1. Self efficacy after the fact 1
Running Head: Belief in Abilities
The Effect of Locus of Control and Situation on Self Efficacy: Self Efficacy After the Fact
Shondel Younger
Berea College
Abstract

2. Self efficacy after the fact 2
This current experiment’s focus was to test the effect of Locus of Control (Internal or External)
and situation on an individual’s self efficacy. Locus of Control and self efficacy are only
two parts of core self evaluation. Does self efficacy stand alone or can it be affected by other
factors such as the situation an individual is in? Locus of Control is within each person and does
not change and is a quasi experimental variable. Upon manipulating the situation of an
individual by using bogus positive or negative feedback, after the performance task an
interaction was found between the types of feedback. Locus of Control and feedback together
made up 33.9% of the variance in self efficacy. Self efficacy can therefore be subject to change
depending on whether an individual had an Internal or External Locus of Control.
Introduction
Locus of Control and self efficacy are two of four dimensions in core self-evaluation,

3. Self efficacy after the fact 3
meaning that they are part of the criteria for how an individual may view themselves. Locus of
Control was first thought of by behavioral psychologist Julian Rotter. Rotter thought of Locus of
Control during research with phobias. He began to see that the prevalence of phobias was due to
a fear either seemed or was out of a subject’s control. Around this same time the concept of Self
Efficacy was being thought of by Albert Bandura. Self efficacy is not the same as self esteem.
Self esteem has to do with one’s self worth, while self efficacy deals with one’s abilities. The
question is what is the relationship between these two dimensions of self-evaluation?
Self efficacy is the belief that one has in their abilities or performance. This is related to
the concept of metacognition. Cognition itself is how thought relates to behavior or vice versa.
Metacognition involves thinking about cognition. Metacognition, through the monitoring
function, is informed by cognition and, through the control function, informs cognition. Both
definitions underscore the functioning of metacognition at a “meta” level, which means that
metacognition involves a representation of cognition. Thus metacognition and cognition are
connected through the monitoring and control functions (Efklides 2008). With metacognition, an
individual is able to think about themselves through their own skills, experiences and knowledge.
With metacognitive ability one can better understand their self efficacy and the extent of their
abilities through self regulation. Metacognition is important in keeping us self aware, which
allow us to keep in mind how much ability we posses in a given field or area. Gaining
metacognitive ability involves learning form criticism as well as knowing your short comings.
In terms of self efficacy being critical of your abilities can possibly help you improve.
Since self efficacy is how we perceive our own ability, how we view ourselves can come
from our competence or lack thereof. The Dunning Kruger effect suggests many individuals do
not have the metacognitive skills to recognize when they are wrong. In other words they fail to

4. Self efficacy after the fact 4
recognize their incompetence. In Dunning and Kruger’s (1999) original experiment they tested
participants over four different domains which were humor, grammar, and two types of logic.
Dunning and Kruger found that individuals in the highest percentile of intelligence rated
themselves as having lower competence and those in the lower percentile rated themselves as
having higher competence due to their lack of metacognitive ability (Dunning and Kruger 1999).
A notable implication of this study is that not everyone can process feedback as constructive.
Criticism may take a jab at our self efficacy at first, but may lead to improvement of self.
Locus of Control can come in two forms. An internal locus of control is the belief that
outcomes are a product of our own actions. External locus of control is the belief that outcomes
have occurred due to factors such as fate or by chance. People with an external locus of control
are focused on what it takes to succeed when the situation is left up to chance regardless of
motivation or reward (Johnson & Gromly 1972). An individual’s Locus of Control does not
change, but our self efficacy can. Self efficacy can be affected by situation as well. Brandt
(1975) found that individuals receiving motivational instruction gained better reading ability
scores compared to individuals receiving controlled or nonspecific instruction. From this
research, a positive or motivational situation can bring about better performance based on how
the individual views their ability. The nonspecific instruction was not negative nor did it worsen
the scores of the participants compared to how they were performing before. The motivated
instruction affected the participant’s self efficacy since the task was reading ability. Locus of
Control did not have any effect in this study.
Shelley & Pakenham (2004), in a study of health, self efficacy and external locus of
control, found a positive correlation between external locus of control and chronic illness.
Individuals with continuing illnesses felt that it was due to factors outside of their actions that

5. Self efficacy after the fact 5
they continued to be sick; while individuals with acute illness were found to have a positive
correlation with an internal locus of control. Overall participants differed in ratings of self
efficacy. Other studies have also looked at the effect of age and locus of control. Lachman
(1986) stated previous studies had not taken into account demographic information such as
health, intelligence, and level of education. Taking into account these variables in his study,
Lachman found that elderly participants had an external locus of control in the areas of health
and intelligence; other than this no differences were found between age group. Older individuals
believe that their health and ability to take on new information are up to factors of chance.
Locus of Control can be applied to a number of different areas; such as previously mentioned
there can be health Locus of Control as well as an Age Locus of Control. These are only two
examples in other researcher others can be found.
Overconfidence in one’s abilities can be a result of internal locus of control as well as a
very high self efficacy. Research indicates that overconfidence is commonly observed in
psychological testing, in particular with measures of crystallized intelligence (Stankov, Lee, &
Paek 2009). Here I refer to errors of overestimating one’s ability (predicting that one will
perform better than one does) as functional overconfidence and errors of overcertainty (being
overly certain of one’s predictions) as subjective overconfidence (Miller and Geraci 2011). The
study done by Miller and Geraci found that low performers had lower confidence and high
performers had high confidence, which means that the participants in this study had some
metacognitive ability. These participants then had knowledge of the shortcomings in their
competency. Low or high performers had low or high performance because the outcome was a
product of their own actions. It would be interesting to see if the participants in this study had
taken something to measure their Locus of Control.

6. Self efficacy after the fact 6
The purpose of the current study is to find the effect of locus of control and situation on
self efficacy. Locus of Control is constant, but if the situation is taken into account then will it
affect how high or low self efficacy is? By situation I mean a positive or negative scenario. We
have good or bad experiences daily, thus why not try incorporating that into the experiment. My
hypothesis is that individuals with an internal locus of control will consistently rate themselves
with high self efficacy, while individuals with an external locus of control will rate their self
efficacy will depend on feedback given. If an individual with an external locus of control is
given positive feedback then they will rate themselves as having high self efficacy; however, if
they are given negative feedback then they will rate themselves as having low self efficacy.
Methods
Subjects
Participants for this study were N = 42 undergraduate students from Berea College.
Participants were voluntary and some participants enrolled in psychology courses could earn
extra credit for doing this study.
Design
There were two independent variables for this research: participant’s locus of control
(quasi-experimental) and bogus positive or negative feedback. Positive feedback was “you
scored above average with 75% correct answers.” Negative feedback was “you scored below
average with only 25% correct answers.” The dependent variable was participants’ self efficacy
rating, how high or low their self efficacy was. This study was a 2x2 factorial between subjects
design.
Materials
The materials used for this study were Rotter’s Internal-External locus of control scale, a
twenty question mock quiz, and a self assessment measure. Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of

7. Self efficacy after the fact 7
control scale is a 29 item list on which participants Locus of Control is measured. This scale
contains six filler items. Each item has two statements and participants were instructed to circle
the statement that they agreed with the most. For the purpose of this study, participants that
scored an 11 or below had an external locus of control, while participants that scored a 13 or
above had an internal locus of control. If a participant scores a 12 then they are to be considered
confounding and be omitted from the study. The mock quiz is a 20 item quiz with questions
taken from the LSAT, GRE, and various IQ tests. The mock quiz was timed; participants were
given fifteen minutes to complete the quiz. The time limit of fifteen minutes was chosen because
during piloting this was the time when people usually finished. If participants had any questions
pertaining to their performance on the quiz they were told to ask them after the experiment was
over in its entirety. Participant self efficacy was measured by a Likert scale from one to seven, a
one meaning “strongly disagree” and a seven meaning “strongly agree”. The self assessment
measure contains twelve questions, five of which pertain specifically to a participant’s self
efficacy, for example: I am a capable problem solver and I am confident in my abilities as a
student. The lowest self rating a participant can give themselves is a five; the highest rating that
can be given is a thirty five.
Procedure
First participants were given the Internal-External Locus of control in order to ascertain
participant’s locus of control. Second individuals were given the mock quiz along with the
bogus positive or negative feedback after taking the quiz. The main function of the quiz was to
make participants question their abilities. The bogus feedback served to counterbalance as well
as being an independent variable. Finally participants were given the self assessment measure to
rate their own self efficacy then debriefed.

8. Self efficacy after the fact 8
Results
The total number of participants in this study was N = 42: however, three cases were
incomplete and had to be dropped from this study, as well as two confounds leaving the total
number of participants at N = 37. N = 17 individuals were found to have an Internal Locus of
Control. N = 20 individuals were found to have an External locus of control. Mean Internal
Locus of Control was 14 with a standard deviation of 1.6. Mean External Locus of Control was
8.25 with a standard deviation of 2.35. The mean Self efficacy was 27.7 with a standard
deviation of 3.23. Mean Internal Locus of Control positive feedback 30.57, mean Internal Locus
of Control negative feedback 25.00, mean External Locus of Control positive feedback 28.18,
and mean External Locus of Control negative feedback 27.95. A 2x2 Factorial ANOVA was
run. Feedback given was significant, F(1,37) = 10.596, p < .01. Locus of Control x Feedback
Given was also significant F(1,37) = 7.312, p < .01. Effect size of Feedback given was n2
= .243
and effect size of Locus of Control x Feedback Given was n2
= .181. Linear Regressions were
also ran, the R square was .339 for Locus of Control x Feedback Given. There were also main
effects of Locus of Control (Internal or External) as well as an interaction between Feedback
(positive or negative).
Discussion
The thing to take away from this study is that Locus of Control and situation do have a
small effect on an individual’s self efficacy. My hypothesis was confirmed that individuals with
an Internal Locus of Control self efficacy will remain constant no matter what situation, while
individuals with an External Locus of Control will be affected by the situation. In the situation
feedback was bogus; therefore, positive or negative feedback did not always mean that the
participant did good or bad. Self efficacy for individuals with External Locus of Control can
fluctuate. The important thing to note is that Locus of Control is a constant, it does not change.
Learning more about the relationship between Locus of Control and self efficacy can further the

9. Self efficacy after the fact 9
development of self evaluation methods and how individuals view themselves. A limitation that
can be taken into account is that there was no control condition. There was either a positive or
negative situation, yet there was not a situation in which no feedback was given. Then the
situation would be up to interpretation by the subject. One can only speculate that in this
condition the researcher could focus on a more direct relationship between Locus of Control and
Self Efficacy. Another limitation would be how much participants believed the bogus positive or
negative feedback. I suspect that there could be a researcher bias if the researcher is not
believable enough to the participant.
The all important question, why is this important? What this study has shown is that
situational factors are a small portion of what make up certain individuals self efficacy. As
previously stated individuals who believe that outcomes are a result of fate or chance, External
Locus of Control, are more affected by situation. Their self efficacy is more ambiguous,
meaning that depending on what happened to them throughout the day they may really believe in
their abilities or lack faith in them. If they have performed horribly in one class then go to
another class they might doubt their abilities as a student, and vice versa if they performed well
prior to their next class. The good news is that for people who possess an Internal Locus of
Control they safely believe in their abilities and do not stress the situation they are in. Self
evaluation research allows individuals a clearer picture of themselves. Especially for individuals
in stages where self evaluation is more critical for example: during adolescence as well as during
the early adult hood stages.
References
Brant, J.D. (1975). Internal Versus External Locus of Control and Performance in

10. Self efficacy after the fact 10
Controlled and Motivated Reading-Rate Improvement Instruction. Journal of
Counseling
Psychology. 22(5), 377-383.
Dunning, D. Kruger, J. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing
one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 77, 1121-1134.
Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition defining its facets and levels of functioning
in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist. 13(4), 277-287.
Johnson, C.D. Gromly, J. (1972). Academic cheating: The contribution of sex, personality, and
situational variables. Developmental Psychology. 6(2), 320-325.
Lachman, M.E. (1986). Locus of control in aging research: A case of multidimensional
and domain-specific assessment. Journal of Psychology and Aging. 1(1), 34 – 40.
Miller, T.M. Geraci, L. (2011). Unskilled but aware: Reinterpreting overconfidence in low-
performing students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and
Cognition. 37(2), 502-506.
Shelly, M. Pakenham, K. (2004). External health locus of control and general self-efficacy:
Moderators of emotional distress among university students. Australian Journal of
Psychology. 56(3), 191-199.
Stankov, L. Lee, J. Paek, I. Realism of confidence judgments. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment. 25(2), 123-130.