The Spheres of Control scale: the identification of a clear replicable three-factor structure

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00010-1Get rights and content

Abstract

The Spheres of Control scale (SOC) is a multidimensional measure of locus of control, originally designed to assess personal control, interpersonal control, and socio-political control. This scale is now in its third revision. Although Versions 1 and 2 have been scrutinised using factor analysis, no published studies have yet examined the factor structure of Version 3. Responses to the original version [SOC-1; Paulhus, D., & Christie, R. (1981). Spheres of control: An interactionist approach to the assessment of perceived control. In H.M. Lefcourts (Ed.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct (Vol. 1) Assessment methods (pp.161–188). New York: Academic Press.] and the most recent version [SOC-3; Paulhus, D., & Van Selst, M. (1990). The spheres of control scale: 10 yrs of research. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1029–1036] were provided by a group of 354 university students, and a principal components analysis was undertaken. The results showed a reasonable fit with the SOC construct for the original (SOC-1) scale, but not for the more recent SOC-3. A combination of scales from the two versions provided the best indication of the presence of the three theoretically derived dimensions. In a second study, Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to examine the three factor model and four competing models. The eight indices of fit derived from the responses of 382 undergraduate students showed that the three factor structure was superior to any of the competing models.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were 354 students at Victoria University of Wellington who were seated in public places around the University Campus. All participants received a wrapped sweet as a token of appreciation for taking part in the study.

Materials

The questionnaires used in this study consisted of the SOC-1 (Paulhus & Christie, 1981) and the SOC-3 (Paulhus & Van Selst, 1990). With the SOC-1, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they disagreed or agreed with each statement on a seven-point scale

Study 2: the replication study

Cattell, Balcar, Horn and Nesselroade (1969) reasoned that the derivation of a particular factor solution from one sample is not sufficient to demonstrate the underlying factor structure of a questionnaire. Rather, if the pattern of loadings on the rotated factors is to be relied upon, then the solution should be robust across separate administrations of the questionnaire.

In this second study, a confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken, using the responses of a substantial, independent group

Discussion

The present investigation was concerned with the factor structure of the SOC scale in general, and in particular the factor structure of the most recent version of the SOC scale (SOC-3). Previous research has examined the factor structure of earlier versions of this scale (e.g. Paulhus and Christie, 1981, Paulhus, 1983), but no published research has yet examined the relative fit between the theoretically proposed factors of the SOC-1, the SOC-3 and those indicated by analysis of the data.

The

References (22)

  • J.F Hair et al.

    Multivariate data analysis with readings

    (1995)
  • Cited by (25)

    • Are two earthquakes better than one? How earthquakes in two different regions affect risk judgments and preparation in three locations

      2016, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
      Citation Excerpt :

      We note that judgments that a hazard is likely are not sufficient for people to prepare (e.g., [7,22,29,39]). People need to also understand how preparations influence outcomes [2] and believe that preparation is effective and worth the cost [22,30,42]. However, recognition of the risk is a prerequisite for voluntary action, so risk communications should frame risks in effective ways [13,25,43].

    • A tale of two cities: Judgments about earthquake and aftershock probabilities across time windows

      2015, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
      Citation Excerpt :

      Yet people often fail to prepare [7,28,33]. This failure reflects many factors [15,28,32,33], including the fatalistic belief that one cannot affect earthquake outcomes [11,17,22,34]. Earthquakes are a low frequency event, and the belief that they may not happen in one’s lifetime also impedes preparation, as does procrastination [35].

    • Students' attributions for their best and worst marks: Do they relate to achievement?

      2011, Contemporary Educational Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Yet the influences that affect motivation and achievement extend beyond these attributions, most notably social influences such as family and teachers (Heine et al., 2001; McClure, 1985; Oishi & Sullivan, 2005; Wentzel, 1998). Several researchers have suggested the importance of studying social attributions, such as the influence of friends, teachers, and family (Liu, Cheng, Chen, & Wu, 2009; Louw & Louw-Potgeiter, 1986; Ng, McClure, Walkey, & Hunt, 1995; Spittal, Siegert, McClure, & Walkey, 2002). Hewstone (1989) claimed that although Weiner’s model paid little attention to social attributions, the model can be extrapolated to attributions at the group level.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text