Drinking Locus of Control Scale

Abstract

The Drinking Locus of Control Scale (DLOC) is a specialized psychometric assessment instrument developed in 1978 by clinical psychologists Dennis M. Donovan and Michael R. O’Leary to evaluate individuals’ perceived control over their alcohol consumption and drinking-related consequences. Grounded in Julian Rotter’s Social Learning Theory, the instrument emerged from the empirical recognition that generalized locus of control measures exhibited insufficient predictive utility when applied to circumscribed, highly conditioned addictive behaviors. The DLOC consists of 25 self-report items evaluated on a Likert-type agreement continuum, designed to quantify whether an individual attributes drinking patterns to internal agency (such as personal determination, self-regulation, and behavioral choices) or external forces (such as environmental stress, interpersonal coercion, fate, chance, or an uncontrollable physiological disease process). Psychometric evaluations across diverse clinical and outpatient populations diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) demonstrate that the DLOC possesses high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely falling between .82 and .92, strong test-retest stability across therapeutic stabilization phases, and robust convergent validity with related constructs including drinking self-efficacy, learned helplessness, depression, and psychological distress. Factor-analytic investigations typically delineate a prominent higher-order external locus of control dimension alongside distinct primary factors representing intrapersonal helplessness, interpersonal/situational pressure, and fatalistic or chance attributions. In contemporary addiction psychology, the DLOC serves as an empirical cornerstone for tailoring cognitive-behavioral interventions, assessing readiness to change, tracking the cognitive shifts accompanying rehabilitation, and predicting relapse propensity in post-treatment trajectories.

Keywords

Drinking Locus of Control Scale, DLOC, locus of control, alcohol use disorder, addiction psychometrics, social learning theory, perceived control, relapse prediction, cognitive behavioral therapy, Dennis M. Donovan, Michael R. O’Leary, self-efficacy, external attribution, addictive behaviors

Authors

The Drinking Locus of Control Scale was developed by Dennis M. Donovan, Ph.D., and Michael R. O’Leary, Ph.D.

• Dennis M. Donovan, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine and former Director of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI, now the Addictions, Drug & Alcohol Institute). Dr. Donovan is an internationally recognized clinical psychologist whose research has profoundly shaped addiction treatment matching, psychometric assessment of substance use disorders, and evidence-based behavioral therapies.
• Michael R. O’Leary, Ph.D.: Clinical Psychologist associated with the Veterans Administration (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System and the University of Washington during the conceptualization and psychometric validation of the DLOC. Dr. O’Leary contributed extensively to clinical neuropsychology, personality assessment in addictive disorders, and the operationalization of attributional styles in medical and psychiatric populations.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Drinking Locus of Control Scale is to systematically quantify an individual’s generalized expectancies regarding the locus of control specifically operating within the domain of alcohol consumption. Historically, clinical investigators attempting to apply Julian Rotter’s Internal-External (I-E) Locus of Control Scale to individuals suffering from chronic alcoholism encountered pronounced empirical paradoxes. Many alcohol-dependent individuals scored surprisingly high in general internal locus of control on Rotter’s omnibus scale, exhibiting defensive posturing, grandiose expressions of personal mastery, or cognitive dissonance, while simultaneously exhibiting total behavioral dysregulation and severe helplessness regarding their actual drinking behavior.

To resolve this psychometric and clinical conundrum, Donovan and O’Leary (1978) designed the DLOC as a domain-specific measurement tool. The scale was constructed to capture the precise cognitive architecture underlying drinking behavior, operating on the foundational premise that domain-specific attributional scales yield vastly superior predictive accuracy compared to generalized dispositional measures. The DLOC identifies whether an individual perceives their sobriety and drinking patterns as self-regulated (internal) or governed by external variables (such as interpersonal conflicts, vocational stressors, chance occurrences, bad luck, or the deterministic conceptualization of addiction as an insurmountable disease).

In clinical practice, the DLOC fulfills several critical diagnostic and therapeutic functions:

• Baseline Cognitive Assessment: It identifies the predominant attributional schemas that an individual brings into treatment. Clients who display severe external drinking locus of control typically perceive themselves as passive victims of their environment, negative affect, or biological cravings.
• Treatment Matching and Tailoring: Identification of an external drinking orientation signals to clinicians the necessity for cognitive-behavioral interventions targeting self-efficacy, emotional regulation, assertive communication, and problem-solving skills to dismantle fatalistic assumptions.
• Monitoring Cognitive Restructuring: Administered longitudinally across rehabilitation programs, shifts from an external attributional style toward an internal attributional orientation serve as objective markers of therapeutic progress, agency acquisition, and readiness for independent sobriety maintenance.
• Relapse Risk Stratification: Elevated external scores at treatment discharge are clinically linked to an increased risk of relapse, as individuals who attribute slips or urges to external, immutable forces are significantly more susceptible to the Abstinence Violation Effect (AVE).

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the DLOC is the domain-specific locus of control for alcohol consumption. Locus of control, within psychometric theory, refers to a generalized or specific expectancy concerning the nature of the causal relationship between one’s own behavioral actions and experienced consequences. In the context of alcohol consumption, this construct operationalizes where an individual situates agency, power, and causality regarding both the initiation and cessation of drinking bouts.

1. Internal Drinking Locus of Control

An internal drinking locus of control reflects an individual’s firm belief that alcohol consumption, sobriety, craving management, and recovery outcomes reside directly within personal agency, volition, and behavioral decision-making. Individuals who exhibit low external scores (which conceptually signifies internal orientation) believe that despite emotional distress, social environments, or physical triggers, the ultimate decision to ingest alcohol or remain abstinent depends upon their conscious coping strategies, problem-solving, and self-restraint. They perceive alcohol-related outcomes not as accidental occurrences, but as predictable consequences of their chosen behavioral responses.

2. External Drinking Locus of Control

An external drinking locus of control, as directly captured by elevated scores across the 25 items of the DLOC, reflects the deep-seated cognitive expectancy that alcohol consumption is determined by forces beyond subjective personal control. The construct of external drinking locus of control is multidimensional, encompassing several interlocking sub-themes:

• Interpersonal and Situational Helplessness: The belief that external social dynamics, interpersonal disputes, domestic turmoil, or vocational stressors leave the individual with no psychological alternative other than drinking (e.g., Item 4: “Trouble at work or home drives me to drink”; Item 7: “I get so upset over small arguments that they cause me to drink”; Item 10: “Oftentimes, other people drive one to drink”).
• Emotional and Intrapersonal Powerlessness: The perceived inability to tolerate negative affective states (such as anxiety, depression, or boredom) without relying on pharmacological coping, coupled with the conviction that cravings override cognitive volition (e.g., Item 13: “I feel powerless to prevent myself from drinking when I am anxious or unhappy”; Item 16: “I feel completely helpless when it comes to resisting a drink”).
• Fatalism, Luck, and Chance: The external attribution of sobriety to accidental environmental conditions, fortunate breaks, or random destiny rather than systematic behavioral adherence (e.g., Item 5: “Without the right breaks one cannot stay sober”; Item 8: “Staying sober depends mainly on things going right for you”; Item 12: “Those who are successful in quitting drinking are the ones who are just plain lucky”).
• Inherent Physiological Loss of Control: The conceptualization of oneself as totally lacking will power once alcohol is introduced, aligning with an absolute externalization of physical self-regulation (e.g., Item 21: “Once I start to drink I can’t stop”; Item 24: “I have no will power when it comes to drinking”).

Theoretical Framework

The Drinking Locus of Control Scale is anchored in Social Learning Theory, originally formulated by Julian B. Rotter (1954, 1966), and further expanded by cognitive-behavioral conceptualizations of substance use disorders developed by G. Alan Marlatt, Judith Gordon, and Albert Bandura.

Rotter’s Social Learning Theory and Expectancy Formulations

Rotter’s foundational formula posits that Behavior Potential (BP) = f(Expectancy [E] & Reinforcement Value [RV]). In Rotter’s framework, behavior potential is the likelihood of engaging in a specific behavior in a given context; expectancy is the subjective probability held by the person that a specific behavior will lead to a particular reinforcement; and reinforcement value is the degree of preference for that reinforcement relative to alternatives. When applying this framework to psychopathology, Rotter distinguished between generalized expectancies (which span broad life domains) and specific expectancies (which operate within distinct situational domains).

Donovan and O’Leary recognized that while generalized locus of control serves as a baseline trait heuristic, specific expectancies exert vastly superior behavioral determination when situations are familiar, highly conditioned, and repetitive—as is precisely the case with chronic addiction. In long-standing alcohol misuse, classical and operant conditioning over hundreds of drinking episodes generate highly specific, automatic expectancies. Consequently, measuring generalized I-E offers low predictive fidelity, whereas evaluating domain-specific drinking expectancies directly taps into the cognitive mechanisms guiding behavioral activation.

Integration with Bandura’s Self-Efficacy and Learned Helplessness

The theoretical framework of the DLOC also integrates core concepts from Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, specifically the dichotomy between outcome expectancies (believing that an action will produce a given outcome) and efficacy expectancies (the personal conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcome). External locus of control items on the DLOC directly reflect severe deficits in drinking self-efficacy, where individuals experience pervasive subjective powerlessness in the presence of conditioned cues.

Furthermore, the scale incorporates principles of learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975). Repeated unsuccessful attempts to control alcohol intake or recurrent relapses lead individuals to formulate stable, global, and external attributions for their behavior. They conclude that environmental and physiological forces completely negate their personal volition, culminating in cognitive resignation.

The Cognitive-Behavioral Relapse Model

In the cognitive-behavioral model of addictive behaviors advanced by G. Alan Marlatt and Judith Gordon (1985), an external locus of control acts as a direct catalyst for the Abstinence Violation Effect (AVE). When an individual possessing a high external drinking locus of control experiences a lapse (a single drink), they do not conceptualize the slip as a situational error requiring strategic coping adjustments. Instead, because they view their behavior as driven by external or uncontrollable internal disease forces, they experience intense fatalism, surrender cognitive control, and escalate the lapse into a full-blown catastrophic relapse.

Validity

The Drinking Locus of Control Scale has been rigorously validated across multiple clinical, veteran, and civilian cohorts. Empirical investigations substantiate its construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity of the DLOC was established by demonstrating its theoretically consistent relationships with standardized clinical and psychological instruments:

• Generalized Locus of Control: In the initial validation studies by Donovan and O’Leary (1978), the DLOC exhibited moderate positive correlations with Rotter’s generalized I-E Scale (r ranging from .34 to .48). This moderate degree of correlation confirms that while the DLOC shares underlying attributional variance with generalized locus of control, it captures distinct, specialized variance uniquely attributable to drinking behavior.
• Psychopathology and Affective Distress: External drinking locus of control scores consistently demonstrate significant positive correlations with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (r = .40 to .55), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and the Neuroticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Individuals who view their drinking as externally driven report markedly higher psychological distress and depressive affect.
• Drinking Self-Efficacy: The DLOC displays powerful negative correlations with the Situational Confidence Questionnaire (SCQ-39) developed by Annis and Davis, with correlation coefficients typically exceeding r = -.60. Higher external drinking locus of control consistently corresponds to profoundly diminished self-efficacy across high-risk drinking situations.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the DLOC does not merely index general intellectual functioning or non-specific response sets:

• Correlations between the DLOC and standardized intelligence measures (e.g., WAIS Full Scale IQ) are non-significant (r < .10), establishing that external attributional styles are not an artifact of cognitive capacity.
• Correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale are negligible to weakly negative (r = -.12 to -.18), indicating that DLOC responses reflect authentic cognitive schemas rather than conscious social impression management.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The criterion-related validity of the DLOC is evidenced by its capacity to predict clinical course, treatment engagement, and relapse:

• Treatment Retention: Inpatient AUD treatment programs have documented that individuals who enter treatment with exceptionally high external DLOC scores demonstrate higher premature termination (drop-out) rates unless their cognitive externalization is directly addressed early in psychotherapy.
• Longitudinal Sobriety Outcomes: Prospective studies evaluating post-discharge outcomes demonstrate that patients who successfully undergo a shift toward an internal drinking locus of control across a 4-to-8-week rehabilitation program achieve significantly higher rates of continuous abstinence at 6- and 12-month follow-up evaluations compared to those whose external scores remain elevated.
• Relapse Severity: Among patients who experience a lapse post-treatment, those with elevated baseline external DLOC scores exhibit significantly shorter latencies between the first drink and a complete uncontrolled relapse, validating the link between external attribution and the Abstinence Violation Effect.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Drinking Locus of Control Scale has been extensively evaluated across clinical inpatient, outpatient, and community populations undergoing evaluation for alcohol-related disorders.

Internal Consistency

The scale demonstrates exemplary internal consistency. In Donovan and O’Leary’s seminal psychometric investigations (1978), the overall scale achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of .89 among inpatient alcohol-dependent veterans. Subsequent cross-validation studies across civilian inpatient facilities, outpatient chemical dependency clinics, and university research environments have consistently reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between .82 and .92.

Split-half reliability analyses utilizing the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula have yielded reliability coefficients typically exceeding .86, confirming high item-to-item homogeneity and verifying that the 25 items measure a highly cohesive psychological construct.

Test-Retest Stability

Test-retest reliability evaluations across brief, non-interventional stability windows (1 to 2 weeks) have yielded temporal stability coefficients between r = .78 and r = .85, establishing that the instrument measures a stable cognitive schema rather than transient day-to-day emotional fluctuations. However, when administered across the span of multi-week comprehensive cognitive-behavioral or residential addiction rehabilitation programs, the test-retest correlation systematically decreases to moderate levels (r = .50 to .62). This intentional reduction in stability over time reflects true treatment-induced cognitive restructuring—demonstrating that the DLOC is psychometrically sensitive to therapeutic changes and behavioral empowerment.

Factor Analysis

Extensive exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have illuminated both the unifactorial robust general structure and the multidimensional primary subcomponents of the Drinking Locus of Control Scale.

Principal Components and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the seminal exploratory factor analyses conducted by Donovan and O’Leary (1978) utilizing principal component extraction with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique rotations, the scale demonstrated a strong first general factor accounting for a substantial proportion of the total item variance (often between 32% and 42%), confirming the psychometric validity of using an aggregated total score to represent overall external drinking locus of control.

Beyond this predominant general factor, factor analytic investigations routinely identify three to four distinct, clinically intuitive primary subfactors:

• Factor 1: Intrapersonal Loss of Control and Helplessness
  This factor captures an individual’s perceived inability to resist drinking when experiencing internal emotional states, cravings, or negative affect. Prominent item loadings include Item 16 (“I feel completely helpless when it comes to resisting a drink”, loading > .70), Item 21 (“Once I start to drink I can’t stop”, loading > .68), Item 13 (“I feel powerless to prevent myself from drinking when I am anxious or unhappy”), and Item 24 (“I have no will power when it comes to drinking”).
• Factor 2: Interpersonal and Situational Determinism
  This factor captures external attributions directed toward social conflicts, environmental settings, and peer pressures. Prominent item loadings include Item 4 (“Trouble at work or home drives me to drink”, loading > .65), Item 7 (“I get so upset over small arguments that they cause me to drink”, loading > .62), Item 10 (“Oftentimes, other people drive one to drink”), and Item 11 (“It is impossible for me to resist drinking if I am at a party where others are drinking”).
• Factor 3: Fate, Luck, and Accidental Forces
  This factor encompasses beliefs that maintaining sobriety or developing an alcohol problem is a function of luck, chance occurrences, or unpredictable circumstances. High-loading items include Item 2 (“Most people do not realize that drinking problems are influenced by accidental happenings”, loading > .60), Item 5 (“Without the right breaks one cannot stay sober”), Item 8 (“Staying sober depends mainly on things going right for you”), and Item 12 (“Those who are successful in quitting drinking are the ones who are just plain lucky”).
• Factor 4: Deterministic Disease Conception
  Certain factor extractions isolate a smaller fourth factor reflecting external beliefs about the nature of alcoholism as an uncontrollable illness (e.g., Item 15: “As far as drinking is concerned, most of us are victims of forces we can neither understand nor control”; Item 17: “It is impossible for some people to ever stop drinking”; Item 18: “It is difficult for alcoholics to have much control over their drinking”).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric examinations using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have confirmed that a hierarchical model—featuring a higher-order General External Drinking Locus of Control dimension that subsumes the primary subfactors—exhibits strong goodness-of-fit indices (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < .06). This provides empirical justification for clinicians and researchers to utilize both the comprehensive global score and individual subfactor profiles to guide targeted interventions.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Drinking Locus of Control Scale (DLOC)
• Authors: Dennis M. Donovan, Ph.D., & Michael R. O’Leary, Ph.D. (1978)
• Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized self-report questionnaire
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents undergoing assessment or treatment for alcohol use disorders, problem drinking, or participating in addiction research
• Item Count: 25 items
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes
• Response Scale: Typically administered using a Likert agreement scale (most commonly a 5-point Likert format ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, or a 4-point/6-point forced-choice format without a neutral midpoint)
• Scoring System:
  • All 25 items are framed such that agreement reflects an external drinking locus of control.
  • When using a standard 5-point Likert format (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided/Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree), item ratings are summed directly to produce a global External Drinking Locus of Control Score.
  • Total score range (on a 5-point scale): 25 to 125.
  • Higher total scores indicate a more pronounced external locus of control (attributing drinking and recovery to external circumstances, interpersonal forces, affective helplessness, or fate).
  • Lower total scores indicate an internal locus of control (attributing drinking regulation, craving resistance, and recovery to personal agency and self-efficacy).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Drinking Locus of Control Scale was first published in 1978 in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol by Dr. Dennis M. Donovan and Dr. Michael R. O’Leary. Because the original development and psychometric validation were conducted in part through federally supported clinical research initiatives at the Veterans Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs) and published within academic literature, the instrument is generally accessible for academic, clinical, and non-commercial research purposes without royalty fees.

Clinicians and academic investigators intending to utilize the scale in clinical practice, formal research trials, or digital assessment systems should cite the original authors appropriately in all resulting documentation. While no proprietary corporate copyright fee applies to standard academic usage, formal publication in commercial testing batteries or derivative commercial applications requires customary permissions in accordance with the policies of the original publishing journal (Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs).

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
• Donovan, D. M., & O’Leary, M. R. (1978). The drinking locus of control scale: Relationship to expectancy and drinking behavior. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 39(5), 759–784. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.1978.39.759
• Donovan, D. M., & O’Leary, M. R. (1983). Control orientation, drinking behavior, and alcoholism. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the Locus of Control Construct: Vol. 2. Developments and Social Problems (pp. 107–153). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-443202-4.50008-8
• Keefe, F. J. (1978). Assessment of self-reported drinking locus of control. Addictive Behaviors, 3(3-4), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(78)90030-9
• Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (Eds.). (1985). Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors. Guilford Press.
• 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
• Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. W. H. Freeman.

Items of the Scale