The Desirability of Control Scale<\/strong> (DCS) is a self-report psychometric instrument developed by Jerry M. Burger<\/a> and Harris M. Cooper in 1979 to evaluate individual differences in the general motivational preference to exert control over life events, decisions, and interpersonal environments. Prior to its introduction, personality and social psychological research predominantly focused on expectancies<\/em> of control\u2014most notably captured by Julian B. Rotter’s locus of control construct\u2014while neglecting the distinct motivational component regarding how much an individual actually wishes<\/em> or strives<\/em> to possess control. Comprising 20 items evaluated on a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (“The statement does not apply to me at all”) to 7 (“The statement always applies to me”), the DCS yields an overall score where higher values reflect a heightened desire for control (DC). The scale exhibits sound psychometric properties, demonstrating an internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of approximately .80 and a six-week test-retest reliability coefficient of .75. Discriminant validity has been consistently established against measures of perceived locus of control, social desirability, and general intelligence, while convergent and predictive validity have been documented across diverse domains, including cognitive illusions of control, learned helplessness, psychological reactance, achievement motivation, health-related behaviors, coping styles under stress, and vulnerability to depression. Although initially conceptualized as a unidimensional measurement tool, subsequent psychometric and factor analytic inquiries have uncovered distinct multifaceted dimensions, including decisional control, leadership, assertiveness, and avoidance of dependency. This article provides a comprehensive academic analysis of the DCS, synthesizing its theoretical foundations, structural and factorial properties, clinical and experimental applications, scoring mechanics, and full psychometric profile.<\/p>\n Desirability of Control Scale, Jerry Burger, desire for control, personal control, locus of control, psychological reactance, learned helplessness, illusion of control, effectance motivation, psychometrics<\/p>\n The Desirability of Control Scale was developed and validated through the collaborative work of two distinguished social psychologists:<\/p>\n The Desirability of Control Scale was constructed to address a critical theoretical and empirical gap within personality psychology and experimental social psychology during the late 1970s. For decades, researchers investigating human agency, motivation, and coping operated under the implicit paradigm of locus of control<\/a>, advanced by Julian B. Rotter<\/a> (1966). Rotter’s framework conceptualized control strictly in terms of generalized expectancies: individuals either believe that outcomes are contingent upon their own actions, skill, and effort (internal locus of control) or that outcomes are governed by luck, chance, fate, or powerful external forces (external locus of control).<\/p>\n Burger and Cooper (1979) recognized that expectancy of control represents only half of the motivational equation. The expectancy that one can<\/em> control an outcome is conceptually distinct from the intrinsic desire<\/em>, preference, or psychological need to exert control over that outcome. Two individuals may possess an identical internal locus of control, yet one may aggressively seek out leadership, insist on making autonomous decisions, and actively resist external constraints, whereas the other may prefer delegating responsibility and avoiding the cognitive strain of constant decision-making. The primary purpose of the DCS is therefore to quantify this trait-level motivational drive to exercise mastery, personal agency, and autonomy over one’s immediate environment and life trajectory.<\/p>\n In research settings, the DCS serves as an essential predictor and moderating variable in laboratory paradigms investigating:<\/p>\n In clinical, organizational, and counseling psychology, the DCS provides practitioners with diagnostic insight into clients’ interpersonal dynamics, resistance to authority, decision fatigue, perfectionism, and susceptibility to affective disorders when facing uncontrollable life transitions.<\/p>\n The core psychological construct measured by the DCS is the Desire for Control (DC)<\/strong>, defined as a stable, general personality trait reflecting the extent to which an individual is motivated to establish, maintain, and exert control over the events, choices, and interpersonal interactions encountered in life. Rather than assessing perceived competence or outcome expectations, the construct captures the motivational valence assigned to personal agency.<\/p>\n Individuals scoring high on the DCS are characterized by a proactive, assertive, and self-determining behavioral orientation. Key cognitive, behavioral, and emotional manifestations include:<\/p>\n Conversely, individuals scoring low on the DCS demonstrate an accommodating, deferential, and collaborative disposition. Their profile is characterized by:<\/p>\n The theoretical architecture underpinning the Desirability of Control Scale synthesizes several foundational paradigms from mid-to-late 20th-century motivational, social, and personality psychology:<\/p>\n The concept of a fundamental human need to manipulate and master the environment traces directly to Robert W. White<\/a>‘s (1959) formulation of effectance motivation<\/em>. White posited that organisms possess an intrinsic drive toward competence that cannot be reduced to primary biological drives (such as hunger or thirst). Richard deCharms (1968) expanded this concept through his model of personal causation<\/em>, proposing that humans strive to perceive themselves as primary “Origins” of their behavior rather than helpless “Pawns” manipulated by external forces. Burger and Cooper (1979) translated these broad humanistic and evolutionary concepts into a differential, psychometrically measurable trait variable.<\/p>\n Under Julian Rotter<\/a>‘s (1954, 1966) social learning theory, behavior potential is a function of expectancy and reinforcement value: $BP = f(E, RV)$<\/span>. Rotter’s locus of control construct measured expectancy ($E$<\/span>). However, Burger and Cooper argued that the reinforcement value ($RV$<\/span>) of control itself had been empirically neglected. The DCS quantifies the reinforcement value an individual places on possessing personal mastery over behavioral outcomes, establishing the missing component of the social learning equation regarding control dynamics.<\/p>\n A central theoretical model operationalized by the DCS is Camille Wortman and Jack Brehm<\/a>‘s (1975) integration of psychological reactance<\/a> and learned helplessness<\/a> (Seligman, 1975). According to Brehm’s reactance theory, whenever an individual’s freedom of action is threatened or eliminated, a motivational state of reactance emerges, driving the individual to restore that freedom. Wortman and Brehm proposed that when people experience an initial loss of control, they first exhibit reactance (increased vigor, anger, active resistance); only after repeated, unequivocal demonstrations that control cannot be attained do they transition into learned helplessness (passivity, cognitive deficits, depression).<\/p>\n Burger and Cooper demonstrated that an individual’s position on the Desirability of Control spectrum dictates the velocity and intensity of this trajectory. High-DC individuals exhibit intense, prolonged reactance responses to control threats, resisting learned helplessness far longer than low-DC individuals, but experiencing more severe depression once helplessness is definitively established.<\/p>\n Extensive psychometric investigations have established the construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Desirability of Control Scale across diverse experimental and naturalistic paradigms:<\/p>\n In their seminal validation experiments, Burger and Cooper (1979) confirmed several theoretical predictions demonstrating construct validity:<\/p>\n Subsequent psychometric studies have demonstrated convergent validity with conceptually allied constructs:<\/p>\n Crucially, Burger and Cooper (1979) established that the DCS measures a construct independent of existing personality metrics:<\/p>\n The Desirability of Control Scale has demonstrated robust and stable reliability metrics across diverse clinical, undergraduate, and community populations:<\/p>\n In the original scale development sample ($N = 104$<\/span> undergraduate students), Burger and Cooper (1979) reported an overall Cronbach’s alpha<\/a> coefficient of .80<\/strong>. Across subsequent empirical replications spanning over four decades, internal consistency estimates have consistently ranged between .74 and .84<\/strong> across diverse demographic groups, including working adults, health-care patients, and older institutionalized populations. Split-half reliability coefficients calculated during scale development yielded values of .76<\/strong> (Spearman-Brown corrected), indicating solid item homogeneity across both halves of the instrument.<\/p>\n Temporal stability was evaluated by administering the scale to an undergraduate cohort across a six-week interval. The resulting test-retest reliability coefficient was $r = .75$<\/span> ($p < .001$<\/span>)<\/strong>, reflecting robust longitudinal stability characteristic of an enduring personality trait rather than a fluctuating affective state. Extended longitudinal studies monitoring populations over six-month to one-year intervals have similarly yielded stability coefficients exceeding $.70$<\/span>, confirming that generalized control motivation remains stable across typical life transitions.<\/p>\n Although Burger and Cooper originally designed the DCS as a general, unidimensional measure of personal control motivation\u2014advocating the use of a single composite score\u2014subsequent psychometric investigations have conducted both Exploratory Factor Analyses<\/a> (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analyses<\/a> (CFA) to elucidate its internal dimensionality.<\/p>\n Burger and Cooper (1979) performed a principal components analysis with varimax rotation on the initial 20 items. While five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 emerged, the authors noted that the first unrotated factor accounted for a substantial proportion of the total variance, and all items loaded positively onto the primary dimension. Consequently, they recommended summing all 20 items to yield an overarching composite score.<\/p>\n Subsequent psychometric researchers (e.g., Gebhardt & Brosschot, 2002; Dembroski et al., 1984) identified meaningful multidimensional sub-components within the DCS:<\/p>\n Confirmatory Factor Analytic (CFA) investigations evaluating these alternative models have reported acceptable fit indices for both a hierarchical (second-order) model\u2014where five first-order factors load onto a general “Desire for Control” superordinate factor\u2014and a refined three-factor model ($\\chi^2\/df < 2.5$<\/span>, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [$\text{RMSEA}$]$<\/span>\u0007pprox .055$ to $.062$<\/span>, Comparative Fit Index [$\text{CFI}$]$<\/span>\u0007pprox .91$ to $.94$<\/span>). However, in the vast majority of social, health, and experimental psychological studies, researchers continue to utilize the total composite score, reflecting Burger’s original conceptualization of DC as a generalized motivational orientation.<\/p>\n The Desirability of Control Scale was published in 1979<\/strong> in the journal Motivation and Emotion<\/em> (Springer \/ Plenum Publishing Corporation). Under standard psychometric and academic research conventions, the instrument is in the public domain for non-commercial educational and empirical research purposes<\/strong>, provided proper academic attribution is credited to the original authors (Burger & Cooper, 1979). No royalty or licensing fee is required for academic investigations, student dissertations, or classroom demonstrations. However, commercial utilization, integration into proprietary diagnostic software, or corporate pre-employment testing batteries may require formal permission from the copyright holder (Springer Nature<\/a> \/ Plenum Publishing).<\/p>\nKeywords<\/h2>\n
Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
Purpose<\/h2>\n
\n
Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
High Desire for Control Profile<\/h3>\n
\n
Low Desire for Control Profile<\/h3>\n
\n
Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
1. White\u2019s Effectance Motivation and DeCharms\u2019 Personal Causation<\/h3>\n
2. Rotter\u2019s Social Learning Theory<\/h3>\n
3. The Wortman and Brehm Reactance-Helplessness Integration<\/h3>\n
Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Experimental Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Convergent Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Reliability<\/h2>\n
Internal Consistency<\/h3>\n
Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)<\/h3>\n
Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Initial Factor Explorations<\/h3>\n
Multidimensional Models<\/h3>\n
\n
Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\nightarrow 7$, $2
\nightarrow 6$, $3
\nightarrow 5$, $4
\nightarrow 4$, $5
\nightarrow 3$, $6
\nightarrow 2$, $7
\nightarrow 1$ (or using the formula: $\text{Reversed Score} = 8 – \text{Raw Score}$)<\/span>.<\/li>\nPermissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
\n
13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)<\/h2>\n