The Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale<\/strong> is a seminal multidimensional psychometric instrument developed by David W. Reid and Edward E. Ware (1973, 1974) to overcome the structural, conceptual, and empirical limitations of unidimensional conceptualizations of locus of control<\/a>, most notably Julian B. Rotter\u2019s (1966) original Internal-External (I-E) scale. Comprising 45 forced-choice dyadic items (consisting of 32 scored target pairs and 13 filler pairs designed to mitigate demand characteristics and evaluation apprehension), the instrument systematically partitions generalized expectancies of reinforcement across three empirically distinct, theoretically cohesive subdimensions: Fatalism<\/em> (12 items), Social System Control<\/em> (12 items), and Self-Control<\/em> (8 items). The Fatalism subscale operationalizes generalized beliefs regarding the degree to which an individual’s life outcomes are governed by luck, chance, fate, or cosmic fortuity versus personal effort and initiative. The Social System Control subscale captures generalized beliefs regarding an individual’s capacity to modify, influence, or overcome broader sociopolitical institutions, governmental structures, systemic corruption, and macroscopic cultural constraints. The Self-Control subscale introduces an innovative intrapersonal dimension that assesses the perceived capacity to master one’s immediate impulses, emotions, desires, and self-regulatory behavioral tendencies.<\/p>\n Across extensive psychometric evaluations involving collegiate, community, and clinical cohorts, the Reid-Ware Scale has demonstrated robust internal consistency reliabilities, with Cronbach\u2019s alpha coefficients characteristically ranging from 0.76 to 0.84 for Fatalism, 0.72 to 0.81 for Social System Control, and 0.68 to 0.78 for Self-Control. Test-retest reliability across multi-week intervals ranges between 0.70 and 0.82 across subscales. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses robustly corroborate this tri-factorial architecture, establishing high discriminant validity among subscales and demonstrating that the aggregation of items into a solitary unidimensional composite obscures critical psychological nuances. The scale has been widely utilized in clinical psychology, organizational behavior, behavioral medicine, and political psychology to predict outcomes such as therapeutic compliance, substance use cessation, academic self-efficacy, sociopolitical activism, and stress coping. By differentiating between fatalistic attributions, macro-systemic sociopolitical efficacy, and micro-level self-regulatory mastery, the Reid-Ware instrument remains an enduring, sophisticated diagnostic and research asset in contemporary personality and social psychology.<\/p>\n Reid-Ware Three-Factor Scale, locus of control, internal-external expectancies, fatalism, social system control, self-control, psychometrics, Rotter I-E scale, behavioral regulation, multidimensional assessment<\/p>\n The Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale was conceptualized, developed, and validated through the scholarly collaboration of David W. Reid<\/strong> and Edward E. Ware<\/strong>. During the primary formulation and initial publication of the scale in the early 1970s, both researchers were affiliated with the Department of Psychology at York University<\/a> in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and McMaster University<\/a> in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.<\/p>\n Direct inquiries regarding historical instrument permissions, normative baseline distributions, or archival research materials are typically directed through York University’s institutional psychology archives or the original peer-reviewed copyright holders in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology<\/em> and the Journal of Personality<\/em>.<\/p>\n The primary purpose of the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale is to provide an empirically differentiated, multidimensional assessment of an individual\u2019s locus of control beliefs. For nearly a decade following the publication of Julian Rotter\u2019s (1966)<\/a> classic unidimensional Internal-External (I-E) locus of control scale, researchers increasingly observed pervasive empirical anomalies and inconsistent predictive validities across clinical, educational, and sociopolitical environments. Rotter\u2019s single global continuum\u2014which postulated that individuals simply view reinforcements as being contingent either on their own behavior (internal) or on external forces such as luck, fate, or powerful others (external)\u2014failed to account for the psychological reality that an individual may simultaneously feel complete mastery over their immediate personal habits while feeling utterly disenfranchised and powerless regarding macroscopic sociopolitical institutions.<\/p>\n Reid and Ware designed this 45-item measurement tool to resolve these theoretical and psychometric inadequacies by dissecting the global external pole into distinct, independent attributional sources: random chance or cosmic determinism (Fatalism) versus deliberate, structured institutional dominance (Social System Control), while adding an explicit focus on personal behavioral regulation (Self-Control). The theoretical rationale posits that treating internal-external control as a single omnibus score confounds disparate psychological dynamics. For example, a political activist may hold a highly external view regarding political reform because they recognize systemic institutional barriers, yet exhibit profound internal self-efficacy and rigorous self-discipline in their daily academic, occupational, and personal health routines. Conflating these attributional tendencies into a single global ‘external’ classification results in severe criterion contamination.<\/p>\n In research applications, the scale allows behavioral scientists to pinpoint the precise cognitive-attributional mechanisms that underpin human adaptation, resilience, and goal pursuit. In health and clinical psychology, the instrument is used to examine adherence to medical regimens, addiction recovery protocols, and cognitive-behavioral therapies. Researchers have consistently identified the Self-Control<\/em> subscale as a superior predictor of smoking cessation, dietary compliance, and the mitigation of impulse control disorders, far exceeding the predictive validity of traditional global locus of control scales. In industrial-organizational psychology, the instrument serves to assess leadership styles, responses to organizational restructuring, and occupational burnout, where distinguishability between institutional fatalism and personal self-regulation is vital. In political psychology, the Social System Control<\/em> subscale provides a validated metric for gauging civic alienation, political apathy, and voting behavior, ensuring that systemic political cynicism is not misdiagnosed as generalized learned helplessness or lack of personal agency.<\/p>\n The construct assessed by the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale represents a refined multidimensional operationalization of generalized expectancies concerning reinforcement contingency. Grounded within social learning theory<\/a>, locus of control describes the extent to which a person perceives a causal relationship between their own behavior and subsequent reinforcements. Reid and Ware’s operationalization fragments this psychological construct into three functionally distinct subdimensions:<\/p>\n The Fatalism<\/strong> subdimension operationalizes an individual’s generalized belief that life outcomes, personal triumphs, and adversities are fundamentally determined by luck, chance, accidental happenings, or unalterable cosmic destiny. Individuals scoring high in external Fatalism conceptualize the world as an unpredictable or preordained matrix where personal effort, capability, preparation, and forethought exert minimal instrumental influence over terminal outcomes. Prototypic assertions reflecting high fatalism include beliefs that ‘getting what one wants is mostly a matter of good fortune’ or that ‘many times one might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.’ Conversely, an internal orientation on this dimension reflects a profound conviction that cause-and-effect relationships govern personal accomplishments, viewing success as the direct mathematical yield of persistent effort, competence, and strategic enterprise.<\/p>\n The Social System Control<\/strong> subdimension assesses an individual’s perceived agency relative to organized sociocultural structures, government entities, socioeconomic forces, and powerful institutional actors. This subscale specifically addresses political efficacy and institutional permeability. Individuals scoring high in external Social System Control perceive that the sociopolitical and socioeconomic arena is governed by an entrenched elite, institutional bureaucracies, and systemic forces that the ‘average citizen’ cannot realistically influence or modify. Illustrative external statements reflect beliefs that ‘this world is run by the few people in power and there is not much the little guy can do about it’ or that wars, inflation, and political corruption are inevitable phenomena immune to civic action. In contrast, an internal orientation reflects the belief that organized collective action, voting, democratic participation, and civic persistence can dismantle corruption, reshape institutional policies, and dictate the course of societal governance.<\/p>\n The Self-Control<\/strong> subdimension is an innovative contribution to the locus of control literature, shifting the frame of reference from the interpersonal or societal environment to the intrapersonal domain. It assesses the perceived capacity of an individual to regulate, direct, and restrain their own internal desires, emotional impulses, appetites, and behavioral patterns. An individual exhibiting an external orientation on this subscale experiences their own impulses and emotional surges as alien, overwhelming forces that dictate behavior against their conscious will (e.g., ‘even when there was nothing forcing me, I will sometimes do things I really did not want to do’ or ‘I frequently find that I cannot restrain my reaction to enticements like over-eating or drinking’). Conversely, high internal self-control reflects perceived mastery over one\u2019s internal psychological state, characterized by the belief that one can willfully suppress unwanted impulses, master cravings, and maintain strict emotional and behavioral discipline even in the face of compelling temptations.<\/p>\n The theoretical architecture of the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale is directly anchored in Rotter\u2019s Social Learning Theory of Personality<\/strong> (Rotter, 1954, 1966). Within Rotter’s framework, the probability of a given behavior occurring in a specific psychological situation is a function of the expectancy that the behavior will lead to a particular reinforcement, and the value of that reinforcement to the individual:<\/p>\n BPx, s1, Ra<\/sub><\/sub> = f(Ex, Ra<\/sub>, s1<\/sub> & RVa, s1<\/sub>)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Where BP<\/em> is behavior potential, E<\/em> is expectancy, and RV<\/em> is reinforcement value within situation s1<\/em>. When individuals encounter novel or ambiguous situations, they rely heavily on generalized expectancies<\/em> synthesized across their developmental history. Locus of control was originally conceived as one such master generalized expectancy, situated along a broad continuum ranging from internal control (reinforcements are contingent on one\u2019s own behavior, skills, or internal characteristics) to external control (reinforcements are contingent on external forces, luck, fate, or powerful others).<\/p>\n However, Reid and Ware identified a profound theoretical paradox within Rotter’s initial paradigm. In Rotter’s formulation, ‘external forces’ were treated as an undifferentiated, homogeneous category. Reid and Ware observed that from a psychological and sociological standpoint, perceiving that one\u2019s life is governed by pure randomness, karma, or chance (an existential\/metaphysical attribution) represents a fundamentally distinct psychological state from perceiving that one’s life is constrained by a discriminatory legal system, socioeconomic stratification, or bureaucratic institutions (a sociopolitical attribution). The former reflects an erratic, chaotic universe; the latter reflects an organized, highly structured, yet hostile or exclusive social reality.<\/p>\n Furthermore, Reid and Ware synthesized insights from clinical psychopathology and early self-regulation theory<\/a>, noting that locus of control had completely neglected the individual\u2019s perception of control over their own biological and emotional impulses. Drawing upon foundational paradigms of behavioral self-management (e.g., Bandura\u2019s evolving conceptualizations of self-efficacy<\/a> and cognitive self-direction), Reid and Ware recognized that the self can act as an external threat to one’s conscious goals. When a patient succumbs to an addiction, an eating binge, or an emotional outburst, they do not attribute the failure to bad luck or the federal government; they attribute it to an uncontrollable internal urge that overpowered their executive agency. By integrating Self-Control<\/em> alongside Fatalism<\/em> and Social System Control<\/em>, the Reid-Ware theoretical framework provided the first fully differentiated taxonomy of human control expectancies, distinguishing between metaphysical\/stochastic control<\/em>, institutional\/sociopolitical control<\/em>, and intrapersonal\/volitional control<\/em>.<\/p>\n The psychometric validity of the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale has been rigorously documented across numerous empirical investigations covering construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive criteria.<\/p>\n Initial construct validation by Reid and Ware (1974) demonstrated that the Fatalism and Social System Control subscales correlate moderately with Rotter’s total I-E scale score (correlations typically spanning r<\/em> = 0.55 to 0.72), confirming that they tap into the broader locus of control domain while accounting for distinct sources of variance. Crucially, the Self-Control subscale consistently exhibits much lower correlations with the original Rotter scale (r<\/em> = 0.18 to 0.31), corroborating its unique status as an intrapersonal metric largely absent from Rotter’s item pool. Convergent validity has been established through predictable associations with alternative multidimensional measures, such as Levenson’s (1973) IPC Scale (Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance). Reid-Ware Fatalism correlates strongly with Levenson’s Chance scale (r<\/em> = 0.65 to 0.74), whereas Reid-Ware Social System Control correlates robustly with Levenson’s Powerful Others scale (r<\/em> = 0.58 to 0.68)<\/span>.<\/p>\n Discriminant validity is evidenced by the scale’s low to negligible correlations with social desirability scales, such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (correlations characteristically ranging between r<\/em> = -0.06 and r<\/em> = -0.14, non-significant). This demonstrates that respondents do not merely endorse internal self-control or internal social efficacy out of an urge to present themselves in an overly favorable light. Additionally, the subscales correlate differentially with measures of neuroticism<\/a> and trait anxiety: high external Self-Control correlates moderately with trait anxiety and emotional instability (r<\/em> = 0.38 to 0.46), whereas Social System Control exhibits virtually zero association with general emotional instability (r<\/em> = 0.04 to 0.11), demonstrating that sociopolitical cynicism is distinct from psychological distress<\/span>.<\/p>\n The superior predictive utility of the Reid-Ware instrument over unidimensional scales has been repeatedly confirmed in empirical criteria across various domains:<\/p>\n The Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale demonstrates robust reliability profiles across both internal consistency parameters and longitudinal temporal stability assessments across diverse populations.<\/p>\n In the original normative sample of 334 Canadian university students (Reid & Ware, 1974), internal consistency reliability was assessed utilizing the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20), appropriate for dichotomous forced-choice measures, as well as standardized Cronbach\u2019s alpha<\/a> coefficients:<\/p>\n When evaluated across international, clinical, and non-student adult community samples, the internal consistency statistics have remained stable, typically fluctuating within the acceptable to good psychometric threshold (α ≥ 0.70 to 0.85)<\/span>.<\/p>\n Temporal stability evaluations conducted across diverse retest intervals have affirmed the stability of the construct as an enduring trait-like personality dimension rather than a transient affective state:<\/p>\n The structural integrity of the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale was established through rigorous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and has subsequently been corroborated by independent structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).<\/p>\n In the foundational scale development studies (Reid & Ware, 1973, 1974), the 32 target items were subjected to principal axis factoring followed by orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations to determine whether the latent dimensions were genuinely independent or interrelated. The empirical analysis yielded a definitive three-factor solution based on Kaiser\u2019s eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion (λ > 1.0) and Cattell’s scree test<\/span>:<\/p>\n The intercorrelations between these three oblique factors were found to be modest (ranging from r<\/em> = 0.15 to 0.32), providing definitive empirical proof that the subdimensions, while sharing minimal overarching variance within the broad domain of generalized control expectancies, capture distinct psychological constructs that must not be collapsed into a single index<\/span>.<\/p>\n Subsequent psychometric examinations using modern confirmatory factor analysis have compared Reid and Ware’s three-factor model against alternative competing models, including a unidimensional model (all items loading on a single latent ‘locus of control’ factor) and a two-factor model (merging Fatalism and Social System Control into an omnibus external factor while retaining Self-Control). The empirical findings robustly support the tri-factorial model, which consistently demonstrates superior model fit indices across goodness-of-fit metrics:<\/p>\n The operational specifications, administrative characteristics, and scoring protocols for the Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale are detailed below:<\/p>\n The Reid-Ware Three-Factor Internal-External Scale was first formally conceptualized and published across a series of research reports between 1973 and 1974<\/strong> by Dr. David W. Reid and Dr. Edward E. Ware. The primary empirical validation study was published in 1974 in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology<\/em>, a journal published by the American Psychological Association (APA)<\/a>.<\/p>\n2. Keywords<\/h2>\n
3. Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
4. Purpose<\/h2>\n
5. Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
Fatalism (12 Scored Items)<\/h3>\n
Social System Control (12 Scored Items)<\/h3>\n
Self-Control (8 Scored Items)<\/h3>\n
6. Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
7. Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Convergent Validity<\/h3>\n
Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
Predictive and Criterion Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
8. Reliability<\/h2>\n
Internal Consistency<\/h3>\n
\n
Test-Retest Temporal Stability<\/h3>\n
\n
9. Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Exploratory Factor Structure<\/h3>\n
\n
Confirmatory Factor Analytic (CFA) Fit<\/h3>\n
\n
10. Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
\n
12. References<\/h2>\n
\n
13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)<\/h2>\n