Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 39, No. 5, 1978

The Drinking-Related Locusof ControlScale Reliability,FactorStructureand Validity• Dennis M. Donovan2 and Michael R. O'Leary3 SUMManY.A scale measuringlocus o[ control in relation to drinking behavior /ound significantdi•erencesbetweenalcoholicsand nonalcoholics, while a scale measuringlocusof controlin general did not.

CORDINGTO sociallearning theory,the probability of givenbehavior is a function of the expectancy that reinforcementwill follow the potentialresponse, the perceived value of the reinforcement, and the nature of the psychological situationsin which the behavioris to occur (1). The expectancy that reinforcement will follow the potentialresponse-i.e.,the perceivedlocusof control,measured by the perceivedinternal--external locusof control(I-V.) scale(2)-is learned.Expectancies concerning the relationshipbetweenbehaviorand its outcomeare relatively generalin nature, and are elicited by a variety of situationsperceivedas havingsimilarstimuluscharacteristics (3). This model suggeststhat reinforcementdoesnot necessarilyshapebehavior directly,but rather strengthens the expectancyof contiguitybetweena givenresponse and anticipatedreinforcement(1-4). Becauseof different learningand reinforcementhistories,individualshave different controlorientations.Personshaving an inxFrom the ResearchService,VeteransAdministrationHospital, Seattle, Washington. Partial supportfor the presentresearchwas provided by grantsfrom the Alcoholismand Drug AbuseInstitute, Universityof Washington,to Dr. O'Leary. Portions of this paper were presentedat the 57th annual meeting of the Western PsychologicalAssociation,April 1977, Seatfie. aDepartment of Psychology,University of Washington. a AssociateProfessor,Department of Psychiatryand Behavioral Sciences,University of Washington, and Chief, Alcoholism Treatment Program, Seatfie Veterans AdministrationHospital. Send reprint requeststo Michael R. O'Leary, Alcoholism Treatment Program, Veterans Administration Hospital, 4435 Beacon Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98108. Receivedfor publication:23 November 1976. Revision:27 January 1978. 759

760

•). •.

DONOVAN AND M. R. O'LEARY

ternal locusof controlperceivethat personaleventsand their con-

sequences dependon their own actions,whereaspersonshaving an externallocusof controlperceivereinforcementsas dependent on externalfactorssuchas chance,fate or powerfulothers.Thus, an individual'slocusof controlindicatesthe degreeof responsibility he perceiveshimself to have over meaningfuleventsin his life. CONTROL ORIENTATION

Or ALCOHOLICS

The conceptsof sociallearningtheory in generaland perceived locusof control in particular are of theoreticaland therapeutic relevanceto alcoholics(5-11). At least five factorsappear to account for the recent increase in research on control orientation of

alcoholics:different theoreticalapproaches to, and confusionover, the physiological or cognitivereinforcingpropertiesof alcoholand drinkingbehaviorin alcoholics(12, 13); an implicit assumption underlyingmany theoriesof alcoholism that alcoholics are unable to controltheir drinking (6); findingsindicatingthat socialdrinkers and alcoholicsmay drink in stressfulsituationsin order to enhance their perceptionof personalcontrol and senseof mastery (13, 14); the therapeuticgoal of increasingthe alcoholic's control overdrinkingand otherareasof functioning(9, 11); and the similaritiesin the behaviorand personalityof alcoholicsand nonalcoholicshaving an externallocusof control (5, 11, 15). However, comparativestudy of alcoholicsand nonalcoholics, as well as researchon the relationshipbetween control orientationand psychopathology,drinking behaviorand treatment outcomein alcoholics,hasproducedsomecontradictory results(6, 11, 15). The expectancies assessed by the i-E scaleare importantin determiningnot only future behaviorbut also a wide variety of personalitytraits. Joe (16) has found that individualshaving an externallocusof controlare more depressed,anxiousand psychopathologicalthan individualshaving an internal locusof control. Joehas alsosuggestedthat, comparedwith individualshavingan externallocus of control, individualshaving an internal locusof control tend to have better control over impulsesand to behave constructively and adaptively,facilitatinggreaterpersonalcontrol over their affective

states and social behavior.

Similar relationshipsbetween locus of control and personality functioningappearin alcoholics(15). Gossand Morosko(17) and O'Leary et al. (18) have found significantcorrelationsbetween

DRINKING-RELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

701

scoreson the •-•; scaleand generalizedpsychopathology, as measuredby the MinnesotaMultiphasicPersonality Inventory(MMP•), in men alcoholics.Alcoholicshaving an external locus of control appearedto be aloof,depressed, anxiousand generallydissatisfied, while the.alcoholicshaving an internal locusof controlappeared to be relativelycalm, dependable,self-confident, warm, outgoing and functionallydefensive.In subsequentstudies,alcoholicshaving an externallocusof controlappearedto be more anxiousand self-critical(19, 20), more depressed(21) and lessable to control interpersonaland intrapersonalsourcesof stress(12) than did their counterpartshaving an internal locus of control. Although these findings reflect internal consistency,a number of studies (e.g., 22, 23) have failed to demonstrate any reliablerelationships betweenthe •-•; scaleand measuresof psychopathology. Two areasevidencinga large body of conflictingresults are thosecomparingthe controlorientationof alcoholicsand nonalcoholicsand studyingthe relationshipbetweenalcoholics'scoreson the •-•; scaleand drinking-relatedbehavior (11). Alcoholics'locus of controlhasbeenfound to be more internalthan (17, 22), more externalthan (24, 25), and no differentfrom (5) that of nonalcoholics.The methodological shortcomings of thesestudies,as well as resultantdifficulties in drawing conclusionsfrom them, have been dealt with elsewhere(6, 11, 26). Similarly, althoughthe •-E scalehasbeenfoundto be relatedto drinkingbehaviorof nonalcoholics(27) and to posttreatmentmeasuresof drinking and corollarymeasuresof drinking-relatedbehaviorin alcoholics(10, 28), other investigators(26, 29, 30) have not found theserelationships. ;Vhile the discrepancies in these resultshave been interpreted as consistentwith a sociallearning approachto alcoholism(26), the contradictions causeproblemsfor locusof controltheory.Althoughindividualdifferencesbetweenalcoholics(31, 32), methodologicalflaws (11, 15, 24) and theoreticalambiguity(26) may accountfor much of the variability in these findings,recent critiquessuggestthat deficienciesof the •-•; scalemay accountfor a significantportion of the variability. Deficienciesof the •-•; scaleincludethe potentialcontamination of scoresby characteristics of the treatmentor testingsetting (1, 26); multidimensionality and ambiguity in the definition of "externality"(1, 3, 33); the apparentinfluenceof a social-desirability response set on self-reportedcontrolorientation(26, 34-36); and

•62

D.M.

DONOVAN AND M. R. O'LEARY

the possibleconfoundingof •-E scoresby an item-responsemood bias (21, 37). In attemptsto eliminatemany of thesedeficiencies, other measures(33, 38, 39) have been developed.Some (6, 11) have suggestedthat factor analyticallyderived subscalesof the •-E scale (40) may enhancepredictivepower,but thesesubscales havebeen of limited usein the studyof alcoholics(9, 18). Even with many of thesemethodological problemsovercome,a numberof investigators (11, 23, 26) have questionedthe usefulnessor appropriateness of measuringalcoholics'generalizedexpectanciesof control.Rotter (1) has indicatedthat the •-E scale, by measuringgeneralizedexpectancies, providesa low level of predictionin a variety of situations.However, as an individual's familiarity with a particularpsychological situationincreases,the predictivepowerof a measureof generalizedexpectancies decreases relativeto the predictivepower of a measureof expectancies more specificto the situation.Thus, it is assumedthat predictionof behaviorin narrowlydefinedsituationswould be enhancedby the use of measuresof more specificexpectancy(1, 41). Wallstonet al. (41) have foundthat a speciallyconstructed scalefor locusof controlin relationto healthwasmorepredictiveof personalhealthrelated behavior than was the standard •-E scale.

As to the use of generalizedmeasuresof control orientationin the studyof alcoholics, Rohsenowand O'Leary (11) contendthat alcoholics' increasedfa•niliaritywith the situationsin which drinking often occursmakesmeasuresof generalizedexpectancies of reinforcement relativelyinappropriatefor the predictionof alcoholrelated behaviorand personalityvariables (11, 23). A measure related more specificallyto drinkingsituationsshouldprovide a greater degree of predictive power, as well as less ambiguous results, than one obtained with the standard •-E scale. DRINKING-RELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

Thesetheoreticalconsiderations have led to the developmentof a topic-specificDrinking-RelatedLocusof Control (Dam) Scale, 4 whichtranslates generalizedexpectancies of controlinto a measure •A copy of M. Keysonand L. Janda'slocus of drinking control scale is available as NAPS Document No. 02504 from ASIS/NAPS, c/o Microfiche Publications,440 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016. The charge is $1.50 for microficheor $5 for a full-size photocopy.Orders from outsidethe United States should include $2 postagefor a photocopyor $.50 postagefor a microfiche.

DRINKING-RELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

763

of specificexpectancics dealing•vith a variety of drinking-related behaviors(42). The •)rtlV. scaleconsists of 25 itemsin a forced-choice formatpairingan alternativeindicativeof internallocusof control with an alternativeindicativeof externallocusof control.Subjects choosethe alternativemore closelyrepresentingtheir beliefs or behavior.The •)mv.scaleappearsrelativelycontrolledfor an acquiescenceresponseset, the alternativesindicativeof externallocus appearing10 timesas the first responseoptionand 15 as the second. Althoughthe •)alEscaleappearsto be of practical and theoretical interest,it has not been used extensivelyas a researchinstrument.

The •)mv.scalecorrelatessignificantlywith Rotter's•-g scale(2, 43). It has alsobeen found (42) that scoreson the •)alV.scaleare morelikely to showan internallocusof controlin alcoholicswho have had more, as opposedto less,treatment.While theseresults suggestin a preliminaryway the concurrentand constructvalidity of the •)mv.scale,Rohsenowand O'Leary (11) indicatethat further psychometric evaluation-suchas item analysis,factor analysis,estimatesof reliability and concurrentand constructvalidation-are necessary before the scalecan be usedmeaningfullyin research with

alcoholics.

The purposeof the presentstudywas to investigatethe reliability and factor structureand the concurrent,convergent,discriminant and constructvalidity of the Damscale.Resultsof the study of the reliability and factor structurebear on the relative stability of individuals'responses acrossitems, the internal consistency of the items and the dimensionalityof the scale. An importantaspectof the validityof a new scaleis that it have a significant but low-ordercorrelation with the measurefromwhich it originatedand from whichit is assumed to differ slightly(44). Oziel et al. (43) found a correlationof .52 between•)}tmand scoresfor a sampleof 50 men alcoholics.A secondconsideration is that the new scaleshowconvergentvalidity (45), which in the presentsituationimpliesthat the •)}tlV.scaledemonstratea pattern of correlations with personalitymeasuresthat is similar,although not identical,to that of the •-v.scale.Finally, the •alg scaleshould show discriminantvalidity (45); that is, it shouldnot correlate with measuresnot related directly to the constructunder consideration.

Basedon theseconsiderations and previousfindingsconcerning correlatesof the •-• scalein alcoholics, it was hypothesized that

764

D. •i. DONOVAN AND M. R. O'LEARY

the DRIEscalewouldcorrelatesignificantlywith othermeasuresof controlorientation,with measures of generalized psychopathology and with measuresof depression. It was also hypothesizedthat the DRIE scale would not be related to measures of intellectual func-

tioning,sincesuchabilitiesare not subsumed underthe construct measuredby the DInEscale. The construct validityof the DInEscalewasexaminedby relating it to two drinking-related criteria.The first criterionwasdiagnostic classification. The control orientation of alcoholics and a matched

groupof nonalcoholics, as measuredby the x-• and Dam scales, wascompared.We hypothesized that alcoholics, who by diagnostic classification havedifficultycontrollingtheir drinking,would have a more externallocusof controlaccordingto the Dai• scalethan would the nonalcoholics.

Because of the ambiguityof previousresults,no specifichypothesis concerningdifferenceson the x-• scale was made. However, Lamont (37) has indicatedthat a comparison of populationsdiffering in baseratesof depression may provideartifactualdifferencesin locusof controlbecauseof an apparentmood-response biasin the i-• scale.This contentionhas been supportedby comparisonof controlorientationin alcoholicsand nonalcoholics (21). Thus the presentanalysisprovidedstatisticalcontrolfor the different levelsof depression in the two groups. The secondcriterionagainstwhichthe construct validityof the

DInEscalewasassessed wasthe AlcoholUseInventory(Avi) (46), a self-reportquestionnaireconsistingof 147 multiple-choiceitems. The ^v•, which has evolvedfrom continuedpsychometric refinementof the DrinkingHistoryquestionnaire (47), consists of factor analyticallyderived scales-16 first-order,5 second-orderand 1 third-order-thatassess symptomsrelated to drinking,drinkingrelated behaviorand benefitsderived from drinking.The scales of the ^vi have demonstrated high levelsof internalconsistency and test-retestreliabilitybasedon a normarivegroupof over2000 subjects. Similarly,the ^vi hasdemonstrated a high degreeof construct and predictivevalidity with respectto treatmentoutcome

and clinicaljudgmentsconcerninga variety of drinking-related variables(46). It washypothesized that in alcoholicsthe Dm• scalewould demonstratea differential,higherlevelof predictionin drinking-related areasassessed by the •,vi thanwouldthe moregeneralx-• scale.

DRINKING-BELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

765

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES, ]•ELIABIL1TYAND FACTORSTRUCTURE

Subjects,Scaleand Analysis.The sampleconsistedof 120 men, all veteransreceivinginpatienttreatmentfor alcoholismat the SeatfieVet-

eransAdministration Hospital.The subiects'meanage was 45.0- 11.5 (sv) years and mean educationallevel was 11.95--+2.45 years. Most of the patientshad a lower-middle-class socioeconomic background.All patientshad been completelydetoxicated,and none had primary diagnosesof organicbrain syndromeor other psychiatricdisorders. Approximately1• weeks after admissionto treatment, the patients were administeredthe •)m•.scaleas part of a larger battery of research measures.Responses to individual items of the vm•. scale were subiectedto item analysis,estimatesof reliability, and factor analysisusing computerprogramsof the StatisticalPackagefor the Social Sciences (48). The factor analysisrepresenteda principal factoringwith iterations. Factorswere rotated to orthogonalstructuresto meet Kaiser's (49) Varimax criteria. The minimum eigenvaluefor factor rotation was 1.0.

The over-allmean(-+s•)) scoreon the •)raEscalewas6.32-+ 4.03, the scoresrangingfrom 0 to 17. The mean is comparablewith the meanof 5.6 -+ 4.8 (t -- 0.99,p > .05) reportedby Oziel et al. (43) in their studyof 50 men alcoholics. The distributionof scores deviatedslightlyfrom the norm,as indicatedby indicesof skewness(.45) and kurtosis(--.44). The scoreshad a flattened distribution,with a clusteringbelow the mean. The distributionwas further characterizedby a medianof 6.08 and a mode of 7.0. The standarderror of measurement of the ImiE scale(0.37) was relativelysmall. A number of indicesindicate a relatively high level of test reliability. Both the alpha and Kuder-Richardson coefficients of internalconsistency were .77. The unequal-length Spearman-Brownsplit-half reliability coefficientwas .70, comparableto that obtainedpreviouslyin a studyof 50 men alcoholics (r= .64).5 It shouldbe noted that these estimatesof reliability are within the rangereportedby Rotter (2) for the standardI-E scale.The meaninteritemand adiusteditem-totalcorrelationcoefficientswere .10 (range,-.19 to .48) and .28 (range,.08 to .55), respectively. Factors.The Varimax rotationyielded three significantfactors (eigenvalues> 1.0), collectivelyaccountingfor 65.2%of the variance. The externalresponsealternativesand the factor loadings are shownin Table 1. The first factor,accountingfor 39.6%'of the variance,consistedof sevenitems, all statedin the first person. • Omvz, F. W. [Personal communication,28 Aug. 1976. Cited by permission.]

766

I). 1•[. DONOVAN AND 1•[. B. O'LEARY

TABLE 1.--External ResponseAlternativesand Factor Loadingsfor the Drinking-RelatedLocus of Control Scale FACTOR 1

FACTOR

2

FACTOR

Intrapersonal

Interpersonal

General

Control

Control

Control

--.003

--.059

--.013

3

1. People drink because circumstances force them to

2. Most people do not realize that drinking problemnsare influenced by accidental happenings 3. I feel so helplessin somesituationsthat I need a drink

4.

Trouble at work or home drives me to drink

5. Without the right breaks one cannot stay sober 6. Many times there are circumstances that force you to drink 7. I get so upset over small arguments that they cause me to drink 8. Stayingsoberdependsmainly on things going right for you 9. When I see a bottle, I cannot resist taking a drink

-- .058

.072

.123

.283

.473*

.109

.051

.428*

-- .026

.046

--.208

.463*

.178

.316'

--.082

.218

.531'

.046

.170

.661'

.097

.151

.477*

.034

--.058

--.105

--.018

--.049

-- .025

.602*

10. Oftentimes, other people drive one to drink

-- .079

11. It is impossiblefor me to resist drinking if I am at a party where others are drinking

.652*

12. Those who are successfulin quitting drinking are the ones who are just

plain lucky 13. I feel powerlessto preventmyselffrom drinking when I am anxious or unhappy

14. I cannotfeel good unlessI am drinking 15. As far as drinking is concerned,most of us are victims

of forces we

16. I feel completely helpless when it comes to resistinga drink 17. It is impossiblefor somepeopleto ever stop drinking is difficult

.306*

.177

.091

.500*

.303

.044

.078

.091

.276

.546*

.171

--.024

can

neither understand nor control

18. It

--.100

-- .003

.028

.056

--.031

.017

for alcoholics to have

much control over their drinking

.157

19. If someoneoffers me a drink, I cannot refuse him

.250

.084

.035

DRINKING-RELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

FAc'rott

TABLE 1.-continued

20.

Sometimes

I

cannot

understand

less I take a drink first Most

of the

time

I

can't

FAcrott

2

Intrapersonal

Interpersonal

Control

Control

FACTOR

$

General Control

how

people can control their drinking 21. Once I start to drink I can't stop 22. I just cannot handle my problemsun23.

1

767

.531'

--.035 .411'

.057 .141

--.069

.111

.350*

-- .020

.210

.313'

.193

.184

.045

understand

why I continue to drink 24. I have no will power when it comes to drinking

--.018

25. Drinking is my favorite form of entertainment

.493*

--.010

ß Items having significant factor loadings, r 2> '4-.30.

Theseitemsconcernedthe individual'sapparentinability to resist the temptationto drink (e.g., "I feel completelyhelplesswhen it comesto resistinga drink") and his drinkingto overcomenegative emotionalstates(e.g., "I cannotfeel goodunlessI am drinking"). Becauseof the personalreferentand the natureof the items, factor I has been labeledthe IntrapersonalControlfactor. Factor 2, also consistingof items stated predominantlyin the first personand accountingfor 15.3%of the scalevariance,was labeledthe InterpersonalControlfactor. The sevenitems appear to deal with an inabilityto resistinterpersonal pressures to drink (e.g., "Oftentimes,otherpeopledrive one to drink") or an inability to manageanger or frustration-provoking interpersonalsituations (e.g., "I get so upsetover smallargumentsthat they cause me to drink"). Factor 3 consistedof three items all having third-personreferents.This scaleappearsto be concernedwith chancefactorsinfluencingone'sabilityto remainabstinent(e.g., "Withoutthe right breaks,one cannotstay sober").This factor, labeledthe General Control factor, accountedfor 10.3%of the variance.It appearedto be the least stableof the derived factors.The remaining34.8%of the total varianceof the DRIEscalewas accountedfor by five nonsignificantfactors. CONCURRENT VALIDATION AGAINST PERSONALITY MEASURES

Subjects. The sampleconsisted of the same120 men alcoholics involvedin the previoussectionof the study. Scales.The DRIEscale,as well as the subscalesderivedthroughfactor

768

D.M.

DONOVAN AND M. It. O'LEARY

analysis,•vere used. Three other measuresof control orientationwere included: Rotter'sx-v.scale (2), as well as Mirels'sfactor analytically derivedPersonalControland Sociopolitical Controlsubscales (40), all of which are scored in the external direction; Levenson'sMultidimen-

sionalLocusof ControlScale(33), which has three subscales-Internal (Personal)Control,Controlby Po•verfulOthersand Controlby Chance; and Tiffany'sExperiencedControlScale (50), which assesses the magnitude and locusof controla personexperiences in a numberof social settings.Four•scoresderived from Tiffany's scale indicate control experiencedover internal pressures,from internal sources,over external pressuresand from external sources;two ratio scoresreflect, respectively, the relative degree of control experiencedover these internal (intrapersonal)and external(social) sourcesof stress.

The M•'i measuredgeneralizedpsychopathology. The validity and clinicalscales,along with the manifestanxiety (51), ego-strength(52), socialdesirability(53) and the dependency(54) scales•vereused.The first Goldbergindex regressionequation (55) was also applied to the M•vx profiles.Higher scoreson this index indicate greater deviation from the norm.

Depression•vas measuredby the Beck DepressionInventory (56). The scoreon the total scale,as xvell as scoreson four subscales derivedby factor analysis(57), were used.The four subscales assessed

physicalsympto,natology (vital depression), self-debasement, pessimismsuicidal ideation, and indecision-inhibition,•vhich have been shown to

be significantin alcoholics(58, 59). Intellectual functioning•vas assessed by the Shipicy-HartfordRetreat Scale (60) and the Trail Making Test (61). Measuresof verbal ability, abstractingability, cognitiveimpairment(conceptualquotient) and generalintelligence(w.•s-equivalenti(•) were derived from the Shipicy-Hartford scale.Higher scoreson each of these measuresindicate higher levels of cognitivefunctioning.Higher scoreson each of the two portionsof the Trail Making Test indicate greaterlevelsof cognitive impairment.

Relationof the DRIE Scaleto Measuresof CognitiveFunction. It was hypothesizedthat scoreson the •)vaEscalewould not correlate with measuresof cognitivefunction,sincesuchabilitiesare not directly related to control orientation.This hypothesiswas generallyconfirmed (Table 2). With the exceptionof factor 2, InterpersonalControl, there were no significantcorrelationsbetweenmeasuresof intellectualfunctioningand •)vav.total or factor scores.However,individualswith highereducationallevels,greater verbal skillsand lower conceptualquotientsappearedto have a more internal locusof controlwith respectto drinkingsituations involvinginterpersonalaspects.

DRINKING-RELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

769

TABLV.2.--Correlationsof DRIE and I-E Scale Scoreswith Measuresof Intellectual Functioning, Control Orientation and Depression Intellectualfunctioning (N = 117) Educational

D R ! E Sc AL E $

FactorI

level

Factor2

Factor3

I-E SCALœ Total

--.08

--.19'

--.11

--.17

Shipley verbal Shipley abstract Conceptual quotient WAIS equivalent •q

--.17 .07 .13 --.09

--.25t .07 .21' --.11

--.03 .10 .11 .01

--.15 .09 .18 --.05

Trails A Trails B

--.02 .07

--.11 --.03

--.09 .09

--.08 --.08

Personal

Total

Control Orientation

I-E TotaP I-E Personalb

.21•' .16'

.23•' .18'

.25•' .295

.28• .21•

I-E SociaP Internal c

.04 --.05

.06 --.19

.07 --.01

.10 --.15

--.06

--.15

Powerful Othersc Chancec Internal Ratiod External Ratiod

--.07 .05 --.09 --.27•

.12 .21' --.17' --.26•

.23t .19' --.06 --.09

.05 .21' --.17' --.335

.27t .395 --.325 --.20*

.24•' .445 --.38:1: --.18'

.20* .12 .09 .19' .305

.19' .08 .09 .21' .28p

Beck Depression Inventory

Total e Vital depression f Self-debasementf Pessimism-Suicide t Indecision-Inhibition t

.455 .23• .41+ + .35++ .315

.505 .25• .49++ .39++ .46++

.04 --.09 .10 .13 .18'

.43,+ .18' .43,+ .335 .37+ +

• Rotter's (2) locus of control scale (N = 120). Mirels's (40) factor analytic subscalesof the I--E scale (N = 120). Levenson's (33) multidimensional locus of control scale (N = 117). Tiffany's (50) experienced control scale (N = 109). eN=ll2.

P < .05.

fN=110.

•' P < .01.

•: P < .001.

Relationof the DRIE Scaleto Measuresof Control Orientation. It was hypothesizedthat scoreson the •)m•.scale,as a measureof specificlocus of control, would show significantbut low-order correlationswith measuresof generalizedcontrol orientation.This hypothesiswas confirmed(Table 2). Scoreson the I)m•. total and factor scalesdemonstratedsignificant positive correlationswith scoreson Rotter'sI-•. total scale (2) as well as Mirels's subscales (40). The magnitudeof thesecorrelationsrangedfrom .16 to .29, indicatingthat the •)•m total and factor scoresshareonly 3 to 9• common variance with the more established •-•. scale.

Of importanceto the discriminantvalidity of the i)am scaleis the lack of relationshipwith the SociopoliticalControl subscaleof

770

D. /MI. DONOVAN AND M. 1t. O'LEABY

the •-E (40). This scale,which measuresthe amountof control an individualperceiveshimselfto have over political and social institutions,is not incorporatedin the constructassessed by the mainscale.Similarly,the Sociopolitical Controlsubscalehas shown minimalusefulness in studiesof alcoholics' personalitytraits (18) or treatmentoutcome(9, 10). The relationshipbetween the i•m• scale and the remaining measures of controlare lessclear-cut.With respectto Levenson's multidimensional locus of control scale (33), the scoreson the total Dm•.scalecorrelatedsignificantlywith only the scoreson the Chancesubscale,individualshaving an externallocusof drinking controlbelievingthat personaleventsare governedprimarilyby chance.The scoreson factor 1, IntrapersonalControl, failed to correlatewith scoreson any of the Levensonsubscales. The scores on factor2, InterpersonalControl,correlatednegativelywith scores on the Internal subscaleand positivelywith thoseon the Chance subscale.These data indicate that individualshaving an internal locusof drinkingcontrolin interpersonalsituationsperceivepersonaleventsas under their own control.The significantpositive correlationsbetween scoreson factor 3, General Control, and on

Levenson's PowerfulOther and Chancesubscales imply that individualsscoringhigh on factor 3 view their ability to remainabstinentas dependenton the influenceof powerfulothersin their environmentand on chance.The relationshipbetween scoreson the •-• scaleand on Levenson's(33) subscales indicatesa pattern of correlations different from those of scores on the Dm•. scale. It was found that the correlations between scores on the Chance

subscale and on the total Dm•.and •-•. scalesdiffered significantly (t = 2.29). Individuals

whose scores on the i•m• total scale and factor 2

indicatean externallocusof controlappearedto experienceminimal controlover sourcesof intrapersonaland interpersonalstress, accordingto correlationswith the ratio scoresderived from Tiffany's ExperiencedControl Scale (50). Unexpectedly,scoreson factor 2 did not correlate with the Internal ratio scores,but were related to External ratio scores.Scoreson factor 3, General Control, failed to correlatewith eithermeasureof experienced control. Correlations between the •-•. total score and these ratio scores did

not differ significantlyfrom the •m• total scores. Relationo[ the DRIE Scaleto Depression. Resultsconcerning the relationship betweenscores on the mainscaleandthe •m (Table2)

DRINKING-RELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

771

confirmthe hypothesis that an externallocusof drinkingcontrol would be significantlyrelated to depression. Individualsscoring in the external direction on the x)nm total scale and on factors !

and 2 demonstrateda greaterlevel of depressionas well as more psychophysiological symptomatology, self-debasement, pessimism and suicidal ideation, and indecision-inhibition. Scores on factor

3 correlatedonly with the latter measure.A comparisonof the correlations of the x)am and •-z total scale scores with the measures

of depression indicatedthat the x)mzscaleis more highly related to the levelsof generaldepression (t--2.32) and self-debasement (t = 3.27) than is the I-z scale. Relation of the DRIE Scaleto the MMPI. Con'elationstend to confirmthe hypothesis that a more externallocusof controlaccording to the x)amscale would be related to greater levels of psychopathology (Table 3). Scoreson the x)R•v. total scalecorrelated negativelywith scoreson the K, Es and So-Rscalesand positivelywith scoreson the F, Hs, D, Hy, Pd, Pa, Pt, Sc, Si, At and Dy scales.The patternof correlations betweenscoreson the x)rav. factorsand on the MMrI scaleswas generallysimilar, that for factor I corresponding most closelyto that obtainedfor scores on the x)am total scale.

TABLv•3.--Correlationof DRIE Factor Subscaleand Total Scoresand

I-E

Personal Control Subscale and Total Scores with Scores on the MMPI DRIE

Factor I

Factor

SCALES

2

Lie (L) --.15 --.03 Validity (F) .26•.375 Correction(K) --.27ñ --.18' Hypochondriasis (Hs) .16' .26t Depression (D) .23-{.23t Hysteria(Hy) .12 .20* Psychopathic deviate(Pd) .21' .375 Paranoia(Pa) .16' .405 Psychasthenia (Pt) .21' .355 Schizophrenia ( Sc) .23'{' .345 Hypomania(Ma) .15 .17' Social(Si) .22 .26p

Factor

I--E

3

Total

SCALES

Personal

Total

--.05 .21'

--.12 --.13 .25-{.24•-

--.18 .315

--.18' .11 .04 .05 .13

--.25•' .26ñ .285 .23ñ .35+ +

--.26•' .13 .15 .04 .10

.18' .07 .12 .02 .10 Manifest Anxiety (At) .28'{' .38++ .13 Ego Strength(Es) --.14 --.24'{' --.14 SocialDesirability(So-R) --.25-{- --.365 --.24•' Dependency(Dy) .20* .41++ .19' GoldbergIndex .19' .37+ + .16'

--.19' .20* .17' .07 .20*

.20* .305 .23'{' .18' .20* .27•.06 .26p .27•.04 .32++ .30+ + --.18' --.19' --.265 --.31•. .24-{.295 .40++ .15

.22'1' .14 .26•' .235 .15 .31•. --.235 --.30•. .32•. .05

772

D. M, DONOVAN AND M. R. O'LEARY

Althoughscoreson the •)RIr•total scalecorrelatedsignificantly with moreMMrI scores thandid scoreson the i-r•scale,a significant differencein the magnitudeof the correlations was found only on the Pd scale (t- 2.40). Similarly, the correlationbetween the scoreon the •)Rir•total scale and the first-stageGoldbergindex was significantlyhigher (t- 3.41) than that obtainedwith the scoreon the i-r• total scale.The consistentpattern of positivecorrelationsbetweenscoreson the •)RIr•scaleand the Goldbergindex indicatesthat a more external locus of control with respect to drinkingis relatedto a more deviantM•ri profile. CONSTRUCT VALIDATION AGAINST DRINKING-RELATED

VARIABLES

Experimenti Subiects. The alcoholics were 56 veteransin an inpatientrehabilitation program.The men'smean age was 50.75- 6.91 years, and their mean educationallevel was 12.38_ 2.69 years.All were testedapproximately 11•weeksfollowingadmission to treatment,and all had been detoxicated prior to testing.

The nonalcoholics who servedas controlswere 28 men-general medical and orthopedicpatientsand hospital employees-whohad been screenedby interviewsabout their drinking histories.They were light socialdrinkers,their drinkingrangingfrom virtual abstinenceto moderate, and they scoredin the nonalcoholicrange on the short form of the MichiganAlcoholismScreeningTest (62). On the Drinking Habits Questionnaire(63), they were characterized by a low volumeof alcohol intake (1.0-17.5 drinksper month), with no more than 3 to 4 drinks per drinking occasion.Their mean age was 50.68_ 7.15 years, and their meaneducationallevel was 12.89_ 2.95 years.Like the alcoholics studied most of the nonalcoholics were lower-middle class.

Scales.All subiectscompletedRotter'si-r scale(2), scoredfor both the total scaleand the PersonalControl subscale(40), the DRmscale and the BDI.The B•i was includedas a covariatefor the comparison of the controlorientationbetweenalcoholics and nonalcoholics (21, 37).

On the basisof an initial analysisof variance,it wasfoundthat the alcoholics and nonalcoholics did not differ with respectto scoreson the i-r• total or PersonalControlscales(p • .05). However, the alcoholicshad a more external locus of control with re-

spectto drinking(p (.001) and were moredepressed than were the nonalcoholics (F--40.9, p (.001). To eliminatethe possible influenceof different levels of depressionon thesemeasuresof controlorientation,an analysisof covariancewas conductedon thesemeasures with si)i scores as covariates. The originaland ad-

DRINKING-RELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

773

justedmeans,as well as the resultsof the initial analysisof varianceand subsequent analysisof covarianceare shownin Table 4. While the magnitudeof the differencesbetween alcoholicsand nonalcoholics is modified,the resultsremainbasicallyunchanged. The alcoholicstended to have a more externalscoreon the rear,, indicatinga perceptionof lesscontrolover drinking,than did the nonalcoholics. The differencedoesnot appearto be accountedfor by differencesin the groups'levelsof depression or levelsof generalized expectanciesof reinforcement. Experiment 2 Subjects.The subjectswere 40 men alcoholics,all veteransin an inpatient rehabilitation program. They had a mean age of 44.6 ñ 11.2 and a mean educationallevel of 12.3ñ 2.6 years.All were testedapproximately1],'.weeks following admissionto treatment; all had been completelydetoxicatedprior to testing,and none had primary diagnosesof organic brain syndromeor major psychiatricdisorders.Most of the patientshad lower-middle-class backgrounds. Scalesand Analysis.The subjectswere administeredthe DRIEscale, the •-E scale, and the AUI. The subjectswere categorizedas having internalor externallocusof controlon both the •-E and DInEscalesby a median split on each of these variables.The data from the scalesof the AuI were subjectedto a seriesof 2 X 2 analysesof variance to determine

the main and interactive

effects of the DInE and •-E scales.

The results(Table 5) confirmthe predictiveutility of the rear, scalein comparisonwith the •-r, scale.The •-r, scalefailed to show any significantmain effects.One significantinteraction,on the Psychoperceptual Withdrawalscaleof the •,w, appearsto be ac-

countedfor by the relativelylowerscoresof subjects havingan internallocusof controlaccordingto the rear,scaleand either an internalor externallocusof controlaccordingto the •-r, scale.A Duncan'smultiple-rangetest (p = .05) indicatedthat while the TABLE 4.--Mean Scoresof Alcoholicsand Nonalcoholicson the DRIE and I-E Scales,and Resultsof Analysesof Variance and Covariance .41coholics Nonalcoholics

I-E I-E

Total Personal

DRIE Total

.4lcoholics

Nonalcoholics

F I•

6.50 2.34

5.89 1.50

0.39 3.80

Fa

5.96 2.12

6.97 1.94

0.72 0.08

5.70

0.96

39.93•:

4.97

2.42

9.655

Analysis of variance. b Analysis of covariance based on means adjusted for level of depression measured by Beck Depression Inventory. :• P • .001, 1/82 dr.

774

D. 1•I. DONOVAN AND M. lq. O'LEABY

TnBx•v.5.-Mean Scoreson the Alcohol Use Inventory of AlcoholicsScoring Differentially on the DRIE and I-E Scales,and Resultsof Analysesof Variance DRIE

IN'I I•RNAL

DRIE

I-E

Internal

First-Order

I-E

External

Internal

F

F

External

DR1E

1-E

F

Interactton

Scales •

Social benefit drinking Mental benefit drinking Gregariousdrinking style Obsessive-Compulsive drinking Sustaineddrinking pattern Postdrinkingworry, guilt, fear

Drinking to change mood Use of externalhelp to stop

5.0 1.5 3.9

5.0 1.6 4.2

5.2 1.5 5.1

6.0 1.4 5.7

0.24 0.05

0.83 0.00

0.05 0.05

3.29

0.37

0.04

2.6

2.3

4.6

4.9

9.72•

0.00

0.17

7.9

6.1

7.5

8.3

0.18

0.60

1.24

5.2 5.1

5.8 5.0

6.3 5.3

6.9 5.3

1.96 0.01

0.58 0.01

0.00 0.01

2.4

1.7

3.4

4.0

7.16•-

0.01

1.11

4.9 3.8 2.5 3.6

6.9 4.6 1.6 3.7

9.7 8.2 5.2 6.2

10.6 7.0 4.9 5.8

14.64•: 22.67•: 15.20• 7.21•'

1.70 0.08 0.61 0.03

0.4 4.5

1.1 6.7

1.1 6.5

1.6 6.8

1.07 2.04

1.07 2.89

0.03 1.67

7.0

7.1

8.0

8.9

2.47

0.32

0.20

Loss of control when

drinking Social-role maladaptation Psychoperceptual withdrawal Psychophysical withdrawal Nonalcoholic usage Daily quantity of alcohol

0.25 1.96 16.74:1: 0.08

Second-Order Scales

Self-enhancingdrinking Obsessive-S ustained

drinking Anxietyrelatedto drinking

9.7

8.1

11.7

12.3

4.62*

0.12

0.58

12.0

13.9

14.7

14.8

1.21

0.38

0.30

Alcoholic deterioration-1 Alcoholic deterioration-2

13.5 4.8

16.7 6.7

24.6 9.3

23.7 10.1

15.66:1: 25.00:1:

0.25 2.92

0.80 0.49

25.6

27.1

40.2

39.1

11.77:1:

0.01

0.09

Third-Order

Scale

General alcoholism

• Becauseof group differences in marital status, the t•o first-order scales concerning marital problems were not included in the analysis. ß •' • .05. • •' • .0•5. •: •' • .00•.

low •uxv,-internalI-E and low •uxv,-external I-E groupsdid not differ from one another,each was significantlylower on the PsychoperceptualWithdrawal scalethan either the high •xv,-internal •-• or the high •uxv,-external x-v,groups,which alsodid not differ from each other.

In contrastto the negativeresultsobtainedfor the x-• scale,the •uxv,scaleshowedsignificantmain effectson 10 of the 20 nvxscales employed.Comparedwith persons havingan internallocusof drinking control,alcoholics scoringin the externaldirectionon the •)vag scalehad significantlyhigher scoreson the following nvi scales:

DRINKING-RELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

775

Obsessive-Compulsive Drinking,Prior Use of Help to StopDrinking, Loss of Control when Drinking, Social-RoleMaladaptation, Psychoperceptual XVithdrawal, Psychophysical Withdrawal,Obsessive-SustainedDrinking, AlcoholicDeterioration (both primary and secondary),and GeneralAlcoholism. DISCUSSION

The resultssuggestthat the mUEscaleis a relativelysoundpsychometricinstrument.The estimatesof reliability fall within an acceptable range,and are comparable with thoseobtainedon Rotter's I-E scale.Estimatesof the internal consistency of the scale

maybe somewhat loweredby the multidimensionality of the •)PaE scaleas determinedby factor analysis. The two primarysubscales derivedfrom the factoranalysis-interpersonaland intrapersonal control-appearto have significant

psychological meaningin alcoholics. Donovanand O'Leary(5), while findingno differencebetweenmatchedalcoholics and nonalcoholicson Rotter'sI-E scale,found the alcoholicsto experience

significantly lesscontrolover potentialsources of interpersonal and intrapersonalpressures. Marlatt,6 in a 3-monthfollow-upstudy of an aversivecondition-

ing program,foundthat approximately 80%of the relapses by the alcoholicscould be accountedfor by two interpersonaland two

intrapersonal situations. The two interpersonal situations consisted of the individual'sbecomingfrustratedand angry without being able to expresshis angerand the individual'sinability to resist others'pressuring him to drink. The intrapersonal situationsincludeddrinkingin response to negativeemotionalstatessuchas depression and anxietyand drinkingin response to sensations of "craving"or intrapersonal temptations. Thesecategories are quite similarto the itemsfoundto load on the Interpersonaland Intrapersonal Control factors of the i)Pa•.scale.

Chaney(28) foundthattherelapsesituations notedby Marlatt6 accountedfor approximately 90%of the relapsesin a sampleof patientsdrawnfromthe presenttreatmentpopulation. In a man-

neranalogous to therelativeproportions of testvariance accounted forby thetwoprimaryfactorsof theDRIEscale,Chaney(28)found 6MARLATT, G. A. A comparison of aversiveconditioning procedures in the treatment of alcoholism.Presentedat a meetingof the WesternPsychological Association, Anaheim, CA, April 1973.

776

D.M.

DONOVAN AND ]•f. R. O'LEARY

that the intrapersonalcategoriesaccountedfor the larger percentageof the relapses. The DRmscale•vasalsofoundto havea high degreeof concurrent validity. Campbell and Fiske (44) and Wiggins (45) have said that for a new scaleto demonstrateadequateconcurrentvalidity it should (a) sho•vsignificantlow-ordercorrelationswith other measuresof the generalconstruct;(b) show a pattern of correlations with other variables which is similar to, but not identical

with, the patternobtainedusingthe originalscale;and (c) show negligiblecorrelations with measures not directly involvedin the construct.

The data reportedin the presentstudy indicate that the scalemeets these criteria. First, scoreson the Dm•. scaleshoweda

patternof low-ordercorrelations with scoreson Rotter's(2), Levenson's(33) and Tiffany's (50) measuresof generalizedcontrol orientation.Thesefindings,indicatinga relativelysmalldegreeof sharedvariance,imply that the DRmscale,as a measureof specific expectancies, contributesa large portion of unique variance.Second,the patternof correlations betweenthe Dm•.and •-v.scalesand othermeasures employedwere generallysimilarin both magnitude and direction.Scoreson the Damscale,however,had significantly highercorrelations with scoreson the Pd scaleand Goldbergindex of the •a•aP• and the total and self-debasementscoreson the

scoreson the •-E scalecorrelatedmore highly with scoreson the Chancesubscaleof Levenson's(33) multidimensionalmeasureof locusof control scale.Third, the failure of scoreson the Dam scale to correlatewith measures of cognitivefunctionand with the SociopoliticalControlfactor (40) of the I-•. scaleprovidesevidence of discriminantvalidity. In general,the presentdata concerning the relationship between the muEscaleand measures of psychopathology and controlorientationsuggestthat alcoholics havean externallocusof controlconcerningtheir drinkingthat corresponds closelywith that of individualswho have an externallocusof controlaccordingto the scale.Alcoholicshaving an externallocusof controlaccordingto scoreson the Damscaleappearto perceivethat significantevents in life are beyondtheir control,determinedmoreby chancethan by personalinitiative or the influenceof significantothers.Correspondingly, they feel they have minimal control over internal (intrapersonal)and external(interpersonal)sourcesof stress. In comparison with personshavingan internallocusof control

DRINKING-RELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

777

accordingto scoreson the •)an;scale,alcoholics havingan external locusof controlappearto experiencea greaterdegreeof depression.They tend to reportmorepsychophysiological manifestations relatedto depression, and are more self-critical,more pessimistic -with periodicthoughtsof suicide-andmore indecisiveand behaviorallyinhibited.The resultsof the MMr• indicatethat alcoholicshavingan externallocusof controldeviatemorefrom profile patternsof the normthan do individualshavingan internallocus of control.Consistentwith the findingson the a•)•, alcoholicshavingan exten•allocusof controlaccording to scores on theDa•Escale appearon the M•ir• to be anxious, depressed, self-critical, dissatisfied, sociallywithdrawn,dependentand concernedwith physical $ymptomatology. Thesealcoholics alsoappearto be more $ociopathic,to havedifficultiesin interpersonal communication and to have lessadequatecopingabilities. Oziel et al. (43) indicatedthat the •)lUEscaletranslatesgeneralized expectancies of reinforcement into a measureof locusof controlspecificto drinking.The presentfindingssuggestthat the relationshipbetweenexternalityon the I-E scaleand psychopathology(16) may havebeentranslated to the •)mEscale.It may be that useof the •)lUEscalein future researchwith alcoholicsmay overcomeNervianoand Gros$'scritici$1ns(23) concerninguse of the•-• scaleasa generalpersonality variablein studiesof alcoholics. The resultsof the experiments comparingthe controlorientation of alcoholicsand nonalcoholics and investigatingthe relationship of the •)lUEand I-• scalesto drinking-relatedbehaviorprovide evidenceof the scale'sconstructvalidity. Thesefindingssupportthe contentions of Rotter (1) and Wallstonet al. (41) concerning the generalusefulness of morenarrowlydefinedmeasures of locusof control,as well as others'contentions(11, 23, 26) concerningthe usefulness of suchscalesin studiesof drinking-relatedbehavior. The datapresented hereindicatethat a van;scaledifferentiated significantly betweenalcoholics andnonalcoholics, evenwhenlevels of depression were controlledstatistically, while the I-• scale, a measureof generalizedexpectancies of reinforcement, did not. Similarly,it wasfoundthat categorizing of alcoholics ashavingan internalor externallocusof controlaccordingto the •)lUr,but not the •-E, scaleresultedin significantdifferencesin self-reported measures of drinkingsymptoms, behaviorandbenefits.Thesefind-

778

•. 1•I. DONOVAN AND M. R. O'LEARY

ingssupportthe constructvalidity of the DRIgscaleas a measure of locusof controlspecificto drinking-related behavior. The differencesobtainedon the AvI providemore psychological meaningto the constructassessed by the Dnmscale.Accordingto the clinicaldescriptions of the AvI scalesprovidedby Wanberget al. (46), an alcoholichavingan externallocusof controlaccording to the DnIEscalecouldbe describedas (a) preoccupied with and frequentlyengagingin sustaineddrinking,often hiding bottles, drinkingdaily,thinkingcontinuallyaboutalcohol,and in treatment oftenrequiringmoreprotractedandsupportive therapy(ObsessiveCompulsiveDrinking and Obsessive-Sustained Drinking scales); (b) havingmademoreattemptsto relievehisproblemsof excessive drinkingthroughsuchmeansas disulfiramand prescribedsedative medications,professional treatmentand AlcoholicsAnonymous (Prior Useof ExternalHelp to Stopscale);(c) manifesting high levelsof lossof controlwhiledrinking,asindicatedby belligerency,

blackouts, passing out,'gulpingdrinks,stumbling, staggering and physicallyharminghimselfor others(Lossof Controlwhen Drinking scale); (d) characterized by prolongedperiodsof unemployment, lack of closeinterpersonal ties, geographicmigrationand repeatedarrestsfor drunkenbehavior(Social-RoleMaladaptation scale); (e) upon withdrawalfrom alcohol,exhibitinga number of symptoms suchasdeliriumtremens,tremor,hangovers(PsychoperceptualandPsychophysical Withdrawalscales);and (f) having a morelong-termdrinkingproblem,as indicatedby high levelsof physical,psychological, and socialimpairment(AlcoholicDeteriorationand GeneralAlcoholismscales). Thesedescriptions suggestthat the •nm scalemay tap a constructmeasuringdurationor severityof alcoholism,which is consistentwith the assumption that a problemof greaterduration and severitywouldbe associated with a perceivedlack of control over drinking.It is not possible,however,to determinewhether thiscognitivesetrepresents an etiologicalfactoror a consequence of the individual'sdrinking problem. CONCLUSIONS

The resultsof the presentstudiesindicate that the •eaE scale is a reliablemultidimensional measureof alcoholics' specificexpectationsconcerningdrinkingbehavior.The scalehas demonstrated both convergent and discriminantconcurrentvalidity as well as

DRINKING-RELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

779

constructvalidity. The two primary subscales, accordingto factor analysis,appear to assess dimensionsof control that have been demonstratedto be problematicfor alcoholics.Furthermore,the •)i•; scalehas been shownto be related to generalareasof personality functioningand drinkingbehavior.Comparedwith measures of more generalizedcxpectancies of control,this more narrowly defined, topic-specificmeasureof locus of control may help increasepredictive power, helping to clarify equivocalresults reported previously. The presentfindings suggestthat a measuresuch as the Da•w scale is particularly promisingin the prediction of drinking behavior. However, Rotter (1) and Hinrichsen (6) have indicated that such expectancies representonly one of the primary deterrainantsof behavior.The other txvoincludethe perceivedvalue of reinforcementand the nature of the psychologicalsituationsin which the behavior is to occur. It is felt that the prediction of alcoholics' drinkingbehaviorwouldbe enhancedby includingmeasures of all three domains.

Rotter's•-w scale (2) and the Dam scale,used together,could assessboth the generalizedand drinking-specificexpectancies of perceivedcontrol.It shouldbe notedthat cognitions or expectancies concerningthe effectsof alcoholhave been shownto influence alcoholics' drinkingbehaviorto a largerextentthan do the physiologicaleffectsof alcohol(64, 65). The relativereinforcingor motivatingvalue of alcoholand drinking may be determinedin a numberof ways.In direct assessment of behavior,alcoholicsare involved in an operant responseparadigm (66-68), a free alcohol-access situation(69, 70) a drinkingchoicesituation(71) or a nonobtrusive taste-ratingtask (72). 7 The reinforcingvalue of alcoholor drinkingmay be inferred from the amountof work the individualis willing to do in order to obtain alcohol,the amount of alcoholconsumedwhen it is freely available, the number of decisionsmade to drink and the amount consumedwhen drinkingis allowed,or the quantity of alcoholic relative to nonalcoholicbeveragesconsumedduring a taste-rating task.

Suchmeasures,taken at the beginningof treatment,have been • M.•xa•..•TT,G. A. Determinants of alcohol consumptionin a laboratory tasterating task; implicationsfor controlleddrinking. Presentedat the annual meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation,Montreal, August 1973.

780

D. •.

DONOVAN AND M. •1. O'LEARY

foundto predict subsequent drinkingbehavior(73, 74). A second approach,more appropriateto settingsin which alcoholconsumption is impractical,might includesubjectiveratingsof the reinforcingvalue of drinkingbehavior,in a mannersimilarto Cautela's (75) reinforcement surveyschedule.An alternativemethodmight involvea paired-comparison techniquein whichthe alcoholicmust decidewhich of two types of behavior,one alcohol-related and one nonalcohol-related, he would prefer or would find more reinforcing. The nature of the psychological situationin which drinkingoc-

cursmight involvesubjective ratingsof the degreeof difficulty anticipatedin dealingwith previouslydefined high-riskrelapse situations. 6 Chaney (28) has devisedan audio-tapedsituational competency test that requiresthe individualto respondin a simulated cognitiverole-playtask to specificsituationsderived from thosepreviouslyfound to be highlyrelatedto relapse.Individuals' responses are scoredwith respectto response latencyandduration, compliancecontent,and the specificationof alternativebehavior incompatiblewith drinking.An individualexperiencing controlin the situationwouldbe expectedto havea shorterresponse latency; a longer response;lesscomplianceto the drinking situation;and a more frequent specificationof nondrinkingbehavioralalternatives.Measuresderivedfrom this test have been foundto be predictive of posttreatmentdrinkingbehavior (28). Additionalresearchis required to determinethe usefulness of the Daie scale, as well as these other measures of reinforcement

valueandsituationalcontext,in predictingdrinkingbehaviorwithin a sociallearningframework.

REFERENCES

1. ROTTEa,J. B. Someproblemsand misconceptions related to the constructof internal versusexternal control of reinforcement.J. Cons. Clin. Psychol.43: 56-67, 1975.

2. ROTT•a, J. B. Generalized expectanciesfor internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychol.Monogr. 80: 1-28, 1966. 3. PI-IAnES, E. J. Locusof controlin personality.Morristown,NJ; GeneralLearning Press; 1975.

4. BoI•I•ES,R. C. Reinforcement,expectancy,and learning. Psychol. Rev. 79-' 394-409, 1972.

5. DoNovAN,D. M. and O'LrAR¾,M. R. Comparisonof perceivedand experienced control among alcoholicsand nonalcoholics.J. Abnorm. Psychol.84: 726728, 1975.

DRINKING-RELATEDLOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

781

6. HINBICHSEN, J. J. Locusof controlamongalcoholics;someempiricaland conceptual issues.J. Stud. Alcohol 37: 908-916, 1976. 7. MILLEB,P.M. and B.•}mow,D. H. Behavioralapproachesto the treatment of alcoholism.J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 157: 10-20, 1973. 8. O'Lv.Axa¾, D. E., O'Lv..•xa¾, M. R. and DONOV.•N,D. M. Social skill acquisition and psychosocial developmentof alcoholics;a review. Addict. Behav. 1: 111-120, 1976.

9. O'Lv..•xa¾, M. R., Do•rov.•r, D. M., H.•guE, W. H. and Sx•E.•,R. A. Shifts in

componentfactorsof locusof controlas a functionof treatmentin male alcoholics.J. Clin. Psychol.315 359-361, 1975. 10. O'Lv,.•xa¾, M. R., Rox•sv. Now, D. J. and Doxov.•r, D. M. Locus of control and patientattritionfrom an alcoholism treatmentprogram.J. Cons.Clin. Psychol. 44: 686-687, 1976.

11. Rox•sv,•row, D. J. and O'Lv..•}•¾,M. R. Locus of controlresearchon alcoholic populations;a review. I. Development,scales,and treatment.Int. J. Addict. 13: 55-78, 1978. 12. Do•rov.•r, D. M., O'L•.•xa¾,M. R. and S½}•u, E. J. Relationshipbetween generalized expectanciesfor control and experiencedcontrol among alcoholics. Psychol. Rep. 37: 1171-1176, 1975. 13. M.•m•.¾r'r,G. A. Alcohol,stress,and cognitivecontrol. In: S.•}•,xso•r, I. G. and SPiv. x•Bv.}•gv.•, C. D., eds. Stressand anxiety. Vol. 3. Nexv York; Hemisphere; 1976.

14. M½CI•v.x•I•.•'•), D. C., D.•ws, W. N., K.•i•v.•r,R. and W,x•r•v.x% E. The drinking man. New York; Free Press; 1972. 15. RoI•sv, Now, D. J. and O'Lv..•¾, M. R. Locus of control researchon alcoholic populations;a review. II. Relationshipsto other measures.Int. J. Addict. 13: 213-226,

1978.

16. Jo% ¾. C. Review of the internal-externalcontrol constructas a personality variable. Psychol.Rep. 28: 619-640, 1971. 17. Goss,A. and MoxaosI•o, T. E. Relation between a dimensionof internal-external control and the M•am with an alcoholicpopulation.J. Cons. Clin. Psychol. 34: 189-192, 1970.

18. O'Lv,.•xa¾, M. R., Do•rov.•r, D. M. and H.•guv., W. H. Relationshipsbetween locus of control and MMPI scalesamong alcoholics;a replication and extension. J. Clin. Psychol.305 312-314, 1974. 19. Do•rov.•r, D. M., SM¾'rI•,L., P.•m•, A. B. and O'L•.•xa¾,M. R. Relationships

amonglocusof control,self-concept,and anxiety.J. Clin. Psychol.31: 682684, 1975.

20. O'Lv..•a¾,M. R., Do•rov.•r, D. M. and H.•guv., W. H. Relationshipbetween locus of control, self-report and nonobtrusivemeasuresof anxiety. J. Clin. Psychol. 30: 372-373, 1974. 21. Do•rov.•r, D. M., R.•)voan, L. M., Cx•.•rv.¾,E. F. and O'Lv..•xa¾, M. R. Perceived locus of control as a function of level of depressionamong alcoholics and nonalcoholics.J. Clin. Psychol.33: 582-584, 1977. 22. Goz.•x•, J. and SI•o.•r, J. Control orientationas a personalitydimensionamong alcoholics.Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 32: 159-161, 1971. 23. NIglWIANO,V. J. and Gxaoss,W. F. Lonelinessand locus of control for alcoholic males; validity against Murray need and Cattell trait dimensions.J. Clin. Psychol.32: 479-484, 1976. 24. Bux'rs, S. V. and CI•o'rx•os,J. A comparisonof alcoholicsand nonalcoholics on perceivedlocusof control.Q. J. Stud. Alcohol34: 1327-1332, 1973. 25. Ci•v.ss, S. B., Nv,ma•rgvs%C. and Goi•)s'rv.i•, G. Arousal and field dependency in alcoholics.J. Gen. Psychol.85: 93-102, 1971.

782

•). •I. DONOVAN AND •I. R. O'LEARY

26. WEISSBaCI-I, T. A., VOG•,En,R. E. and COMrTON, J. V. Comments on the relationshipbetween locus of control and alcoholabuse. J. Clin. Psychol.32: 484-486, 1976. 27. NamTCI-I, M.P. Locus of control and drinking behavior in a sample of men in army basictraining. J. Cons. Clin. Psychol.43: 96, 1975. 28. CI-IaNE¾,E. F. Skill training with alcoholics.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington; 1976. 29. Bra•SLEn,M. S. Locus of control as a factor in alcoholism.Md St. Med. J. 24 (No. 11): 88-90, 1975. 30. CASTER,D. U. and PaRsoNs,O. A. Relationshipof depression,sociopathy,and locus of control to treatment outcome in alcoholics.J. Cons. Clin. Psychol. 45: 751-756, 1977. 31. MOGaR,R. E., W•LSO•-,W. M. and HELM, S. T. Personality subtypesof male and female alcoholicpatients. Int. J. Addict. 5: 99-113, 1970. 32. WaNBERt,K. W. and KNarr, J. A multidimensionalmodel for the researchand treatment of alcoholism.Int. J. Addict. 5: 69-98, 1970. 33. LV•VENSON, H. Multidimensionallocusof control in psychiatricpatients. J. Cons. Clin. Psychol. 41: 397-404, 1973. 34. CON%J. D. Locus of control and socialdesirability.J. Cons. Clin. Psychol.36: 499, 1971.

35. HJELLE,L. A. Social desirabilityas a variable in the Locus of Control Scale. Psychol.Rep. 28: 807-816, 1971. 36. JoE, V. C. Socialdesirabilityand the I-E scale.Psychol.Rep. 30: 44-46, 1972. 37. LaMONT, J. Item mood-level as a deter•ninant of I-E test response.J. Clin. Psychol.28: 190, 1972. 38. Dins, R. R. Development of a projective measureof perceived locus of control. J. Project. Tech. (& Personality Assess.) 32: 487-490, 1968. 39. No•vICKI, S. and Dur•, M.P. A locus of control scale for noncollegeas well as college adults. J. Personality Assess.38: 136-137, 1974. 40. MmE,,S, H. L. Dimensions of internal versus external control. J. Cons. Clin. Psychol. 34: 226-228, 1970. 41. Wa•,LSTON,B. S., WALLSTON,K. A., KArLAN, G. D. and MAIDES,S. A. Development and validation of the health locus of control (I-ILC) scale. J. Cons. Clin. Psychol.44: 580-585, 1976. 42. OZmL, L. J. and OmTz, F. W. Control orientation in alcoholics related to extent of treatment. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 36: 158-161, 1975. 43. OZmL, L. J., Om•z, F. W. and KE•'SON,M. General and specific perceived locus of control in alcoholics. Psychol. Rep. 30: 957-958, 1972. 44. CaMrBE•,L, D. T. and FISI•, D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56: 81-105, 1959.

45. WittiNS, J. S. Personalityand prediction;principlesof personalityassessment. Reading, MA; Addison-Wesley;1973. 46. WaNBEIm, K. W., HORN, J. L. and FOSTER,F. M. A differential assessment

model for alcoholism;the scalesof the Alcohol Use Inventory. J. Stud. Alcohol 38: 512-543, 1977.

47. HORN, J. L. and WaNBERG,K. W. Symptompatterns related to excessiveuse of alcohol.Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 30-. 35-58, 1969. 48. NIE, N.H., HULL, C. H., JENKINS,J. G., STEINBBENNER, K. and BENT, D. H. Statisticalpackage for the social sciences.2d ed. New York; McGraw-Hill; 1975.

49. KaiSER,H. F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrica23: 187-200, 1958.

DRINKING-RELATED LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

783

50. TIFFANY, D. W. Mental health; a function of experiencedcontrol. J. Clin. Psychol.23: 311-315, 1967. 51. T,•,¾LOR, J. A. A personalityscaleof manifestanxiety.J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 48: 285-290, 1953.

52. BAhnON,E. An ego-strengthscale which predicts responseto psychotherapy. J. Cons. Psychol.17: 327-333, 1953. 53. EDWAaDS,A. L. The social desirability variable in personality assessmentand research. New York; Dryden Press; 1957. 54. NAVR•N, L. A rationally derived •MMPIscale to measuredependence.J. Cons. Psychol.18: 192, 1954. 55. GOLDBEnt,L. R. Man versusmean; the exploitationof group profiles for the constructionof diagnostic classificationsyste•ns.J. Abnorm. Psychol. 79: 121-131, 1972.

56. BEOC,A. T. Depression;clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York; Hoeber; 1967. 57. I•ICHOT, P. and L•Mv/:nmf•, T. Analyse factorielle d'un questionnaire d'auto6valuationdes sympt6mesd6pressifs.Revue Psychol.Appl. 14: 15-29, 1964. 58. GinsoN T, S. and BEC•CER, J. Alcoholismand depression;the factor structure of alcoholics'responses to depressioninventories.Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 34: 400408, 1973.

59. GIBSON,S. and BEOCER, J. Changesin alcoholics'self-reporteddepression.Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 34: 829-836, 1973.

60. SI-IIVLEY, W. C. Shipley-HartfordRetreat Scalefor MeasuringIntellectualImpairment; manual and scoringkey. Hartford, CT; Hartford Retreat; 1940. 61. REITAN,R. M. Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept. Motor Skills 8: 271-276, 1958. 62. PO•CORNY, A.D., MILLER, B. A. and K•VL•N, H. B. The brief MAST; a shortened version of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test. Am. J. Psychiat. 129: 342-345, 1972. 63. C•X•L•N, D., CISIN, I. H. and CROSSLEY, H. M. American drinking practices; a national study of drinking behavior and attitudes. (Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, Monogr. No. 6.) New Brunswick, NJ; 1969.

64. M•RLATT,G. A., DEMMING,B. A. and REID, J. B. Loss of control drinking in alcoholics;an experimentalanalogue.J. Abnorm. Psychol.81: 233-241, 1973. 65. M,•ISTO, S. A., L•VERM•, R. and ADESSO, V. J. A comparisonof two experimental studiesof the role of cognitivefactorsin alcoholics'drinking. J. Stud. Alcohol 38: 145-149, 1977. 66. MELLO, N. K. and MENDELSON, J. H. Operant analysis of drinking patterns of chronic alcoholics. Nature 206: 43-46, 1965. 67. MELLO, N. K. Behavioral studies of alcoholism.Pp. 219-291. In: KISSIN, B. and BEGLEXTEl:t, W., eds. Biology of alcoholism.Vol. 2. New York; Plenum; 1972.

68. N•TX•AN,P. E. and O'BRIEN,J. S. An experimentalanalysisof the behavior of alcoholicsand nonalcoholicsduring prolonged experimental drinking; a necessaryprecursorof behavioral therapy? Behav. Ther. 2: 455-476, 1971. 69. SOBELL,M. B., SCI-I•EVV. R, H. H. and MILLS, K. C. Differences in baseline drinking behavior between alcoholicsand normal drinkers. Behav. Res. Ther. 10: 257-267,

1972.

70. Scx•,•Evv, a•, H. H., SOBELL,M. B. and MILLS, K. C. Baseline drinking behaviors in alcoholicsand social drinkers;kinds of drinks and sip magnitude. Behav. Res. Ther. 9: 23-27, 1971.

784

r. M, DONOVAN AND M. lq. O'LEAlqY

71. GOTTHEIL,E., CORBETT,L. O., GRASBERGER, J. C. and CORNELISON, F. S., JR. Fixed interval drinking decisions.Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 33: 311-324, 1972. 72. MILLER, P.M. and HERSEN,M. Quantitative changes in alcohol consumption as a function of electrical aversire conditioning. J. Clin. Psychol. 28: 590593, 1972.

73. MILLER, 1•. M., HERSEN,M., EISLER,R. M. and ELKIN, T. E. A retrospective analysisof alcohol consumptionon laboratory tasks as related to therapeutic outcome. Behar. Res. Ther. 12: 73-76, 1974.

74. SKOLODA, T.• E., ALTERMAN,A. I., CORNELISON, F. S., JR. and GOTTHEIL,E. Treatment outcome in a drinking-decisions program. J. Stud. Alcohol 36: 365-380, 1975.

75. CAUTELA,J. R. Reinforcementsurvey schedule;evaluationand current applications.Psych. Rep. 30: 683-690, 1972.