Journal ol Abnormal Psychology 1975, Vol. 84, No. 6, 726-728
Comparison of Perceived and Experienced Control Among Alcoholics and Nonalcoholics Dennis M. Donovan Veterans Administration Hospital, Seattle, Washington
Michael R. O'Leary University of Washington School of Medicine
Alcoholics and nonalcoholics, matched on age and education, did not differ on perceived locus of control. However, the alcoholics experienced having proportionately less control over both internal and external pressures than nonalcoholics. The implication of these results in relation to alcoholics' drinking behavior was discussed within a social learning framework. Alcoholics, as a clinical population, appear to have characteristics descriptive of individuals having an external locus of control (Joe, 1971; Rotter, 1966). When compared with nonalcoholics, alcoholics present a clinical impression of having more psychopathology, being more impulsive, and utilizing fewer adaptive responses in dealing with their internal and external environments. Consistent with these impressions, Butts and Chotlos (1973) found alcoholics to be more external on Rotter's Internal-External (I-E) Locus of Control Scale than nonalcoholics of similar educational and socioeconomic levels. However, a large body of research has repeatedly shown alcoholics to be more internal than nonalcoholic comparison groups. Two alternative hypotheses have been employed to explain this phenomenon. First, the extreme internality of alcoholic samples has been interpreted as an unrealistic and deviant view of reality, particularly in light of the alcoholic's repeated inability to control his drinking behavior (Gozali & Sloan, 1971). Alternately, these results have been interpreted within the context of social learning theory. The contention is made that the reported internality reflects an accurate perception of the alcoholic's control, in that certain forms of reinforcing consequences are perceived by the alcoholic to be contingent upon his drinking behavior (Goss & Morosko, 1970). Marlatt (Note 1), in a follow-up study of an aversive conditioning program, provided results supporting the social learning theory interpretation of the I-E findings among alcoholics. He discovered that approximately 80% of the patient relapses could be accounted for by two interpersonal situations (drinking in response to an inability to express anger and frustration; an Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael R. O'Leary, Veterans Administration Hospital, 4435 Beacon Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108.
inability to resist drinking-related social pressures) and two intrapersonal situations (drinking in response to negative emotional states and to sensations of craving). Each of these situations was related to a high probability of return to drinking. We assume that these patients, due to past reinforced learning experience, chose to drink rather than make other more adaptive responses in order to minimize both the interand intrapersonal stresses experienced in these settings. The results reported by Marlatt (Note 1) are also consistent with the four-factor model of experienced control developed by Tiffany, Schontz, and Woll (1969). These authors posit that an individual experiences controlling forces from any of four loci. He may experience himself as having control over internal and external pressures or forces; conversely, he may experience himself as being controlled by forces generated from internal, organismic sources or from outside, social sources. Intrapersonal processes are represented by the internal loci, whereas interpersonal processes are represented by the external loci (Tiffany, 1967). Drinking behavior, within this framework, could be interpreted as a means to increase the degree of control experienced by the alcoholic over both internal and external sources of pressure. This view is consistent with McClelland's (McClelland, Davis, Kalin, & Wanner, 1972) findings that alcoholics, when drinking, experience increased feelings of power and control. Although this model of experienced control appears theoretically consistent with the concept of perceived locus of control, minimal correlations have been reported between measures of the two dimensions among alcoholics (Costello & Manders, 1974). The present study was prompted by the ambiguity and equivocal nature of the results with respect to the control orientation within an alco^
726
SHORT REPORTS holic population. The purpose of the investigation was to examine the amount of control both perceived and experienced by alcoholics and nonalcoholics. It was hypothesized that alcoholics would experience a significantly lower degree of proportionate control over interpersonal and intrapersonal sources of pressure than would nonalcoholics. Because of the conflicting results with respect to perceived locus of control, no direction of differences was predicted between alcoholics and nonalcoholics.
METHOD Subjects The alcoholic sample consisted of 23 male veteran inpatients with a mean age of 49.9 (SD = 5.9) and a mean educational level of 12.7 (SD = 3.i). Twenty-three males drawn from orthopedic patients and hospital employees, following extensive screening interviews concerning •their drinking behavior and alcohol-related medical problems, served as nonalcoholic controls. This group, matched on age and education with the alcoholic sample, had a mean age of 50.6 (SD = 5.3) and a mean education of 12.6 years
Materials Rotter's (1966) I-E scale, scored in the external direction, provided a measure of generalized expectancies of control. A factor analytically derived subscale of the I-E, the Personal Control scale (Mirels, 1970), was also employed as a more specific measure of perceived control over personally relevant life events. Tiffany's (1967) Experienced Control Scale (E-C) provides four scores reflecting the amount of control an individual experiences across a number of social settings: (a) control over internal, interpersonal pressures, (b) control exerted from internal sources, (c) control over external, interpersonal pressures, and (d) control exerted by external pressures. Two fractional scores, expressed as natural logarithms, respectively reflect the proportionate degree of control experienced over pressures or forces coming from internal and external loci.
Procedure The I-E and E-C scales were administered to both alcoholics and nonalcoholics who had volunteered to take a larger battery of research tests. The alcoholic subjects were tested approximately 14 wk following admission to an inpatient treatment program; all had been completely detoxified prior to the time of testing.
727TABLE 1
SCORES FOR ALCOHOLICS AND NONALCOHOLICS
ON MEASURES OF PERCEIVED AND EXPERIENCED CONTROL Alcoholic Control variable Perceived control Rotter's InternalExternal Locus of Control Scale Mirels' Personal Control Scale 8 Experienced control Intrapersonal0b Interpersonal
Nonalcoholic
M
SD
M
SD
1
6.39
3.87
7.52
3.50
1.01
2.39
1.90
2.70
1.30
.54
.73 .90
.71 .54
2.81** 1.88*
.22 .57
.53 .59
»F(4, 41) = 2.814, p < .05. Refers to control over and by internal forces. Refers to control over and by external forces. * p < .05, df = 22; one-tailed test. " < .01, df • • 22; - one-tailed test. **P
b 0
Data Analysis Wilks' lambda statistic (Overall & Klett, 1972), a multivariate analogue of the univariate simple randomized analysis of variance, was employed to assess the significance of difference between means for the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups. The Wilks' lambda statistic, computed by a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences program for discriminant analysis (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975), was applied concurrently to the measures of perceived and experienced control. The overall group difference was evaluated by an F ratio mathematically derived from lambda, and subsequent t tests for matched samples were employed for specific comparisons.
RESULTS As shown by the multivariate F ratio found in Table 1, the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups differed significantly in their overall control orientations. Subsequent comparisons on individual measures indicated that the two groups did not differ with respect to their generalized perception of control (Rotter's I-E scale) or their perception of control over personally relevant events (Mirels' Personal Control scale). However, as predicted, the alcoholic subjects rated themselves as experiencing a significantly lower proportionate degree of control over both intrapersonal and interpersonal pressures than nonalcoholics. DISCUSSION The present results indicate that alcoholics have a control orientation that differs from that
728
SHORT REPORTS
of nonalcoholics. However, this difference does not appear to be accounted for by differences in measures of perceived locus of control. The data suggest that alcoholics do not have a perception of the contingencies existing between their behavior and its consequences which differs from nonalcoholics. Rather, it appears that the alcoholics are aware of such contingencies and perceive themselves as responsible for their behavior to the same extent as nonalcoholics. Although the two groups did not differ in perceived locus of control, differences were found with respect to experienced control. Alcoholic subjects tended to experience themselves as having proportionately less control over pressures generated from either intrapersonal or interpersonal sources than did the nonalcoholics. The present results are consistent with a social learning interpretation of drinking behavior within an alcoholic population. Tiffany (1967) found within a psychiatric sample that relatively high control over internal and external pressures is related to higher levels of psychological adjustment. Similarly, Donovan and O'Leary (Note 2) have found that alcoholics who experience minimal control over such sources of pressure are more anxious and depressed and have fewer adaptive coping abilities than alcoholics with higher levels of experienced control. O'Leary, O'Leary, and Donovan (in press) suggest that alcoholics as a group have not acquired an adaptive repertoire of social skills necessary to deal effectively with such inter- and intrapersonal stressors. It is assumed that drinking among alcoholics -may serve such a stress-reducing function. Drinking behavior within such stressful situations is a response reinforced by the modification of those negative affective states associated with the minimal degree of control experienced by the alcoholic. Drinking may also produce alterations in the alcoholic's cognitive set which may allow him to both perceive and experience himself as having increased control over his internal and external environment (McClelland et al., 1972). Consistent with the findings of Marlatt (Note 1) concerning drinking relapses among alcoholics, such alcohol induced modifications appear to provide the alcoholic a means of experiencing a greater degree of relative control over, or reducing the drive properties of, both interpersonal and intrapersonal pressures.
REFERENCE NOTES 1. Marlatt, G. A. A comparison of aversive conditioning procedures in the treatment of alcoholism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Anaheim, California, April 1973. 2. Donovan, D. M., & O'Leary, M. R. The relationship between psychopathology, experienced and perceived control among alcoholics. Unpublished manuscript, Veterans Administration Hospital, Seattle, Washington. REFERENCES Butts, S. V., & Chotlos, J. A comparison of alcoholics and nonalcoholics on perceived locus of control. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1973, 34, 1327-1332. Costello, R. M., & Manders, K. R. Locus of control and alcoholism. British Journal of the Addictions, 1974, 69, 11-17. Goss, A., & Morosko, T. E. Relation between a dimension of internal-external control and the MMPI with an alcoholic population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 189192. Gozali, J., & Sloan, J. Control orientation as a personality dimension among alcoholics. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1971, 32, 159-161. Joe, V. C. Review of the internal-external control construct as a personality variable. Psychological Reports, 1971, 28, 619-640. McClelland, D. C., Davis, W. N., Kalin, R., & Wanner, E. The drinking man: Alcohol and human motivation. New York: Free Press, 1972. Mirels, H. L. Dimensions of internal versus external control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 226-228. Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H. SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. O'Leary, D. E., O'Leary, M. R., & Donovan, D. M. Social skill acquisition and psychosocial development of alcoholics: A review. Addictive Behaviors: An International Journal, in press. Overall, J. E., & Klett, C. J. Applied multivariate analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80, 1-28 (Whole No, 609). Tiffany, D. W. Mental health: A function of experienced control. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1967, 23, 311-315. Tiffany, D. W., Schontz, F. C., & Woll, S. B. A model of control. Journal of General Psychology, 1969, 81, 67-82. (Received January 31, 1975; revision received July 8, 1975)
Comparison of Perceived and Experienced Control Among Alcoholics and Nonalcoholics Dennis M. Donovan Veterans Administration Hospital, Seattle, Washington
Michael R. O'Leary University of Washington School of Medicine
Alcoholics and nonalcoholics, matched on age and education, did not differ on perceived locus of control. However, the alcoholics experienced having proportionately less control over both internal and external pressures than nonalcoholics. The implication of these results in relation to alcoholics' drinking behavior was discussed within a social learning framework. Alcoholics, as a clinical population, appear to have characteristics descriptive of individuals having an external locus of control (Joe, 1971; Rotter, 1966). When compared with nonalcoholics, alcoholics present a clinical impression of having more psychopathology, being more impulsive, and utilizing fewer adaptive responses in dealing with their internal and external environments. Consistent with these impressions, Butts and Chotlos (1973) found alcoholics to be more external on Rotter's Internal-External (I-E) Locus of Control Scale than nonalcoholics of similar educational and socioeconomic levels. However, a large body of research has repeatedly shown alcoholics to be more internal than nonalcoholic comparison groups. Two alternative hypotheses have been employed to explain this phenomenon. First, the extreme internality of alcoholic samples has been interpreted as an unrealistic and deviant view of reality, particularly in light of the alcoholic's repeated inability to control his drinking behavior (Gozali & Sloan, 1971). Alternately, these results have been interpreted within the context of social learning theory. The contention is made that the reported internality reflects an accurate perception of the alcoholic's control, in that certain forms of reinforcing consequences are perceived by the alcoholic to be contingent upon his drinking behavior (Goss & Morosko, 1970). Marlatt (Note 1), in a follow-up study of an aversive conditioning program, provided results supporting the social learning theory interpretation of the I-E findings among alcoholics. He discovered that approximately 80% of the patient relapses could be accounted for by two interpersonal situations (drinking in response to an inability to express anger and frustration; an Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael R. O'Leary, Veterans Administration Hospital, 4435 Beacon Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108.
inability to resist drinking-related social pressures) and two intrapersonal situations (drinking in response to negative emotional states and to sensations of craving). Each of these situations was related to a high probability of return to drinking. We assume that these patients, due to past reinforced learning experience, chose to drink rather than make other more adaptive responses in order to minimize both the interand intrapersonal stresses experienced in these settings. The results reported by Marlatt (Note 1) are also consistent with the four-factor model of experienced control developed by Tiffany, Schontz, and Woll (1969). These authors posit that an individual experiences controlling forces from any of four loci. He may experience himself as having control over internal and external pressures or forces; conversely, he may experience himself as being controlled by forces generated from internal, organismic sources or from outside, social sources. Intrapersonal processes are represented by the internal loci, whereas interpersonal processes are represented by the external loci (Tiffany, 1967). Drinking behavior, within this framework, could be interpreted as a means to increase the degree of control experienced by the alcoholic over both internal and external sources of pressure. This view is consistent with McClelland's (McClelland, Davis, Kalin, & Wanner, 1972) findings that alcoholics, when drinking, experience increased feelings of power and control. Although this model of experienced control appears theoretically consistent with the concept of perceived locus of control, minimal correlations have been reported between measures of the two dimensions among alcoholics (Costello & Manders, 1974). The present study was prompted by the ambiguity and equivocal nature of the results with respect to the control orientation within an alco^
726
SHORT REPORTS holic population. The purpose of the investigation was to examine the amount of control both perceived and experienced by alcoholics and nonalcoholics. It was hypothesized that alcoholics would experience a significantly lower degree of proportionate control over interpersonal and intrapersonal sources of pressure than would nonalcoholics. Because of the conflicting results with respect to perceived locus of control, no direction of differences was predicted between alcoholics and nonalcoholics.
METHOD Subjects The alcoholic sample consisted of 23 male veteran inpatients with a mean age of 49.9 (SD = 5.9) and a mean educational level of 12.7 (SD = 3.i). Twenty-three males drawn from orthopedic patients and hospital employees, following extensive screening interviews concerning •their drinking behavior and alcohol-related medical problems, served as nonalcoholic controls. This group, matched on age and education with the alcoholic sample, had a mean age of 50.6 (SD = 5.3) and a mean education of 12.6 years
Materials Rotter's (1966) I-E scale, scored in the external direction, provided a measure of generalized expectancies of control. A factor analytically derived subscale of the I-E, the Personal Control scale (Mirels, 1970), was also employed as a more specific measure of perceived control over personally relevant life events. Tiffany's (1967) Experienced Control Scale (E-C) provides four scores reflecting the amount of control an individual experiences across a number of social settings: (a) control over internal, interpersonal pressures, (b) control exerted from internal sources, (c) control over external, interpersonal pressures, and (d) control exerted by external pressures. Two fractional scores, expressed as natural logarithms, respectively reflect the proportionate degree of control experienced over pressures or forces coming from internal and external loci.
Procedure The I-E and E-C scales were administered to both alcoholics and nonalcoholics who had volunteered to take a larger battery of research tests. The alcoholic subjects were tested approximately 14 wk following admission to an inpatient treatment program; all had been completely detoxified prior to the time of testing.
727TABLE 1
SCORES FOR ALCOHOLICS AND NONALCOHOLICS
ON MEASURES OF PERCEIVED AND EXPERIENCED CONTROL Alcoholic Control variable Perceived control Rotter's InternalExternal Locus of Control Scale Mirels' Personal Control Scale 8 Experienced control Intrapersonal0b Interpersonal
Nonalcoholic
M
SD
M
SD
1
6.39
3.87
7.52
3.50
1.01
2.39
1.90
2.70
1.30
.54
.73 .90
.71 .54
2.81** 1.88*
.22 .57
.53 .59
»F(4, 41) = 2.814, p < .05. Refers to control over and by internal forces. Refers to control over and by external forces. * p < .05, df = 22; one-tailed test. " < .01, df • • 22; - one-tailed test. **P
b 0
Data Analysis Wilks' lambda statistic (Overall & Klett, 1972), a multivariate analogue of the univariate simple randomized analysis of variance, was employed to assess the significance of difference between means for the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups. The Wilks' lambda statistic, computed by a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences program for discriminant analysis (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975), was applied concurrently to the measures of perceived and experienced control. The overall group difference was evaluated by an F ratio mathematically derived from lambda, and subsequent t tests for matched samples were employed for specific comparisons.
RESULTS As shown by the multivariate F ratio found in Table 1, the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups differed significantly in their overall control orientations. Subsequent comparisons on individual measures indicated that the two groups did not differ with respect to their generalized perception of control (Rotter's I-E scale) or their perception of control over personally relevant events (Mirels' Personal Control scale). However, as predicted, the alcoholic subjects rated themselves as experiencing a significantly lower proportionate degree of control over both intrapersonal and interpersonal pressures than nonalcoholics. DISCUSSION The present results indicate that alcoholics have a control orientation that differs from that
728
SHORT REPORTS
of nonalcoholics. However, this difference does not appear to be accounted for by differences in measures of perceived locus of control. The data suggest that alcoholics do not have a perception of the contingencies existing between their behavior and its consequences which differs from nonalcoholics. Rather, it appears that the alcoholics are aware of such contingencies and perceive themselves as responsible for their behavior to the same extent as nonalcoholics. Although the two groups did not differ in perceived locus of control, differences were found with respect to experienced control. Alcoholic subjects tended to experience themselves as having proportionately less control over pressures generated from either intrapersonal or interpersonal sources than did the nonalcoholics. The present results are consistent with a social learning interpretation of drinking behavior within an alcoholic population. Tiffany (1967) found within a psychiatric sample that relatively high control over internal and external pressures is related to higher levels of psychological adjustment. Similarly, Donovan and O'Leary (Note 2) have found that alcoholics who experience minimal control over such sources of pressure are more anxious and depressed and have fewer adaptive coping abilities than alcoholics with higher levels of experienced control. O'Leary, O'Leary, and Donovan (in press) suggest that alcoholics as a group have not acquired an adaptive repertoire of social skills necessary to deal effectively with such inter- and intrapersonal stressors. It is assumed that drinking among alcoholics -may serve such a stress-reducing function. Drinking behavior within such stressful situations is a response reinforced by the modification of those negative affective states associated with the minimal degree of control experienced by the alcoholic. Drinking may also produce alterations in the alcoholic's cognitive set which may allow him to both perceive and experience himself as having increased control over his internal and external environment (McClelland et al., 1972). Consistent with the findings of Marlatt (Note 1) concerning drinking relapses among alcoholics, such alcohol induced modifications appear to provide the alcoholic a means of experiencing a greater degree of relative control over, or reducing the drive properties of, both interpersonal and intrapersonal pressures.
REFERENCE NOTES 1. Marlatt, G. A. A comparison of aversive conditioning procedures in the treatment of alcoholism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Anaheim, California, April 1973. 2. Donovan, D. M., & O'Leary, M. R. The relationship between psychopathology, experienced and perceived control among alcoholics. Unpublished manuscript, Veterans Administration Hospital, Seattle, Washington. REFERENCES Butts, S. V., & Chotlos, J. A comparison of alcoholics and nonalcoholics on perceived locus of control. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1973, 34, 1327-1332. Costello, R. M., & Manders, K. R. Locus of control and alcoholism. British Journal of the Addictions, 1974, 69, 11-17. Goss, A., & Morosko, T. E. Relation between a dimension of internal-external control and the MMPI with an alcoholic population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 189192. Gozali, J., & Sloan, J. Control orientation as a personality dimension among alcoholics. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1971, 32, 159-161. Joe, V. C. Review of the internal-external control construct as a personality variable. Psychological Reports, 1971, 28, 619-640. McClelland, D. C., Davis, W. N., Kalin, R., & Wanner, E. The drinking man: Alcohol and human motivation. New York: Free Press, 1972. Mirels, H. L. Dimensions of internal versus external control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 226-228. Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H. SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. O'Leary, D. E., O'Leary, M. R., & Donovan, D. M. Social skill acquisition and psychosocial development of alcoholics: A review. Addictive Behaviors: An International Journal, in press. Overall, J. E., & Klett, C. J. Applied multivariate analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80, 1-28 (Whole No, 609). Tiffany, D. W. Mental health: A function of experienced control. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1967, 23, 311-315. Tiffany, D. W., Schontz, F. C., & Woll, S. B. A model of control. Journal of General Psychology, 1969, 81, 67-82. (Received January 31, 1975; revision received July 8, 1975)
