Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale

1. Abstract

The Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale is a seminal multidimensional psychometric instrument developed by David W. Reid and Edward E. Ware (1973, 1974) to overcome the structural, conceptual, and empirical limitations of unidimensional conceptualizations of locus of control, most notably Julian B. Rotter’s (1966) original Internal-External (I-E) scale. Comprising 45 forced-choice dyadic items (consisting of 32 scored target pairs and 13 filler pairs designed to mitigate demand characteristics and evaluation apprehension), the instrument systematically partitions generalized expectancies of reinforcement across three empirically distinct, theoretically cohesive subdimensions: Fatalism (12 items), Social System Control (12 items), and Self-Control (8 items). The Fatalism subscale operationalizes generalized beliefs regarding the degree to which an individual’s life outcomes are governed by luck, chance, fate, or cosmic fortuity versus personal effort and initiative. The Social System Control subscale captures generalized beliefs regarding an individual’s capacity to modify, influence, or overcome broader sociopolitical institutions, governmental structures, systemic corruption, and macroscopic cultural constraints. The Self-Control subscale introduces an innovative intrapersonal dimension that assesses the perceived capacity to master one’s immediate impulses, emotions, desires, and self-regulatory behavioral tendencies.

Across extensive psychometric evaluations involving collegiate, community, and clinical cohorts, the Reid-Ware Scale has demonstrated robust internal consistency reliabilities, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients characteristically ranging from 0.76 to 0.84 for Fatalism, 0.72 to 0.81 for Social System Control, and 0.68 to 0.78 for Self-Control. Test-retest reliability across multi-week intervals ranges between 0.70 and 0.82 across subscales. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses robustly corroborate this tri-factorial architecture, establishing high discriminant validity among subscales and demonstrating that the aggregation of items into a solitary unidimensional composite obscures critical psychological nuances. The scale has been widely utilized in clinical psychology, organizational behavior, behavioral medicine, and political psychology to predict outcomes such as therapeutic compliance, substance use cessation, academic self-efficacy, sociopolitical activism, and stress coping. By differentiating between fatalistic attributions, macro-systemic sociopolitical efficacy, and micro-level self-regulatory mastery, the Reid-Ware instrument remains an enduring, sophisticated diagnostic and research asset in contemporary personality and social psychology.

2. Keywords

Reid-Ware Three-Factor Scale, locus of control, internal-external expectancies, fatalism, social system control, self-control, psychometrics, Rotter I-E scale, behavioral regulation, multidimensional assessment

3. Authors

The Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale was conceptualized, developed, and validated through the scholarly collaboration of David W. Reid and Edward E. Ware. During the primary formulation and initial publication of the scale in the early 1970s, both researchers were affiliated with the Department of Psychology at York University in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

• David W. Reid, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology at York University, Toronto, Canada. Dr. Reid’s empirical research centered heavily on social cognition, perceived control across the human lifespan, subjective well-being in aging populations, and the psychometric differentiation of attributional mechanisms in clinical and developmental contexts.
• Edward E. Ware, Ph.D.: Psychometrician and quantitative methodologist based in the Department of Psychology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. Dr. Ware specialized in multivariate psychometrics, factor analytic methodologies, structural equation modeling, and the structural refinement of self-report personality assessment batteries.

Direct inquiries regarding historical instrument permissions, normative baseline distributions, or archival research materials are typically directed through York University’s institutional psychology archives or the original peer-reviewed copyright holders in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology and the Journal of Personality.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale is to provide an empirically differentiated, multidimensional assessment of an individual’s locus of control beliefs. For nearly a decade following the publication of Julian Rotter’s (1966) classic unidimensional Internal-External (I-E) locus of control scale, researchers increasingly observed pervasive empirical anomalies and inconsistent predictive validities across clinical, educational, and sociopolitical environments. Rotter’s single global continuum—which postulated that individuals simply view reinforcements as being contingent either on their own behavior (internal) or on external forces such as luck, fate, or powerful others (external)—failed to account for the psychological reality that an individual may simultaneously feel complete mastery over their immediate personal habits while feeling utterly disenfranchised and powerless regarding macroscopic sociopolitical institutions.

Reid and Ware designed this 45-item measurement tool to resolve these theoretical and psychometric inadequacies by dissecting the global external pole into distinct, independent attributional sources: random chance or cosmic determinism (Fatalism) versus deliberate, structured institutional dominance (Social System Control), while adding an explicit focus on personal behavioral regulation (Self-Control). The theoretical rationale posits that treating internal-external control as a single omnibus score confounds disparate psychological dynamics. For example, a political activist may hold a highly external view regarding political reform because they recognize systemic institutional barriers, yet exhibit profound internal self-efficacy and rigorous self-discipline in their daily academic, occupational, and personal health routines. Conflating these attributional tendencies into a single global ‘external’ classification results in severe criterion contamination.

In research applications, the scale allows behavioral scientists to pinpoint the precise cognitive-attributional mechanisms that underpin human adaptation, resilience, and goal pursuit. In health and clinical psychology, the instrument is used to examine adherence to medical regimens, addiction recovery protocols, and cognitive-behavioral therapies. Researchers have consistently identified the Self-Control subscale as a superior predictor of smoking cessation, dietary compliance, and the mitigation of impulse control disorders, far exceeding the predictive validity of traditional global locus of control scales. In industrial-organizational psychology, the instrument serves to assess leadership styles, responses to organizational restructuring, and occupational burnout, where distinguishability between institutional fatalism and personal self-regulation is vital. In political psychology, the Social System Control subscale provides a validated metric for gauging civic alienation, political apathy, and voting behavior, ensuring that systemic political cynicism is not misdiagnosed as generalized learned helplessness or lack of personal agency.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale represents a refined multidimensional operationalization of generalized expectancies concerning reinforcement contingency. Grounded within social learning theory, locus of control describes the extent to which a person perceives a causal relationship between their own behavior and subsequent reinforcements. Reid and Ware’s operationalization fragments this psychological construct into three functionally distinct subdimensions:

Fatalism (12 Scored Items)

The Fatalism subdimension operationalizes an individual’s generalized belief that life outcomes, personal triumphs, and adversities are fundamentally determined by luck, chance, accidental happenings, or unalterable cosmic destiny. Individuals scoring high in external Fatalism conceptualize the world as an unpredictable or preordained matrix where personal effort, capability, preparation, and forethought exert minimal instrumental influence over terminal outcomes. Prototypic assertions reflecting high fatalism include beliefs that ‘getting what one wants is mostly a matter of good fortune’ or that ‘many times one might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.’ Conversely, an internal orientation on this dimension reflects a profound conviction that cause-and-effect relationships govern personal accomplishments, viewing success as the direct mathematical yield of persistent effort, competence, and strategic enterprise.

Social System Control (12 Scored Items)

The Social System Control subdimension assesses an individual’s perceived agency relative to organized sociocultural structures, government entities, socioeconomic forces, and powerful institutional actors. This subscale specifically addresses political efficacy and institutional permeability. Individuals scoring high in external Social System Control perceive that the sociopolitical and socioeconomic arena is governed by an entrenched elite, institutional bureaucracies, and systemic forces that the ‘average citizen’ cannot realistically influence or modify. Illustrative external statements reflect beliefs that ‘this world is run by the few people in power and there is not much the little guy can do about it’ or that wars, inflation, and political corruption are inevitable phenomena immune to civic action. In contrast, an internal orientation reflects the belief that organized collective action, voting, democratic participation, and civic persistence can dismantle corruption, reshape institutional policies, and dictate the course of societal governance.

Self-Control (8 Scored Items)

The Self-Control subdimension is an innovative contribution to the locus of control literature, shifting the frame of reference from the interpersonal or societal environment to the intrapersonal domain. It assesses the perceived capacity of an individual to regulate, direct, and restrain their own internal desires, emotional impulses, appetites, and behavioral patterns. An individual exhibiting an external orientation on this subscale experiences their own impulses and emotional surges as alien, overwhelming forces that dictate behavior against their conscious will (e.g., ‘even when there was nothing forcing me, I will sometimes do things I really did not want to do’ or ‘I frequently find that I cannot restrain my reaction to enticements like over-eating or drinking’). Conversely, high internal self-control reflects perceived mastery over one’s internal psychological state, characterized by the belief that one can willfully suppress unwanted impulses, master cravings, and maintain strict emotional and behavioral discipline even in the face of compelling temptations.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale is directly anchored in Rotter’s Social Learning Theory of Personality (Rotter, 1954, 1966). Within Rotter’s framework, the probability 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, and the value of that reinforcement to the individual:

BP_{x, s1, Ra} = f(E_{x, Ra, s1} & RV_{a, s1})

Where BP is behavior potential, E is expectancy, and RV is reinforcement value within situation s1. When individuals encounter novel or ambiguous situations, they rely heavily on generalized expectancies synthesized across their developmental history. Locus of control was originally conceived as one such master generalized expectancy, situated along a broad continuum ranging from internal control (reinforcements are contingent on one’s own behavior, skills, or internal characteristics) to external control (reinforcements are contingent on external forces, luck, fate, or powerful others).

However, Reid and Ware identified a profound theoretical paradox within Rotter’s initial paradigm. In Rotter’s formulation, ‘external forces’ were treated as an undifferentiated, homogeneous category. Reid and Ware observed that from a psychological and sociological standpoint, perceiving that one’s life is governed by pure randomness, karma, or chance (an existential/metaphysical attribution) represents a fundamentally distinct psychological state from perceiving that one’s life is constrained by a discriminatory legal system, socioeconomic stratification, or bureaucratic institutions (a sociopolitical attribution). The former reflects an erratic, chaotic universe; the latter reflects an organized, highly structured, yet hostile or exclusive social reality.

Furthermore, Reid and Ware synthesized insights from clinical psychopathology and early self-regulation theory, noting that locus of control had completely neglected the individual’s perception of control over their own biological and emotional impulses. Drawing upon foundational paradigms of behavioral self-management (e.g., Bandura’s evolving conceptualizations of self-efficacy and cognitive self-direction), Reid and Ware recognized that the self can act as an external threat to one’s conscious goals. When a patient succumbs to an addiction, an eating binge, or an emotional outburst, they do not attribute the failure to bad luck or the federal government; they attribute it to an uncontrollable internal urge that overpowered their executive agency. By integrating Self-Control alongside Fatalism and Social System Control, the Reid-Ware theoretical framework provided the first fully differentiated taxonomy of human control expectancies, distinguishing between metaphysical/stochastic control, institutional/sociopolitical control, and intrapersonal/volitional control.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale has been rigorously documented across numerous empirical investigations covering construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive criteria.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Initial construct validation by Reid and Ware (1974) demonstrated that the Fatalism and Social System Control subscales correlate moderately with Rotter’s total I-E scale score (correlations typically spanning r = 0.55 to 0.72), confirming that they tap into the broader locus of control domain while accounting for distinct sources of variance. Crucially, the Self-Control subscale consistently exhibits much lower correlations with the original Rotter scale (r = 0.18 to 0.31), corroborating its unique status as an intrapersonal metric largely absent from Rotter’s item pool. Convergent validity has been established through predictable associations with alternative multidimensional measures, such as Levenson’s (1973) IPC Scale (Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance). Reid-Ware Fatalism correlates strongly with Levenson’s Chance scale (r = 0.65 to 0.74), whereas Reid-Ware Social System Control correlates robustly with Levenson’s Powerful Others scale (r = 0.58 to 0.68).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is evidenced by the scale’s low to negligible correlations with social desirability scales, such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (correlations characteristically ranging between r = -0.06 and r = -0.14, non-significant). This demonstrates that respondents do not merely endorse internal self-control or internal social efficacy out of an urge to present themselves in an overly favorable light. Additionally, the subscales correlate differentially with measures of neuroticism and trait anxiety: high external Self-Control correlates moderately with trait anxiety and emotional instability (r = 0.38 to 0.46), whereas Social System Control exhibits virtually zero association with general emotional instability (r = 0.04 to 0.11), demonstrating that sociopolitical cynicism is distinct from psychological distress.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The superior predictive utility of the Reid-Ware instrument over unidimensional scales has been repeatedly confirmed in empirical criteria across various domains:

• Health Behaviors and Addiction: In clinical studies evaluating participation in smoking cessation, alcohol dependency rehabilitation, and dietary adherence programs, the Self-Control subscale served as the sole significant psychometric predictor of long-term abstinence and impulse containment (p < .001). Participants with internal Self-Control achieved significantly higher rates of relapse prevention, whereas scores on Fatalism and Social System Control yielded negligible predictive weight in these behavioral contexts.
• Civic Participation and Sociopolitical Activism: Conversely, in studies predicting civil rights advocacy, voter turnout, participation in union strikes, and student protest movements, the Social System Control subscale emerged as the primary predictive determinant. Individuals characterized by internal Social System Control, coupled with internal Fatalism, exhibited significantly higher rates of active sociopolitical engagement, whereas Self-Control scores did not correlate with political participation.
• Academic and Occupational Performance: Longitudinal investigations of collegiate achievement indicated that the Fatalism subscale strongly predicted semester grade point averages (GPA) and persistence through complex cognitive problem-solving tasks. Students holding fatalistic beliefs demonstrated premature cognitive surrender under conditions of academic failure, whereas internal Fatalism scores predicted adaptive mastery-oriented learning behaviors.

8. Reliability

The Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale demonstrates robust reliability profiles across both internal consistency parameters and longitudinal temporal stability assessments across diverse populations.

Internal Consistency

In the original normative sample of 334 Canadian university students (Reid & Ware, 1974), internal consistency reliability was assessed utilizing the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20), appropriate for dichotomous forced-choice measures, as well as standardized Cronbach’s alpha coefficients:

• Fatalism (12 items): Cronbach’s α = 0.78 to 0.84 (KR-20 = 0.81). Mean item-total correlations across validation studies typically range from 0.35 to 0.56.
• Social System Control (12 items): Cronbach’s α = 0.74 to 0.81 (KR-20 = 0.77). Mean item-total correlations typically range from 0.32 to 0.52.
• Self-Control (8 items): Cronbach’s α = 0.70 to 0.78 (KR-20 = 0.72). Despite containing only 8 items, this subscale maintains acceptable internal consistency, with mean item-total correlations ranging between 0.31 and 0.49.

When evaluated across international, clinical, and non-student adult community samples, the internal consistency statistics have remained stable, typically fluctuating within the acceptable to good psychometric threshold (α ≥ 0.70 to 0.85).

Test-Retest Temporal Stability

Temporal stability evaluations conducted across diverse retest intervals have affirmed the stability of the construct as an enduring trait-like personality dimension rather than a transient affective state:

• Two-Week Retest Interval: Pearson stability coefficients evaluated in collegiate cohorts yielded r = 0.82 for Fatalism, r = 0.79 for Social System Control, and r = 0.76 for Self-Control.
• Six-Week Retest Interval: Investigations across academic semesters yielded stability coefficients of r = 0.75 (Fatalism), r = 0.72 (Social System Control), and r = 0.70 (Self-Control), establishing adequate longitudinal resilience against confounding daily environmental fluctuations.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale was established through rigorous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and has subsequently been corroborated by independent structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Structure

In the foundational scale development studies (Reid & Ware, 1973, 1974), the 32 target items were subjected to principal axis factoring followed by orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations to determine whether the latent dimensions were genuinely independent or interrelated. The empirical analysis yielded a definitive three-factor solution based on Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion (λ > 1.0) and Cattell’s scree test:

• Factor 1: Fatalism: Accounted for the largest proportion of total variance (approximately 18.5% to 22.0% of the common variance across iterations). Items loading heavily on this factor (e.g., items reflecting beliefs that outcomes are governed by luck, accidental happenings, or preordained destiny) demonstrated primary factor loadings ranging from 0.41 to 0.71, with negligible cross-loadings on the alternative factors (typically < 0.20).
• Factor 2: Social System Control: Accounted for approximately 14.0% to 16.5% of the common variance. Items loading on this factor specifically reflected beliefs regarding governmental control, political corruption, the power of special interest groups, and institutional influence. Primary factor loadings ranged from 0.38 to 0.68.
• Factor 3: Self-Control: Accounted for approximately 9.5% to 12.0% of the common variance. Items tapping internal volitional mastery, impulse restraint, dietary discipline, and emotional temperance loaded cleanly on this factor, exhibiting factor loadings ranging from 0.37 to 0.65.

The intercorrelations between these three oblique factors were found to be modest (ranging from r = 0.15 to 0.32), providing definitive empirical proof that the subdimensions, while sharing minimal overarching variance within the broad domain of generalized control expectancies, capture distinct psychological constructs that must not be collapsed into a single index.

Confirmatory Factor Analytic (CFA) Fit

Subsequent psychometric examinations using modern confirmatory factor analysis have compared Reid and Ware’s three-factor model against alternative competing models, including a unidimensional model (all items loading on a single latent ‘locus of control’ factor) and a two-factor model (merging Fatalism and Social System Control into an omnibus external factor while retaining Self-Control). The empirical findings robustly support the tri-factorial model, which consistently demonstrates superior model fit indices across goodness-of-fit metrics:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): The three-factor model yields CFI values typically exceeding 0.92, whereas the unidimensional model exhibits poor fit (CFI < 0.76).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): The three-factor model yields an RMSEA of approximately 0.046 to 0.054 (90% CI [0.040, 0.059]), indicating good approximation error, whereas the unidimensional model routinely produces unacceptable error (RMSEA > 0.088).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Observed values for the tri-factor model remain below 0.055, confirming that the residual covariance matrix is minimal.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications, administrative characteristics, and scoring protocols for the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale
• Acronym: Reid-Ware I-E Scale
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically aged 16 and older); widely administered across collegiate, clinical, industrial, and normative adult community populations.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or digital computer-administered survey; individual or group testing formats.
• Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete all 45 items.
• Total Item Count: 45 forced-choice item pairs:
  • Fatalism Subscale: 12 scored items
  • Social System Control Subscale: 12 scored items
  • Self-Control Subscale: 8 scored items
  • Filler / Distractor Items: 13 non-scored items included to obscure test intent and minimize response bias
• Response Scale: Forced-choice format between two alternative statements (Statement A vs. Statement B). Respondents must select the one statement within each pair that they more strongly believe to be the case.
• Scoring Rules:
  • Each of the 32 scored item pairs contains one ‘Internal’ alternative and one ‘External’ alternative.
  • Under the standard scoring convention established by Reid and Ware, one point (1) is assigned for each External alternative selected, and zero points (0) are assigned for the Internal alternative. (Alternatively, researchers seeking an index of ‘internality’ can invert the keying by assigning 1 point to internal choices).
  • The 13 filler items (e.g., Items 14, 24, 28, 30, 31, 43, 45, etc.) are completely excluded from scoring.
  • Subscale Range:
    • Fatalism Score: Ranges from 0 to 12. Higher scores indicate greater external fatalism (beliefs in luck, chance, fate).
    • Social System Control Score: Ranges from 0 to 12. Higher scores reflect greater external social system control (beliefs in institutional disenfranchisement, bureaucratic fatalism).
    • Self-Control Score: Ranges from 0 to 8. Higher scores indicate greater external self-control (perceived inability to control one’s own desires, impulses, and emotions).
    • Total External Score (Optional): Ranges from 0 to 32. Although calculated in some archival studies, the authors explicitly advise retaining independent subscale scores to preserve diagnostic and predictive specificity.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale was first formally conceptualized and published across a series of research reports between 1973 and 1974 by Dr. David W. Reid and Dr. Edward E. Ware. The primary empirical validation study was published in 1974 in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, a journal published by the American Psychological Association (APA).

• Copyright & Permissions: The instrument is protected under standard academic copyright laws. However, as an early academic assessment developed under institutional and governmental research funding, the scale has traditionally been made freely accessible for academic, clinical, and non-commercial research investigations. Researchers may reproduce and administer the 45 items in empirical studies provided that appropriate academic citation is extended to the original authors (Reid & Ware, 1974).
• Commercial Applications: Commercial adaptation, inclusion within fee-for-service testing batteries, or electronic diagnostic platforms may require formal clearance or permissions through the American Psychological Association’s rights and licensing division or through the authors’ estate.
• Administration Fee: There are no per-administration royalties or licensing fees for non-profit scholarly research and academic dissertations.

12. References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Children’s beliefs in their own control of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations. Child Development, 36(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126836
• Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• 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
• Phares, E. J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. General Learning Press.
• Reid, D. W., & Ware, E. E. (1973). Multidimensionality of internal-external control: Addition of a third dimension and sex differences. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 5(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082260
• Reid, D. W., & Ware, E. E. (1974). Multidimensionality of internal versus external control: Addition of a third dimension and its relationship to academic behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(1), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036067
• 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
• Ware, E. E., & Reid, D. W. (1975). A note on the factor structure of the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31(4), 682–684.
  Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:
  Instructions / Directions: This questionnaire consists of pairs of statements, lettered A and B. Please select the one statement of each pair (and only one) which you more strongly believe to be the case as far as you're concerned. Be sure to select the one you actually believe to be more true rather than the one you think you should choose or the one you would like to be true. This is a measure of personal belief; there are no right or wrong answers.

  Response Scale: Forced-choice format between two alternative statements (Statement A vs. Statement B)

  Scoring / Reverse Items: The scale comprises 45 forced-choice pairs, of which 32 are scored items and 13 are filler items. The scored items assess three sub-dimensions: Fatalism (12 items), Social System Control (12 items), and Self-Control (8 items). One point is awarded for each external choice (or internal choice depending on scoring direction).

  1

  A. Even when there was nothing forcing me, I have found that I will sometimes do things I really did not want to do.

  B.

  I always feel in control of what I am doing.

  2

  A. Sometimes I impulsively do things which at other times I definitely would not let myself do.

  B.

  I find that I can keep my impulses in control.

  3

  A. When I put my mind to it I can constrain my desires.

  B.

  There are many times when I cannot control my desires.

  4

  A. Many times I can't resist taking that extra piece of candy, cigarette, or drink, though I know it is bad for me.

  B.

  I can always control my urges for that extra piece of candy, cigarette, or drink.

  5

  A. I have no trouble sticking to a diet if I want to.

  B.

  I find it difficult to stick to a diet even when I want to.

  6

  A. When I want to, I have no trouble resisting peer pressure.

  B.

  Sometimes I find myself giving in to peer pressure even though I know I shouldn't.

  7

  A. I am able to control my temper when I need to.

  B.

  There are times when I find it impossible to control my temper.

  8

  A. I find that when I make up my mind to stop a bad habit, I can easily quit.

  B.

  Quitting a bad habit is usually very difficult because I lack the self-discipline.

  9

  A. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.

  B.

  People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.

  10

  A. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough interest in politics.

  B.

  There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.

  11

  A. In the long run, people get the respect they deserve in this world.

  B.

  Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries.

  12

  A. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.

  B.

  Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings.

  13

  A. Without the right breaks, one cannot be an effective leader.

  B.

  Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities.

  14

  A. No matter how hard you try, some people just don't like you.

  B.

  People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with others.

  15

  A. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.

  B.

  Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action.

  16

  A. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair test.

  B.

  Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is really useless.

  17

  A. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it.

  B.

  Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time.

  18

  A. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.

  B.

  This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it.

  19

  A. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.

  B.

  It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.

  20

  A. In my case, getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.

  B.

  Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.

  21

  A. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first.

  B.

  Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability; luck has little or nothing to do with it.

  22

  A. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand nor control.

  B.

  By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world events.

  23

  A. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings.

  B.

  There really is no such thing as 'luck'.

  24

  A. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.

  B.

  How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are.

  25

  A. In the long run, the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones.

  B.

  Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three.

  26

  A. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.

  B.

  It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office.

  27

  A. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give.

  B.

  There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades I get.

  28

  A. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do.

  B.

  A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.

  29

  A. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.

  B.

  It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life.

  30

  A. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.

  B.

  There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like you.

  31

  A. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.

  B.

  Team sports are an excellent way to build character.

  32

  A. What happens to me is my own doing.

  B.

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

  33

  A. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do.

  B.

  In the long run, the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well as on a local level.

  34

  A. It is difficult for an individual to have much impact on social institutions.

  B.

  Dedicated individuals can fundamentally reform institutions in our society.

  35

  A. Large bureaucratic organizations are almost impossible for an ordinary citizen to influence.

  B.

  Ordinary citizens can have a strong voice in how institutions are run.

  36

  A. Social evils are caused by complex societal factors beyond the power of individuals to remedy.

  B.

  Social problems can be resolved if individuals make enough effort to change the system.

  37

  A. Most political decisions are dictated by special interest groups beyond public influence.

  B.

  Citizen action groups have substantial influence over government policy.

  38

  A. The legal system is so complicated that average citizens have little say in how justice is served.

  B.

  Citizens can ensure that the justice system works fairly through participation and vigilance.

  39

  A. Economic fluctuations and unemployment are primarily determined by global and national forces outside individual control.

  B.

  People who run into economic difficulties usually have not planned their careers or finances well.

  40

  A. Even well-organized grass-roots social movements rarely achieve substantial change in government policy.

  B.

  Grass-roots movements have repeatedly demonstrated that ordinary people can change public policy.

  41

  A. What goes on in local and federal government is largely decided behind closed doors.

  B.

  Public opinion has a decisive impact on the course of governmental decisions.

  42

  A. Big business and corporations determine the direction of the economy with little regard for the average person.

  B.

  Consumer choices and public attitudes ultimately govern corporate behavior.

  43

  A. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much.

  B.

  The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with them.

  44

  A. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are determined by political and economic forces.

  B.

  People are capable of shaping the social and political forces that affect them.

  45

  A. One should always be willing to admit mistakes.

  B.

  It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.