Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Internal-external locus of control and its relationship to self-reported depression and to suicide Kendrick, Margaret Joan 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 K45_3.pdf [ 3.6MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093467.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093467-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093467-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093467-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093467-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093467-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093467-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093467-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093467.ris

Full Text

INTERNAL-EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO SELF-REPORTED DEPRESSION AND TO SUICIDE by MARGARET JOAN KENDRICK B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1975 In p resent ing t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e fo r reference and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permiss ion for ex tens i ve copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be a l lowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of V Y ^ l f T ^ ^ The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Abstract The present study attempted to assess the relationship between locus of control and suicide, and between locus of control and sel f -reported depression. It was hypothesized that: (a) suicidants' scores on the locus of control measures would be more external than scores of non-suicidal non-psychiatric persons and that (b) measures of external locus of control would correlate positively with depression. Five locus of control scales (as developed by Rotter, Levenson, and Kendrick) and the Beck Depression Inventory were administered to the sample consisting of four groups of 12 subjects each. There were two experimental groups of suicidants (hospitalized and non-hospitalized) and two control groups (hospitalized and non-hospitalized) without histories of suicidal be-havior. A two-way between groups analysis of variance was computed in order to assess the relationship between suicide and locus of control, the effects of hospitalization on locus of control, and the suicide by hospital interaction. The impact of these variables on a measure of sel f -reported depression was also assessed. Correlations were used to assess the relationship between depression and locus of control. Only minimal support was offered for the hypothesis that suicidants are more externally controlled than non-suicidal non-psychiatric persons. As predicted, de-pression was positively correlated with external locus of control. Possible explanations for these results were discussed and recommendations for further research i n the area were made. Attention was also given to the implications of the present study for the prediction of suicide and de-pression and for psychotherapy with suicidal and depressed persons. Table of Contents page Abstract i i Table of Contents i i i L i s t of Tables v Acknowledgements v i STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 4 Multidimensionality of the Locus of Control Construct 4 Locus of Control and Psychopathology: A Background for for the Present Study 7 Locus of Control and Depression 11 Locus of Control and Suicide 16 METHOD 22 Subjects 22 Instruments 23 Procedure 27 RESULTS 31 Correlations Involving Demographic Variables 32 Analyses of Variance of Depression and Locus of Control Measures for Suici d a l and Non-suicidal Subjects 33 Correlations Between Depression and Locus of Control 36 Analyses of Scales and Subscales 37 DISCUSSION 40 Locus of Control and Suicide 40 Suicide, Hospitalization, and Depression 47 Locus of Control and Depression 47 Multidimensional Locus of Control and Depression 50 A General Comment on Research on Locus of Control and Depression . .52 Control by Powerful Others and Length of Stay i n Hospital 53 Implications 54 REFERENCES 56 APPENDICES 64 A. Description of the S.A.F.E.R. Project 64 B. The Kendrick Internal-External Scale 65 i i i Table of Contents (Continued) page Appendices (Continued) C. The F i r s t Draft of the Kendrick Internal-External Scale . . . 69 D. New Instructions for the F i r s t Draft of the Kendrick Internal-External Scale 72 E. Primary Problem Areas for S.A.F.E.R. and Hospital Suicidants . 73 F. Types of Sui c i d a l Attempts made by S.A.F.E.R. and Hospital Suicidants . . . . . . . 74 G. Two-way Analysis of Variance of Depression and Locus of Control Measures 75 i v L i s t of Tables page Table 1. Demographic Variables of Sex, Age, Ma r i t a l Status, and Socio-economic Status by Group 24 Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Measures of Depression and Locus of Control for the Total Sample and by Group 34 Table 3. Correlation Matrix of Measures of Depression and Locus of Control 38 V Acknowledgments I wish to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Kenneth Craig, the chairman of my thesis committee, for giving both time and encouragement at a l l stages of th i s research project. I am also very grateful for the time and help given to me by the other two members of my committee, Dr. Park Davidson and Dr. Demetrios Papageorgis. I would l i k e to thank Dr. Robert Kiiox for the help and en-couragement offered to me i n the i n i t i a l stages of my thesis proposal, and my friend Sheena Bowman for the computer analysis of my data. Special thanks to Dr. Ralph Hakstian and Dr. Jim Johnson for t h e i r advice on the data analysis, and to Dr. A l l a n Best for his help with the references. F i n a l l y , I should l i k e to express my appreciation to the members and c l i e n t s of the S.A.F.E.R. Project and to the staff and patients of the following hospitals for their interest and co-operation: St. Paul's Shaughnessy Health Sciences Center Lions Gate Riverview (Center Lawn Unit) v i Statement of the Problem People throughout history have concerned themselves with:man's a b i l i t y to control his personal environment. I t seems important, however, to not only consider man's actual control, but also the extent to which man perceives he has control. These two may be con s i s t e n t — t h a t i s , perceived control may be an accurate estimate of actual control. On the other hand, a person's perceptions about how well he controls l i f e events may be an overestimation of his actual control. Or conversely, his behaviour may be quite eff e c t i v e i n achieving control, but he may not interpret i t as such. The value of studying a person's perception of control l i e s i n the presumably strong influence that perception has on an individual's behaviour. J u l i a n Rotter (1966) developed from s o c i a l learning theory a concept of internal-external control of reinforcement which describes the degree to which a person believes that outcomes i n his l i f e are contingent on what he does (internal control), as opposed to being determined by out-side forces such as luck, chance, fate, or powerful others (external control). Social behaviour, rather than being determined by broadly generalized personality t r a i t s , depends on the individual's s p e c i f i c response c a p a b i l i t i e s and his expectations concerning the consequences of alternative courses of action i n the sit u a t i o n . Persons are not viewed as either " i n t e r n a l s " or "externals" but as individuals having locus of control expectancies which f a l l at some point along the continuum from extremely in t e r n a l to extremely external. To date only one previous study has examined the association between 2 locus of control and s u i c i d a l behaviour. Williams and Nickels (1969) investigated locus of control and suicide p o t e n t i a l i t y i n introductory psychology students. In contrast, the present author was interested i n studying locus of control i n persons who had made an overt suicide attempt, and furthermore i n examining their locus of control orientations as they relate to several s p e c i f i c l i f e areas. There are several methodological problems which arise i n the study of suicide. P a r t i c u l a r l y relevant to the present study are the special problems which occur when research i s done on suicide attempters. Vastly different results could be obtained depending on the time the research i s done r e l a t i v e to when the attempt was made. If information i s c o l -lected immediately after the attempt, for example, there are many confounding variables involved as a resu l t of the attempt i t s e l f (cathartic e f f e c t , temporary reduction of anger or misery, reaction of others, etc.). The factor i n the present study which largely determined when the interviews were done, was an e t h i c a l consideration, i . e . , subjects were interviewed as soon after the attempt as the st a f f f e l t was advisable. This l i m i t a t i o n should be kept i n mind during an interpretation of the res u l t s . I t i s not necessarily a poorer time to do the interviews than immediately following an attempt; i t i s just a different time and as such may produce different r e s u l t s . Because of i t s close association with suicide, the author was i n -terested i n investigating depression and how i t relates to locus of control. This relationship has been investigated but the findings have been i n -consistent and unclear. The author wished to examine locus of control 3 and depression with hopes of c l a r i f y i n g the issue and offering a rationale for the previously inconsistent findings and present r e s u l t s . The relationship of depression to locus of control i n several s p e c i f i c l i f e areas was also assessed. Review of the Literature 4 Multidimensionality of the Locus of Control Construct Rotter's contention (1966) was that the internal-external control concept i s a generalized expectancy r e l a t i n g behaviour to reinforcement i n a large number of learning situations, cutting across " s p e c i f i c need areas". However, i t has been recognized since then that i n t e r n a l -external b e l i e f s are not completely general but apply somewhat s p e c i f i c a l l y to various l i f e areas. Very early, Crandall,. Katkovsky, and'Crandall (1965) distinguished between control by impersonal forces and control by other people. Levenson (1972) devised a t r i p a r t i t e d i v i s i o n of control into the dimensions of i n t e r n a l , powerful others, and control by chance forces. Three scales based on t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n were constructed i n order to add measures of b e l i e f i n chance expectancies as separate from a powerful others orientation. The rationale for t h i s t r i p a r t i t e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n stemmed from the reasoning that people who believe the world i s unordered (chance) would behave and think d i f f e r e n t l y from people who believe the world i s ordered but that powerful others are i n control. In the l a t t e r case a potential for control e x i s t s . Furthermore, i t was expected that a person who believes that chance i s i n control i s cogni-t i v e l y and behaviourally different from one who feels that he himself i s not i n control (low on "i n t e r n a l scale"). Moreover, recent work i s beginning to separate personal and ideological b e l i e f s . Gurin, Gurin, Lao, and Beattie (1969) i d e n t i f i e d four factors i n a factor analysis of Rotter's Internal-External Control Scale. These were: (1) Control Ideology, (2) Personal Control, (3) System M o d i f i a b i l i t y , and (4) Race Ideology. Mirels (1970) i d e n t i f i e d two factors'which were: 5 (1) a b e l i e f concerning f e l t mastery over the course of one's l i f e and (2) a b e l i e f concerning the extent to which the indiv i d u a l c i t i z e n i s regarded as capable of having an impact on p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . Abrahamson, Schludermann, and Schludermann (1973) i d e n t i f i e d three factors i n a factor analysis of Rotter's scale: (1) personal control over course of one's own l i f e , (2) control that people have over p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , and (3) control over personal l i k a b i l i t y . In a factor analysis of Rotter's scale, MacDonald and Tseng (1973) i d e n t i f i e d two factors for a male sample and three factors for a female sample. Factor I was the individual's control over his own l i f e . Factor I I was control of the c i t i z e n over p o l i t i c a l or world a f f a i r s . Factor I I I (females only) was control i n interpersonal relationships. Viney (in press) i d e n t i f i e d two factors i n Rotter's scale: personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The evidence presented thus far advances the position that Rotter's Internal-External Control Scale i s not unidimensional but can be meaning-f u l l y defined as two relevant but separate measures; one concerning per-ceived personal control and the other, perceived control of broader s o c i a l events. As Lefcourt (1971) noted: Perhaps, the events of the day have created more cynicism about the c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y of world as opposed to personal events, such that what was once a more homogeneous orien-t a t i o n has become a more fragmented and f i n e l y discriminated set of expectancies (p. 19). MacDonald and Tseng (1973) distinguished between " f i r s t person" and " t h i r d person" phrases on the Rotter scale and noted that people do not necessarily project the i r own expectations on to others. I t i s interesting to note that a l l the items i n the Gurin et a l . "personal factor" are 6 worded i n the f i r s t person, while none of the items i n the "system m o d i f i a b i l i t y " ( or Mirel's Factor I I - control over p o l i t i c a l or world a f f a i r s ) are i n the f i r s t person. As Phares (1973) emphasized: We seem to have very nearly a self-other d i s t i n c t i o n here. F i r s t person items relate to the individual's views as to his control while t h i r d person items re-la t e to ideological b e l i e f s regarding others or the nature of the system (p.20). A l l statements i n Levenson's (1972) three locus of control scales (Internal, Chance, and Powerful Others) were phrased . so as to pertain only to the subject himself. They measure the degree to which an i n d i v i d u a l feels he has control over what happens to him, not what he feels i s the case for "people i n general". In addition there i s no reason to suppose that a person's tendency to credit himself with control of positive outcomes would necessarily be correlated with his b e l i e f s about his control of, negative or aversive outcomes. Crandall, Katkovsky, and Crandall (1965), Hersch and Scheibe (1967), and Dies (1968) have a l l emphasized the importance of separate measures of expectancies of control over positive and negative events. Mischel, Mailer, and Zeiss (1974) found that the a t t r i b u t i o n of i n t e r n a l i t y ( i . e . , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) depends on both the valence of the event being analyzed and the i d e n t i t y (self versus other), and valence ( l i k e d , disliked) of the person whose behaviour i s being interpreted. More i n t e r n a l i t y was attributed to the self for positive events, and less for negative events, especially i n comparison to a d i s l i k e d other. Women however, . attributed more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for negative outcomes to themselves than to others. The preceding discussion indicates that the locus of control variable 7 should be studied at a multidimensional rather than at a unidimensional l e v e l . The investigator took this into account i n the selection of locus of control scales and subscales employed i n the present study. The proposed scales were: (1) Rotter's (1966) Internal-External Control Scale and two subscales composed of the two factors of t h i s s c a l e — personal control and the control over p o l i t i c a l or world a f f a i r s — a s i d e n t i f i e d by Mirels (1970) and (2) Levenson's (1972) Internal, Chance, and Powerful Others Scales. Dixon, McRae, and McKee (1973) suggested that d i f f e r e n t i a l factors operate along an environmental s p e c i f i c i t y dimension including w o r l d - p o l i t i c s , friendships, leadership, home-family, and school-job. This d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of " l i f e areas" was of interest to the present author. I t was decided to investigate i f individuals per-ceive their control d i f f e r e n t l y i n work situations than i n interpersonal relationships by devising a scale with t h i s dichotomy i n mind. Locus of Control and Psychopathology: A Background for the Present Study The present study was concerned with depression and suicide and th e i r relationship to locus of control. A review of some of the l i t e r a t u r e on the general relationship between locus of control and psychopathology provides the background leading to the two major hypotheses on depression and suicide. The issue of maladjustment and i t s relationship to perception of control i s not a new one. Durkheim (1897) viewed the alienated i n d i v i d u a l as one who feels unable to control his own destiny. "He i s a small cog i n a big machine and at the mercy of forces too strong or too vague to control" (Rotter, 1966, p. 3). Veblen (1899) stated that a b e l i e f i n 8 chance or luck as a solution to one's problems i s characterized by less productivity and a general passivity. Although low productivity and passivity are mostly considered to be negative q u a l i t i e s i n our culture, this i s not the case i n a l l cultures. Merton (1946) viewed b e l i e f i n luck (external control) as a defensive behaviour. The person i s able to maintain self-esteem by blaming f a i l u r e s on external forces. Speculations, c l i n i c a l observations, and experimental research on the 'relationships of locus of control to "adjustment" generally have supported a positive relationship between i n t e r n a l i t y and "adjustment" and externality and "maladjustment" (Phares, 1973). However, as Rotter theorized, there i s probably a cu r v i l i n e a r relationship with individuals at the extreme ends of the internal-external dimension being more mal-adjusted than those i n the middle range. Thus, extreme i n t e r n a l i t y , rather than being b e n e f i c i a l , may produce g u i l t and an over-riding sense of personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , not to mention anxiety i n the many fate-controlled or other-controlled situations of modern l i f e (Broskowski, 1966). Rotter supported a relationship between moderate i n t e r n a l i t y and "adjustment" and externality and "maladjustment", based on his observations of the interaction between i n t e r n a l i t y - e x t e r n a l i t y and experience of success. He noted that an in t e r n a l with a history of f a i l u r e w i l l pro-bably blame himself whereas an external with a history of f a i l u r e i s l i k e l y to blame others (defensiveness). Cromwell, Rosenthal, Shakow, and Zahn (1961), Duke and Mullens (1973), and Distefano, Pryer, and Smith (in press) i n empirical studies found that psychiatric patients scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the external dimension than did non-psychiatric samples. Shybut (1968) noted that a "severely 9 disturbed" group differed s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a combined "normal-moderate" group on internal-external control, with the former group answering more externally than the l a t t e r . Shybut also found that long-term hospital patients had higher external control scores than those who were more short-term. Harrow and Ferrante (1969) supported Shybut i n thei r finding that h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n i s associated with increased external locus of control. Smith, Pryer, and Distenfano, (1971) showed that "severely emotionally impaired" patients were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n external control than were "mildly impaired" patients, and normals (Distefano, Pryer, and Garrison, 1972). Related to this research i s an interesting finding by Fontana, K l e i n , Lewis, and Levine (1968). Schizophrenic patients who wanted to impress upon others that they were healthy scored more i n -ternal on the internal-external scale than schizophrenic patients who wanted to impress upon others that they were "sick". The implication i s that internals wish to convey to others that they are normal and well-adjusted while externals want to impress upon others that they are "sick" and therefore cannot be held responsible for th e i r behaviour. An alternative interpretation i s that anyone who i s interested i n appearing w e l l presents himself as an " i n t e r n a l " . Warehime and Foulds (1971) found a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between i n t e r n a l i t y and adjustment but noted that this was stronger for females than for males. Hersch and Scheibe (1967) found that " i n t e r n a l s " were "better adjusted" on Rogers' r e a l - i d e a l self inventory. Watson (1967) showed that a more external locus of control orientation i s associated with greater anxiety. Watson's finding was supported by 10 P i a t t and Elsenman (1968), Hountras and Scharf (1970), and Nelson and Phares (1971). ButterfIeld (1964) reported a positive relationship be-tween external control and d e b i l i t a t i n g anxiety and intropunitive res-ponses to f r u s t r a t i o n , and a negative relationship between external control and f a c i l i t a t i n g anxiety and constructive responses to f r u s t r a t i o n . Liberty, Burnstein, and Moulton (1966), Feather (1967a), and Tolor and Reznikoff (1967) lend support to Butterfield's finding. As well as comparing a disturbed sample with a "normal" sample, as i n the previously l i s t e d studies, attention has been given to the d i s -t r i b u t i o n of various kinds of psychiatric disorders on the locus of control continuum. Harrow and Ferrante (1969) and Duke and Mullens (1973) found that schizophrenics were more external than the t o t a l sample of non-schizophrenics. Process schizophrenics were found to be more external than reactive schizophrenics or non-schizophrenic controls (Lottmen and DeWolf, 1972). Pryer and Steinke (1973) found differences (although not a l l s i g n i f i c a n t ) among the following psychiatric disorders ( l i s t e d i n order from most to least external): paranoid schizophrenic, personality disorder, chronic undifferentiated schizophrenic, and de-pressive. Not a l l studies demonstrated positive relationships between ex-t e r n a l i t y and psychopathology. In a study by Fontana and Gessner (1969), non-psychotic patients' locus of control scores were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d ifferent from those of psychotic patients. Smith's (1970) results indicated that c r i s i s patients were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more external than non-crisis patients. Harrow and Ferrante (1969) found that acute 11 psychiatric inpatients' locus of control scores were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those of "normals". In a discussion of the relationship between s p e c i f i c psychiatric disorders and locus of control, attention must be given to two "disorders" which represent an exception to the largely supported finding that maladjustment and external control are related. The f i r s t i s the d i s -covery by Goss and Morosko (1970), Gozali (1970), and Distefano, Pryer, and Garrison (1972) that alcoholics are more i n t e r n a l l y oriented than "normals". The second i s a study by Berzins and Ross (1973) which demon-strated that opiate addicts show strong in t e r n a l expectancies on the internal-external scale, especially on items referring d i r e c t l y to personal control. One rationale for these perhaps unexpected findings i s that alcohol and drugs provide the i n d i v i d u a l with the power to " i n -duce feelings of i n t e r n a l control over moment-to-moment impulses, reactions, anxieties, physical states, and so ai"<(Berzins and Ross, 1973, p. 85). The person i s able to a l t e r or control unpleasant feeling states. Locus of Control and Depression One p a r t i c u l a r psychiatric disorder, depression, should be given special attention at this time because of i t s close association with suicide. Although a great number of s u i c i d a l persons do not manifest the c l i n i c a l features associated with depression and many depressed persons are not s u i c i d a l (Beck, 1967), there can be no doubt that depression plays a central role i n the problem of suicide (Mendels, 1970). Depression i s , of a l l psychiatric conditions, the one most l i k e l y to be associated 12 with suicide (Beck, 1967; Mendels, 1970). Because the relationship between depression and suicide i s strong, i t would seem important to investigate the relationship between depression and locus of control. I t .is l i k e l y that locus of control orientations i n s u i c i d a l persons would be similar to generalized expectancies for control i n depressives. The study of depression and i t s relationship to locus of control provides c o n f l i c t i n g points of view as to whether depressives perceive their reinforcements as contingent on thei r own s k i l l , c a p a b i l i t y , pro-f i c i e n c y , or expertise ( i n t e r n a l i t y ) , or contingent on fate, chance, luck, or other perons (externality). Seligman viewed depression as "learned helplessness"—as "a s p e c i f i c cognitive d i s t o r t i o n of the perception of the a b i l i t y of one's own responses to change the environment, rather than a general 'pessimism'" ( M i l l e r and Seligman, 1973, p. 62). This view of depression was pro-posed by c l i n i c a l investigators (Beck, 1967; Bibring, 1953; Lichtenberg, 1957; Melges and Bowlby, 1969) although they did not test i t experimentally. Seligman stated (1973) that externals seem more susceptible to learned helplessness (depression) than internals. Since externality i s hypo-thesized to decrease the potential for occurrence of "purposive" or "go a l - s t r i v i n g " behaviour, and such a lack of "purposefulness" or "meaningfulness" characterizes much of the behaviour of depressed i n -dividuals, Abramowitz (1969) anticipated that externally-oriented re-l a t i v e to internally-oriented persons would report greater depression and along with M i l l e r (1971) gave experimental support for a s i g n i f i c a n t correlation between external control and depression. Although these 13 correlations were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , they were unimpressive i n that they accounted for less than 8% of the. variance. Seligman, Maier, and Greer (1968) and Hiroto (1971) noted the simi-l a r i t y between external control and the concept of learning that r e i n -forcement and responding are independent. Hiroto found that when ex-ternals and internals had been subjected to inescapable, unavoidable loud noise, externals were s i g n i f i c a n t l y poorer i n learning to escape and avoid trauma i n a new sit u a t i o n . The externals overgeneralized, for even though they had the opportunity to escape i n the new si t u a t i o n they did not escape because they were not able to discriminate the new si t u a t i o n from the old. M i l l e r and Seligman (1973) were not successful i n demonstrating that externals perceive reinforcement as more response independent than internals i n situations where reinforcement i s response dependent. From the learned helplessness model of depression, i t was predicted that greater depression should be associated with a greater tendency to perceive reinforcement and responding as independent i n a s k i l l task. M i l l e r and Seligman (1973) found t h i s correlation i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n but i t was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The same investigators found no correlation between depression and locus of control. Calhoun, Cheney, and Dawes (1974) noted that previous research (Goss and Morosko, 1970; Harrow and Ferrante, 1969) has supported a positive relationship between intensity of depression and external locus of control among varied c l i n i c a l populations, and they went on to support this point of view i n their research with non-psychiatric subjects. Calhoun et a l . found that both males and females with " r e l a t i v e l y enduring' 14 symptoms" of depression scored externally. When the transitory mood aspect of depression was measured, only males showed a s i g n i f i c a n t positive cor-r e l a t i o n between depression and externality. A possible reason for t h i s was given by Douvan and Adelson (1966) who observed that adolescent females engage i n more s e l f - c r i t i c i s m and self-blame than adolescent males. One can consider alternative models of depression to Seligman's. I t would seem that the depressive could be viewed as "pathologically i n t e r n a l " — a s a person who has excessive g u i l t , anxiety, and an over-riding sense of personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Beck (1967) i n a systematic study of depressed in d i v i d u a l s , showed that the majority of these persons were self-blaming and s e l f - c r i t i c i z i n g , suggesting that they assume personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for t h e i r unhappiness (Melges and Bowlby, 1969). This tendency to attribute the causes of depression to oneself would suggest that depressed persons are i n t e r n a l l y controlled. As Lamont '(1972).noted: The verbalizations of depressed patients... lead one to question whether they have an E orientation. More commonly,- the depressed patient w i l l accept blame for any and a l l bad events, and consider his lack of positive reinforcers as due to his own f a i l u r e to obtain them. In short, he describes himself not as a pawn of fate but a highly responsible f a i l u r e . . . (p. 342). Calhoun^ Cheney, and Dawes (1974) pointed out t h i s paradox—that although depressed persons attribute unhappiness and f a i l u r e to in t e r n a l causes, depressives are also characterized by a general self-perception of help-lessness, "suggesting that depression i s p o s i t i v e l y related to an external orientation which views, events as the outcome of factors beyond the l i m i t s of one's personal control" ( p . l ) . The two viewpoints are not r e a l l y i n -compatible. I t seems very possible that a person could blame himself for troubles that b e f e l l him (internal) but f e e l helpless when i t comes 15 to doing something about the problems (external). Relevant here i s Mischel, Mailer, and Zeiss's ( i n press) discovery that peoples' perception of t h e i r own control varies depending on whether the p a r t i c u l a r event i s a negative or positive one. For example, a person may be " i n t e r n a l " i n believing that he has control over the negative things that happen to him (self-blame), but "external" i n believing that he has no control over such p o s i t i v e things as making l i f e better for himself (helplessness). Referring back to Lamont's statement—"...the depressed patient w i l l accept blame for any and a l l bad events..."(Lamont, 1972, p. 342), one notes that Lamont, i n describing the depressive as i n t e r n a l , speaks only of his perception of control over negative events. Although the majority of the research seems to favour an external locus of control i n depressives, t h i s relationship s t i l l remains unclear. Following Seligman's model, i f externals are more susceptible to de-pression, then they are more susceptible to suicide. However, i f extreme internals are more susceptible to depression than externals, t h i s would lead one to question the relationship between depression and locus of control as support for the hypothesis that suicide and externality are associated. As previously mentioned, i t could be that the concept of i n t e r n a l and external control has been oversimplified, and that i n order to f u l l y understand the relationship between depression and locus of control, the l a t t e r should be studied on a multidimensional rather than a unidimensional l e v e l . If this i s the case, i t would be important to obtain measures of depression and locus of control and to further analyze the internal-external items for perception of control over positive versus 16 negative events. The previous discussion leads to the f i r s t of two major hypotheses under investigation i n the present study: measures of external locus of control correlate p o s i t i v e l y with measures of depression. Locus of Control and Suicide One psychiatric disorder which has been given very l i t t l e attention i n r e l a t i o n to the locus of control variable i s suicide. Problems with control have been suggested as central to suicide potential (Durkheim, 1951; Leonard, 1967). Wilson (1968) reported that a high chaotic energy characterized the patients i n his study who were eventual suicides. Leonard, i n a study on depression and s u i c i d a l i t y (1974), said that indications of being changed or out of control best characterize the h i g h - s u i c i d a l i t y patient rather than feelings of despondency or hopeless-ness. Leonard also noted that "further suggestion of d i f f i c u l t y with dependency and/or control i s seen i n the very s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between high s u i c i d a l i t y and long h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n s " (p. 104). Leonard f e l t that dependency on h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n possibly r e f l e c t s an unusual dependency on external controls. He advised that the study of dependency and control problems may prove more useful i n predicting suicide than the study of depression. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on suicide on the one hand and i n t e r n a l -external locus of control on the other, suggests that these two areas may be related. This relationship i s supported by the previous discussion on maladjustment and locus of control and by a comparison of the charac- > t e r i s t i c s of s u i c i d a l individuals with the characteristics of individuals 17 holding i n t e r n a l or external control orientations. Williams and Nickels (1969) presented a comprehensive review of the characteristics of the pot e n t i a l l y s u i c i d a l i n d i v i d u a l . He has been characterized as: " r i g i d (Fairbank, 1932; Vinoda, 1966; Wall, 1944), introversive and asocial (Hendin, 1950; Hopkins, 1937; Williams, 1936), timid and dependent (Batchelor and Napier, 1954; F a r i s , 1934), easily embarrassed, overly sensitive, restrained i n forming friendships, and lacking ;in s e l f -confidence and i n i t i a t i v e . (Farberow and Devries, 1967), feeling f e a r f u l , worthless, and unwanted (Devries, 1966), i r r i t a b l e and resentful (Lester, 1967; Stoneman and Perth, 1935), and poorly integrated, weak i n character, or abnormal i n personality (Andics, 1947; Raphael, Power, and Berridge, 1937; Sainsbury, 1955; Schneider, 1954— reviewed by Robin, 1956; Siewers and Davidoff, 1942)" (p. 486) Farberow, McKelligott, Cohen, and Darbonne (1966) found that s u i c i d a l patients d i f f e r e d from non-suicidal patients, the former being more de-pendent, impulsive, a l e r t , anxious, agitated, apprehensive, depressed and distressed over their i l l n e s s e s . Litman and Tabachnick (1967) described the suicide-prone person as masochistic, depressive, dependent, passive, immobilized, constricted, and disinterested i n physical a c t i v i t y . In a study by Tabachnick, Litman, Osman, Jones, Cohn, Kasper, and Moffat (1966), suicide-prone persons were found to be closely integrated with and highly dependent on individuals i n their environments. A large number of the descriptive adjectives from the previous studies derive from non-empirical reports. From research on the i n t e r n a l i t y - e x t e r n a l i t y and suicide variables, Williams and Nickels (1969) concluded that many of the characteristics attributed to the external orientation are those t y p i c a l l y associated with suicide proneness. Both externally-oriented and suicide-prone persons tend to be dependent, g u i l t y , anxious, timid, depressive, and non-achieving. 18 Both reveal their lack of i n i t i a t i v e and se l f - c o n t r o l (Williams and Nickels, 1969). Williams and Nickels (1969) set out to d i r e c t l y investigate the relationship between suicide proneness and internal-external control i n college students. They found that externally-oriented subjects generally scored higher on the suicide p o t e n t i a l i t y scales than internally-oriented subjects. The speculations, c l i n i c a l observations, and experimental research on the relationship between locus of control and maladjustment, the review of the l i t e r a t u r e on " s u i c i d a l " individuals and characteristics of ex-ternally-controlled persons, and the research on locus of control and depression, lead to the second of two major hypotheses under investigation i n the present study: "suicidants'" scores on the locus of control d i -mension are more external than scores of non-suicidal, non-psychiatric persons. The suicidant i s viewed as a person who has largely given up believing that what he does or does not do makes any great difference to his l i f e (externally controlled). External and inte r n a l control have been previously defined. The d e f i n i t i o n of "suicidant" presents a problem. Are "suicidants" persons who think about suicide, threaten suicide, attempt suicide or complete suicide? For the purposes of the present study, "suicidants" were defined as persons who had attempted suicide one or more times and as a result were admitted to the emergency ward of a hospital. That a suicide attempt had occurred, had to have been self-acknowledged and also confirmed by the medical s t a f f . Several factors contradict the second major hypothesis that suicidants are more externally controlled than non-suicidal, non-psychiatric persons. 19 T h e f i r s t i s b a s e d o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n d e p r e s s i o n a n d l o c u s o f c o n t r o l . A s p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d , a l t h o u g h m o s t o f t h e r e s e a r c h s u p p o r t s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n d e p r e s s i o n a n d e x t e r n a l i t y , t h e t e n d e n c y o f d e p r e s s e d i n d i v i d u a l s t o w a r d s e l f - b l a m e , s e l f c r i t i c i s m , e t c . , m i g h t l e a d o n e t o e x p e c t a n i n t e r n a l o r i e n t a t i o n i n d e p r e s s i v e s . I f t h i s w e r e t h e c a s e , t h e s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n d e p r e s s i o n a n d s u i c i d e w o u l d t h e n l e a d u s t o s u s p e c t t h a t s u i c i d a l i n d i v i d u a l s a r e m o r e i n t e r n a l l y c o n t r o l l e d . T h e s e c o n d f a c t o r i s t h e f i n d i n g s t h a t a l c o h o l a n d d r u g a b u s e r s a r e i n t e r n a l l y c o n t r o l l e d . C a n n o t t h e s u i c i d a n t , a s w e l l a s t h e a l c o h o l i c a n d d r u g a d d i c t , a l s o b e v i e w e d a s a p e r s o n who h a s a v a i l -a b l e t o h i m a means o f r a p i d l y a l t e r i n g o r m o d i f y i n g u n p l e a s a n t s u b -j e c t i v e s t a t e s , e i t h e r t h r o u g h m a n i p u l a t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t o r t h r o u g h d e a t h ? A t h i r d f a c t o r i n v o l v e s a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e s u i c i d a l a c t i t s e l f . I s t h e s u i c i d a l a c t a b e h a v i o u r c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a n e x t e r n a l o r i e n t a t i o n ? I t w o u l d seem t h a t t h e s u i c i d e a t t e m p t , w h e t h e r d o n e t o m a n i p u l a t e o t h e r s o r t o d e s t r u c t o n e ' s s e l f , w o u l d b e t h e u l t i m a t e i n -t e r n a l - t y p e a c t a p e r s o n c o u l d p e r f o r m . T h r o u g h t h e a c t o f s u i c i d e , many i n d i v i d u a l s a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o r e t a i n some s h r e d o f c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i r own f a t e b y c h o o s i n g t o p l a y o n e l a s t a c t i v e r o l e i n t h e i r l i v e s — t h a t o f p i c k i n g t h e i r own t i m e a n d t y p e o f d e a t h . L e o n a r d (1963) c a l l e d t h i s k i n d o f i n d i v i d u a l a n " i m p l e m e n t e r " a n d d e s c r i b e d h i m a s o n e who h a s a n a c t i v e n e e d t o c o n t r o l h i s e n v i r o n m e n t . I f t h e s e c o n d m a j o r h y p o t h e s i s w e r e n o t s u p p o r t e d , t h e s e t h r e e f a c t o r s may h a v e b e e n r e s p o n s i b l e . T h e p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s u i c i d a l a c t 20 and locus of control suggested the p o s s i b i l i t y of experimentally i n -vestigating such a relationship. I t seemed possible to c l a s s i f y suicide attempters into four groups: 1. those who are SERIOUS and who have a r e a l desire to die (INTERNAL). This could be coupled with desires to manipulate others i n the environment although t h i s would be of secondary importance. 2. those who are SERIOUS but allow a p o s s i b i l i t y for fate to intervene (EXTERNAL). 3. those who are NON-SERIOUS and allow for fate to intervene (EXTERNAL). An example here would be a person who takes a calculated r i s k to lose his l i f e or an "adver-tent gamble" with death i n which he has stacked the cards against his s u r v i v a l . 4. those who are NON-SERIOUS and who are primarily i n -volved i n manipulating others i n the environment (INTERNAL). Weiss (1957) describes suicide Types Two and Three, the attempts with an external orientation, as follows: Many suicide attempts have at least i n part the character of a gamble with death, a sort of Russian roulette, the outcome of which depends to some extent on chance. The attempts are consciously or unconsciously arranged i n such a manner that the l e t h a l probability may vary from almost certain survival to almost certain death; and " f a t e " — o r at least some force external to the conscious choice of the p e r s o n — i s compelled i n some perhaps magical way to make the f i n a l decision (p. 21). In Suicide Type One, the SERIOUS-INTERNAL attempter i s viewed as a person who wishes to take one l a s t active role i n his l i f e — t h a t of picking his time and type of death. This type of person seems to believe that he w i l l indeed effect t h i s end. In Suicide Type Four, the NON-SERIOUS-INTERNAL attempter i s one who desires to manipulate others i n the environment and believes he can do so through a non-serious suicide attempt, e.g., a husband who attempts suicide i n order to prevent his wife from leaving him. 21 The " c a l l f o r help" a f t e r a su i c i d e attempt would seem to be an i n t e r n a l l y c o n t r o l l e d act. The i n v e s t i g a t o r wished to know the frequency of each of the four types of s u i c i d e attempts made by suicidants i n the present study. Also of i n t e r e s t was the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the i n d i v i d u a l ' s generalized expectancy f o r locus of c o n t r o l and the type of sui c i d e attempt made; i . e . , do more in t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l suicidants make more internal/external-type attempts, and are these attempts serious or non-serious? This information may be of value i n p r e d i c t i n g the type of s u i c i d e attempt l i k e l y to be made by p o t e n t i a l l y s u i c i d a l i n d i v i d u a l s . The purpose of the present study, therefore, was twofold: (1) to determine whether greater depression i s associated with greater external locus of c o n t r o l . As previously mentioned, t h i s issue remains unclear and c o n t r o v e r s i a l . I t was hoped that support could be offered f o r the majority of studies which suggest that depressives are more externally c o n t r o l l e d than non-depressed persons (2) to determine whether suicidants are more exter n a l l y c o n t r o l l e d than a non-suicidal, non-psychiatric popu-l a t i o n . Accordingly, two hypotheses were advanced: f i r s t l y , measures of external locus of con t r o l c o r r e l a t e p o s i t i v e l y with measures of depression; and secondly, suicidants' scores on the locus of con t r o l dimension are more external than scores of non-suicidal, non-psychiatric persons. 22 Method Subjects The study examined four groups of 12 subjects each. Two experimental groups (12 subjects each) were selected from persons who had attempted suicide one or more times and who, as a result, had been admitted to emergency wards of hospitals i n the Greater Vancouver area. The f i r s t group were, by their own choice, i n contact with a "Suicide Attempt Follow-up Evaluation and Research" worker (for a description of S.A.F.E.R., see Appendix A). The S.A.F.E.R. subjects were discharged after a br i e f stay i n the emergency ward to go home. The contact with the S.A.F.E.R. worker was limited to a period of s i x weeks. The second experimental group consisted of inpatients i n hospital settings who were not i n con-tact with the S.A.F.E.R. program. Subjects i n this l a t t e r group came from three h o s p i t a l s — a large p r o v i n c i a l mental hos p i t a l , a university psychiatric h o s p i t a l , and a general hospital- with two psychiatric wards. The s u i c i d a l subjects were the f i r s t 24 referred from a group of suicidants who agreed to participate i n the study. Children, persons with brain damage, and psychotics were not included i n the study. No subject was interviewed i f the attempt occurred more than 40 days before contact by the experimenter. The mean length of time between attempt and interview was 20.33 days. The range was three to 40 days. Two control groups of 12 subjects each were also tested. The f i r s t was a group of hospitalized non-psychiatric patients with general medical problems (e.g., dislocated hip, degenerate lumbar di s c , g a l l bladder, cancer, etc.). These subjects were from two hospitals. The second control group was comprised of persons chosen "randomly" from the population at 2 3 large, through door-to-door canvassing of three areas i n Vancouver. An attempt was made to make the two experimental groups comparable with the two control groups on the variables of sex, age, marital status, and socio-economic status (as determined by occupation). Table 1 pre-sents these four demographic variables by group. Because c e l l frequencies were too small data were combined, for chi-square analysis, i n the manner presented i n Table 1. Analyses of the data (X 2) revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the four groups on the variables of sex, age, marital status, and socio-economic status. Instruments The Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, 1967) was completed by a l l subjects. The self-report measures for assessing locus of control were Rotter's Internal-External Control Scale (Rotter, 1966), Levenson's Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance Scales (Levenson, 1972), and the author's Internal-External Scale (Kendrick, 1974). The l a t t e r scale consists of a t o t a l score for 48 items as wel l as scores for two sub-scales: "work s i t u a t i o n " (24 items) and "interpersonal relationships" (24 items) (see Appendix B). The v a l i d i t y and the r e l i a b i l i t y of the Rotter and Levenson scales have been reported elsewhere (Rotter, 1966; Levenson, 1972). In order to test the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the Kendrick scale, several p i l o t studies were completed. The f i r s t was undertaken i n order to test the content v a l i d i t y of the items. T h i r t y - f i v e judges were administered the f i r s t draft of the Kendrick scale, a forced choice 24-pair locus of control scale, and asked to complete t h i s scale as i f they were (1) i n -te r n a l l y oriented or (2) externally oriented (see Appendix C for scale Table 1 Demographic Variables of Sex, Age, Marital Status, and Socio-economic Status by Group 24 Variable Sex Female Male Non-hospital Hospital Control Control 8 4 5 7 S.A.F.E.R. Hospital Suicidant 10 2 6 6 Total 29 19 3.19 p_>.05 Mean Age (range 19-78 yrs.) over/under 28 yrs. 30.75 41.66 30.16 29.41 32.79 2.92 £>.05 Mar i t a l Status unmarried single divorced or separated widowed married married 6 1 6 0 6 2 8 0 26 3 17 .75 £>.05 Socio-economic  Status by  Occupation Unpaid/paid student housewife unemployed unskilled semiskilled s k i l l e d c l e r i c a l professional other 2 4 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 4 0 1 1 3 0 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 3 1 0 1 3 0 7 8 6 10 2 1 2 12 0 4.98 p_>.05 25 and i n s t r u c t i o n s ) . In t h i s way i t was hoped that the content of the i t e m s — that i s , whether or not the items r e f l e c t internal versus external expectancies of c o n t r o l — c o u l d be assessed. Any items which did not have 90% agreement were not used; however, none of the 24 pairs was incorrectly " l a b e l l e d " by more than 10% of the subjects so a l l the items were retained. A second study involved administering to 22 subjects the Rotter Internal-External Control Scale, the forced choice 24-pair locus of control scale, (See Appendix D for new i n s t r u c t i o n s ) , and the Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960). This was done i n order to test the concurrent v a l i d i t y of the f i r s t draft of the Kendrick scale with the Rotter scale. The correlation between the Rotter scale and the f i r s t draft of the Kendrick scale was .54. The correlation of the l a t t e r scale with the Marlowe-Crowne was .15 suggesting that the scale i s not correlated with a measure of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . A t h i r d study involved administering the Rotter scale, a revision of the Kendrick scale, and the tferlowe-Crowne scale to 21 other subjects. The revision of the Kendrick scale was comprised of the 24 pairs separated and the items randomly ordered. I t was f e l t that t h i s revised scale would be influenced to a lesser degree by s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . The i s o l a t i o n of items would seem to r e s u l t i n less comparison of the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y of two corresponding items. The correlation of the revised Kendrick scale with the Marlowe-Crowne was .10 indicating that the scale i s not correlated with a measure of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Unlike the forced-choice format, the revised Kendrick scale allowed an opportunity to employ a L i k e r t six-point scale measuring degrees of 26 agreement and disagreement towards each item. The L i k e r t 6-point scale has been suggested as more appropriate than the forced-choice format. James and Shepel (1973) found the forced-choice format of the Rotter scale produced i r r i t a t i o n and lack of co-operation i n some ( p a r t i c u l a r l y non-university) subjects. They noted that such observed resistance i s frequently a hazard of this format. The revised Kendrick scale (from now on referred to as the Kendrick Internal-External Scale) was correlated with the Rotter scale, again to test concurrent v a l i d i t y but more s p e c i f i c a l l y to test the relationship between two scales, one employing a forced-choice format and the other a L i k e r t 6-point scale. The correlation between the Kendrick and Rotter scales was .55. In order to assess the test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of the Kendrick Internal-External Scale, 10 subjects completed the questionnaire and then completed i t again one month l a t e r . The correlation was .93. A s p l i t -half r e l i a b i l i t y test was also done i n order to test the i n t e r n a l con-sistency of the scale. The correlation was .80. Evidence has been presented (see Review of the Literature) to support the study of locus of control at a multidimensional rather than a unidimensional l e v e l . The two factors of Rotter's Internal-External Control Scale—personal control versus control over p o l i t i c a l or world a f f a i r s — a s i d e n t i f i e d ' by Mirels (1970) were investigated. I t was hypothesized that the Kendrick Internal-External Scale would sepa-rate between b e l i e f i n control over work situations versus i n t e r -personal relationships. I t was also hypothesized that the Kendrick scale could be used to distinguish between the individual's perception of 27 control over positive versus negative events. Thus, i t was necessary to assign valences to the 48 items i n the scale. Three judges decided on the "event" i n each of the 48 statements (e.g., "Actions are more im-portant than looks i n winning friends." The event i s "winning friends".) Agreement among the three judges was 100%. Five other judges assigned a valence to each event. There was 100% agreement among the judges. Eighteen of the items were assigned positive valences, 22 were assigned negative valences, and eight items were considered neutral. Procedure The non-hospital suicidants were contacted by their respective S.A.F.E.R. workers and those who agreed to participate i n the study were contacted by the experimenter. The majority of testing sessions with the subjects were held i n subjects' homes. The 24 hospitalized s u i c i d a l and non-psychiatric patients were contacted by hospital s t a f f and again, those agreeing to participate were contacted by the experimenter. The testing of these subjects was done i n the hospital. The 12 non-hospital non-suicidal subjects were selected by door-to-door canvassing of three areas i n Vancouver, and testing was done i n the homes. Subjects were told that their help was requested i n order to aid i n some research being done by the experimenter at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. I t was made clear that p a r t i c i p a t i o n was voluntary, that they could withdraw at any time during the interview, and that the results were confidential. Upon completion of the questionnaires,-subjects were informed as to the nature of the present study and any questions were answered. 28 A l l 48 subjects were tested by the same experimenter. The three locus of control scales were administered to subjects i n a counterbalanced order. Due to the more personal nature of the Beck Depression Inventory, i t was f e l t that i t would be best to administer i t after the three locus of control measures were obtained. Demographic information was gathered from the subjects themselves. Information on the suicide attempts and in d i v i d u a l problematic situations was gathered from medical records and br i e f interviews with the S.A.F.E.R. or hospital workers involved with the subjects. As previously mentioned, the suicide attempts were c l a s s i f i e d by the experimenter into four types: SERIOUS-INTERNAL, SERIOUS-EXTERNAL,. NON-SERIOUS-EXTERNAL, NON-SERIOUS-INTERNAL. Information needed to c l a s s i f y the attempts was gathered i n the following manner. The seriousness of the suicide attempt was assessed by ratings, on a scale from 1 (low) to 9 (high), of "probability of death" ( l e t h a l i t y of method) and allowed "opportunity for intervention". These ratings were determined separately by both the professional and the suicidant himself. Suicide Type One (SERIOUS-INTERNAL) was assigned by the experimenter a high probability of death rating (7, 8, or 9) i n combination with a low opportunity for intervention rating (3, 2, or 1). I t could be described either as manipulative or non-manipulative. The experimenter assigned Suicide Type Two (SERIOUS-EXTERNAL) a high probability of death rating (7, 8, or 9) coupled with a high opportunity for intervention rating (4 - 9). The attempt was described as non-manipulative. Suicide Type Three (NON-SERIOUS-EXTERNAL) was assigned a low probability of death 29 rating (1 - 6) and a high opportunity for intervention rating ( 4 - 9). The attempt was non-manipulative. Suicide Type Four (NON-SERIOUS-INTERNAL) was assigned a low probability of death rating (1 - 6) i n combination with a high opportunity for intervention rating (4 - 9). The attempt was described as manipulative. C r i t e r i o n contamination was avoided be-cause the ratings of the seriousness of the suicide attempt and the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of attempts into categories were done independently by different judges. The st a f f members and suicidants rated the seriousness of the attempt, and the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of attempts was done by the experimenter. Also, the experimenter had no knowledge of depression or locus of control scores at the time the attempts were rated and c l a s s i f i e d . As mentioned, information on the individual., problematic situations was gathered from medical records and b r i e f interviews with the S.A.F.E.R. or hospital workers involved with the subjects. In reviewing the s i t u -ations of a l l suicidants the experimenter found that s i x "types" of problems predominated. Each suicidant was assigned a maximum of two of these s i x problematic-situation types: (1) family, (2) love/sex, (3) inadequacy, (4) loneliness, (5) drugs/alcohol, (6) work/school. Again, c r i t e r i o n contamination was avoided as the descriptions of the problems, and the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and assignment of two problematic-situation types were done by independent judges. Data were computer processed with cross-tabulations computed among a l l variables i n order to assess s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences among the four groups. A two-way between group analysis of variance on measures of depression and locus of control was computed i n order to assess the 30 relationship between suicide and locus of control, the effects of ho s p i t a l i z a t i o n on depression and locus of control, and the suicide by hospital interaction. Intercorrelations among demographic variables, among scales and subscales, and between depression and locus of control measures were based on the Pearson product-moment correlation. Pearson and b i -s e r i a l correlations were used to assess the relationship between type of suicide attempt and depression and locus of control. A factor analysis was performed on the locus of control scores. 31 Results Before looking at the results r e l a t i n g to the two major hypotheses, data were examined regarding the comparability of the four samples. An attempt had been made to make the two experimental groups (non-hospital suicidant - S.A.F.E.R. and hospital suicidant) comparable with the two control groups (non-hospital control and hospital control) on important demographic variables. Tests of significance (x ?)revealed no si g n i f i c a n t differences among the four groups on the variables of sex, age, marital status, and socio-economic status. Appendix E presents the primary problem areas for S.A.F.E.R. and hospital suicidants. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences (x2 = .02, £ > .05) between the S.A.F.E.R. suicidants&andihospital suicidants on the "type of problem" variable. A Wilcoxbn rank sum test was applied to the probability of death and opportunity for intervention ratings. S.A.F.E.R. and hospital suicidants did not d i f f e r on the probability of death variable as judged by both suicidants (Z = .41, £ > .05) and sta f f (Z_ = .76, £ > .05). S.A.F.E.R. and hospital suicidants also did not d i f f e r on the opportunity for intervention variable as judged by both suicidants (Z = 1.59, £ > .05) and s t a f f (Z = 1.33, £ > .05). Seven S.A.F.E.R. suicidants and four hospital suicidants were judged to have made manipulative attempts. Five S.A.F.E.R. suicidants and eight hospital suicidants made non-manipulative attempts. These differences were not s i g n i f i c a n t ()(2 = .67, £ > .05). Sign i f i c a n t relationships occurred between suicidants' and s t a f f s ' 32 perceptions of the seriousness of the suicide attempt. The correlation between the two perceptions of probability of death was s i g n i f i c a n t (r = . 65, p_ < .001) and the correlation between the two perceptions of opportunity for intervention was also s i g n i f i c a n t (r = .97, p_ < .001). This suggests that suicidants and st a f f members were similar i n their perceptions of the seriousness of the suicide attempt. Correlations Involving Demographic Variables Seriousness of the suicide attempt was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to length of stay i n hospital. Probability of death as judged by st a f f was correlated with length of h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n (r = .41, p_ < .05) as was opportunity for intervention as judged by both suicidant (_r =-.57, p_ < .01) and s t a f f (_r = -.50, p_ < .01). There was a s i g n i f i c a n t correlation (_r = .35, p_ < .05) between the length of h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n and perception of control by powerful others, as measured by the Levenson Powerful Others Scale (Levenson 3). A longer stay i n hospital was associated with greater a t t r i b u t i o n of control to other persons. Scores were obtained from s u i c i d a l and non-suicidal hospitalized persons. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between age and scores on Rotter's locus of control scale. Younger persons answered i n a more external d i r e c t i o n than older persons on the Rotter scale (r = -.29, p_ < .05) and on the perception of control over p o l i t i c a l and world a f f a i r s subscale of the Rotter (_r = -.26, p < .05). Age did not correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with other locus of control measures nor with depression. The.seriousness of the suicide attempt (as determined by probability 33 of death and opportunity for intervention ratings) did not correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with measures of depression or locus of control. Neither depression measures nor locus of control measures were correlated with the amount of manipulation that appeared to exist i n the suicide attempt. Suicide attempts were c l a s s i f i e d into four types: (1) SERIOUS-INTERNAL, (2) SERIOUS-EXTERNAL (3) NON-SERIOUS-EXTERNAL.(4) NON^SERIOUS-INTERNAL;. (Appendix F presents the types of attempts made by S.A.F.E.R. and hospital suicidants). Overall, the two groups did not d i f f e r s i g -2 n i f i c a n t l y from each other with regard to type of attempt (x = .19, £ >.05; x 2 = -17, £ > .05). The two components of the type .'of suicide attempt variable—seriousness of attempt and amount of manipulation appearing to exist i n the attempt— did not correlate with measures of depression or locus of control. I t may be concluded, therefore, that type of suicide attempt made i s not related to depression or to a generalized expectancy for locus of control. Analyses of Variance of Depression and Locus of Control Measures for  Su i c i d a l and Non-suicidal Subjects. Means and standard deviations for measures of depression and locus of control as assessed by the Beck, Rotter, Kendrick, and Levenson scales and subscales were computed separately for each group and appear i n Table 2. I t was hypothesized that suicidants' scores on the locus of control dimension would be more external than scores of non-suicidal non-psychiatric persons. In order to evaluate this hypothesis, a two way between-groups analysis of variance was computed to determine i f there were differences on depression and locus of control scores between s u i c i d a l (groups 3 and 4) Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Measures of Depression and Locus of Control for the Total Sample and by Group Measure Description Range A l l Ss Non-Hospital Control; i. Hospital Control S.A.F.E.R. Hospital Suicidants Beck depression , inventory 46 M SD 14.94 12.79 M SD 5.08 3.40 M SD 10.58 8.44 M SD 20.25 13.71 . M SD 24.67 12.71 Rotter 1 t o t a l score 18 M SD 9.19 4.40 M SD 8.17 4.51 M SD 8.33 3.63 M SD 10.00 4.53 M SD 10.25 4.99 Rotter 2 p o l i t i c a l world a f f a i r s 4 M SD 1.63 1.27 M SD ..1.67 1.37 M SD 1.42 1.08 M SD 1.92 i : i 6 M SD 1.50 1.51 Rotter 3 personal mastery 9 M SD 3.25 2.19 M SD 2.58 1.83 M SD 3.00 1.04 M SD 3.67 3.11 M SD 3.75 2.30 Kendrick 1 t o t a l score 102 M SD 80.88 21.31 M SD 77.67 17.40 M SD 74.75 19.98 M SD 84.67 23.09 M SD 86.42 24.56 Kendrick 2 interpersonal relationships 61 M SD 42.58 12.47 M SD 41.92 10.27 M SD 38.25 10.46 M SD 44.00 13.49 M SD 46.17 15.17 Kendrick 3 work 44 M SD 38.29 10.55 M SD 35.75 8.28 M SD 36.50 11.96 M SD 40.67 10.98 M SD 40.25 11.05 Kendrick 4 positive events 54 M SD 30.46 10.82 M SD 31.00 8.50 M SD 28.17 9.79 M SD 29.42 10.09 M SD 33.25 14.67 Kendrick 5 negative events 54 M SD 36.67 11.07 M SD 33.33 9.21 M SD 33.50 10.52 M SD 41.92 13.27 M SD 37.92 9.84 Levenson 1 inter n a l 35 M SD 33.25 8.21 M SD 34.58 7.69 M SD 37.25^ 6.69 M SD 32.00 8.01 M SD 29.17 8.96 Levenson 2 chance 38 M SD 19.15 10.27 M SD 12.58 5.92 M SD 20.50 10.98 M SD 21.17 10.64 M SD 22.33 10.84 Levenson 3 powerful others 41 M SD 14.13 9.56 M SD 11.00 7.22 M SD 14.67 7.11 M SD 13.67 7.52 M SD 17.17 14.48 35 and non-suicidal (groups 1 and 2) persons and between hospitalized (groups 2 and 4) and non-hospitalized (groups 1 and 3) persons. This analysis i s summarized i n Appendix G. There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the s u i c i d a l and non-suicidal groups on scores on the Beck De-pression Inventory (F_ = 23.37, df = 1/44, p_ < .001), the Levenson Internal Scale (F = 5.56, df_ = 1/44, £ < .05), and the Kendrick subscale of perceived control over negative events (F = 4.44, df_ = 1/44, £ < .05). The two groups of s u i c i d a l persons (S.A.F.E.R. and hospital) had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more depressed scores on the depression inventory, and scores which were s i g n i f i c a n t l y less internal on the Levenson Internal Scale and s i g n i f i c a n t l y more external on the perception of control over negative events subscale than did the two non-suicidal groups (non-hospital control and non-psychi-a t r i c hospital control). In a consideration of the f i v e locus of control scales, only one (Levenson Internal) revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t difference (F = 5.56, df_ = 1/44, £ < .05) between suicidants and non-suicidants i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n . Although between-group differences on nine of the 11 measures did not reach the ; a = .05 l e v e l of significance,, they were a l l i n the di r e c t i o n predicted. Although p a r t i a l support i s given for the hypothesis that suicidants 1 scores are more external than those of non-suicidants, the results of the present study suggest that the n u l l hypothesis be accepted. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between hospitalized and non-hospitalized groups on the depression inventory or on any of the locus of control measures. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t interaction between the suicide/non-suicide 36 a n d h o s p i t a l / n o n - h o s p i t a l v a r i a b l e s o n t h e d e p r e s s i o n i n v e n t o r y o r o n a n y o f t h e l o c u s o f c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s . A l t h o u g h the s u i c i d e b y h o s p i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n w a s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , a n i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g was n o t e d w i t h r e g a r d t o L e v e n s o n ' s B e l i e f i n C h a n c e S c a l e . A n a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n n o n - h o s p i t a l a n d h o s p i t a l c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s o n t h e L e v e n s o n C h a n c e S c a l e (F_ = 4 . 8 3 , df_ = 1 / 2 2 , p_ < . 0 5 ) . H o s p i t a l i z e d c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s b e l i e v e d i n c h a n c e t o a g r e a t e r d e g r e e t h a n t h e n o n - h o s p i t a l i z e d c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . T h i s c o u l d b e e x p l a i n e d b y t h e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t f o u r o f t h e 12 h o s p i t a l i z e d c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s i n t e r v i e w e d h a d b e e n i n v o l v e d i n a s e r i o u s a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t . E a c h o f t h e f o u r m e n t i o n e d t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r t h a t t h e i r a n s w e r s w o u l d h a v e b e e n m u c h d i f f e r e n t h a d t h e i n t e r v i e w s t a k e n p l a c e b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d . T h i s f i n d i n g i s p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t a n a d d i t i o n a l n o n - o r t h o g o n a l c o m p a r i s o n h a s b e e n m a d e , s o t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l may n o t b e a t r u e i n d i c a t i o n o f a c h a n c e f i n d i n g . A l t h o u g h t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s w a s a c c e p t e d , t h e r e w e r e t r e n d s i n t h e p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n . I t was t h o u g h t t h a t a m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e m i g h t d e m o n s t r a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e p r o f i l e s o f t h e s u i c i d a l a n d n o n - s u i c i d a l s u b j e c t s , w h e n a c o m b i n e d c r i t e r i o n o f l o c u s o f c o n t r o l was c o n s t r u c t e d . H o w e v e r , t h e m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e r e v e a l e d n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s . C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n D e p r e s s i o n a n d L o c u s o f C o n t r o l I t w a s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t m e a s u r e s o f e x t e r n a l l o c u s o f c o n t r o l w o u l d c o r r e l a t e p o s i t i v e l y w i t h m e a s u r e s o f d e p r e s s i o n . I n o r d e r t o e v a l u a t e t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e c o m p u t e d b e t w e e n s c o r e s o n t h e B e c k 37 Depression Inventory and scores on the 11 locus of control scales and subscales. Intercorrelations among these measures are presented i n Table 3. As predicted, externality was d i r e c t l y related to s e l f - r e -ported depression. Out of 11 correlations, seven reached s t a t i s t i c a l significance. The four non-significant correlations involved subscales; a l l the major locus of control scales (Rotter, Kendrick, and Levenson) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the depression measure. Two of the sub-scale measures—Rotter's personal mastery and Kendrick's work situations were also s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to depression. Thus, i t can be concluded that greater depression i s associated with greater external locus of control. Analyses of Scales and Subscales The present study adds a new locus of control s c a l e — t h e Kendrick Internal-External S c a l e — t o the exi s t i n g ones. The results of the present study support the v a l i d i t y of the new Kendrick Internal-External Scale. As Table 3 indicates, of 30 possible intercorrelations of the Kendrick scale and subscales with the other locus of control measures, a l l 30 were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Fifteen of the 30 correlations were highly s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ < .001). A factor analysis demonstrated the content v a l i d i t y of the Kendrick Internal-External Scale. A P r i n c i p a l Components Factor Analysis on the Rotter scale, the three Levenson scales and the positive and negative events subscales of the Kendrick scale revealed that one factor accounted for a large portion (55.6%) of the variance. I t was concluded, therefore, that the Kendrick scale was measuring the same thing as the other locus of control scales. 38 Table 3 Correlation Matrix of Measures of Depression and Locus of Control (n = 48) Beck Rot 1 Rot 2 Rot 3 Ken 1 Ken 2 Ken 3 Ken 4 Ken 5 Lev 1 Lev 2 Lev 3 Beck Rot 1 Rot 2 *** 1.00 .28 .03 .28 *** 1.00 *** .69 .03 *** .69 *** 1.00 ** .36 *** .77 .26 .26 ** .41 ** .40 .14 ** .38 ** .45 .32 ** .38 .30 .18 *** .45 .33 .18 .29 ** .36 3o* ** -.36 -.18 .32 *** .47 ** .39 .25 .34 ** .38 Rot 3 Ken 1 Ken 2 Ken 3 Ken 4 Ken 5 Lev 1 Lev 2 Lev 3 ** .36 * .26 .14 * .32 .18 .18 ** -.36 * .32 * .25 *** .77 ** .41 ** .38 ** .38 *** .45 .29 .36 * * * .47 .34 .26 ** .40 ** .45 .30 .33 ** .36 -.18 ** .39 ** .38 *** 1.00 ** .36 .27 ** .38 ** .37 .28 ** -.35 ** .43 .25 ** .36 *** 1.00 *** .91 *** .94 *** .86 *** .86 *** -.71 *** .68 *** .51 .27 *** .91 *** 1.00 *** .71 *** .73 *** .83 *** -.58 *** .66 *** .47 ** .38 *** .94 *** .71 *** 1.00 *** .85 *** .78 *** -.71 *** .60 *** .47 ** .37 *** .86 *** .73 *** .85 *** 1.00 *** .54 *** -.74 *** .45 *** .47 .28 *** .86 *** .83 .78 *** .54 *** 1.00 *** -.53 *** .69 ** .42 ** -.35 -.71 *** -.58 *** -.71 *** -.74 *** -.53 *** 1.00 -** -.38 1, ** -.36 ** .42 *** .68 *** .66 *** .60 *** .45 *** .69 ** .38 *** 00 *** .44 .25 *** .51 *** .47 *** .47 A** .47 ** .42 ** -.36 *** .44 *** 1.00 * £ < .05, one-tailed test ** £ < .01, one-tailed test *** £ < .001, one-tailed test 39 Perceived control over work situations versus interpersonal r e l a t i o n -ships (as measured by the Kendrick subscales 3 and 4 respectively) did not prove to be a meaningful d i s t i n c t i o n i n the present study. The two measures were s i g n i f i c a n t l y intercorrelated (r_ = .71, p_ < .001). This suggests that those subjects with scores i n an in t e r n a l d i r e c t i o n on the work situations subscale, also had scores i n an in t e r n a l d i r e c t i o n on the interpersonal relationships subscale, etc. The correlation between perceived control over positive versus negative events (Kendrick subscales 4 and 5 respectively) was .54. This suggests that i f subjects had scores i n an in t e r n a l d i r e c t i o n on the positive events subscale, they did not necessarily have scores i n an internal direc-tio n on the negative events subscale, etc. Contrary to the evidence pre-sented by the factor analysis, the present group of subjects did make a discrimination between perception of control over positive and negative events. The three Levenson measures (Internal, Chance, and Powerful Others) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to one another. The Chance and Powerful Others measures were correlated ( r _ = .44, p_ < .01) and both were negatively related to the Internal Scale (r = -.38, p_ < .01; _r = -.36, p_ < .01 re-spectively) . These results are simi l a r to those found by Levenson (1972). Support was offered for Mirel's (1970) d i v i s i o n of the Rotter scale into two factors: personal control versus control over p o l i t i c a l or world a f f a i r s . The correlation between these two subscale measures did not reach s t a t i s t i c a l significance* (r = .26, p_ > .05). This suggests that con-trary to the evidence presented by the factor analysis, the present group of subjects did make a discrimination between two factors on Rotter's locus of control scale. 40 Discussion Locus of Control and Suicide U n t i l the present time, there has been only one study investigating the relationship between locus of control and suicide. Williams and Nickels (1969) found that externality was associated with higher "suicide p o t e n t i a l i t y " . Williams and Nickels' research involved introductory psychology students who completed Rotter's Internal-External scale and two suicide p o t e n t i a l i t y scales. The main thrust of the investigation was based on intercorrelations of the data, thereby l i m i t i n g the conclusions which could be made. A minor analysis of variance which provided' additional support, involved an abitrary • dichotomy of the locus of control dimension into "external" and " i n t e r n a l " with suicide proneness as a dependent variable. In contrast to the work by Williams and Nickels, subjects i n the present study were persons who had made an overt suicide attempt which was acknowledged by both s t a f f members and the suicidants themselves. A two-way analysis of variance was employed with suicide and ho s p i t a l i z a t i o n as independent variables and locus of control as the dependent variable, thus avoiding an arbitrary dichotomy of the locus of control dimension. In contrast to the research by Williams and Nickels, the present study, concerned with a f i n e r discrimination of internal-external control, em-ployed four locus of control scales i n addition to the Rotter. These f i v e scales allowed for an examination of differences between suicidants and non-suicidants i n thei r perceptions of control over the i r own l i v e s , over p o l i t i c a l and world a f f a i r s , interpersonal relationships, work si t u a t i o n s , and positive and negative events. In addition, the d i s t i n c t i o n was made 41 between two aspects of external c o n t r o l — c o n t r o l by chance and control by powerful others. I t was hypothesized that suicidants' scores on the locus of con-t r o l dimension would be more external than scores of non-suicidal non-psychiatric persons. Research reviewed e a r l i e r on the relationship between locus of control and psychopathology, Williams and Nickels' study on locus of control and suicide, and the finding i n the present study of a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between externality and depression seemed to indicate that the hypothesis would be confirmed. However, the hypothesis of an association between suicide and external locus of control was only minimally supported by the data. Although a l l f i v e measures of locus of control (Rotter, Kendrick, and three Levenson scales) indicated trends i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n , only one reached s t a t i s t i c a l significance. Suicidants did perceive less control over thei r l i v e s than non-suicidal non-psychiatric persons as measured by Levenson's Internal Scale. Suicidants did not perceive events i n their l i v e s to be controlled to any greater extent by chance forces (p_ > .07) or powerful others, than non-suicidal persons. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between suicidants and non-suicidants on • the Rotter and Kendrick measures ( t o t a l scores). Suicidants did perceive s i g n i f i c a n t l y less control over negative events than did non-suicidants. This may r e f l e c t the s u i c i d a l person's preoccupation with f a i l u r e s and unhappy events accompanied by a perceived i n a b i l i t y to overcome them. The measure which was s i g n i f i c a n t (Levenson Internal) and a second 42 which approached significance (Levenson Chance), involved two of the three scales which the present author considers come closest to s a t i s -fying the c r i t e r i a for a well-developed locus of control scale. (See pages 4 , 5, and 6 for an extensive discussion of this issue.) Although there^ were trends i n the predicted direction (suicide associated with external locus of control), the results on the whole lead the present author to question the univ e r s a l i t y of Williams and Nickels' findings. Two major considerations come to mind which may explain the apparent inconsistency between findings by Williams and Nickels and those of the present author. The f i r s t i s whether out-comes resulting from studies employing college students can be generalized to research involving subjects of a wide variety of ages, levels of education, and occupations. There has been an increasing skepticism about generalizing from college students to other populations. Watkins and Davidson (1969), for example, demonstrated that methods of coping with stress which may be effec t i v e for normals cannot necessarily be assumed to be effective for psychiatric patients. They advise that caution be used when generalizing from university students to psychi-a t r i c populations. A second consideration i s whether generalizations can be made from persons completing suicide p o t e n t i a l i t y scales to persons who have attempted or completed suicide. Devries (1963), after a review of the l i t e r a t u r e , noted that the suicide researcher has come to think about the general c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of suicide as consisting of threatened, attempted, and comtdtted suicides. Support has been offered for t h i s 43 proposed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n on the basis of personality differences found between threatened and attempted suicides, and between attempted and completed suicides. Although suicide p o t e n t i a l i t y i s not included i n t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of s u i c i d a l behaviours, i t i s highly probable that associated personality differences also occur between suicide p o t e n t i a l i t y and s u i c i d a l threats, attempts, and deaths. In addition, i t can be noted that numerous d i f f i c u l t i e s arise i n attempting to pre-i c t s u i c i d a l behaviour from suicide p o t e n t i a l i t y scales. Farberow et a l . (1973) emphasized that although the scales may be useful i n i d e n t i f y i n g a high r i s k group, their predictive value for eventual suicides i s low. The above information suggests that we should, therefore, be skeptical about generalizing from measures of suicide p o t e n t i a l i t y to attempted or committed suicides. I t i s the author's view that while there i s value i n examining suicide p o t e n t i a l i t y , there i s greater value i n studying s u i c i d a l be-haviours given that i t i s the attempted and committed suicides which are so costly to the v i c t i m , the immediate family, friends, and society at large. The lack of agreement between findings by Williams and Nickels and those of the present author may be, as discussed, a result of major differences between the designs employed i n the two studies. However, i t i s also possible that improvements i n the present study may have resulted i n an o v e r a l l s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between suicide and external locus of control. Greater experimental control resulting i n 44 a decrease of the within-group variance may have resulted i n s i g n i f i c a n t differences between suicidants and non-suicidants on more of the measures. On the other hand, an increase i n sample size would decrease the effects of the within-group variance and may have produced s i g n i f i c a n t differences. I t has been suggested (Phares, 1973) that locus of control orientation i s a transient personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c rather than a permanent character t r a i t . Research has demonstrated that one's locus of control can s h i f t to a rather large extent as a result of s i g n i f i c a n t l i f e events (Phares, 1973). The concept was previously discussed of the s u i c i d a l act as "the ultimate internal-type act a person could per-form". I t seems possible that were the locus of control scales adminis-tered at the time of the suicide attempt, the i n d i v i d u a l would answer i n a much more inte r n a l d i r e c t i o n . However, as time passes and the i n d i v i d u a l "recovers" from the actual attempt, he becomes increasingly more external. The implication here i s that i n the suicidant, ex-t e r n a l i t y i s the usual state or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c but i t i s temporarily upset when a suicide attempt i s made. (This would not apply to the minority of external-type attempters—see page 20 — who would pre-sumably not make this s h i f t to i n t e r n a l control at the time of the attempt.) Perhaps i f the scales' i n the present study had been administered at a l a t e r time (e.g., three months after the suicide attempt), the suicidants would be more externally oriented than they were at 20.33 days (mean length of time between attempt and interview). In order to evaluate i f a change i n expectancy for locus of control i s taking place, locus of control scales would have to be administered 45 at several times, i . e . , as soon a f t e r the attempt as possible, perhaps s i x weeks l a t e r , and then again i n several months time. I t would also be of value to obtain locus of control scores f o r an i n d i v i d u a l before he makes a suicide attempt. I t i s highly u n l i k e l y that data could be obtained immediately preceding the attempt. However, data could be obtained from persons with a high r i s k for suicide (suicide p o t e n t i a l i t y scales would be of value here) and i t i s possible that some of these i n d i v i d u a l s would attempt su i c i d e i n the not too dis t a n t future. In any case, the time at which locus of c o n t r o l scales are adminis-. tered r e l a t i v e to when a sui c i d e attempt i s made, seems to be a c r i t i c a l consideration. In the present study, the c o n t r o l l i n g factor was, for the most part, an e t h i c a l consideration, i . e . , subjects were i n t e r -viewed as soon a f t e r the attempt as the s t a f f f e l t was advisable. E t h i c a l considerations are n a t u r a l l y of utmost importance but remain unfortunately, a l i m i t a t i o n to optimal research designs. There was some" suggestion i n the l i t e r a t u r e f o r a_hypothesis~.that -suicidants are more i n t e r n a l l y c o n t r o l l e d than non-suicidants. ..This was indicated by the find i n g s that alcohol ..and drug abusers are i n - . t e r n a l l y controlled.. I t was questioned whether the suicidant, as w e l l as the alcohol and drug addict, could not also be viewed as a person who has a v a i l a b l e to him a means of r a p i d l y a l t e r i n g or modifying un-pleasant subjective states, e i t h e r through manipulation of the environment or through death. The hypothesis was also indicated by the suggestion that depressives may be more i n t e r n a l than non-depressives and also by 46 a consideration of the s u i c i d a l attempt as a highly internal-type act. I t can be said that the results of the present study offer no support for an association between suicide and i n t e r n a l locus of control. The relationship between the s u i c i d a l act i t s e l f and locus of control was experimentally investigated. Suicide attempts were c l a s s i f i e d into four types: 1) SERIOUS-INTERNAL 2) SERIOUS-EXTERNAL•3) NON-SERIOUS-EXTERNAL 4)N0N-SERI0US-INTERNAL. The relationship between type of suicide attempt made and a generalized expectancy for locus of control was not s i g n i f i c a n t . However, th i s issue s t i l l remains of interest to the present author. I t i s possible that greater refinement of the c r i t e r i a used i n c l a s s i f y i n g the attempts may have resulted i n some interesting relationships. The two components of suicide type were: 1) seriousness of attempt—probability of death and opportunity for intervention ratings as assessed by appropriate s t a f f and the suicidants themselves, and 2) the amount of manipulation that appeared to exist i n the attempt as assessed by appropriate s t a f f members. Perhaps a smaller scale (1 - 5 instead of 1 - 9) for a l l three measures would have resulted i n a less arbitrary selection of numbers to represent the pr o b a b i l i t y of death, opportunity for intervention, and amount of manipulation associated with the attempt. Another refinement would be to obtain ratings from several s t a f f members (instead of just one) as w e l l as the suicidants themselves, as t h i s would increase the r e l i a b i l i t y of the ratings. A t h i r d refinement would be an e x p l i c i t description of the c r i t e r i a associated with each of the f i v e l e v e l s . Specifying the c r i t e r i a associated with each l e v e l would be a rather extensive 47 task but would most cert a i n l y increase the accuracy of the ratings. Suicide, Hospitalization and Depression There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between suicidants and non-suicidants on scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. Self-reported depression was s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater for s u i c i d a l subjects than for non-suicidal subjects. This finding i s i n keeping with the fact that depression i s consistently reported as an accompaniment to s u i c i d a l behaviour (Leonard, 1974). Although the results must be interpreted with caution because an additional non-orthogonal comparison was made, i t was found that hospitalized control subjects were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more depressed than non-hospitalized control subjects. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between hospitalized and non-hospitalized suicidants on the depression measure. Locus of Control and Depression The hypothesis that measures of external locus of control would correlate p o s i t i v e l y with depression was supported by the data. Externality was p o s i t i v e l y correlated with measures of self-reported depression. This finding i s consistent with Seligman's model of de-pression as "learned helplessness" and supports Seligman i n his hypo-thesis (1973) that externals would be more susceptible to learned help-lessness (depression) than internals. The results are also i n l i n e with studies by Abramowitz (1969), M i l l e r (1971), and Calhoun, Cheney, and Dawes (1974) which support a positive relationship between external locus of control and depression. The results of the present study 48 contradict the model of depression which depicts depressives as "pathologically i n t e r n a l " — t h i s view being based on the depressive's excessive g u i l t , anxiety, and over-riding sense of personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (Beck, 1967; Lamont, 1972; and Melges and Bowlby , 1969). I t was f e l t important to consider whether the two viewpoints— "depressive as external" or "depressive as i n t e r n a l " — a r e contradictory or paradoxical, the l a t t e r case implying that they are opposing but compatible viewpoints. Calhoun, Cheney, and Dawes (1974) conceptualized a paradox whereby depressed persons attribute unhappiness and f a i l u r e to i n t e r n a l causes but are also characterized by a general self-per-ception of helplessness (external control). The author has chosen to discuss two possible explanations for t h i s paradox which are f e l t to be p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant to the present study. F i r s t of a l l , one can consider to what i s being referred when the term "locus of control" : i s used. Does i t refer to the individual's per-ception of control over events that happen to him i n the past (e.g., the loss of a job) or his perception of control over p o s s i b i l i t i e s for action i n the future (e.g., improving a marriage) or both? Returning to Rotter's o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n of locus of control—perception of control over "an event regarded...as a reward or reinforcement" (Rotter, 1966, p. 1 ) — i t would seem that Rotter implies both. An "event" could refer to both events that have already happened as w e l l as possible events i n the future. The present author i s i n agreement with Rotter's im-p l i c a t i o n that locus of control refers to perception of control over past as w e l l as future events. In the author's opinion this seems to be 49 the most h e u r i s t i c way of viewing the concept of locus of control. I t appears however, that locus of control researchers often refer to perception of control over past events and not future events—or future events and not past events. The author feels that i t i s important for researchers i n this area to either 1) e x p l i c i t l y define whether they are referring to perception of control over past or future events or to 2) come to an agreement as to what the term locus of control means. They may decide that locus of control refers to only past events, only future events, or that i t i s a multidimensional concept encompassing both. One could question whether or not to expect a generalized expec-tancy for locus of control operating across both past and future events. The research on depressives (Beck, 1967; Lamont, 1972; Melges and Bowlby, 1969; and Seligman, 1971) leads us to conclude that we cannot always expect a generalized expectancy for locus of control over past events and the p o s s i b i l i t y for future events. One explanation for the paradox, then, i s that depressives perceive their l i v e s to be both i n t e r n a l l y and externally controlled depending on whether the l i f e event i s i n the past (internal) or future (external). A second explanation for the paradox of the depressed person as "i n t e r n a l " i n some situations and "external" i n others relates to Mischel, Mailer, and Zeiss's ( i n press) discovery that peoples' per-ceptions of their own control varies depending on whether the par-t i c u l a r event i s a negative or positive one. Thus the depressed person may be inte r n a l i n believing that he has control over the negative 50 things that happen to him (self-blame), but external i n b e l i e v i n g that he has no control over such p o s i t i v e things as making l i f e better fo r himself (helplessness). I t may be of value to formulate a locus of control scale which combines and evaluates these two aspects of the paradox of "depressive as i n t e r n a l " and "depressive as external". One scale could be devised which measures the i n d i v i d u a l ' s perception of control over: 1) p o s i t i v e events which have happened (past) 2) negative events which have happened 3) p o s i t i v e events which could happen (future) 4) negative events which could happen The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and depression could prove to be i n t e r e s t i n g . Two possible explanations have been given f o r the paradox of the depressed person as both i n t e r n a l and external. The r e s u l t s of the present study, however, indi c a t e a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between de-pression and external locus of c o n t r o l . This f i n d i n g suggests that even though the depressive may perceive h i s l i f e to be i n t e r n a l l y con-t r o l l e d i n some circumstances and ex t e r n a l l y contolled i n others, sus-c e p t i b i l i t y to helplessness (externality) i s a more important factor i n the dynamics of depression than i s self-blame ( i n t e r n a l i t y ) . Multidimensional Locus of Control and Depression The present study, i n contrast to previous research on the r e l a t i o n -ship between depression and locus of c o n t r o l , employed four locus of cont r o l scales i n addition to the Rotter. This allowed f o r an 51 investigation of the relationship between depression and several s p e c i f i c l i f e areas. Levenson's Internal, Chance, and Powerful Others measures were a l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to depression. Greater depression was associated with greater b e l i e f i n control by chance forces and powerful others and lesser b e l i e f i n control by the in d i v i d u a l . The results of the present study suggest that the more depressed a person i s , the less he believes i n his a b i l i t y to control the course of his l i f e and the less he perceives control i n work situations. Persons who are more depressed do not perceive less control than less depressed persons i n areas pertaining to thei r interpersonal relationships and views on p o l i t i c a l and world a f f a i r s . The d i s t i n c t i o n between perception of control over work situations versus interpersonal relationships did not prove to be a meaningful one for the subjects i n the present study. The correlation between the two subscale measures was too high to warrant the b e l i e f that two d i s -t i n c t aspects were being measured. The implication here i s that the s i g n i f i c a n t correlation between depression and perception of control i n work situations i s meaningless, probably the result of chance. I t i s suggested that a further study be undertaken to investigate the expectancy for locus of control i n work situations and interpersonal relationships among other non-depressed non-suicidal subjects. Consistent with work by Mischel, Mailer, and Zeiss (1974) the . d i s t i n c t i o n between perception of control over positive versus negative events did prove to be a meaningful d i s t i n c t i o n i n .the present study. 52 The correla t i o n between the two subscale measures was not high enough to warrant the b e l i e f that one aspect was being measured. However, depression was not related to perception of control over either positive or negative events. The more depressed persons did not d i f f e r from the less; depressed persons i n the amount of perceived control over positive and negative outcomes i n l i f e . This finding casts some doubt on a point made e a r l i e r that depressives would be " i n t e r n a l " i n believing that they have control over the negative things that happen to them (self-blame), but "external" i n believing that they have no control over such positive things as making l i f e better for themselves (helpless-ness) . A P r i n c i p a l Components Factor Analysis on the f i v e locus of control scales (Rotter, Kendrick, and Levenson) revealed that one factor ac-counted for a large portion of the variance. However, correlations suggested that subjects did make d i s t i n c t i o n s between two factors of Rotter's scale and between the positive and negative events subscales of the Kendrick. Separate dimensions of the same underlying concept are indicated. A General Comment on Research on Locus of Control and Depression Lamont :(1972a, 1972b) c r i t i c i z e d the studies on depression and i t s relationship to locus of control as measured by Rotter's scale. Lamont f e l t that correlations between scores on depression inventories and Rotter's internal-external scale might be due to the largely pessimistic wording of the external items and the largely optimistic wording of the in t e r n a l items, rather than to the item content. In order to determine 53 whether t h i s were the case with the new Kendrick Internal-External Scale, 10 subjects were asked to rate the 48 statements for "pessimistic" versus " o p t i m i s t i c " wording. Lamont's c r i t i c i s m was also supported as applying to the Kendrick Scale as i s apparent from the following r e s u l t s : (1) One hundred eighty-seven external statements were rated as being p e s s i m i s t i c a l l y worded. Only four external statements were rated "optimistic". (2) One hundred twenty-seven i n t e r n a l statements were rated "optimistic". Only 19 of the i n t e r n a l statements were rated "pessimistic". I t can be concluded therefore that the external items on the Rotter and Kendrick locus of control scales are, for the most part, viewed as p e s s i m i s t i c a l l y worded and the in t e r n a l items are viewed as o p t i m i s t i c a l l y worded. I t s t i l l remains as speculation whether depressed persons choose external items merely because they are p e s s i m i s t i c a l l y worded or because they agree with the intended item content. In addition, one cannot say that pessimism and locus of control are unrelated. I t i s possible that pessimism and locus of control are orthogonal or independent concepts; however, i t i s also possible that pessimism i s a component of locus of control or vice versa. Further research i s required i n order to determine the exact nature of t h i s relationship. Control by Powerful Others and Length of Stay i n Hospital A longer stay i n hospital was found to be associated with greater a t t r i b u t i o n of control to other persons. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t cor-r e l a t i o n between length of h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n and perception of control by powerful others, as measured by the Levenson Powerful Others Scale. This lends support to the finding by Levenson (1973) that a hospitalized 54 sample believed that they were controlled by powerful others to a greater extent than a normal sample. I t i s possible that these two findings are a function of the detrimental effects of h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n on the persons involved. There can be no doubt that one of the major goals of any therapeutic intervention i s to make the c l i e n t aware that he i s responsible for what happens to him. As Hanna Levenson (1973) noted: "the goal of therapy i s often seen as the encouragement of an in t e r n a l locus of control s i g n i f y i n g mastery over the environment and competence" X p . 397). I t i s probable that h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n increases rather than decreases the individual's b e l i e f i n control by powerful others. A l i k e l y reason for t h i s i s that i n a hospital setting, attempts .to make the patient more independent and " i n t e r n a l " co-exist and perhaps are overpowered by dependency on h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n and obvious "control" by others. Martin (1955), Sommer and Witney (1961), Wing (1963), and Gruenberg (1963) have a l l stressed the development of dependency as a consequence of prolonged h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n . Implications The results of the present study suggest that knowledge of an individual's b e l i e f i n personal control can aid i n predicting his potential for depression. The results suggest, however, the necessity to re-examine the use of locus of control as a c r i t i c a l variable i n evaluating the potential for suicide. One of the major goals of any therapeutic intervention i s to make the c l i e n t aware that he i s responsible for what happens to him. The results of the present study suggest that i n order to f a c i l i t a t e 55 r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of depressive persons, i t i s necessary to focus on encouraging b e l i e f s i n int e r n a l control " s i g n i f y i n g mastery over the environment and competence" (Levenson, 1973, p. 397). The results sug-gest, however, that this philosophy be re-examined with regard to psychotherapy with s u i c i d a l persons. 56 References Abrahamson, D., Schludermann, S., and Schludermann, E. Replication of dimensions of locus of control. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1973, 41, 320. Abramowitz, S. I. Locus of control and self-reported depression among college students. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25_, 149-150. Beck, A. T. Depression: C l i n i c a l , experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Berzins, J . I . , and Ross, W. F. Locus of control among opiate addicts. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1973, 40, 84-91. Bibring, E. The mechanism of depression. In P. Greenacre (Ed.), Affective  disorders. New York: International Universities Press, 1953. Brokowski, A. A review of the internal-external control of reinforcement. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, 1966. B u t t e r f i e l d , E. C. Locus of control, test anxiety, reaction to f r u s t -r a t i o n , and achievement attitudes. Journal of Personality, 1964, 32, 298-311. Calhoun, L. G., Cheney, T., and Dawes, A. S. Locus of control, s e l f -reported depression and perceived causes of depression. Journal  of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1974, 42, 736. Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., and Crandall, V. J. Children's b e l i e f s i n their control of reinforcements i n intellectual-academic achievement situations. Child Development, 1965, 36, 91-109. Cromwell, R. L., Rosenthal, D., Shakow, D., and Zahn, T. P. Reaction time, locus of control, choice behavior, and descriptions of parental behavior i n schizophrenic and normal subjects. Journal of Personality, 1961, 29, 363-379. 57 Crowne, D. P., and Marlowe, D. A new scale of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 349-354. Devries, A. G. Methodological problems i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s u i c i d a l behavior by means of two personality inventories. (Doctoral d i s -sertation, Univeristy of Southern California) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1963. No. 64-6237. Dies, R. R. Development of a projective measure of perceived locus of control. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1968, 32, 487-490. Distefano, :M. R. , Jr., Pryer, M. W., and Garrison, J. L. Internal-external control among alcoholics. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1972, 28, 36-37. Distefano, M. K., J r . , Pryer, M. W., and Smith, C. E. Comparisons of normal adolescents, psychiatric patients, and adults on i n t e r n a l -external control. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, i n press. Dixon, D. N., McRae, B. C., and McKee, C. S. Which locus of control scale? A comparative analysis of three adult objective versions. Journal of Personality, 1975, i n press. Douvan, R., and Adelson, J. The adolescent experience. New York: Wiley, 1966. Duke, M. P., and Mullens, M. C. Preferred interpersonal distance as a function of locus of control orientation i n chronic schizophrenics, nonschizophrenic patients, and normals. Journal of Consulting  and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1973, 41, 230-234. 58 Durkheim, E. Suicide: A study i n sociology. (Originally published i n France, 1897. Translated by J. A. Spaulding, and G. A. Simpson) New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1951. United States Veterans Administration, Department of Medicine and Surgery. Suicide among general medical and surgical hospital patients with malignant neoplasms, ed. by N. L. Farberow et a l . (Medical B u l l e t i n , MB-8) Washington, D.C., Veterans Administration, 1963, 1-11. Farberow, N. L., Breed, W., Bunney, W. E., Diggory, J . C., L e t t i e r i , D. J . , May, P., Murphy, G..E.,and Su l l i v a n , F. J. .Research i n suicide. In H. L. P. Resnik and B. C. Hathorne (Eds.), Suicide prevention i n the 70's. Conference i n Phoenix, Arizona, January, 1970. Farberow, N. L., McKelligott, J . W., Cohen, S., and Darbonne, A. Suicide among patients with cardiorespiratory i l l n e s s e s . Journal of the American Medical Association, 1966, 195, 128-134. Feather, N. T. Some personality correlates of external control. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1967, 19, 253-260. Fontana, A.,and Gessner, T. Patients' goals and the manifestation of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1969, 33, 247-253. Fontana, A. F., K l e i n , E. B., Lewis, E., and Levine, L. Presentation of se l f i n mental i l l n e s s . Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1968, 32, 110-119. Goss, A., and Morosko, T. E. Relation between a dimension of i n t e r n a l -external control and the MMPI with an alcoholic population. Journal  of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1970, 34_, 189-192. 59 Gozali, J. Control orientation as a personality dimension among alcoholics. Proceedings of the 78th Annual Convention of the  American Psychological Association, 1970, 5, 709-710 (Summary). Gurin, P., Gurin, G. , Lao, R. C , and Beattie, M. Internal-external control i n the motivational dynamics of Negro youth. Journal of  Social Issues, 1969, 25, 29-53. Harrow, M., and Ferrante, A. Locus of control i n psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1969, _3_3, 582-589. Hersch, P. D., and Scheibe, K. E. R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of i n t e r n a l -external control as a personality dimension. Journal of Consulting  Psychology, 1967, 31, 609-613. Hiroto, D. S. The relationship between learned helplessness and locus of control. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Portland, 1971. Hountras, P. T., and Scharf, M. C. Manifest anxiety and locus of control of low-achieving males. Journal of Psychology, 1970, 74_, 95-100. James, W. H., and Shepel, L. F. A restandardization and factor-analytic study of the Lik e r t method of measuring locus of control. Summary of a paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Montreal, August, 1973. Lamont, J. Item mood-level as a determinant of 1-E test response. Journal  of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1972, 28, 190. (a). Lamont, J. Depression, locus of control and mood response set. Journal  of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1972, 28, 342-345. (b). 60 Lefcourt, H. M. Internal versus external control of reinforcement . r e v i s i t e d : Recent developments. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress i n experimental research. Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Leonard, C. V. Understanding and preventing suicide. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1967. Leonard, C. V. Depression and s u i c i d a l i t y . Journal of Consulting and  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1974, 42, 98-104. Levenson, H. Distinctions within the concept of internal-external con-t r o l : Development of a new scale. Proceedings of the 80th Annual  Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1972, 7_, 259-260 (Summary). Levenson, H. Multidimensional locus of control i n psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1973, 41_, 397-404. Liberty, P. G. Burnstein, E.,and Moulton, R. W. Concern with mastery and occupational a t t r a c t i o n . Journal of Personality, 1966, j34_, 105-117. Lichtenberg, P. A. D e f i n i t i o n and analysis of depression. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 1957, 77, 516-527. Litman, R. E., and Tabachnick, N. Fatal one-car accidents. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1967, 36, 248-259. Lottman, T. J , and DeWolfe, A. S. Internal versus external control i n reactive and process schizophrenia. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1972, 39, 344. MacDonald, A. P., J r . , and Tseng, M. S. Dimensions of in t e r n a l versus external control r e v i s i t e d . Unpublished manuscript, West V i r g i n i a University, 1973. 61 Melges, F.,and Bowlby, J. Types of hopelessness i n psychopathological process. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1969, _20, 690-699. Mendels, J. Concepts of depression. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970. Merton, R. Mass persuasion. New York: Harpers, 1946. M i l l e r , W. R. Locus of control and depression. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, 1971. M i l l e r , W. R., and Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and the perception of reinforcement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, _82, 62-73. Mi r e l s , H. L. Dimensions of in t e r n a l versus external control. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1970, 34, 226-228. Mischel, W., Mailer, J . , and Zeiss, A. A t t r i b u t i o n of internal-external control for positive and negative events: Developmental and stimulus effects. 1975, i n press. Nelson, P. C, and Phares, J. Anxiety discrepancy between need value and internal-external control. Psychological Reports, 1971, ^8, 662-668. Phares, E. J. Locus of control: A personality determinant of behavior. Morristown, N.J.: General learning, 1973. P i a t t , J. J., and Eisenman, R. Internal-external control of reinforcement, time perspective, adjustment and anxiety. Journal of General Psychology, 1968, 7j>, 121-128. Pr i c e , R. H., and Denner, B. (Eds.) The making of a mental patient. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Pryer, M. W., and Steinke, J . Type of psychiatric disorder and locus of control. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1973, 29_, 23-24. 62 Ray, W.,J. and Katahn, M. Relation of anxiety to locus of control. Psychological Reports, 1968, 23, 1196. Rotter, J. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80 (1, whole No. 609). Seligman, M. W. P. Learned helplessness and depression. Paper presented at the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Liege, Belgium, July, 1971. Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and learned helplessness. In R. J. Friedman and M. N. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Con- temporary theory and research, 1973, i n press. Seligman, M. E. P., Maier, S. F.,and Geer, J . H. A l l e v i a t i o n of learned helplessness i n the dog. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 256-262. Shybut, J . Time perspective, in t e r n a l versus external control and severity of psychological disturbance. Journal of C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1968, 24, 312-315. Smith, C. E., Pryer, M. W.,and Distefano, M. K-. , Jr.. Internal-external control and severity of emotional impairment among psychiatric patients. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1971, 27_, 449-450. Smith, R. E. Changes i n locus of control as a function of l i f e c r i s i s resolution. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 7_5, 328-332. Tabachnick, N., Litman, R. E. Osman, M. Jones, W. I . , Kasper A., and Moffat, J. Comparative psychiatric study of accidental and s u i c i d a l death. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1966, ]L4, 60-68. 63 Tolor, A., and Reznikoff, M. Relation between insight, repression-sensi-t i z a t i o n , internal-external control and death anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 72.» 426-430. Veblen, T. The theory of the l e i s u r e class. New York: MacMillan, 1899 (Modern l i b r a r y ed., 1934). Viney, L. The multidimensionality of perceived locus of control: Two replications (Extended Report). Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1975, i n press. Warehime, R. G.,and Foulds, M. L. Perceived locus of control and personal adjustment. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1971, 37, 250-252. Watkins, R. E.,and Davidson, P. 0. Stress reactions of psychiatric patients to a stressor f i l m : An attempt at experimental reduction of threat. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1970, 25, 175-178. Watson, D. Relationship between locus of control and anxiety. Journal  of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, £, 91-92. Weiss, J. M. A. The gamble with death i n an attempted suicide. Psychiatry, 1957, 20, 17-25. Williams, C. B.,and Nickels, J . B. Internal-external control dimension as related to accident and suicide proneness. Journal of Consulting  and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1969, 33, 485-494. Wilson, G. C. Suicide i n psychiatric patients who have received hospital treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1968, 125, 752-757. 64 APPENDIX A Description of the S.A.F.E.R. Project The S.A.F.E.R. Project (Suicide Attempt Follow-up Evaluation and Research) i s a communityr-based service which was instigated i n 1972 i n the Vancouver General Hospital and which has now been extended to service three other hospitals i n the Greater Vancouver area (St. Paul's, Burnaby General, and Royal Columbian Hospitals). The aim of intervention by the S.A.F.E.R. Project i s to provide a service to the emergency patient at the time of c r i s i s by be-friending him through a personal contact and ac-ting as f a c i l i t a t o r among the patient, professional services, and the community for a s i x week period following the suicide attempt. During t h i s follow-up period, the patient i s con-tacted on a d a i l y , bi-weekly, and then weekly basis, by telephone and through home v i s i t s by a S.A.F.E.R. worker. This schedule of service i s f l e x i b l e as some cases require more extensive follow-up. During t h i s time, the patient i s encouraged to recognize those problems which led to the c r i s i s and to u t i l i z e community resources that may help i n the resolu-tion of the problem, thus reducing the l i k e l i h o o d of his re-attempting suicide as a solution. The S.A.F.E.R. workers say that the emphasis of the Project i s not "therapeutic" but rather i s one of "objective concern for the t o t a l person i n his environmental s i t u a t i o n " . S.A.F.E.R. also serves to reli e v e the emergency wards of some of their burden of s o c i a l problems through quick r e f e r r a l to appropriate community agencies. 65 APPENDIX B The Kendrick Internal-External Scale QUESTIONNAIRE I N S T R U C T I O N S This i s a questionnaire to fi n d out the way i n which certain important events i n our society affect d i f f e r e n t people. For each item please choose a point along a six-point scale, which expresses what you believe to be the case as far as you're concerned. example: I believe there should be no more wars, answer: C . : strongly agree A B C D E E strongly disagree Be sure to select the point you actually believe to be more true rather than the one you think you should choose or the one you would l i k e to be true. This i s a measure of personal b e l i e f : obviously there are no rig h t or wrong answers. Your answers to the items on t h i s inventory are to be recorded on a separate answer sheet which i s loosely inserted i n the booklet. Please answer these items c a r e f u l l y but do not spend too much time on any one item. Be sure to fi n d an answer for each item. Find the number of the item on the answer sheet, choose the point which expresses how you f e e l , and write the l e t t e r beside the corresponding number. Try to respond to each item independently when making your choice; do not be influenced by your previous choices. 66 1. Employers don't usually care too much about their workers' feelings. 2. I t wouldn't be my f a u l t i f my c h i l d were a l i a r . 3. I f e e l that there i s a direct connection between my behaviour and the way friends react towards me. 4. Things that go wrong at work are usually a result of peoples' mistakes. 5. Being good at something i s largely a matter of e f f o r t . 6. If a couple i s experiencing marital d i f f i c u l t i e s , separation or divorce w i l l probably re s u l t . 7. I t ' s only wishful thinking for a worker to believe he can r e a l l y influence company p o l i c i e s . 8. I f housewives work hard, t h e y ' l l be appreciated at some time or other. 9. Getting a promotion depends on how we l l you work. 10. There's no point i n arguing with people who disagree with me. 11. If I organize my time when I'm working, I usually am able to carry out my plans. 12. I f I've had a good time on an evening out, i t ' s usually because I get involved i n what's going on. 13. A worker can change company p o l i c i e s i f he can just make himself heard. 14. Even i f employers didn't l i k e me, working hard could probably make up for i t . 15. Success i n business i s largely a matter of getting the right breaks. 16. Actions are more important than looks i n winning friends. 17. In an argument, I am sometimes successful at changing peoples' opinions. 18. People who don't have innate a b i l i t i e s i n a certain l i n e of work, can never hope to be good at i t . 19. I t ' s important that people who are unhappy with the i r work, learn to accept things as they are. 20. If employers had not had i t i n for me, I would have been much more successful. 67 21. A person usually chooses a career because he or she i s interested and good at i t . 22. No matter what parents do, factors beyond the i r control largely determine what their kids do. 23. I usually make my decisions without consulting anyone. 24. I f a relationship i s getting worse, things w i l l usually improve i f an i n d i v i d u a l works at i t . 25. I t ' s usually possible for a housewife to do things outside the home i f she feels t i e d down. 26. There's nothing you can do about people you don't l i k e . 27. Making friends i s a process which either happens or doesn't. 28. The work that most people choose to do, i s usually a resu l t of chance. 29. Marriage f a i l u r e i s usually a result of people not trying hard enough to work out thei r problems. 30. Things that go wrong at work are usually a result of accidents. 31. In our society, recognition i s earned as a result of hard work and perseverance. 32. Getting a promotion depends on how wel l the boss l i k e s you. 33. If I've had a rotten time at a party, i t ' s usually because no one talks to me. 34. Employers are usually concerned when a worker expresses d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . 35. In a marriage i f both partners t r y , most problems can be worked out. 36. In order to make friends, i t requires an eff o r t on your part. 37. I t ' s quite possible to do something about people who bother you. 38. When relationships begin to deteriorate there's nothing much you can do. 39. Parents have the unique change to strongly infleunce t h e i r children's development. 40. Others play the most important role i n influencing one's decisions i n l i f e . 68 41. Many times the reactions of people close to me seem haphazard. 42. Housewives don't get enough credit for the i r hard e f f o r t s no matter how hard they t r y . 43. If I had a c h i l d who grew up to be a criminal, i t would be mostly my f a u l t . 44. People who d i s l i k e t h e i r jobs should try to improve things or change to something else. 45. Most marital problems are inevitable and very d i f f i c u l t to resolve. 46. I would make more friends i f I were more physically a t t r a c t i v e . 47. Even i f I organize my time at work, things always happen to disrupt my plans. 48. A housewife i s stuck at home and can't do anyting about i t . 69 APPENDIX C The F i r s t Draft of the Kendrick Internal-External Scale QUESTIONNAIRE I N S T R U C T I O N S Ju l i a n Rotter was interested i n studying in t e r n a l and external control. Internal control refers to the b e l i e f that outcomes i n one's l i f e are dependent on what one does. That i s , the rewards (good or bad) that one receives are a result of one's behaviour. External control refers to the b e l i e f that outcomes i n l i f e are determined by outside forces such as luck, fate, or powerful others. So, an "external" person might f e e l that luck or chance controls what happens to him; He might f e e l that fate has preordained what w i l l happen to him. He might f e e l that power-f u l others control what happens to him or he might f e e l that he simply can not predict the effects of his behaviour because the world i s too complex and confusing. Internal control then refers to the b e l i e f that individuals can influence the environment—that rewards', come as a r e s u l t of peoples' own behaviour. External control refers to the b e l i e f that a l l rewards come from external forces such as luck, fate, or powerful others. I f you do not c l e a r l y understand t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n , please l e t the instructor know and he or she w i l l c l a r i f y i t . This questionnaire i s designed :to f i n d out the way i n which certain important events i n our society affect different people. Each item con-s i s t s of a pair of alternatives lettered a or b. Please select the one statement of each pair (and only one) which you more strongly believe to be the viewpoint an internal/external person would take. Do not select the one you believe to be true for y o u r s e l f — s e l e c t the one which you believe an internal/external person would choose. EXAMPLE: a. I am the master of my fate, (internal) b. A great deal that happens to me i s probalby a matter of chance, (external) You would select a/b Your answers to the items on t h i s inventory are to be recorded on a separate answer sheet which i s loosely inserted i n the booklet. Please answer these items c a r e f u l l y . Be sure to f i n d an answer for every choice. Find the number of the item on the answer sheet and c i r c l e the l e t t e r of the item which you believe to be more internal/external. 70 Housewives don't get enough credit for their hard ef f o r t s no matter how hard they t r y . If housewives work hard, t h e y ' l l be appreciated at some time or other. In order to make friends, i t requires an e f f o r t on your part. Making friends i s a process which either happens or doesn't. In our society, recognition i s earned as a result of hard work and perseverance. Success i n business i s largely a matter of getting the right breaks When relationships begin to deteriorate there's nothing much you can do. If a relationship i s getting worse, things w i l l usually improve i f an i n d i v i d u a l works at i t . A worker can change company p o l i c i e s i f he can just make himself heard. I t ' s only wishful thinking for a worker to believe he can r e a l l y influence company p o l i c i e s . Many times the reactions of people close to me seem haphazard. I f e e l that there i s a di r e c t connection between my behaviour and the way friends react towards me. People who don't have innate a b i l i t i e s i n a certain l i n e of work, can never hope to be good at i t . Being good at something i s largely a matter of e f f o r t . I usually make my decisions without consulting anyone. Others play the most important role i n influencing one's decisions i n l i f e . I t ' s important that people who are unhappy with the i r work, learn to accept things as they are. People who d i s l i k e t h e i r jobs should try to improve things or change to something else. Actions are more important than looks i n winning friends. I would make more friends i f I were more physically a t t r a c t i v e . Things that go wrong at work are mostly caused by peoples' mistakes Things that go wrong at work are usually a result of accidents. If I've had a rotten time at a party, i t ' s usually because no-one talks to me. If I've had a good time on an evening out, i t ' s usually because I get involved i n what's going on. Getting a promotion depends on how we l l you work. Getting a promotion depends on how well the boss l i k e s you. 71 14. a. I t wouldn't be my f a u l t i f my c h i l d were a l i a r . b. I f I had a c h i l d who grew up to be a criminal, i t would be mostly my f a u l t . 15. a. A housewife i s stuck at home and can't do anything about i t . b. I t ' s generally easy for a housewife to do things outside the home i f she feels tied down. 16. a. In an argument, I am sometimes successful at changing peoples' - opinions. b. There's no point i n arguing with people who disagree with me. 17. a. The work people choose to do, i s usually a result of chance. b. A person usually chooses a career because he or she i s interested and good at i t . 18. a. In a marriage i f both partners t r y , most problems can be worked out. b. Most marital problems are inevitable and very d i f f i c u l t to resolve. 19. a. I f I organize my time when I'm working, I usually am able to carry out my plans. b. Even i f I organize my time at work, things always happen to disrupt my plans. 20. a. There's nothing you can do about people you don't l i k e . b. I t ' s quite possible to do something about people who bother you. 21. a. Employers are usually concerned when a worker expresses d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , b. Employers don't usually care too much about their workers' feelings. 22. a. No matter what parents do, factors beyond their control largely determine what thei r kids do. b. Parents have the unique chance to strongly influence their children's development. 23. a. If employers had not had i t i n for me, I would have been much more successful. b. Even i f employers didn't l i k e me, working hard could probably make up for i t . 24. a. Marriage f a i l u r e i s usually a resu l t of people not trying hard enough to work out their problems, b. I f a couple i s experiencing marital d i f f i c u l t i e s , separation or divorce w i l l probably r e s u l t . 72 APPENDIX D New Instructions for the F i r s t Draft of the Kendrick Internal-External Scale I N S T R U C T I O N S This i s a questionnaire to fi n d out the way i n which certain important events i n our society affect different people. Each item consists of a pair of alternatives lettered a or b. Please select the one statement of each pair (and only one) which you more strongly believe to be the case as far as you're concerned. Be sure to select the one you actually believe to be more true rather than the one you think you should choose or the one you would l i k e to be true. This i s a measure of personal b e l i e f : obviously there are no righ t or wrong answers. Your answers to the items on th i s inventory are to be recorded on a separate answer sheet which i s loosely inserted i n the booklet. In some instances you may discover that you believe both statements or neither one. In such cases, be sure to select the one you more strongly believe to be the case as far as you're concerned. Also try to respond to each item independently when making your choice; do not be influenced by your previous choices. 73 APPENDIX E Primary Problem Areas for S.A.F.E.R. arid Hospital Suicidants* Family Love/Sex S.A.F.E.R. 5 Hospital 8 Problems involving s p e c i f i c other(s) Inadequacy Loneliness Drugs/Alcohol Problems not involving s p e c i f i c other(s) Work/School *Because c e l l frequencies were too small data were combined, for chi square analysis, i n the manner presented above. This resulted i n a 2 x 2 table with each c e l l having a frequency greater than f i v e . 74 APPENDIX F Types of Suici d a l Attempts made by S.A.F.E.R. and Hospital Suicidants* S.A.F.E.R. Hospital S.A.F.E.R. -Hospital Type 1 (Serious- . Internal) Type .2 (Serious-External) 2 Type 1 1 Serious 3 Type 2 7 Internal Type 3 (Non-serious External) Type 4 (Non-serious Internal) Type 3 Non-serious Type 4 External x 2= .19 x = .17 *Because c e l l frequencies were too small data were combined, for chi square analysis, i n the manner presented above. This resulted i n two 2 x 2 tables with each c e l l having a frequency greater than f i v e . 75 APPENDIX G Two-way Analysis of Variance of Depression and Locus of Control Measures (df = 1,44) Suicide x Hospital Suicide vs Non-suicide Hospital vs Non-hospital .. Interaction Variable MS F MS F : MS F Beck 2566.69 23.76*** 295.02 2.73 3.52 .03 Rotter 1 42.19 2.14 .52 .03 .02 .00 Rotter 2 .33 .20 1.33 .80 .08 .05 Rotter 3 10.08 2.08 .75 .15 .33 .07 Kendrick 1 1045.35 2.27 4.08 .01 65.32 .14 Kendrick 2 225.34 1.98 .33 .00 4.08 .04 Kendrick 3 300.00 1.91 6.75 .04 102.08 .65 Kendrick 4 36.75 .30 3.00 .03 133.33 1.10 Kendrick 5 507.00 4.33* 44.08 .38 52.08 .45 Levenson 1 341.33 5.50* .08 .00 90.75 1.46 Levenson 2 325.52 3.37 247.52 2.56 136.69 1.42 Levenson 3 80.08 .87 154.08 1.67 .08 .00 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093467/manifest

Comment

Related Items