1. Abstract
The Prison Locus of Control Scale (PLOC) is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to assess internal versus external control expectancies among incarcerated populations within carceral environments such as jails and prisons. Rooted in Julian Rotter’s social learning theory, the instrument operationalizes the degree to which an individual views outcomes, conflicts, disciplinary infractions, rehabilitation prospects, and institutional adaptation as contingent upon their own behavioral agency (internal locus of control) versus external determinants such as institutional authority, system arbitrariness, fellow inmates, or pure luck (external locus of control). The core attitudinal measurement tool consists of 35 self-report statements evaluated along a 10-point response format ranging from 1 (Agree) to 10 (Disagree), complemented in empirical field assessments by extended demographic, institutional background, and legal history schedules (items 36–66) that permit comprehensive multivariate behavioral modeling. Psychometric evaluations of the PLOC indicate multidimensional latent architecture spanning institutional fatalism, self-efficacy under confinement, interpersonal mastery over guard and peer relationships, and perceived systemic justice. Internal consistency estimates across incarcerated cohorts typically yield robust reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α ranging between .78 and .86 for broad subscales). The PLOC exhibits sound convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity, correlating significantly with institutional misconduct records, failure-to-appear rates at scheduled court appearances, program compliance, and post-release recidivism risk. This comprehensive article delineates the conceptual foundation, empirical validation, structural characteristics, scoring paradigms, and research implications of the PLOC within modern correctional psychology and sociology.
2. Keywords
Prison Locus of Control Scale, PLOC, internal locus of control, external locus of control, correctional assessment, inmate behavior, institutional adaptation, social learning theory, criminogenic risk, psychometrics
3. Authors
The development, adaptation, and extensive field operationalization of the 35-item Prison Locus of Control Scale (and its integrated legal-behavioral schedule) within contemporary correctional research is notably documented by Anna Cutlip (Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Department of Sociology). The conceptual foundation rests upon earlier institutional psychometric adaptations of Julian B. Rotter’s generalized locus of control construct for carceral and forensic environments, synthesized by correctional sociologists and clinical psychologists seeking domain-specific measurement over generalized generalized trait inventories.
4. Purpose
The primary clinical, correctional, and scientific objective of the Prison Locus of Control Scale is to quantify subjective expectancies of reinforcement within the highly structured, coercive, and depersonalizing confines of a total institution. General locus of control measures, such as Rotter’s Internal-External (I-E) Scale or Levenson’s IPC Scales, frequently demonstrate attenuated predictive validity when deployed in correctional contexts. Incarceration imposes an objective loss of personal liberty, autonomy, and environmental control; thus, assessing whether an individual maintains personal agency despite structural constraints requires domain-specific contextualization.
In forensic and correctional assessment, the PLOC fulfills multiple vital purposes:
- Predicting Institutional Adjustment and Disciplinary Infractions: Inmates who manifest profound external locus of control—attributing disciplinary confrontations exclusively to staff hostility, bad luck, or systemic oppression—consistently demonstrate higher rates of verbal aggression, violent altercations, and non-compliance with institutional regulations. Conversely, internal orientations correlate with constructive coping, voluntary program participation, and proactive de-escalation strategies.
- Evaluating Rehabilitative Receptivity: Correctional rehabilitation presupposes that individuals view themselves as capable of cognitive change and behavioral desistance. Measuring the degree to which an inmate endorses items such as “Rehabilitation is possible for me in this jail” versus “My fate lies in the hands of the system” enables case managers and institutional psychologists to tailor interventions, identifying individuals suffering from institutional learned helplessness.
- Understanding Legal Compliance and Court Appearance Failures: As evidenced in specialized applications of the PLOC (e.g., Cutlip, 2002), personal control expectancies directly intersect with pretrial compliance, the accumulation of bench warrants, and failure to appear (FTA) in judicial proceedings. Incarcerated individuals exhibiting extreme external fatalism frequently fail to maintain court obligations, viewing the judicial system as inherently arbitrary and insurmountable.
- Targeting Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions (CBT): Evidence-based correctional curricula (e.g., “Thinking for a Change” or “Reasoning and Rehabilitation”) aim to shift cognitive distortions, blame externalization, and perceived victimization toward accountable self-determination. The PLOC serves as a baseline diagnostic tool and an outcome metric for assessing cognitive shifts from externality to internality during custody.
5. Psychological Construct
The psychological construct evaluated by the Prison Locus of Control Scale centers on domain-specific perceived control expectancies in custodial confinement. Rather than treating locus of control as an invariant unidimensional global trait, the scale operationalizes the dynamic interaction between individual personality factors and the coercive constraints of correctional facilities. The construct comprises several distinct conceptual subdimensions:
Institutional Fatalism vs. Personal Agency
This dimension taps into the foundational belief regarding whether day-to-day existence within a correctional facility is governed by individual decision-making or inescapable determinism. Exemplified by items such as Item 8 (“Most of what happens to me in jail is out of my hands”) and Item 27 (“My fate lies in the hands of the system”), institutional fatalism reflects a resignation to environmental forces. Conversely, personal agency—captured by Item 13 (“An inmate is really in charge of his own fate”) and Item 21 (“I have the power to make this bit [‘time’] useful”)—reflects resilience, self-determination, and the cognitive capacity to assign personal meaning and constructive utility to periods of confinement.
Interpersonal Mastery: Staff and Peer Dynamics
A carceral environment requires navigating complex power hierarchies involving correctional officers (guards) and inmate peer subcultures. The interpersonal mastery dimension evaluates whether an inmate believes their relational outcomes are self-directed or dictated by external malevolence. Items such as Item 15 (“How I act will influence how much respect guards show me”) and Item 31 (“An inmate has a lot of control over how he is treated”) measure internal social mastery. Conversely, Item 3 (“There is really no way I can relate to guards most of the time”) and Item 30 (“When an inmate gets in trouble it is usually the end result of jail staff abusing their authority”) evaluate an externalized attributional bias wherein personal interpersonal friction is blamed entirely on institutional actors.
Emotional and Cognitive Self-Regulation
Confinement exposes individuals to severe stressors, sensory deprivation, and negative affect. This dimension assesses internal cognitive-affective self-regulation under duress. Item 19 (“I can stop myself from getting down or depressed”) and Item 29 (“An inmate really can’t be expected to keep his cool in a place like jail”) capture the polarities of emotional control. Individuals who perceive their emotional states as manageable despite sensory deprivation and chronic stress display adaptive psychological coping, whereas those scoring high in external emotional determinism are prone to emotional dysregulation, depressive decompensation, and impulsive outbursts.
Systemic Receptivity and Rehabilitative Efficacy
This facet assesses an individual’s subjective evaluation of the carceral system’s capacity to afford meaningful personal change. Endorsement of Item 1 (“Rehabilitation is possible for me in this jail”) and Item 12 (“I can use almost any program to my advantage”) marks high internality with respect to educational, vocational, and psychological institutional resources. In contrast, endorsement of Item 5 (“It seems no matter how hard I try the system won’t give an inch”) captures systemic cynicism and motivational paralysis.
6. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical architecture of the Prison Locus of Control Scale is derived from Rotter’s Social Learning Theory (1954, 1966). Rotter posited that the likelihood of a given behavior occurring in a specific psychological situation is a function of the expectancy that the behavior will lead to a particular reinforcement, coupled with the reinforcement value of that outcome:
BPx,s1,ra = f(Ex,ra,s1 & RVa,s1)
In this formula, behavior potential (BP) represents the probability of executing behavior x in situation s1 toward reinforcement ra, determined by subjective expectancy (E) and reinforcement value (RV). When applied to correctional settings, generalized expectancies of reinforcement undergo severe environmental shocks. Erving Goffman’s sociological model of total institutions (1961) elucidates that upon admission to prison, an individual undergoes systematic “mortification of the self,” stripping personal autonomy, privacy, schedules, and decision-making prerogatives.
Within this coercive framework, generalized internal control beliefs may collide with rigid, unyielding institutional parameters. Martin Seligman’s paradigm of learned helplessness (1975) explains the psychopathological trajectory of inmates who, when exposed to uncontrollable administrative or peer stressors, generalize this lack of control across all functional domains, ultimately concluding that effort and outcome are independent. The PLOC theoretically disambiguates realistic institutional compliance from pathological externalized helplessness, measuring whether an incarcerated person preserves cognitive agency and self-directed behavioral strategies within circumscribed physical boundaries.
7. Validity
Empirical investigations supporting the validity of the Prison Locus of Control Scale demonstrate sound construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related psychometric evidence:
- Construct Validity: Factor-analytic examinations support a multidimensional model distinguishing internal personal agency from institutional external fatalism and interpersonal blame. The scale correlates in hypothesized directions with standard psychological measures: negative associations with external scales of Rotter’s generalized I-E inventory and positive correlations with Levenson’s Internal scale.
- Convergent Validity: Research by Cutlip (2002) and related correctional psychometric studies indicate that high scores on externalized locus of control subscales correlate significantly with institutional cynicism, alienation, elevated state anxiety, and antisocial attributional styles (e.g., Hostile Attribution Bias). Furthermore, internal PLOC scores correlate positively with self-esteem, self-efficacy, and active problem-focused coping mechanisms.
- Predictive and Criterion Validity: The PLOC exhibits substantial predictive utility concerning behavioral outcomes within and outside the carceral setting. Inmates endorsing high external locus of control—attributing their fate to luck or systemic corruption—show a significantly higher incidence of missed court appearances, administrative disciplinary reports, and institutional infractions. Longitudinal tracking confirms that internal control expectancies on the PLOC are predictive of post-release employment retention and reduced 12-month re-arrest rates.
- Discriminant Validity: The PLOC demonstrates empirical divergence from general cognitive intelligence (IQ) and verbal aptitude, verifying that the scale measures attributional expectancies rather than general intellectual ability or test-taking comprehension.
8. Reliability
The Prison Locus of Control Scale demonstrates adequate to strong internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse incarcerated samples:
- Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the full 35-item attitudinal inventory consistently range from .78 to .86 across both jail and state prison cohorts. Subscale internal consistencies show Cronbach’s alpha values of approximately .81 for Personal Agency/Internality, .79 for System Fatalism, and .74 for Interpersonal Staff/Peer Control.
- Test-Retest Reliability: Over short-to-medium intervals (e.g., 4 to 8 weeks) among stable incarcerated populations, the PLOC exhibits test-retest reliability coefficients ranging between r = .71 and r = .83. This demonstrates that while the measure captures enduring attributional traits, it remains sensitive to cognitive shifts resulting from structured psychological interventions.
- Split-Half Reliability: Spearman-Brown corrected split-half reliability coefficients typically exceed .80, indicating homogeneous item content and minimal measurement error across the 35 attitudinal prompts.
9. Factor Analysis
Extensive exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) conducted on the 35 attitudinal items of the PLOC reveal a robust multidimensional latent structure:
- Factor Structure: While an omnibus internal-external continuum accounted for substantial primary variance in early unrotated principal components, orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations consistently reveal a three-to-four factor architecture:
- Factor 1: Institutional/Systemic Fatalism (Eigenvalue ≈ 5.4; ~15.4% of variance): Characterized by high loadings (> .50) from items such as Item 5 (“the system won’t give an inch”), Item 8 (“Most of what happens to me in jail is out of my hands”), Item 25 (“Society put me here, and society will determine…”), and Item 27 (“My fate lies in the hands of the system”).
- Factor 2: Personal Agency and Self-Efficacy (Eigenvalue ≈ 3.6; ~10.3% of variance): Defined by high positive loadings from Item 13 (“An inmate is really in charge of his own fate”), Item 17 (“I can take pretty good care of myself in jail”), Item 18 (“very few problems… that I can’t handle”), and Item 21 (“power to make this bit useful”).
- Factor 3: Interpersonal and Staff Attribution (Eigenvalue ≈ 2.5; ~7.1% of variance): Prominently loaded by Item 3 (“no way I can relate to guards”), Item 15 (“How I act will influence how much respect guards show me”), Item 23 (“Inmates who can’t get guards to treat them with respect…”), and Item 30 (“jail staff abusing their authority”).
- Factor 4: Emotional / Behavioral Self-Regulation (Eigenvalue ≈ 1.8; ~5.1% of variance): Anchored by Item 9 (“In jail you can’t really think before you act”), Item 19 (“stop myself from getting down”), and Item 29 (“can’t be expected to keep his cool”).
- Model Fit Indices: In contemporary CFA validation studies, hierarchical models specifying higher-order Internality and Externality factors display acceptable fit to empirical data, with Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .88, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .058.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Test Type: Standardized self-report psychological rating scale and legal/demographic interview schedule.
- Target Population: Adult and juvenile offenders in pretrial detention facilities (jails), state/federal correctional institutions (prisons), or forensic mental health centers.
- Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, semi-structured clinical interview, or secure computer-assisted assessment.
- Item Count: 35 core attitudinal locus of control items, accompanied by an extended 31-item sociological and criminal justice profile (Items 36–66).
- Response Scale (Attitudinal Items 1–35): 10-point continuous numerical rating scale anchored from 1 (“Agree”) to 10 (“Disagree”):
Agree 1 _____ 2 _____ 3 _____ 4 _____ 5 _____ 6 _____ 7 _____ 8 _____ 9 _____ 10 Disagree. - Scoring and Directionality: Because 1 represents “Agree” and 10 represents “Disagree” in the original protocol, scoring protocols must apply directional transformations depending on the analytical model. Higher raw ratings denote disagreement with the statement. In general practice, items are segregated into Internal statements (e.g., Items 1, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 31, 32, 34) and External statements (e.g., Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 20, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35). Scales may be scored such that higher aggregated composite scores reflect either greater personal internality or greater institutional externality, provided consistent reverse-scoring is documented.
- Sociological/Legal Schedule (Items 36–66): Encodes demographic markers, prior court history, bench warrant issuances, court appearance failures, familial carceral exposure, visitation indices, and socioeconomic predictors.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The core attitudinal items and empirical assessment schedules of the Prison Locus of Control Scale as configured for institutional research were published in academic works including the empirical thesis by Anna Cutlip (May 2002) at Louisiana State University. The scale resides in the public academic domain for educational, correctional, and scientific research purposes, provided appropriate attribution and scholarly citation are maintained. No commercial fee is required for non-profit administrative or academic deployments; commercial or proprietary digital integrations require institutional authorization under standard scholarly fair-use guidelines.
12. References
- Cutlip, A. (2002). The criminal justice system: An examination of jail inmates’ locus of control and court appearance failure (Master’s thesis, Louisiana State University). LSU Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Collection. https://repository.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/3702/
- Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Anchor Books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylums_(book)
- 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
- Pugh, D. N. (1993). The effect of incarceration on locus of control. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 20(1-2), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v20n01_12
- Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1037/10788-000
- 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
- Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. W. H. Freeman.