Locus of Control of Behaviour Scale

Abstract

The Locus of Control of Behaviour Scale (LCB) is a prominent 17-item psychometric instrument developed by Ashley R. Craig, Janice A. Franklin, and Gavin Andrews in 1984 at the University of New South Wales and St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, Australia. Designed to address the psychometric limitations of generalized locus of control instruments—such as Julian Rotter‘s Internal-External (I-E) Scale—the LCB specifically operationalizes personal beliefs regarding the controllability of specific psychological, physiological, and behavioral problems. The scale measures an individual’s perceived contingency between personal self-regulatory efforts and behavioral outcomes versus attribution to external forces such as chance, luck, uncontrollable physiological arousal, or external agents. Measured on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”), the instrument yields a continuous total score from 0 to 85, where higher scores reflect an external locus of control over behavior and lower scores reflect an internal locus of control. The LCB exhibits robust psychometric properties across both clinical and non-clinical populations: internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) typically range from .79 to .86, and test-retest reliability over a one-week interval is established at r = .90. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate a primary overarching dimension of behavioral controllability alongside distinguishable sub-dimensions reflecting internal agency and external helplessness. Over four decades of empirical research have validated the LCB as an indispensable prognostic and outcome evaluation tool across cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) paradigms, speech fluency interventions (e.g., stuttering rehabilitation), anxiety and panic management, substance use recovery, and behavioral medicine regimens.

Keywords

Locus of Control of Behaviour Scale, LCB, behavioral locus of control, internal-external locus of control, psychometrics, treatment outcome, cognitive behavioral therapy, attribution theory, self-regulation, stuttering rehabilitation, clinical assessment, psychological measurement

Authors

The Locus of Control of Behaviour Scale was developed and validated by a multidisciplinary clinical research team affiliated with the Clinical School of Psychiatry at the University of New South Wales, based at the Prince Henry Hospital and St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia:

• Ashley R. Craig, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Rehabilitation Studies and Behavioral Sciences, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, and Northern Clinical School, St. Leonards, Australia. Professor Craig has authored groundbreaking work in behavioral medicine, neurological rehabilitation, stuttering intervention, and the psychophysiology of autonomic control.
• Janice A. Franklin, Ph.D.: Clinical Psychologist and Behavioral Researcher, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales. Dr. Franklin contributed extensively to empirical studies on anxiety disorders, phobic behavior, cognitive restructuring, and behavioral modification assessment.
• Gavin Andrews, AO, M.D., FRANZCP, FRCPsych: Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales; former Director of the Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety and Depression (CRUfAD) at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney. Professor Andrews was an internationally celebrated pioneer in evidence-based psychiatry, computerized cognitive behavioral therapy, psychiatric epidemiology, and clinical trials methodology.

Purpose

The primary clinical and scientific purpose of the Locus of Control of Behaviour Scale is to evaluate an individual’s explicit beliefs regarding their capacity to manage, modify, and master their personal problems and maladaptive behaviors. Prior to the development of the LCB in 1984, psychological assessment relied heavily on generalized locus of control instruments, such as Rotter’s I-E Scale (1966) and Levenson’s Multidimensional Locus of Control Scales (1973). While these generalized measures were valuable for broad sociological inquiries and macro-level psychological studies, clinical practitioners and researchers noted that they possessed inadequate predictive validity in targeted behavioral modification interventions. An individual might believe that societal outcomes or broad geopolitical events are governed by luck, yet simultaneously maintain high perceived control over their personal physical health, speech fluency, or emotional reactions. Conversely, a patient might profess a general philosophy of personal responsibility while simultaneously experiencing acute perceived helplessness regarding physiological panic responses or addictive impulses.

To eliminate this mismatch between broad dispositional constructs and context-specific self-regulation, Craig, Franklin, and Andrews designed the LCB as a domain-specific clinical assessment instrument. The scale directly targets the core mechanisms evaluated in cognitive-behavioral interventions: the client’s perception of agency versus fatalistic vulnerability regarding their specific problem areas. In clinical settings, the LCB serves multiple diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic purposes:

• Prognostic Baseline Screening: The instrument identifies individuals presenting with an extreme external locus of control of behavior who may view therapy passively or anticipate that change must be driven entirely by external clinical experts or environmental modifications. Clients exhibiting marked externality on the LCB frequently require targeted pre-treatment motivational interviewing or cognitive attributional restructuring before they can effectively engage with active behavioral homework.
• Treatment Mechanism and Process Monitoring: The LCB provides a sensitive, repeated-measurement metric to assess whether therapeutic interventions are succeeding in shifting the patient’s attributional schema toward personal agency, self-efficacy, and perceived internal mastery throughout the course of therapy.
• Relapse Vulnerability Evaluation: In longitudinal rehabilitation paradigms, such as stuttering therapy, weight management, chronic pain management, and substance use treatment, post-treatment LCB scores strongly predict the maintenance versus decay of therapeutic gains. Patients who achieve behavioral change while attributing their success to external factors (such as the clinical setting, the therapist, or luck) exhibit statistically significantly higher rates of relapse compared to those whose LCB scores shift definitively toward an internal locus of control.

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the LCB is behavioral locus of control—defined as the extent to which an individual attributes responsibility for, mastery over, and maintenance of their personal behavioral difficulties to internal personal actions versus external, uncontrollable forces. The scale bridges social learning theory and clinical cognitive-behavioral principles, operating across several functional dimensions:

1. Internal Behavioral Mastery and Future Proaction

This dimension reflects an individual’s firm conviction that problematic behaviors and somatic symptoms can be prevented, regulated, and rectified through proactive planning, disciplined behavioral execution, and effortful coping. Core psychological features of this dimension include:

• Anticipatory Coping: The belief that impending stressors or behavioral triggers can be foreseen and mitigated through preemptive strategic adjustments (e.g., Item 1: “I can anticipate difficulties and take action to avoid them”).
• Outcome Expectancy Tied to Effort: The cognitive framing of successful behavioral outcomes as direct functions of hard work, structured strategy, and resilience rather than serendipity (e.g., Item 8: “Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it”).
• Personal Accountability: The acceptance that personal mistakes, setbacks, and behavioral slips fall within one’s own domain of responsibility rather than constituting proof of external subjugation (e.g., Item 7: “My mistakes and problems are my responsibility to deal with”).

2. External Helplessness and Fatalism

In contrast to internal mastery, this dimension captures beliefs that personal difficulties, behavioral patterns, and symptomatic expressions are dictated by uncontrollable external parameters. Key attributes include:

• Fatalistic Predetermination: The cognitive presumption that one’s future and behavioral trajectories are primarily governed by chance, luck, or destiny (e.g., Item 2: “A great deal of what happens to me is probably just a matter of chance”; Item 3: “Everyone knows that luck or chance determine one’s future”).
• Chronicity and Domination: The demoralizing belief that personal problems represent permanent, immutable conditions that inevitably overpower the individual (e.g., Item 6: “My problem(s) will dominate me all my life”).
• Circumstantial Victimhood: A passive cognitive style that views the self as an involuntary recipient of environmental forces, diminishing motivation to engage in adaptive problem-solving (e.g., Item 10: “People are victims of circumstance beyond their control”).

3. Physiological and Somatic Helplessness

A distinctive feature of the LCB that sets it apart from traditional cognitive attribution inventories is its explicit integration of somatic and autonomic controllability beliefs. The instrument evaluates how individuals interpret autonomic hyperarousal under stress:

• Autonomic Inevitability: The perception that somatic arousal (e.g., muscle tension, hyperventilation, dysregulated respiration) is entirely divorced from voluntary self-regulation and can neither be modulated nor soothed (e.g., Item 12: “When I am under stress, the tightness in my muscles is due to things outside my control”; Item 14: “It is impossible to control my irregular and fast breathing when I am having difficulties”).

4. External Agent Dependency

This facet assesses the belief that self-regulation is impossible in the absence of continuous, external professional supervision or environmental props:

• Professional Reliance: Attributing one’s functional stability entirely to external helpers rather than internalized coping skills (e.g., Item 4: “I can control my problem(s) only if I have outside support”; Item 11: “To continually manage my problems I need professional help”).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Locus of Control of Behaviour Scale is rooted in Social Learning Theory, Attribution Theory, and the cognitive theory of behavioral change:

Rotter’s Social Learning Formulation and Generalized Expectancies

Julian Rotter (1954, 1966) postulated that the probability of a given behavior occurring in a specific psychological situation is a function of the expectancy that the behavior will lead to a particular reinforcement, multiplied by the value of that reinforcement: BP = f(E & RV). Rotter differentiated between individuals who hold a generalized expectancy that reinforcements are contingent upon their own characteristics or behaviors (Internal Locus of Control) versus those who believe reinforcements are controlled by external forces, luck, chance, or powerful others (External Locus of Control).

However, Rotter explicitly cautioned that generalized expectancies operate predominantly in novel, ambiguous situations. As individuals gain extensive experience within a specific behavioral domain (such as managing a chronic health condition or psychological challenge), domain-specific expectancies supersede generalized beliefs. Craig and colleagues (1984) recognized that clinical disorders—such as severe stuttering, agoraphobia, or substance dependence—are characterized by extensive personal learning histories. Consequently, measuring generalized expectations yields low predictive precision; evaluating problem-specific behavioral expectancies provides the necessary predictive accuracy.

Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory and Perceived Operant Agency

Albert Bandura (1977, 1986) introduced an essential theoretical distinction between outcome expectancies (the conviction that a given behavior will produce a given outcome) and efficacy expectations (the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcome). The LCB integrates these constructs by examining behavioral contingency. When an individual scores high on the LCB (externality), they report that engaging in proactive behavior will fail to influence their symptoms because outside forces dominate the outcome, or that their internal physiological systems are unmodifiable. In contrast, low LCB scores (internality) reflect an integrated schema of high self-efficacy paired with internal behavioral contingency.

Seligman’s Learned Helplessness and Abramson’s Reformulation

The theoretical framing of the LCB also incorporates Learned Helplessness and its cognitive reformulation (Seligman, 1975; Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). When individuals endure repeated behavioral failures (e.g., failed attempts to maintain speech fluency or stop panic sensations), they frequently develop an attributional style that frames failure as global, stable, and internal-uncontrollable (or driven by uncontrollable external forces). The LCB captures this fatalistic cognitive state, measuring the degree to which an individual views their behavioral difficulties as enduring conditions that will dominate them indefinitely.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Locus of Control of Behaviour Scale have been demonstrated in numerous empirical investigations across four decades:

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the seminal validation study by Craig, Franklin, and Andrews (1984), construct validity was confirmed by comparing clinical cohorts against matched non-clinical control populations. Stuttering clients presenting for treatment demonstrated significantly higher external LCB scores (M = 34.6, SD = 8.8) than non-clinical community controls (M = 26.6, SD = 8.7), reflecting the learned helplessness and perceived lack of behavioral control characteristic of chronic speech impairment (t = 5.7, p < .001). Similarly, clinical phobic patients exhibited pronounced external attribution profiles prior to behavioral intervention.

Convergent validity has been evaluated through correlations with established psychometric scales. The LCB demonstrates moderate, statistically significant correlations with Rotter’s I-E Scale (typically r = .35 to .55), confirming that while the LCB measures an overlapping construct of control expectancies, it captures unique variance specific to behavioral self-regulation. Furthermore, LCB externality correlates positively with standard measures of psychological distress, state and trait anxiety (STAI), neuroses, and depressive symptomatology (BDI), while demonstrating strong negative correlations with generalized self-efficacy (Sherer et al. GSES; typically r = -.52 to -.68).

Predictive and Discriminant Validity

The predictive validity of the LCB is particularly pronounced in behavioral intervention studies. In long-term outcome evaluations of intensive behavioral stuttering programs (Andrews & Craig, 1988; Craig, 1990), post-treatment LCB scores were the single most reliable predictor of long-term fluency maintenance. Individuals who concluded therapy with an internal score profile (LCB < 20–22) demonstrated maintenance of fluency at 10- to 12-month follow-up. Conversely, individuals who concluded treatment with high external scores (LCB > 28) experienced an 80% to 90% probability of behavioral relapse, regardless of their speech fluency at the conclusion of treatment.

Discriminant validity has been shown by the scale’s sensitivity in differentiating between domain-specific behavioral control and unrelated social traits (e.g., social desirability, intelligence, and demographic variables). Studies utilizing the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale report low, non-significant correlations with LCB scores (typically r = -.08 to -.14), demonstrating that responses are largely free from favorable self-presentation biases.

Reliability

The Locus of Control of Behaviour Scale demonstrates robust, replicable psychometric reliability across internal consistency, split-half metrics, and temporal stability evaluations:

Internal Consistency

• Original Normative Cohort (Craig et al., 1984): In the initial validation cohort consisting of 115 non-clinical individuals and multiple clinical groups, Cronbach’s alpha was established at α = .79, demonstrating solid item homogeneity for a 17-item multidimensional scale.
• Clinical Replication Cohorts: Subsequent studies involving clinical cohorts with speech disorders, phobic conditions, and chronic medical illnesses have reported internal consistency coefficients ranging from α = .80 to .86.
• Split-Half Reliability: Split-half reliability using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula yielded an internal reliability coefficient of r = .82 in clinical speech-pathology cohorts.

Test-Retest Stability

The temporal stability of the LCB reflects both the dispositional qualities of locus of control beliefs over brief windows and its responsiveness to clinical change over extended intervals:

• Short-Term Stability: Over a 1-week test-retest interval in an untreated control sample, Craig et al. (1984) obtained a Pearson test-retest correlation coefficient of r = .90 (p < .0001), demonstrating excellent stability in the absence of therapeutic intervention.
• Medium- to Long-Term Stability: Untreated non-clinical controls assessed over intervals of 10 to 24 weeks demonstrate moderate-to-high stability coefficients (r = .73 to .78), illustrating that baseline control beliefs represent stable cognitive habits.
• Treatment Sensitivity: Following evidence-based cognitive-behavioral therapies, successful treatment cohorts show significant reductions in external scores (mean decreases typically ranging from 8 to 14 points, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.90 to 1.30), confirming the scale’s sensitivity to therapeutic change.

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the LCB has been evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across clinical and community samples:

Original Factor Exploration (Craig et al., 1984)

In the original developmental study, principal axis factoring with varimax rotation was conducted on the 17 items. Although the authors initially intended the scale as a unidimensional continuum of behavioral locus of control, factor analytic extraction revealed a clear two-factor solution that accounted for the primary common variance:

• Factor 1: External Control / Fatalism / Somatic Helplessness
  Items 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 17 loaded strongly onto this factor (loadings ranging from .42 to .74). This factor assesses attribution to chance, reliance on outside professional help, and uncontrollable autonomic reactions under stress.
• Factor 2: Internal Behavioral Agency / Mastery
  Items 1, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, and 16 loaded positively onto this factor (loadings ranging from .48 to .76). This factor represents anticipation of difficulties, self-responsibility, and confidence in one’s personal capacity to execute plans and solve problems.

Contemporary Confirmatory Factor Analytic Findings

Modern structural equation modeling (SEM) and CFA studies have tested three competing models of the LCB:

1. Strict Unidimensional Model: All 17 items load onto a single general locus of control of behavior factor. This model yields acceptable fit indices when error covariances between similarly worded somatic items (e.g., items 12 and 14) are specified (χ²/df = 2.14, RMSEA = .058, CFI = .91, TLI = .89).
2. Two-Factor Correlated Model: Explicitly separating “Behavioral Internality” (7 items) and “Behavioral Externality” (10 items). This model shows improved fit indices (χ²/df = 1.76, RMSEA = .046, CFI = .94, TLI = .93), reflecting the psychometric observation that internality and externality are distinct subdimensions rather than perfect bipolar opposites.
3. Hierarchical / Bifactor Model: Incorporates a general overarching Behavioral Control dimension alongside orthogonal specific factors capturing Somatic Control, Chance Attributions, and Personal Agency. The general factor accounts for over 72% of the common variance, justifying the use of a single composite total score for clinical assessment and outcome monitoring.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The practical administration, scoring rules, and psychometric structure of the Locus of Control of Behaviour Scale are detailed below:

• Test Name: Locus of Control of Behaviour Scale
• Acronym: LCB
• Developers: Ashley R. Craig, Janice A. Franklin, and Gavin Andrews (1984)
• Construct Measured: Behavioral locus of control (perceived internal versus external controllability of personal difficulties, behaviors, and somatic symptoms)
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 14 and older; suited for clinical, psychiatric, medical rehabilitation, and non-clinical populations
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire (paper-and-pencil or digital interactive interface)
• Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Total Number of Items: 17 statements
• Item Content: 10 external statements and 7 internal statements
• Response Scale: 6-point Likert scale:
  • 0 = Strongly disagree
  • 1 = Generally disagree
  • 2 = Somewhat disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat agree
  • 4 = Generally agree
  • 5 = Strongly agree
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • The LCB is conventionally scored such that higher total scores indicate greater external locus of control of behavior (fatalism, helplessness, and low perceived personal agency), whereas lower scores indicate greater internal locus of control (agency, self-efficacy, and behavioral mastery).
  • External Items (Scored Directly): Items 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 17 are keyed positively. The chosen response value (0 to 5) is added directly to the total score.
  • Internal Items (Reverse Scored): Items 1, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, and 16 must be reversed before summing: Reversed Score = 5 – Original Response (i.e., 0 becomes 5, 1 becomes 4, 2 becomes 3, 3 becomes 2, 4 becomes 1, and 5 becomes 0).
  • Total Score Range: 0 to 85.
• Clinical Interpretation Guidelines:
  • 0 to 19 (Strongly Internal): High perceived self-efficacy and behavioral mastery. The individual takes active responsibility for behavioral modification. Often observed in successfully treated clinical populations post-therapy.
  • 20 to 29 (Moderate Internal / Normative Non-Clinical): Typical non-clinical range (community mean ≈ 26.6 ± 8.7). Balanced view of personal agency alongside realistic appreciation of external circumstances.
  • 30 to 42 (Moderate External / Clinical Baseline): Common pre-treatment range for clients presenting with anxiety, phobias, stuttering, or substance use problems (clinical mean ≈ 34.6 ± 8.8). Moderate learned helplessness; may require attributional restructuring.
  • 43 to 85 (Markedly External): Severe fatalism, external dependency, and perceived somatic helplessness. High risk for passive non-compliance in therapy and high probability of post-treatment relapse if not addressed directly.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Locus of Control of Behaviour Scale was published in 1984 in the British Journal of Medical Psychology (now the Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, published by Wiley on behalf of the British Psychological Society). Under standard academic publishing conventions of that era, the scale items were published directly within the journal article for clinical, diagnostic, and academic research purposes.

Licensing and Usage: The scale is widely considered an open-access psychometric instrument for academic, educational, and non-commercial clinical research, provided appropriate attribution is given to Craig, Franklin, and Andrews (1984). Researchers and clinicians are not required to pay royalty fees for standard paper or non-commercial digital administration. For commercial software applications, clinical trial inclusion in proprietary drug development, or large-scale digital platforms, commercial clearance may be required from the copyright holders or the publisher (John Wiley & Sons / British Psychological Society).

References

• Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49
• Andrews, G., & Craig, A. (1988). Prediction of outcome after treatment for stuttering. British Journal of Psychiatry, 153(2), 236–240. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.153.2.236
• 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. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Craig, A. R. (1990). An investigation into the relationship between anxiety and stuttering. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 33(3), 582–594. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3303.582
• Craig, A. R., Franklin, J. A., & Andrews, G. (1984). A scale to measure locus of control of behavior. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 57(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1984.tb01597.x
• Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41(3), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035357
• 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. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. W. H. Freeman.

Items of the Scale