordered and controlled, but external to their own direct volition, necessitating compliance, appeasement, or strategic negotiation with authority figures to achieve desired goals.
3. The Chance (C) Scale
The Chance (C) Scale measures the perception that the world is chaotic, random, unpredictable, and governed by luck, fortune, or unavoidable destiny. High scorers on the C Scale view the connection between behavioral expenditure and subsequent reinforcement as fundamentally severed. Whether one avoids an automobile accident, secures an occupational post, or sustains interpersonal relationships is perceived as a function of stochastic fluctuations or fate. Individuals demonstrating elevated C scores frequently exhibit chronic passive coping mechanisms, an externalized explanatory style, and elevated vulnerability to anxiety and demoralization, as planning for the future is construed as irrational.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical architecture of the Levenson IPC Scale is rooted in Julian B. Rotter’s Social Learning Theory (1954, 1966, 1982). Rotter postulated that the potential for a specific behavior to occur in a given psychological situation is a function of the expectancy that the behavior will lead to a particular reinforcement, coupled with the subjective value of that reinforcement:
Behavior Potential = f(Expectancy, Reinforcement Value)
Rotter differentiated between generalized expectancies (trans-situational cognitive beliefs concerning the causal link between behavior and reward) and specific expectancies (context-bound anticipations). Generalized expectancies emerge across cumulative learning histories wherein an individual abstracts patterns regarding whether behavioral outcomes are contingent upon their own characteristics (an internal locus of control) or governed by factors outside their personal control (an external locus of control).
Despite its widespread utility, Rotter’s initial 29-item unidimensional scale was subjected to rigorous theoretical critique by Levenson, Gurin, Lao, and others. The primary theoretical critiques addressed by Levenson included:
- The Confound of External Control: Rotter’s paradigm collapsed social authority and stochastic randomness into an undifferentiated “external” category. Levenson argued that perceiving social systems as dominated by powerful others does not inherently indicate fatalism. Systemic awareness of structural barriers (e.g., socioeconomic stratification or institutional discrimination) can coexist with high personal agency.
- Forced-Choice Methodology Vulnerabilities: Rotter’s I-E Scale utilized a forced-choice dyadic format designed to control for social desirability, but this design conflated measurement dimensions by mandating an inverse mathematical relationship between internal and external attributions. Levenson decoupled these domains by employing independent continuous Likert-type metrics, allowing individuals to score simultaneously high on Internality and Powerful Others, or low on all three dimensions.
- Ego-Orientation versus Ideological Generalization: Levenson formulated the IPC items specifically with an individualized self-referential focus (“I”, “me”, “my plans”) rather than broad sociocultural assertions about people in general (“People are…”). This ensured that the scale measured the respondent’s personal expectancies of control rather than their ideological or political worldview.
Validity
The Levenson IPC Scale has undergone extensive psychometric validation across thousands of participants across international clinical, non-clinical, student, and occupational samples.
Construct and Convergent Validity
Levenson (1973, 1974) demonstrated construct validity by evaluating clinical psychiatric samples alongside normative undergraduate populations. In comparative studies, psychiatric inpatients demonstrated significantly elevated scores on both the Powerful Others (P) and Chance (C) scales relative to normal controls, while their Internal (I) scores were significantly depressed, illustrating the expected feelings of powerlessness and unpredictability accompanying severe psychological distress. Furthermore, the correlation between Levenson’s I scale and Rotter’s original I-E scale typically yields moderate negative correlations (ranging from r = -.35 to -.45, recalling that high scores on Rotter’s scale signify external control), whereas Rotter’s scale correlates positively and substantially with both the P scale (r = .40 to .55) and the C scale (r = .50 to .60), directly corroborating that Rotter’s metric collapsed two divergent external constructs.
Discriminant Validity
Levenson’s operationalization successfully separates the scales from major confounding response biases. Correlations between the three IPC scales and the Edwards Social Desirability Scale and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale are minimal and typically non-significant (ranging from r = -.12 to .08). Additionally, while the P and C scales generally exhibit a modest positive intercorrelation (r = .45 to .58), demonstrating that people who perceive life as uncontrolled by the self often recognize both powerful humans and random chance as operative agents, the I scale correlates near zero with both the P scale (r = -.15 to .05) and the C scale (r = -.25 to -.10), confirming the psychometric independence of internality from external domains.
Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity
The scale possesses robust predictive utility in diverse environments. In behavioral health studies, individuals suffering from chronic medical conditions (such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or epilepsy) who present elevated I scores show superior disease management, active coping styles, and adherence to medical regimens. Conversely, high C scores reliably predict depressive symptoms, learned helplessness, psychological distress, and passive resignation. In political and community activism contexts, Levenson (1974) demonstrated that individuals who engaged in organized political collective action scored high on the Internal scale and simultaneously high on the Powerful Others scale, reflecting an understanding that system change requires confronting entrenched power structures through purposeful personal effort.
Reliability
The Levenson IPC Scale demonstrates robust and reproducible reliability parameters across psychometric literature:
Internal Consistency
Across diverse adult, adolescent, and cross-cultural cohorts, estimates of internal consistency measured via Cronbach’s coefficient alpha have proven consistent given that each subscale contains only 8 items:
- Internal (I) Scale: Cronbach’s α typically ranges from .64 to .77. In Levenson’s original sample of 152 undergraduate students, Kuder-Richardson reliabilities (split-half with Spearman-Brown correction) reached .64. Subsequent large-scale replications have consistently reported alphas between .70 and .77.
- Powerful Others (P) Scale: Cronbach’s α typically ranges from .77 to .82. Split-half reliability in the initial standardization sample was calculated at .77.
- Chance (C) Scale: Cronbach’s α typically ranges from .73 to .79, reflecting high internal item congruence. Split-half reliability in initial validation yielded .78.
Test-Retest Stability
Temporal stability of the IPC Scale has been verified across various follow-up intervals:
- Levenson (1973) documented test-retest coefficients over a one-week interval of r = .64 for the I Scale, r = .74 for the P Scale, and r = .78 for the C Scale among a non-clinical collegiate sample.
- Over extended evaluation intervals (such as six to eight weeks), test-retest correlations remain stable, generally observed between r = .60 and r = .73, confirming that the scale captures enduring generalized personality orientations while retaining appropriate sensitivity to major therapeutic interventions or systemic life shifts.
Factor Analysis
The structural validity of the Levenson IPC Scale has been extensively evaluated via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Exploratory Factor Structure
Levenson’s (1972, 1973) foundational principal components factor analysis with varimax orthogonal rotation performed on the 24 items revealed three distinct, theoretically congruent factors accounting for substantial cumulative variance:
- Factor 1 (Powerful Others): Items 3, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, and 22 consistently load heavily onto this factor, with primary factor loadings typically ranging between .45 and .78. These items share unambiguous themes regarding submission to authority figures, pressure groups, and hierarchical superiors.
- Factor 2 (Chance): Items 2, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 24 load distinctly onto this factor, with standardized loadings ranging between .40 and .75. These items index random accidents, luck, fate, and general unpredictability.
- Factor 3 (Internality): Items 1, 4, 5, 9, 18, 19, 21, and 23 load exclusively onto this factor, with factor loadings ranging from .42 to .72, capturing personal mastery, self-efficacy, and behavioral accountability.
Cross-loadings across these factors are typically minimal (rarely exceeding .25 on non-target dimensions), verifying the distinct conceptual boundaries among the three subscales.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Fit
Subsequent modern CFA investigations evaluating competing structural models have repeatedly indicated that a three-factor oblique or orthogonal model demonstrates vastly superior goodness-of-fit indices compared to unidimensional (Rotter-style) or two-factor (Internal vs. External) representations. Fit indices across non-clinical adult samples typically show robust performance: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .90, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .06. These structural investigations substantiate Levenson’s theoretical proposition that the external attribution realm must be parsed into interpersonal dominance (P) and stochastic uncertainty (C).
Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Test Type: Self-report psychological rating scale / psychometric inventory.
- Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or secure digital survey administration; group or individual administration.
- Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 14 and older; minimum 6th-to-8th grade reading level).
- Item Count: Exactly 24 items, partitioned into three discrete subscales of 8 items each.
- Response Format: A 6-point, zero-centered Likert-type continuum without a neutral midpoint:
- +3 = Agree strongly
- +2 = Agree somewhat
- +1 = Agree slightly
- -1 = Disagree slightly
- -2 = Disagree somewhat
- -3 = Disagree strongly
- Item-to-Scale Mapping:
- Internal (I) Scale: Items 1, 4, 5, 9, 18, 19, 21, 23.
- Powerful Others (P) Scale: Items 3, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22.
- Chance (C) Scale: Items 2, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 24.
- Scoring Rules & Computation:
- The scale is designed to avoid negative scoring indices in statistical analysis. To compute subscale scores, sum the raw values assigned to the eight respective items of each subscale (which mathematically range from -24 to +24).
- To eliminate negative totals, add an invariant constant of +24 to each subscale sum:
- Internal Score = 24 + (∑ raw responses for items 1, 4, 5, 9, 18, 19, 21, 23)
- Powerful Others Score = 24 + (∑ raw responses for items 3, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22)
- Chance Score = 24 + (∑ raw responses for items 2, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 24)
- Each of the three resulting subscale scores ranges along a continuous spectrum from 0 to 48. A high score denotes a high degree of generalized expectancy in that specific dimension. No single “total composite score” is computed, as the three dimensions are independent.
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
- Original Publication Year: 1972 (initial empirical conference presentation/dissertation research) and 1973 (formal primary publication in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology). Extended in 1981 in Research with the Locus of Control Construct.
- Copyright Holder: Dr. Hanna Levenson / Levenson Institute for Training (LIFT).
- Academic and Non-Commercial Research Use: The scale has historically been widely made available in academic psychometrics compendiums for non-commercial, scholarly, educational, and scientific research. However, formal permission for clinical utilization, publication in test batteries, or commercial deployment should be obtained from the author/copyright holder: Hannah Levenson, Ph.D., Levenson Institute for Training (LIFT), 2323 Sacramento St., 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94115.
- Fee: Generally free for non-funded academic research and student dissertations, subject to author policy and acknowledgment of source. Commercial application requires direct licensing.
References
- Levenson, H. (1972). Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control: Development of a new scale. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 7, 261–262. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-27756-001
- Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41(3), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035357
- Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38(4), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1974.10119988
- Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the Locus of Control Construct (Vol. 1, pp. 15–63). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-443201-7.50006-3
- Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory & Research (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1037/11382-000
- Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
- 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(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076301