The internal locus of control. It’s something that every psychology student has heard.
Coined by psychologist Julian Rotter in the 1960s, the locus of control refers to the extent that one feels control over their lives and the events that influence them. Having an internal locus means one believes they have control over their lives and what happens to them, whereas the external is the opposite. With an external locus, they would instead attribute the events of their lives to fate, the will of the universe, or even other people.
Rotter believed that human beings behaved on the basis of rewards and punishments, i.e., that the consequences of our actions shape future expectations of our behaviors. Whether someone has an internal or external locus is greatly determined by their past experiences. If individuals had a positive experience in response to an event, they are more likely to pursue the same goal. Conversely, having a bad experience determines all their future expectations for that goal and similar ones. But which locus is ‘better’? To what extent does this locus govern our lives?
It is believed the internal locus often has better consequences, but leaning too far right or left on the scale may be worse. It is crucial to keep in mind that the locus of control is a continuum; a scale of two sides. Most people lie in between the two extremes, with some diverging further than others. Research shows that having an internal locus is more beneficial in terms of self-esteem, facing challenges, taking responsibility for one’s actions, independence and success, among other things. In other words, these people tend to be better off in life just because of this mindset—your outlook in life changes everything.
Having an overarching grasp of the internal locus tends to be better because it focuses on you: you believe that only your hands are on the steering wheel. Things you’ve achieved, or even failed at, are commended to your abilities. When faced with difficult circumstances, you believe you have the power to change the situation and directly alleviate the issue. Personally, this makes more sense to me—if I didn’t have control over my life, then who would? Everyone’s mindset is attributed to their past experiences, and maybe it is this that, luckily, allowed me to trust myself over an external force. But others aren’t so lucky. Perhaps a series of consequential bad events had molded their viewpoint of the external locus or just the idea of fate and the universe. If so, why is this the case?
As a firm believer of the internal locus myself, I ventured outwards to better understand the complexities and reasoning behind the external locus. Some say their understanding of life is strongly rooted in fate and the idea that it has already been preordained no matter what we do. Every choice we make, every consequence that happens, is simply meant to be. Others thought, similar to fate, the universe controlled our futures. The universe will always have a plan for us, and everything that is meant to happen simply will. Many of them manifested this viewpoint as a result of a series of bad events that occurred, most of them out of their control. One could consider this as ‘learned helplessness’. In this sense, the external locus is often connoted with adverse outcomes. Those with an external outlook of life will be more likely to blame outside forces for things that happen to them and attribute their failures to things other than themselves. They are also prone to justify their successes to luck rather than their own hard work. This indirectly decreases their self-esteem, as they’re constantly deflecting.
At this point, it seems as though between the two extremes, internal = good and external = bad. But it’s not as simple as that—leaning too far toward one or the other isn’t a healthy outlook on life. The internal locus is often praised for increasing others’ confidence and independence; while this may be true, thinking that you have all the control can also be harmful. If an event happens with devastating consequences that fell completely outside of your control, someone with an internal locus would absolutely fall apart. They wouldn’t know how to let go; they wouldn’t be able to understand that they can’t control every single thing that happens in their lives. On the other hand, it’s obvious that someone with a far-leaning external locus wouldn’t have a great perspective on life either. Thus, it’s best to strike a balance between them; don’t assume control over everything, but also don’t let go of that control entirely.
The pandemic is a good example of when to apply both loci. COVID-19 was/is a hindrance in our lives that is completely out of our control; everyone was, and a majority still are, affected by it. Someone with an internal locus would possibly obsess over unplanned events in their lives, such as plans to move overseas being halted or having to do online school. Those with external loci would passively acknowledge the pandemic, considering it as something that they just couldn’t control. And in this case, the external locus is partially correct—you can’t control the pandemic. You have to accept that some things are just out of your grasp and learn to deal with what you can hold, which is where the internal locus comes in—hold on to what little you have left, and use that as a driving force for the future.
Many people want to live with an internal locus mindset, but they don’t realize that control is balance. It’s not about choosing which mindset is the best, but rather accepting that we have to live with both. The external locus isn’t our enemy: it’s an outlet of embracing what we can’t change and healing when we simply don’t have the power of control.