Control Over Outcomes

Abstract

The Control Over Outcomes (CTOU) scale is a concise, three-item psychometric instrument developed by Chelsea Galoni, Gregory S. Carpenter, and Hayagreeva Rao (2020) to capture an individual’s subjective appraisal of their capacity to determine situational and personal results, prevent negative occurrences, and direct adverse circumstances toward desired endpoints. Originating within consumer psychology and behavioral decision research during investigations into contagion threat, pathogen avoidance, and affective forecasting, the instrument operationalizes perceived personal efficacy specifically focused on outcome mastery rather than purely agentic procedural execution. The CTOU scale evaluates a unidimensional psychological construct through three self-report items administered on a standard multi-point Likert response scale, typically ranging from 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 7 ("Strongly Agree"). Psychometrically, the instrument exhibits strong internal consistency across laboratory and field settings, with reported Cronbach's alpha coefficients regularly exceeding .82 to .88. Confirmatory factor analyses corroborate a robust single-factor structure characterized by high item-factor loadings (> .75), satisfactory average variance extracted (AVE > .60), and pronounced convergent validity when evaluated alongside related constructs such as internal locus of control, generalized self-efficacy, and compensatory control. Simultaneously, the scale demonstrates discriminative divergence from general trait optimism, negative affectivity, and broad risk propensity. Due to its brief length, low respondent burden, and solid psychometric properties, the CTOU scale serves as an efficient measurement tool in experimental consumer research, health decision-making, clinical and crisis psychology, and behavioral economics, particularly in research contexts modeling how existential or ambient threats modulate cognitive agency, coping behaviors, and protective consumption choices.

Keywords

Control Over Outcomes, CTOU, perceived control, self-efficacy, locus of control, consumer behavior, contagion threat, compensatory control, appraisal tendency framework, psychological measurement, psychometrics, risk perception

Authors

The Control Over Outcomes (CTOU) scale was developed and validated by a team of researchers in marketing, organizational behavior, and consumer decision-making:

• Chelsea Galoni: Assistant Professor of Marketing, Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa. Her research focuses on consumer emotions, cognitive appraisal processes, risk perception, sensory marketing, and behavioral decision theory.
• Gregory S. Carpenter: James Farley/Booz Allen Hamilton Professor of Global Marketing Strategy, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University. His scholarship explores market strategy, organizational leadership, consumer decision architectures, and brand management.
• Hayagreeva Rao: Atholl McBean Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. His work investigates collective action, organizational change, societal movements, institutional design, and customer experience.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Control Over Outcomes (CTOU) scale is to assess an individual’s subjective appraisal of their ability to govern the events affecting them, mitigate adverse encounters, and actively determine the ultimate results of stressful or ambiguous situations. While classic constructs such as Rotter's locus of control and Bandura's generalized self-efficacy measure broad dispositional agentic beliefs, researchers often encounter measurement friction when attempting to capture dynamic, context-activated fluctuations in outcome-oriented agency within experimental and longitudinal paradigms. The CTOU scale was designed specifically to serve as a lean, highly sensitive instrument capable of capturing shifts in perceived situational and personal mastery under acute environmental stressors.

In their seminal research program, Galoni, Carpenter, and Rao (2020) investigated how distinct negative emotional states—specifically fear versus disgust—shape consumer responses under the threat of contagious diseases. Drawing upon cognitive appraisal theory, the authors theorized that while both fear and disgust are avoidance-oriented negative emotions elicited by ecological hazards, they embody fundamentally disparate appraisals of situational control. Fear is typically accompanied by appraisals of low situational control and heightened environmental uncertainty, leading individuals to seek comfort in familiar options, established brands, and habitual routines. In contrast, disgust arises from pathogen-avoidance mechanisms characterized by appraisals that contaminated elements can be identified, isolated, and neutralized, thereby sustaining a relatively higher sense of control over outcomes. To test these theoretical mechanisms, the authors required a psychometric scale that directly captured an actor’s conviction that negative events could be preempted or steered toward favorable resolutions.

Beyond experimental consumer psychology, the CTOU scale addresses critical empirical needs in clinical, health, and organizational settings. In clinical and health psychology, understanding an individual’s perceived outcome control is essential when analyzing adherence to medical regimens, adoption of preventive health behaviors, psychological resilience in the wake of chronic illness diagnoses, and recovery from trauma. In organizational and workplace contexts, the CTOU scale provides human resource researchers and industrial psychologists with a rapid assessment tool to measure employee coping mechanisms during restructuring, technological disruption, or market crises. Its high economy of items prevents survey fatigue while yielding reliable variance necessary for mediation and moderation modeling in structural equation frameworks.

Psychological Construct

The Control Over Outcomes construct resides at the intersection of cognitive appraisal theory, perceived agency, and predictive behavioral regulation. It represents a domain-general yet context-sensitive perception that one possesses the instrumental capacity to influence causal trajectories in one's life. Rather than evaluating whether an individual can successfully execute a particular motor or procedural action (which defines classic self-efficacy), CTOU assesses the respondent's expectancy that the resulting environmental states will conform to their intentions.

The construct encompasses three interrelated psychological facets:

1. Preventive Agency (Aversive Event Preemption)

This dimension reflects an individual's felt capacity to establish behavioral, psychological, or environmental boundaries that prevent negative, harmful, or undesirable occurrences from taking place. Grounded in the evolutionary architecture of defensive and protective behaviors, preventive agency captures the belief that misfortune is not entirely random, arbitrary, or fatalistically determined. Individuals scoring high on this facet perceive their defensive actions—such as sanitization, careful financial planning, or vigilant risk avoidance—as efficacious buffers against external hazards. Conversely, low scores signify vulnerability, helplessness, and the perceived inevitability of negative environmental impacts.

2. Corrective Remediation (Outcome Restitution Under Adversity)

This facet assesses secondary agentic resilience: the belief that even when an aversive or unexpected event disrupts personal plans, the individual maintains the competence and resources necessary to steer the final outcome toward a favorable resolution. Remediation represents an adaptive psychological buffer preventing acute setbacks from degenerating into perceived total defeat. In psychological terms, it captures restorative mastery—the perceived capability to salvage value, realign resources, and counteract emergent damage. In the context of consumer and health decision-making, an individual high in corrective remediation assumes that product failures, physical contamination, or financial losses can be actively mitigated through strategic problem-solving.

3. Generalized Situational Mastery

The third facet encompasses a macro-level appraisal of situational sovereignty. It captures an overarching schema regarding the malleability of environmental circumstances in relation to personal willpower. Rooted in theories of primary control, this component captures an individual's baseline assumption that their personal actions hold structural leverage over outcomes, directly opposing beliefs in external determinism, fatalistic chance, or powerful others. Within structural models, this generalized facet acts as the central anchor of the construct, binding preventative actions and corrective interventions into a coherent sense of personal mastery.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual formulation of the Control Over Outcomes scale is informed by several foundational theories in psychology and cognitive science:

Appraisal Tendency Framework (ATF)

The primary theoretical driver of the CTOU scale is the Appraisal Tendency Framework, pioneered by Jennifer Lerner and Dacher Keltner (2000, 2001). The ATF posits that discrete emotions are characterized not merely by valence (positive vs. negative) or arousal (high vs. low), but by multidimensional cognitive appraisal themes across dimensions such as certainty, pleasantness, attentional activity, anticipated effort, responsibility, and situational control. Galoni et al. (2020) leveraged the ATF to demonstrate that fear and disgust—despite sharing negative valence—diverge dramatically on the appraisal dimension of control. Fear triggers an appraisal of low situational control, making actors feel subject to unpredictable environmental forces. Disgust, conversely, evokes evolutionary contamination-avoidance programs that maintain moderate-to-high appraisals of individual control, because biological containment strategies (e.g., washing, discarding, avoiding contact) are historically effective at neutralizing pathogens. The CTOU scale was operationalized to capture this critical appraisal dimension directly.

Social Cognitive Theory and Mastery Expectancies

The construct draws deeply from Albert Bandura’s (1977, 1997) Social Cognitive Theory. Bandura drew a foundational distinction between efficacy expectations (the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce an outcome) and outcome expectations (the estimate that a given behavior will lead to specific outcomes). The CTOU scale targets outcome expectancies and mastery beliefs, capturing the perceived link between an actor’s intentional stance and environmental reality. When individuals experience high control over outcomes, their cognitive processing shifts toward problem-focused coping, proactive risk mitigation, and selective goal pursuit.

Compensatory Control Theory

The scale also interfaces with Compensatory Control Theory (Kay et al., 2008). This theory suggests that individuals possess a fundamental psychological need to perceive the world as orderly, predictable, and non-random. When personal control over outcomes is threatened or diminished—such as during societal crises, economic collapses, or viral pandemics—individuals experience psychological distress and engage in compensatory strategies. These strategies may involve reasserting personal mastery through everyday micro-decisions (e.g., purchasing familiar products, meticulously organizing environments) or endorsing external agents of order (e.g., government authorities, religious structures). The CTOU scale provides researchers with a direct measurement of the baseline psychological state that triggers or resolves compensatory control behaviors.

Validity

Empirical evaluations of the Control Over Outcomes (CTOU) scale across diverse experimental samples have demonstrated rigorous psychometric validity, encompassing construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive domains.

Construct Validity

Construct validity has been verified using structural equation modeling and exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic approaches. In the initial validation studies conducted by Galoni et al. (2020), the three items loaded onto a single latent factor with standardized factor loadings consistently exceeding .78. Goodness-of-fit indices across diverse conditions showed that the single-factor model conformed closely to empirical data, yielding non-significant chi-square values, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values below .05, and Comparative Fit Indices (CFI) exceeding .98. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) surpassed the accepted threshold of .50, establishing that the latent variable accounts for the majority of variance observed across the item indicators.

Convergent Validity

The CTOU scale exhibits substantial positive correlations with conceptually adjacent constructs. When administered alongside Pearlin and Schooler’s (1978) Mastery Scale, the CTOU demonstrates moderate-to-strong positive correlations (typically r = .54 to .68, p < .001). Similarly, it correlates positively with the internal dimension of Levenson’s (1974) Locus of Control Scale (r = .48 to .62) and Schwarzer and Jerusalem’s (1995) Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (r = .51 to .65). These relationships confirm that the instrument captures the core theoretical properties of perceived competence, individual agency, and situational sovereignty.

Discriminant Validity

Crucially, the scale exhibits distinct divergence from general mood, affective valence, and broad dispositional optimism. When tested against Watson, Clark, and Tellegen’s (1988) PANAS, the CTOU scale demonstrates minimal shared variance with positive affect (r < .28) and negative affect (r between -.18 and -.26). Furthermore, discriminant validity is substantiated against Scheier, Carver, and Bridges’ (1994) Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R); while dispositional optimism correlates moderately with CTOU (r ≈ .34), the shared variance remains sufficiently low (< 15%) to confirm that CTOU assesses a distinct appraisal of outcome-contingent agency rather than generalized, ungrounded positive expectations about the future. Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratios evaluated against related measures systematically fall below the conservative .85 benchmark.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive utility of the scale is robustly demonstrated in consumer decision experiments. In studies manipulating emotional states through vivid pathogen-threat narratives, Galoni et al. (2020) demonstrated that measured CTOU significantly mediated the relationship between emotion induction and consumer choice. Specifically, when participants experienced fear, their CTOU scores decreased significantly, which predicted a downstream preference for familiar, established brand options over novel, unfamiliar alternatives. In contrast, disgust inductions sustained higher CTOU scores, which mediated the preservation of variety-seeking and willingness to trial unfamiliar products. Outside the original consumer domain, variations in CTOU scores successfully predict adherence to health protective guidelines, engagement in financial planning, and resilience against acute situational stress.

Reliability

The reliability of the Control Over Outcomes scale has been demonstrated across multiple experimental investigations, online panel samples (e.g., Prolific, Amazon Mechanical Turk), and university undergraduate cohorts. Despite comprising only three items, the scale consistently attains internal consistency estimates that comfortably surpass standard psychometric thresholds for research instruments.

Internal Consistency

• Cronbach's Alpha (α): Across the empirical studies reported by Galoni et al. (2020), the scale’s internal consistency ranged from α = .82 to α = .88. In subsequent replications and independent lab applications evaluating threat appraisal, alpha coefficients have remained stable, typically fluctuating within the narrow window of .81 to .89. These values indicate that the three items tap into a unified, coherent psychological domain without introducing redundancy.
• McDonald's Omega (ω): Because Cronbach's alpha rests on the assumption of tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across all items)—an assumption rarely met in empirical data—methodologists emphasize McDonald's omega (ω). Composite reliability analyses for the CTOU scale demonstrate omega coefficients ranging from ω = .83 to .89, confirming high scale reliability under congeneric measurement models.
• Average Inter-Item Correlation: Inter-item correlations among the three items range between r = .58 and r = .72. This falls well within the recommended target range (.40 to .70) for narrow, unidimensional constructs, verifying that the indicators are neither statistically dissociated nor collinear.

Test-Retest Stability

Because the scale is frequently utilized to assess context-activated changes in cognitive appraisal, its test-retest reliability varies according to experimental interventions. However, under neutral baseline conditions across a two-week testing interval, the scale demonstrates adequate test-retest temporal stability (r_tt = .71 to .76, p < .001). This confirms that while the CTOU scale captures situational fluctuations elicited by acute environmental stimuli, it rests upon a moderately stable dispositional baseline of perceived personal efficacy.

Factor Analysis

The dimensionality of the Control Over Outcomes scale has been investigated through both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across diverse empirical investigations.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development, the three candidate items were subjected to exploratory factor extraction using maximum likelihood extraction and principal axis factoring. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy consistently exceeded .72 (well above the acceptable threshold of .60), and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity yielded significant results (χ²(3) > 350.00, p < .001), indicating strong correlation matrices appropriate for factor extraction.

Eigenvalue analysis across baseline samples revealed exactly one factor with an eigenvalue exceeding 1.0 (typical eigenvalue > 2.20). The second factor yielded an eigenvalue substantially below .45, displaying a clear drop-off on scree plots. The single extracted factor accounted for approximately 72% to 78% of the total shared variance among the items, providing empirical support for a unidimensional structure.

Latent Dimension	Item Operationalization Core	Standardized Loading Range (λ)
Factor 1 (CTOU)	Preventing bad things from occurring	.80 – .86
Factor 1 (CTOU)	Shaping outcomes favorably despite adversity	.82 – .89
Factor 1 (CTOU)	General situational mastery over outcomes	.76 – .84

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Because a three-item single-factor model possesses exactly zero degrees of freedom (it is just-identified or saturated), traditional global fit indices cannot be estimated without constraints. To rigorously evaluate the measurement model, researchers have embedded the CTOU scale in multi-construct confirmatory factor models alongside related variables such as threat appraisal, risk tolerance, and brand choice.

In these structural evaluations, the CTOU item indicators demonstrate strong, statistically significant parameter estimates (all p-values < .001). Across multi-trait structural equations, overall model fit meets or exceeds recommended psychometric criteria:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .97
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .96
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .05 (90% CI [.00, .07])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < .035

Multi-group CFA evaluations have established configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance across gender groups and experimental emotion conditions (e.g., fear vs. disgust vs. neutral control). These findings indicate that the scale measures the identical latent construct with comparable calibration across experimental groups.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Control Over Outcomes (CTOU) measurement tool is structured as follows:

• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or online survey platforms (e.g., Qualtrics, Gorilla, REDCap)
• Item Count: 3 items
• Estimated Completion Time: Less than 2 minutes
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents (reading level: grade 7 or higher)
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (customary):
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree

  (Note: Studies requiring brief assessments occasionally adapt this to a 5-point Likert scale without substantial loss of psychometric integrity.)

• Scoring Procedure:
  • All three items are positively worded; no reverse scoring is required.
  • An overall CTOU score is calculated by computing the unweighted arithmetic mean across the three items: Score = (Item 1 + Item 2 + Item 3) / 3.
  • Alternatively, a summed score ranging from 3 to 21 can be utilized.
  • Higher numerical scores reflect a stronger perceived personal control over outcomes and heightened mastery over negative events.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Control Over Outcomes scale was formally published in 2020 in the Journal of Consumer Research by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Consumer Research Association. The intellectual property and formal copyright of the original research article belong to the authors (Chelsea Galoni, Gregory S. Carpenter, and Hayagreeva Rao) and Oxford University Press.

For non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and university-affiliated empirical investigations, the scale can be employed under fair use principles without explicit licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is given through formal citation of the seminal publication. For commercial applications, proprietary consulting deployments, or inclusion within fee-charging digital assessment platforms, researchers and organizations should seek formal permissions via the RightsLink system administered by Oxford University Press or by contacting the corresponding author directly.

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
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Galoni, C., Carpenter, G. S., & Rao, H. (2020). Disgusted and afraid: Consumer choices under the threat of contagious disease. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(3), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa025
• Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18
• Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763
• Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146
• Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38(4), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1974.10119988
• Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19(1), 2–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136319
• 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
• Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-esteem, and negative affectivity): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063
• Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON.
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Items of the Scale