Communication Locus of Control Scale

Abstract

The Communication Locus of Control Scale (CLCS) is an 18-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess an individual’s generalized expectancies regarding the internal versus external control of reinforcement within interpersonal and public communication contexts. Originally conceptualized and validated by Hamilton (1991), the CLCS addresses a theoretical and operational limitation observed in general locus of control measures—namely, the lack of contextual fidelity when predicting behavior in dynamic, transactional communicative environments. Grounded in Julian B. Rotter’s social learning theory, the scale captures whether speakers attribute successful or unsuccessful communicative interactions to their personal agency, skill, and behavioral self-regulation (internal communication locus of control) or to external forces such as audience caprice, contextual complexity, innate biological determinism, or sheer luck (external communication locus of control).

Administered via a 4-point forced-choice response format ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree (deliberately omitting a neutral midpoint to minimize central tendency bias), the CLCS yields psychometrically robust dimensional scores. Factor-analytic investigations have identified distinct internal and external dimensions, often further delineated into self-control in speaking, audience dependence, and beliefs regarding innate communicative talent versus effort-based mastery. Across empirical validation studies, the CLCS demonstrates satisfactory internal consistency reliability (with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently ranging from .72 to .86) and solid test-retest stability. Construct validity is supported through significant convergent associations with communication apprehension, public speaking anxiety, self-perceived communication competence, interaction involvement, and generalized locus of control, alongside demonstrated discriminant validity against unrelated personality constructs. This comprehensive review examines the CLCS’s theoretical foundations, structural validity, psychometric indices, and practical utility across instructional, organizational, and clinical communication settings.

Keywords

Communication Locus of Control Scale, CLCS, locus of control, communication apprehension, public speaking anxiety, social learning theory, perceived control, communicative competence, interaction involvement, psychometrics

Authors

The Communication Locus of Control Scale was developed by J. Paul Hamilton. At the time of the instrument’s primary development and validation in 1991, Hamilton was affiliated with the Department of Communication at Fort Hays State University in Hays, Kansas, United States. Hamilton’s scholarly program focused on instructional communication, human communication theory, and the cognitive underpinnings of communicative competence and public speaking performance.

Hamilton’s pioneering work addressed the operational gap between domain-general personality constructs and situation-specific communication behaviors. The initial psychometric validation was published in Communication Reports under the title “The Development of a Communication Specific Locus of Control Instrument” (Hamilton, 1991). Subsequent validation and cross-contextual application have been conducted by researchers across communication studies, speech pathology, and organizational psychology.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Communication Locus of Control Scale is to quantify the degree to which individuals perceive communication outcomes as contingent upon their own behavioral actions versus external, uncontrollable environmental factors. While Julian B. Rotter’s generalized Locus of Control scale (I-E Scale) established locus of control as a foundational paradigm in clinical and social psychology, subsequent scholarship revealed that broad-spectrum instruments often exhibit weak predictive power when applied to specialized behavioral domains. Communication is inherently transactional, bidirectional, and highly susceptible to situational appraisal. Consequently, general measures routinely fail to capture the nuanced attributional styles that govern communicative performance, speech anxiety, and conversational adaptation.

Hamilton (1991) developed the CLCS to provide researchers, educators, and clinicians with a domain-specific diagnostic instrument. Specifically, the tool aims to:

• Diagnose Maladaptive Attributional Styles: Identify speakers who attribute speech breakdowns or conversational success to uncontrollable variables (e.g., audience hostility, luck, or innate unchangeable traits), predisposing them to learned helplessness and severe communication apprehension.
• Facilitate Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions: Serve as a pre- and post-intervention assessment metric in public speaking courses, speech therapy, and executive coaching. By identifying an external locus of control, practitioners can tailor cognitive restructuring interventions designed to shift locus of control toward internal agency and self-efficacy.
• Predict Communicative Performance: Enable researchers to forecast conversational engagement, audience adaptation strategies, nonverbal expressiveness, and persistence in communicative tasks following perceived conversational failure.
• Investigate Organizational and Interpersonal Dynamics: Examine how managerial leadership communication, conflict resolution, negotiation strategies, and dyadic satisfaction are influenced by the participants’ perceived locus of communicative agency.

In instructional environments, the CLCS helps educators distinguish between students who lack functional communication mechanics and those who suffer from cognitive fatalism—the belief that communication skill is an immutable, biological gift rather than a malleable, learned repertoire. In therapeutic paradigms, such as stuttering management and social phobia rehabilitation, the CLCS aids speech-language pathologists and psychotherapists in evaluating the cognitive shifts accompanying functional fluency or desensitization.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the CLCS is Communication Locus of Control (CLC)—a multidimensional attributional orientation reflecting an individual’s generalized expectancies regarding who or what governs communicative exchanges. Rooted in social learning and attribution paradigms, this construct is conceptualized along an internal–external continuum or as two correlated but distinct conceptual axes.

1. Internal Communication Locus of Control

Individuals with a high internal communication locus of control operate under the core belief that communication effectiveness, audience rapport, and conversational trajectories are direct functions of their own preparation, strategic choices, vocal and nonverbal management, and responsive behavioral adjustment. Proponents of this orientation exhibit high communicative self-regulation. When confronted with an unreceptive or disengaged audience, an internally oriented speaker does not conclude that the interaction is fundamentally doomed; rather, they analyze their delivery, adjust their pacing, incorporate visual aids, reframe their arguments, or alter their nonverbal immediacy behaviors to regain audience attention.

Key dimensions of the internal construct include:

• Personal Behavioral Control: The confidence that one can retain cognitive composure, emotional poise, and motoric control over vocalics and bodily gestures under communicative pressure (e.g., item 9: “I am usually in control of my behavior, when I speak”; item 18: “I can keep my wits about me in most communication situations”).
• Effort-Based Attribution: The firm conviction that mastery in public and interpersonal speaking is acquired through sustained practice, persistence, and strategic preparation rather than passive destiny (e.g., item 13: “Since there is really no such thing as luck, being a good speaker is the result of personal effort”; item 16: “Persistence and hard work, not chance, will make you a better speaker”).
• Adaptive Problem-Solving Agency: The belief that even high-stakes or severely complicated social scenarios can be remediated through constructive, intentional communication (e.g., item 17: “Very few situations are so complicated that communication cannot help”).

2. External Communication Locus of Control

Conversely, an external communication locus of control is characterized by the belief that communicative outcomes are determined by forces outside personal influence. Individuals scoring high in external communication locus of control often exhibit fatalistic mindsets, attributing speech success to favorable audience alignments or random fortune, while attributing negative interactions to contextual impossibility or biological deficiency. This cognitive style is deeply entwined with learned helplessness and high state-trait communication anxiety.

The external construct manifests through three distinct theoretical facets:

• Chance, Luck, and Situational Complexity: Communicative success is viewed as a random lottery. The communicator believes that the sheer number of unpredictable variables renders consistent competence an impossible endeavor (e.g., item 1: “Having the good fortune to have the right audience at the right time explains most good speeches”; item 5: “There are so many variables in a communication situation that communicating well consistently is nearly impossible”).
• Audience and Environmental Determinism: The communicator feels entirely subjugated by the audience’s reactions, perceiving that the listeners hold all interactive power, which suppresses the speaker’s personal volition (e.g., item 7: “How much I contribute to a conversation depends on how much others will allow me to contribute”; item 15: “When I am in front of a group, it is almost as if the audience control me more that I control it”).
• Trait and Biological Essentialism: The assumption that effective communication is an innate biological gift possessed exclusively by a chosen few, rendering instructional training or personal effort largely futile (e.g., item 8: “The ability to speak well is something you just happen to be born with”).

Theoretical Framework

The development of the Communication Locus of Control Scale rests upon the intersection of Social Learning Theory, Attribution Theory, and modern Self-Regulation Models of human communication.

Rotter’s Social Learning Theory

The primary bedrock of the CLCS is the conceptual framework formulated by Julian B. Rotter (1954, 1966). Rotter posited that the potential for a specific behavior to occur ($BP$) in a given psychological situation is a function of the expectancy ($E$) that the behavior will lead to a particular reinforcement and the subjective value of that reinforcement ($RV$):

$$BP = f(E, RV)$$

Rotter distinguished between generalized expectancies (which operate across novel or ambiguous situations) and specific expectancies (which develop within familiar, domain-delimited contexts). When individuals encounter communicative challenges—such as addressing a critical board of directors or negotiating a conflict—their behavioral enactment is governed by their locus of control expectancies. Rotter argued that domain-specific scales possess substantially higher predictive validity than omnibus scales because generalized measures dilute the operational relevance of contextual cues. Hamilton operationalized this principle by calibrating Rotter’s internal-external expectancy architecture explicitly to communicative transactions.

Weiner’s Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion

The CLCS is additionally informed by Bernard Weiner’s (1985, 1986) attributional theory. Weiner categorized causal attributions along three primary dimensions: locus of causality (internal vs. external), stability (stable vs. unstable over time), and controllability (controllable vs. uncontrollable by the actor). Within the CLCS:

• Effort is an internal, unstable, and controllable attribution (e.g., “Persistence and hard work”).
• Innate Ability is an internal, stable, but uncontrollable attribution under essentialist views (e.g., “something you just happen to be born with”).
• Audience Mood or Luck represents an external, unstable, and uncontrollable attribution (e.g., “just plain lucky”).
• Situational Complexity represents an external, stable, and uncontrollable attribution (e.g., “so many variables… consistent communication is nearly impossible”).

Communicators who construct causal explanations around unstable, controllable factors (effort, strategy) experience positive achievement motivation and low debilitative anxiety, whereas those who rely on external, uncontrollable attributions experience high evaluation apprehension and cognitive disengagement.

Transactional Models of Communication

Unlike linear transmission models (e.g., Shannon-Weaver), modern communication theory conceptualizes human interaction as transactional, continuous, and co-constructed. Communicators simultaneously send and receive verbal and nonverbal cues. Hamilton’s instrument specifically investigates how actors perceive this transactional loop. High externals experience the transactional feedback loop as an overwhelming, destabilizing force that strips them of self-control; conversely, high internals perceive interactive feedback as informative data to be utilized for adaptive self-monitoring and strategic communicative realignments.

Validity

The psychometric integrity of the Communication Locus of Control Scale has been verified across multiple empirical investigations through construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity testing.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Hamilton (1991) established initial construct validity by correlating the CLCS with established psychological and communication inventories. As hypothesized by theoretical models:

• Communication Apprehension: Significant positive correlations were documented between an external communication locus of control and communication apprehension, as measured by James C. McCroskey’s Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) ($r = .45$ to $.56, p < .001$). Speakers who believe external forces dictate communication report substantially higher fear of public speaking, small group discussions, and dyadic conversations.
• Self-Perceived Communication Competence: The CLCS demonstrates robust negative correlations with self-perceived competence scales ($r = -.38$ to $-.49$). Individuals with an internal orientation perceive themselves as more proficient in message encoding, decoding, listening, and public discourse.
• Rotter’s Generalized I-E Scale: Demonstrating both convergent validity and the necessity of domain specificity, the CLCS correlates moderately with Rotter’s general I-E Scale ($r = .31$ to $.42, p < .01$). The moderate magnitude verifies that while the CLCS shares common attributional variance with generalized locus of control, it captures unique variance directly tied to communicative contexts that generalized scales fail to account for.
• Interaction Involvement: Internally oriented communicators consistently score higher on Cegala’s Interaction Involvement Scale ($r = .36, p < .01$), particularly on the subscales of attentiveness and perceptiveness.

Discriminant Validity

The CLCS displays satisfactory discriminant validity when contrasted against unrelated individual difference constructs. Investigations have demonstrated that scores on the CLCS do not correlate significantly with general cognitive intelligence ($r = .08, p > .05$), verbal intelligence measures ($r = .11, p > .05$), or general social desirability scales (such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, $r = -.12, p > .05$). This confirms that responses on the CLCS reflect genuine cognitive expectancies rather than intellectual capacity or a defensive need for social approval.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Criterion-related validity is evidenced by the CLCS’s ability to forecast objective behavioral markers and psychological outcomes in communication contexts:

• Speech Performance Grades: Hamilton (1991) and subsequent collegiate studies showed that CLCS scores significantly predicted performance evaluations in public speaking courses ($R^2 = .18, p < .01$). Students holding internal orientations consistently achieved higher evaluator ratings for speech organization, nonverbal expressiveness, and eye contact.
• Physiological Reactivity: In experimental stress induction paradigms, individuals exhibiting external communication loci of control demonstrated significantly elevated heart rate reactivity and prolonged autonomic recovery periods during anticipated public speaking tasks compared to internal counterparts.

Reliability

The Communication Locus of Control Scale demonstrates strong and reproducible reliability across diverse participant cohorts, including undergraduate students, working professionals, and clinical speech populations.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the original validation study by Hamilton (1991), the overall instrument exhibited a composite Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficient of **.82**, indicating solid internal consistency across the 18 items. Subsequent psychometric evaluations have corroborated these parameters:

• When analyzed as a unidimensional continuum (with internal items reverse-scored to indicate degree of externality), alpha coefficients routinely fall between **.78 and .85**.
• When scored as two separate subscales, the Internal Subscale (e.g., items 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18) demonstrates Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging from **.74 to .81**.
• The External Subscale (e.g., items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15) demonstrates Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from **.76 to .84**.
• Corrected item-total correlations for the scale items predominantly range between **.35 and .62**, exceeding the conventional psychometric retention threshold of .30.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Test-retest reliability was evaluated across intervals ranging from two to six weeks among non-treatment control groups. Hamilton reported a two-week test-retest correlation coefficient of **$r = .84$ ($p < .001$)**, confirming high temporal stability in the absence of targeted cognitive interventions. In longer 6-week longitudinal assessments, test-retest coefficients remained robust at **$r = .76$**, indicating that while communication locus of control operates as a stable, trait-like cognitive schema, it remains sensitive to cognitive-behavioral restructuring and formal communication training.

Factor Analysis

During the development of the CLCS, Hamilton (1991) conducted both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory assessments to delineate the underlying structural dimensions of the 18 items.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial principal components analysis with varimax orthogonal and oblimin oblique rotations revealed a dominant two-factor structural solution that accounted for approximately 42% to 48% of the total variance across validation samples:

• Factor 1: External Attribution & Loss of Self-Regulation (Audience and Situation Mastery Deficit). This factor loaded heavily on items reflecting vulnerability to audience evaluation, situational randomness, luck, and loss of emotional/behavioral composure during public speaking. Items such as Item 6 (“When I get up in front of a group, my self-control flies out the window”; loading = .71), Item 14 (“…I just can’t seem to make things come out right”; loading = .68), and Item 15 (“…the audience control me more that I control it”; loading = .66) demonstrated prominent factor saturations.
• Factor 2: Internal Agency & Strategic Effort. This factor captured beliefs in intentional self-direction, conversational mastery, behavioral modification, and the efficacy of persistence. Prominent loadings were observed on Item 16 (“Persistence and hard work, not chance, will make you a better speaker”; loading = .73), Item 12 (“If I am aware of a personal communication behavior that is bad, I can control it”; loading = .65), Item 11 (“Given the chance, I can control almost any conversation”; loading = .61), and Item 9 (“I am usually in control of my behavior, when I speak”; loading = .59).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent psychometric assessments evaluating whether the CLCS should be treated as a strict single bipolar factor (Internal vs. External) or an oblique two-factor correlated model have favored the two-factor oblique model. Fit indices reported in contemporary evaluations typically yield:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .92 to .94 (indicating acceptable to good fit).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 to .93.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .054 to .068 (with 90% confidence intervals within acceptable psychometric limits).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .051 to .062.

Cross-factor loadings are generally minimal, though minor residual covariance is frequently noted between items referencing public speaking specifically (e.g., items 6, 14, 15) versus dyadic/general conversation (e.g., items 7, 11), suggesting that higher-order hierarchal models separating interpersonal locus of control from public speaking locus of control are theoretically plausible.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The CLCS is a structured, standardized, pencil-and-paper or digital self-report inventory. The specific administration and operational guidelines are detailed below:

• Test Type: Domain-specific attributional expectancy scale / Self-report psychological inventory.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (recommended reading level: 8th grade / approximately age 13 and above).
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration; available via paper-and-pencil or online digital survey platforms.
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes.
• Total Number of Items: 18 declarative statements.
• Response Scale: 4-point forced-choice Likert-type scale without a neutral midpoint:
  • SA = Strongly agree with the statement
  • A = Agree with the statement
  • D = Disagree with the statement
  • SD = Strongly disagree with the statement
• Scoring Models:
  • Model A: Unidimensional Externality Index (Bipolar Scoring):
    • Assign point values to response categories: SD = 1, D = 2, A = 3, SA = 4.
    • External items (Scored directly): Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15.
    • Internal items (Reverse-scored): Items 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 (where $SA = 1, A = 2, D = 3, SD = 4$).
    • Sum all 18 items to yield a composite score ranging from 18 to 72. Higher overall scores denote an External Communication Locus of Control (belief in chance, audience dominance, or immutable talent), while lower scores reflect an Internal Communication Locus of Control (belief in personal effort, behavioral mastery, and deliberate adaptability).
  • Model B: Two-Dimensional Subscale Scoring:
    • Internal Agency Subscale: Sum raw scores of items 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 ($SD=1, D=2, A=3, SA=4$). Score range: 9 to 36. Higher scores reflect stronger perceived internal control and personal efficacy.
    • External Fatalism Subscale: Sum raw scores of items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 ($SD=1, D=2, A=3, SA=4$). Score range: 9 to 36. Higher scores reflect greater attribution to luck, audience domination, and immutable communication traits.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Communication Locus of Control Scale was first published in 1991 by J. Paul Hamilton. The foundational development and psychometric analysis were formally presented in:

Hamilton, J. P. (1991). The Development of a Communication Specific Locus of Control Instrument. Communication Reports, 4(2), 70–78.

Licensing and Permissions: The instrument was placed into the academic public domain for scientific, educational, non-commercial research, and clinical diagnostics. Researchers and educators may utilize, reproduce, and administer the CLCS without payment of royalty fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to J. Paul Hamilton and Communication Reports in all publications, dissertations, and derivative works. Commercial reproduction, integration into fee-for-service proprietary software platforms, or distribution in commercial corporate training packages requires formal written copyright permission from the publisher (Taylor & Francis / Western States Communication Association).

References

• Cegala, D. J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative competence. Communication Education, 30(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528109378460
• Hamilton, J. P. (1991). The Development of a Communication Specific Locus of Control Instrument. Communication Reports, 4(2), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219109367534
• McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 13–38). SAGE Publications.
• 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
• Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
• Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)