Locus_of_control_as_a_stress_moderator_T.pdf

American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1982
Locus of Control as a Stress Moderator:
The Role of Control Perceptions and
Social Support
Irwin N. Sandier I and Brian Lakey
Arizona State University
The study investigated the effects of locus of control beliefs as an individual
difference variable on (a) the relationship between negative life events and
psychological disorder, (b) perceptions of control over negative life events,
and (c) the receipt and impact of social support. Ninety-three college
undergraduates (52 internals, 41 externals) reported the negative events
which occurred to them in the past year, their perceived control over these
events, the amount of socially supportive transactions they received, and
their psychological symptomatology (anxiety and depression). The cor-
relation between negative events and anxiety was greaterfor externals than
for internals. However, locus of control did not effect ratings of control
over negative events or the correlations between high and low control
negative events and psychological disorder. Locus of control did effect the
receipt and impact of social support. Externality was positively related to
the quantity of support received (r(90) = .21, p< .05) but the stress-
buffering effect of support was obtained for internals and not externals.
Implications of the results for understanding the process by which locus
of control moderates the effects of stress are discussed.
Although there is considerable evidence to support the contribution of
recent stress experiences to psychological disorder, major substantive
questions remain about the conditions which moderate this effect (Dohren-
wend & Dohrenwend, 1978). The identification of factors which moderate
~Allcorrespondenceshould be sent to Irwin N. Sandier, Department of Psychology, Arizona
State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287.
65
0091-0562/82/0200-0065503.00/0 © 1982 Plenum Publishing Corporation

66 Sandier and Lakey
the effects of stress is important both because it enables improved predic-
tion of the outcomes of exposure to stressors and because it furthers our
theoretical understanding of the process by which people adapt to stressors.
Two broad categories of stress-moderating factors are dispositional
characteristics of individuals (e.g., traits, coping styles) and characteristics
of individuals' social environments (e.g., social supports) (Dohrenwend,
1978; Johnson & Sarason, 1979). While there is empirical evidence that
both individual dispositional variables and social support moderate the
effects of stress (i.e., manifested by statistical interactions with stress
in the prediction of disorder) (Johnson & Sarason, 1978; Smith, Johnson,
& Sarason, 1978; Eaton, 1978; Wilcox, Note 1) little is known about the
process by which these moderating effects occur.
Research on dispositional characteristics as moderators of the
effects of stress illustrates the gap between statistical interaction effects
and an understanding of the processes which explain them. For example,
several studies have obtained evidence that the personality characteristic of
belief in an internal locus of control moderates the negative effects of stress
(Johnson & Sarason, 1978; Kobasa, 1979). Johnson and Sarason (1978)
found a positive correlation between frequency of occurrence of negative
life events and psychological disorder for external but not internal locus of
control college students. The inference was made that internal control
students perceive themselves as having more control over negative events
and that this perception of control leads to a lower stress level. Although
this inference is logically consistent with laboratory research on the stress-
buffering effects of control perceptions (Averill, 1973; S. Cohen, 1980;
Glass & Singer, 1972) there is reason to question whether it accurately
explains the process by which internals adapt better to stress than do ex-
ternals in the natural environment. Most critically, there has been no
empirical verification that internals as compared to externals actually
perceive themselves as having more control over naturally occurring
negative events. Dohrenwend and Martin (1979) found that the perception
of control over life events appears to be more a function of event character-
istics than of individual differences in the people to whom events occur.
Furthermore, even if internals do perceive naturally occurring stressful
events as being more under their control the effects of the control percep-
tion are not obvious. While some previous studies have found that the
perception of control reduces the relationship between negative events and
disorder (Husaini & Neff, 1980; McFarlane, Norman, Streiner, Roy, &
Scott, 1980), others have failed to obtain this effect (Fontana, Hughes,
Marcus, & Dowds, 1979; Dohrenwend, Note 2).
The belief that social support can moderate the effects of stressors
on psychological disorder has both theoretical (Caplan, 1974; Cobb,
1976) and empirical support (Ep]ey, 1974; Gore, 1978; Sandier & Barrera,

Locus of Control as Stress Moderator 67
Note 3). Caplan (1974) suggests that social support buffers stress by pro-
viding the individual with emotional support, guidance, assistance with
tasks or physical supplies. It is interesting to note that although social
support and the characteristics of the person receiving support are both
involved in the process by which individuals cope with stress, the em-
pirical literature has treated these two moderating variables separately.
There is reason to believe that personal characteristics can influence the
use and effect of support.
The dispositional characteristic of locus of control beliefs is an
interesting variable to investigate in this respect. Several authors have
reported that under stressful conditions externals are more likely to report
feeling stress and anxiety (Anderson, 1977; Lefcourt, 1976). If as Schacter
(1959) has demonstrated, people tend to affiliate more under conditions of
stress, it is reasonable to expect that externals should utilize more support
than do internals. On the other hand, a different prediction is made about
how well internals and externals utilize support to reduce the negative
effects of stressful events. Phares, Ritchie, and Davis (1968) found that
although externals recalled more negative feedback than did internals,
internals showed a greater willingness to take action to deal with the
problem suggested by the feedback. Strickland (1978) in a review of re-
search on locus of control and health-related behavior reported that
internals as contrasted with externals tend to know more about and make
better use of information about their disease and treatment. Likewise,
Anderson (1977) found that following the occurrence of a natural disaster,
internally oriented business executives utilized more task-centered coping
behaviors than did externals. If we view social support as a multifaceted
resource (including information, task assistance, emotional support, etc.),
which one can utilize to assist coping with stress, it is reasonable to ex-
pect that internals will make better use of this resource than will ex-
ternals.
The present study investigated the stress-moderating effects of
locus of control beliefs, perceptions of control over negative events,
and social supports. It was predicted that the previous finding that internals
are less effected by stressors than are externals would be replicated. Two
lines of inquiry were explored as explanations of how this effect occurs.
The perceived control explanation was investigated by (a) comparing
internals' and externals' reports of control over recent negative events
which occurred to them, and (b) comparing the stress impact of events
for which internals and externals report different levels of control. The
social support explanation was investigated by testing the stress-buffering
effect of social support received by internals and externals. It is seen as an
exploration of the hypothesis that locus of control moderates the effects
of stress by effecting the utilization of social support.

METHOD
Subjects
Ninety-three college undergraduates (28 males, 65 females) served
as the subjects in the study as partial fulfillment of research participation
requirements for an introductory psychology class. Subjects were pre-
selected based on their scores on the Mirels (1970) personal control items
to represent an internal (mean = .92, range of 0 to 3) or external (mean =
6.51, range of 5 to 9) locus of control orientation. The nine Mirels items
were utilized in order to assess belief in control over experiences which
occur in people's personal lives. These items were initially identified as a
personal control factor by Mirels (1970) in a factor analytic study of the
items from the Rotter I-E scale. Subsequent factor analytic studies of the
Rotter I-E scale have substantially replicated this structure (Berzins & Ross,
1973; Hrycenka & Minton, 1974) and have successfully utilized this
personal control scale in studying the locus of control construct (e.g.,
Cialdini & Mirels, 1976). There was no significant association between
sex of subject and locus of control orientation (16 males, 36 females
internals; 12 males, 29 females externals; X2 = ,005, ns).
Measures
Subjects completed four instruments: a college student recent life
events schedule, a self-report measure of received social support, the trait
form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch, &
Lushene, 1970) and the Beck Depression Scale (Beck, 1967). Since the first
two instruments are relatively new they are described in some detail.
College Student Life Events Schedule~ For purposes of doing life
stress event research with a college student population it was considered
important that the life event instrument used should (a) consist of a
representative sample of stress events which occur to this population, and
(b) have acceptable psychometric properties. Recent critical reviews of
existing life event instruments (e.g., Rabkin & Struening, 1976; Sandier,
1979; Sarason, de Monchaux, & Hunt, 1975) have discussed problems of
existing instruments in both areas. Sandler (1979) noted that previous
life event instruments have selected items for use with the general popula-
tion rather than to be population-specific. Consequently these instruments
~Copies of the College Student Life Event Schedule are available from the first author.

might underrepresent stress events which are important for college students.
Illustratively, significant events for college students, such as applying to
graduate school or being rejected from a sorority or fraternity, are not
included on existing life event instruments. An initial sample of items
was developed for the College Student Life Event Schedule by having
over 200 undergraduates report high-impact events which occurred to them
during the past year. Over 1,500 events were generated. After removing
redundant items and combining similar ones, 111 event items were written.
Several illustrative items are "significantly increased economic difficulty"
and "increased problems with academic performance." A response format
was developed in which students reported the occurrence of each event
during the past year and whether the event was positive, neutral, or negative
for them.
Test-retest reliability (2-day time interval) of the scores derived from
this instrument was assessed using a separate sample of 70 undergraduate
students. Reliability coefficients for the total event score (r(68) = .92),
positive event score (r(68) = .92), and negative event score (r(68) = .89)
were judged to be acceptable. In a second study using 95 college students as
subjects, the negative events score derived from the scale was found to
correlate positively (r(93) = .62) with the Life Experience Scale (Sarason,
Johnson, & Siegel, 1978) and with measures of psychological disorder,
r(93) = .48 with the Langner 22-item instrument (Langer, 1962); r(93) =
.55 with the Beck Depression Scale (Beck, 1967); r(93) = .46 with the
Discomfort Scale of the PSI (Lanyon, 1970).
In the present study the unit weighted sum of all subjectively rated
negative events (occurring in the past year) was used as the measure of
life stress. Other research has reported that total negative events is the
best predictor of psychological disorder (Sarason et al., 1978; Vinokur
& Selzer, 1975) and that unit weighting of negative events yields the most
efficient index of stress (Ross & Mirowsky, 1979).
After the subjects completed their ratings of whether the events on
the scale occurred, they made personal control ratings for each event they
reported as having occurred during the past year. Two types of control
ratings were obtained; control over the occurrence and control over the
consequence of the event. 3 Control over event occurrence was rated on a
3Conceptuallyratings of control over the occurrenceand consequencesof events can be seen
as distinct. Control over the occurrence of events is a causal attribution judgment and is
similar to the way control has been assessedin severalprevious life events studies (Dohren-
wend & Martin, 1979;Fontana, Hughes, Marcus, & Dowds, 1979).Control over the conse-
quences of events is seen as assessingthe extent to which subjects believe their behaviors
could effect what happened after the event occurred. Internals wereexpectedto make more
internal control ratings for both concepts.

70 Sandierand Lakey
four-point scale to reflect the extent to which the individual believed that
"the occurrence of this event was due to your actions or behavior or due
to factors outside your own behavior." Anchor points on the scale were
"my actions were 75-100o7o responsible for the occurrence of this event"
and "0-24°70 responsible for the occurrence of this event." Control over
the consequences of each event was rated on a four-point scale to reflect
"the extent to which your activities after the event could effect the con-
sequences of the event." Anchor points on the scale were "my actions
could have a major effect on the consequences of the event" to "no
effect." Subjects completed all ratings for each concept of control before
moving on to rate the next concept. Order of administering these ratings
was randomized across subjects.
Social Support. Social support was assessed using a recently de-
veloped instrument designed to assess self-report of helping transactions
received during the past month (Barrera, Sandier, & Ramsey, 1981). The
instrument (Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors, ISSB) consists
of 40 self-report items. Two illustrative items are "helped you understand
why you didn't do something well" and "made it clear what was expected
of you." The response format asks the responder to indicate frequency
of receipt of each supportive transaction in the past month (not at all,
once or twice, once a week, several times a week, every day). The instrument
has been found to have good test-retest (r(69) = .88) and internal con-
sistency reliability (coefficient alpha = .92 and .94 at two administration
times) with college students. The instrument has also been found to cor-
relate moderately and in the predicted direction (r(41) = .35) with the
cohesion subscale of the Family Environment Scale (Moos, Insel, &
Humphrey, 1974) and with total size of perceived social support network
(r(43) = .42, Barrera et al., 1981). In a previous study Sandier and Barrera
(Note 3) failed to demonstrate a stress-buffering effect of social support
using the ISSB as the measure of support. The present study differs from
the previous one, however, by studying whether the stress-buffering effect
is obtained for people who have a particular personality characteristic
(i.e., internal locus of control belief).
Psychological Disorder. Two measures of psychological disorder
were utilized, the Beck Depression Scale (Beck, 1967) and the trait form
of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1970). These scales
were selected because they have previously been found to be influenced
by life stress events (Sarason et al., 1978), and to be sensitive to the stress-
moderating effects of locus of control beliefs (Johnson & Sarason, 1978).
Procedure
Subjects were initially selected for the study based on their scores on
the Mirels' locus of control items (embedded in a larger scale administered

to all introductory psychology students the 1st week of the semester). All
subjects who met the criterion for inclusion in the study were individually
contacted and were administered the scales in small groups. Order of scale
administration was State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Scale,
College Student Life Event Schedule, and the Inventory of Socially Sup-
portive Behaviors.
RESULTS
As a preliminary analysis the interrelationships between locus of
control (dummy variable coded as 0 and 1), negative life events, social
support, anxiety, and depression were assessed. Locus of control was found
to correlate significantlywith the total social support score (r(90) -- .21, p
< .05); externals received more support than internals. Locus of control
did not correlate significantly with negative events (r(91) -- .12, ns),
depression (r(91) -- .17, ns), or anxiety (r(91) -- .12, ns). Negative life
events correlated significantly only with the depression (r(91) = .39, p
< .01) and anxiety (r(91) = .41, p < .01) scores. Social support was not
significantly related to either the stress or symptomatology measures.
Descriptively, it is interesting to note that the mean number of negative
life events reported by the subjects in this study (.~ -- 6.60, SD -- 4.70)
is higher than the mean negative events reported in many previous studies
(e.g., Hurst, Jenkins, & Rose, 1978; Masuda & Holmes, 1978), a fact
probably attributable to the population-specific instrument used here.
Mean scores on anxiety (.~ = 38.04, SD = 9.12) and depression (.~ =
7.98, SD -- 6.43) are within the normal range for college students (Bum-
berry, Oliver, & McClure, 1978; Spielberger et al., 1970).
Although locus of control was not significantly correlated with the
total negative events scale it was possible that different types of events
occurred to externals and internals. Item analyses were conducted to check
for this possibility. Frequency of occurrence of each life event item to
internals and externals were compared using a series of chi-square analyses;
only 6 of these 111 analyses were significant (p < .05), a number that would
be expected by chance (four items occurred more frequently to internals
and two items occurred more frequently to externals). Inspection of these
six items indicated no consistency in the types of items which discriminated
the groups.
The group was then subdivided on the locus of control variable. As
a replication of the previously reported stress-moderating effect of locus
of control (Johnson & Sarason, 1978) the correlations between negative
events and the measures of psychological disorder were calculated sep-
arately for internal and external control subjects. The correlations between
total negative events and both measures of disorder is higher in magnitude

Table I. Correlations of Negative Events, High and
Low Control Negative Events with Disorder for
Internals and Externals
Negative eventsa Anxiety Depression
Internals (n = 52)
Total .28b .33b
HCO .23 .37c
LCO .28b .18
HCSQ .30b .31b
LCSQ .14 .21
Externals (n = 41)
Total .57c .44c
HCO .50d .35b
LCO .42c .36c
HCSQ .49d .42c
LCSQ .36b .21
aHCO = High control over occurrence; LCO = low
control over occurrence; HCSQ = high control over
consequences; LCSQ = low control over con-
sequences.
bp< .05.
~p< .01.
< .001.
for the external than the internal group, although for both groups the
relationships are significant. The difference between these relationships
was tested using Fischer's rz transformation; yielding a significant dif-
ference in the anxiety (Z diff = 1.68, p< .05, one-tail) but not the
depression measure.
Perception of Events
Mean ratings of control over the occurrence and consequence of
negative events were computed for each subject. Since the groups did not
differ on either the number or types of events which occurred to them,
comparisons of their mean control ratings was felt to be unconfounded by
event characteristics. Internal versus external group differences were not
found on either their mean ratings of control over the occurrence (t(91) =
.42, ns) or consequences (t(91) = -.75, ns) of negative events.
Each event was then categorized for each subject according to the
degree to which the individual reported that they had control over the
occurrence (50-100070 control was considered high control; 0-4907o control
was considered low control) and the degree to which individuals reported
control over the consequences of the event (little or no effect considered
low control; moderate or major effect considered high control). Four
scores were calculated to reflect the number of negative events which oc-

curred over which the subject reported having high and low control (for
both occurrence and consequences). Pearson correlations of each score
with anxiety and depression were calculated separately for internal and
external subjects. As can be seen in Table I, the pattern of results does
not support the hypothesis that perception of control reduces the stressful
impact of negative events for either internal or external subjects. The
trend is slighlty in the opposite direction for control over consequences
ratings where all four correlations are significant for high control and only
one is significant for low control events.
Social Support as a Stress Buffer
Since locus of control was significantly correlated with social support
it was not possible to obtain a clearly interpretable triple interaction effect
(Locus of Control X Negative Events X Support). Therefore, the stress-
buffering effect of social support for internal and external subjects was
assessed using separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses for internal
and external groups. The stress-buffering effect was tested as the sig-
nificance added by the Stress X Social Support interaction term (product
of Stress X Social Support) to the prediction of disorder (anxiety or depres-
sion) after the main effects of stress and support were partialled out
(Cohen & Cohen, 1975). As can be seen in Table II the interaction term
is significant in the prediction of both the depression (F(1, 48) -- 7.27, p
< .01) and anxiety (F(1, 48) = 7.61, p< .01) variables for the internal
Table II. Regression Analysis of Social Support X Negative Events Interaction
Anxiety Depression
Predictor Variable Multiple R d)' F Multiple R dj" F
Internals (n = 52)
Negative events .28 1, 50 4.38 a .33 1, 50 6.22 a
Social support .29 1,49 .32 .34 1, 49 .39
Negative events ×
social support .46 1,48 7.61 b .48 1, 48 7.27 b
All predictors .46 3, 48 4.29 b 3, 48 4.88 b
Externals (n = 40) c
Negative events .57 1, 38 18.49 b .44 1, 38 9.40 b
Social support .62 1,37 3.60 .45 1, 37 .22
Negative events X
social support .64 1, 36 1.41 .45 1, 37 .22
All predictors .64 3, 36 8.35b 3, 36 4.72 b
ap < .05.
bp < .01.
cOne subject of the original 41 in the external group did not complete the social support
scale.

55
50-
~- 45
i--"
LU
X 40
z
35
30 ¸
18-
Z 15
0
B
12
u')
LLI
n,,
a. 9-
uJ
Q
6-
3-
~ Low Support
High Support
i I i ~ I I t i I I
1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10
NEGATIVE EVENTS
jLow Support
~ High Support
i [ i I i i I I I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NEGATIVE EVENTS
Fig. 1. Regressionof negativeeventson anxietyand depressionfor high support (1 SD
abovemean) and low support (1 SD belowmean) internals.
subjects. Interpretations of these results can be made by comparing the
regression lines of negative events on anxiety and depression for the high
social support (1 SD above the mean) and low social support (1 SD below
the mean) internal subjects (see Figure 1). As can be seen in both cases,
for internals with high social support, negative events do not relate to
disorder while for those with low support such a relationship is evident.
For externals no significant Support X Stress interaction was obtained.
As an additional check on these results, the internal subjects were
subdivided at the median on their social support scores. Separate correla-
tions were computed between the negative events scores and the disorder
measures for the high and low social support subgroups. For the low

support groups these correlations were significant using one-tailed tests,
r(27) = .35, p < .05 for anxiety; r(27) = .57, p < .001 for depression;
while for the high support group these correlations were not significant,
r(25) = .21, ns for anxiety; r(25) = .06, ns for depression.
DISCUSSION
In summary the results (a) substantially replicated the findings of
Johnson and Sarason (1978) that the individual difference variable of
locus of control beliefs moderates the effects of stress, (b) failed to provide
evidence that locus of control beliefs was related to either perceptions
of control over negative events or the effects of such control perceptions
on the stressful impact of negative events, and (c) indicated differential
receipt and impact of social support for internals and externals. The
implications of the results for understanding why stress events have a dif-
ferential impact on internals and externals will be discussed.
The failure to obtain the expected differences between internals
and externals on their perceptions of control over negative events should
not be altogether surprising. F. Cohen and Lazarus (1973) similarly failed
to find that dispositional variables (in coping styles) predicted actual
coping behaviors for a sample of surgical patients. Lazarus and Launier
(1978) stress the distinction between dispositional characteristics of
individuals and actual coping behaviors people manifest in the natural
environment. The present results reaffirm that differences in coping
processes (e.g., reported perception of control over events) cannot be
assumed on the basis of differences in dispositional characteristics (e.g.,
locus of control).
The failure to identify differences between internals and externals
in their ratings of control over negative events may be due to several
factors. The heterogeneity of the events themselves, involving such
disparate life domains as academic, social, and financial, is one such
factor. As Tyler, Gatz, and Keenan (1979) have pointed out, total scores
on a locus of control scale may mask differential control beliefs for
specific areas of activity (e.g., personal issues, non-interpersonal tasks).
A second factor is our lack of knowledge about the environmental con-
ditions under which the negative events occurred. Phares, Wilson, and
Klyver (1971), for example, found that while internals made fewer blame-
attributions for failure than did externals in nondistracting conditions,
when environmental distractors were present there were no group dif-
ferences in blame-attributions. Situational conditions which might effect
control ratings in the present study were not assessed. A third factor which
might have contributed to our failure to obtain the predicted results is in-

sensitivity of the present measure of control perceptions. The measure
of control perceptions used in the current study is similar to that used
in previous similar research (Dohrenwend & Martin, 1979; Fontana et al.,
1979; McFarlane et al., 1980). It shares with these studies an oversimplicity
in its conception of control and in the methodology for measuring control
perceptions. As theory about control attributions evolves it is becoming
clear that control attributions are multidimensional and cannot be well
assessed by global ratings of control (Gregory, 1981; Weiner, 1979). In
addition, little is known about such methodological issues as how retrospec-
tive reports of control over negative events are affected by the passage of
time and what is an optimal time for their assessment.
The arguments presented above are also relevant to explaining the
failure of our control ratings to affect substantially the relationships be-
tween negative events and psychological disorder for either internals or
externals. While the results are similar to those obtained by some authors
(e.g., Fontana et al., 1979), others have reported that ratings of high
control reduce the relationship between negative events and psychological
disorder (McFarlane et al., 1980). Some methodological differences be-
tween the current study and that of McFarlane et al. may be critical to
explaining the differential results, e.g., McFarlane et al. used retrospective
reports over 6 months while the present study utilized a 12-month period.
An additional factor which is relevant to explaining the current results
is that the events themselves influence the control ratings (Dohrenwend
& Martin, 1979). Thus the directionally higher correlations (found for
internals as well as externals) between high rather than low control events
and disorder may be more a reflection of the differences in the events which
are so rated than of the effects of control perceptions per se.
In retrospect it may be premature to ask whether perceptions of
control can explain differential effects of negative life events on internals
and externals. Until the methodological problems in the assessment of
control perceptions are addressed, the belief that perceptions of control
over naturally occurring negative events reduces stress must remain an
intriguing but unproven hypothesis.
The finding that dispositional locus of control beliefs relate to receipt
and impact of social support provides a plausible explanation of why
internals are less effected by stress than are externals. It is particularly ~
interesting that externals receive a greater quantity of support than do in-
ternals while the stress-buffering effect of support is manifested only for
internals. Apparently more support is not necessarily equivalent to better
support. The finding that support buffers the effects of stress for internals
is consistent with previous evidence (from both laboratory and field
settings) about how internals cope in stressful situations. Several studies
have found that under conditions of stress internals obtain and use in-

formation more effectively than do externals and that internals are more
task-oriented in their coping behaviors (Anderson, 1977; Phares et al.,
1968; Seeman & Evans, 1962). The measure of social support utilized in
the present study assessed the quantity of supportive transactions received
by the subjects. One can consider supportive transactions as aides to
effective coping which are processed and utilized by the individual as part
of coping with stressful events. It may be that internals are able to utilize
this assistance effectively while externals are not. Conceivably internals
and externals might differ in the manner in which they receive support
(e.g., actively solicited, passively received), the kinds of support they
receive (e.g., guidance, emotional support, etc.) for specific stressors, their
interpretations of supportive transactions or the actions they take after
receiving support. Investigation of such differences in the utilization of
support by internals and externals is an important step for future research.
As a cautionary note it should be recognized that the phenomenon
being studied is complex, involving the interplay over time of stress,
individual characteristics, coping behaviors, support, and symptoms. The
correlational design utilized is limited in view of this complexity. For
example, a direction of causality other than that discussed here cannot
be ruled out. In addition, due to the relatively small number of subjects the
influence of other potential mediators of the effects studied (e.g., sex of
subject, specific event characteristics) could not be assessed. Despite these
limitations, however, the current study represents a needed direction
for life stress events research. The growing body of literature which
indicates personality variables as moderators of stress-disorder relationship
(Johnson & Sarason, 1979; Kobasa, 1979) is important. These studies need
to be followed by research investigating how personality effects adaptation
to stress. Process-descriptive studies advocated by Lazarus and Launier
(1978) as well as quantitative studies (like the present one) provide com-
plimentary approaches to investigating these "how" questions. Since
the factors involved in adaptation to stressors are multiple and interacting
it should be expected that the results of such studies will not always confirm
our predictions. For example, the present study failed to confirm one
reasonable prediction, while finding that two stress moderators which
previously have been treated separately (social support and personality)
need to be considered jointly. The cumulative value of such research is to
better understand the stress-disorder relationship and to further the
development of stress intervention models.
REFERENCE NOTES
1. Wilcox, B. L. Social support, life stress and psychological adjustment. Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Diego, 1979.

2. Dohrenwend, B. S. Life events and psychopathology: A partial specification of the relation-
ship. In D. V. Perkins (Chair), New developments in research on life stress events. Sym-
posium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal,
1980.
3. Sandier, I. N., & Barrera, M., Jr. Social support as a stress-buffer: A multi-method in-
vestigation. Poster session presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Associa-
tion, Montreal, 1980.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. R. Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in a stress setting:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 446-451.
Averill, J. R. Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psychological
Bulletin, 1973, 80, 286-303.
Barrera, M., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsay, T. B. Preliminary development of a scale of social
support: Studies on college students. American Journal of Community Psychology,
1981, 9, 435-447.
Beck, A. T. Depression: Clinical, experimental and theoretical aspects. New York: Harper
& Row, 1967.
Berzins, J. I., & Ross, W. F. Locus of control among opiate addicts. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 84-91.
Bumberry, W., Oliver, J. J., & McClure, J. N. Validation of the Beck Depression Inventory in
a university population using psychiatric estimate as the criterion. Journal of Con-
suiting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, 150-156.
Caplan, G. Support systems and community mentalhealth, New York: Human Sciences, 1974.
Cialdini, R. B., & Mirels, H. L. Sense of personal control and attributions about yielding
and resisting persuasion targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976,
33, 395-402.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. Applied multiple regression/correlatio__n analysis for the behavioral
sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1975.
Cobb, S. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1976, 38,
300-314.
Cohen, F., & Lazarus, R. S. Active coping processes, coping dispositions, and recovery from
surgery. Psychomatic Medicine, 1973, 35, 375-389.
Cohen, S. Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of
research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 88, 82-108.
Dohrenwend, B. S. Social stress and community psychology. American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 1978, 6, 1-15.
Dohrenwend, B. S., & Dohrenwend, B. P. Some issues in research on stressful life events.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1978, 166, 7-15.
Dohrenwend, B. S., & Martin, J. L. Personal versus situational determination of anticipation
and control of the occurrence of stressful life events. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 1979, 7, 453-468.
Eaton, W. W. Life events, social supports, and psychiatric symptoms: A re-analysis of the
New Haven data. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1978, 19, 230-234.
Epley, S. W. Reduction of the behavioral effects of aversive stimulation by the presence of
companions. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 271-283.
Fontana, A. F., Hughes, L. A., Marcus, J. L., & Dowds, B. N. Subjective evaluation of
life events. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1979, 47, 906-911.
Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. Urban stress: Experiments on noise and social stressors. New
York: Academic Press, 1972.
Gore, S. The effect of social support in moderating the health consequences of unemploy-
ment. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1978, 19, 230-234.
Gregory, W. L. Expectancies for controllability, performance attributions, and behavior. In
H. J. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (VoL 1): Assessment
methods. New York: Academic Press, 1981.

Hrycenko, I., & Minton, H. L. Internal-external control, power position, and satisfaction
in task oriented groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30,
871-878.
Hurst, W. H., Jenkins, C. D., & Rose, R. M. The assessment of life change stress: A com-
parative and methodological inquiry. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1978, 40, 126-141.
Husaini, B. A., & Neff, J. A. Characteristics of life events and psychiatric impairment in
rural communities. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1980, 168, 159-166.
Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. Life stress, depression and anxiety: Internal-external control
as a moderator variable. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1978, 22, 205-208.
Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. Moderator variables in life stress research. In I. G. Sarason
& C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 6). New York: Hemisphere, 1979.
Kobasa, S. C. Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1-11.
Langer, T. S. A 22-item screening score of psychiatric symptoms indicating impairment.
Journal of Health and Human Behavior, 1962, 3, 269-276.
Lanyon, R. I. Development and validation of a psychological screening inventory. Journal
of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 1970, 35, 1-24.
Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. Stress related transactions between person and environment.
In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectivesin interactionalpsychology. New York:
Plenum, 1978.
Lefcourt, H. M. Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. New York: Wiley,
1976.
Masuda, M., & Holmes, T. H. Life events: Perceptions and frequencies. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 1978, 40, 236-261.
McFarlane, A. H., Norman, G. R., Streiner, D. L., Roy, R., & Scott, D. J. A longitudinal
study of the influence of the psychosociai environment on health status: A preliminary
report. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1980, 21, 124-133.
Mirels, H. L. Dimensions of internal versus external control. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 226-228.
Moos, R. H., Insel, P. M., & Humphrey, B. Family, work and group environment scales:
Combined preliminary manual Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1974.
Phares, E. J., Ritchie, D. E., & Davis, W. L. Internai-external control and reaction to threat.
Journal o_fPersonality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 402-405.
Phares, E. J., Wilson, K. G., & Klyver, N. W. Internal-external control and the attribution of
blame under neutral and distractive conditions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1971, 18, 285-288.
Rabkin, J. G., & Struening, E. L. Life events, stress and illness. Science, 1976, 194, 1013-1020.
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. A comparison of life-event weighting schemes: Change, un-
desirability, and effect-proportional indices. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
1979, 20, 166-177.
Sandier, I. N. Life stress events and community psychology. In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spiel-
berger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (VoL 6). New York: Hemisphere, 1979.
Sarason, I. G., de Monchanx, C., & Hunt, T. Methodological issues in the assessment of
life stress. In L. Levi (Ed.), Emotions.--Their parameters and measurement. New York:
Raven, 1975.
Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. Assessing the impact of life changes: Develop-
ment of the life experience survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
1978, 46, 932-946.
Schacter, S. Thepsychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of gregarious-
ness. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1959.
Seeman, M., & Evans, J. W. Alienation and learning in a hospital setting. American So-
ciologicalReview, 1962, 27, 772-783.
Smith, R. E., Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. Life change, the sensation seeking motive,
and psychological distress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978,
46, 348-349.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. Manual for the state-tract anxiety
inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1970.
Strickland, B. R. Internal-external expectancies and health-related behaviors. Journal of
Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 1978, 46, 1192-1211.

Tyler, F. B., Gatz, M., & Keenan, K. A constructionist analysis of the Rotter I-E scale.
Journal of Personality, 1979, 47, 11-35.
Vinokur, A., & Seizer, M. L. Desirable versus undesirable life events: Their relationship to
stress and mental distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32,
329-337.
Weiner, B. A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1979, 71, 3-25.

Locus_of_control_as_a_stress_moderator_T.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Locus_of_control_as_a_stress_moderator_T.pdf

Similar to Locus_of_control_as_a_stress_moderator_T.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Locus_of_control_as_a_stress_moderator_T.pdf