Cross-temporal meta-analyses of changes in the locus of control among Chinese college students: No changes were also a trend

Abstract

Previous research has shown that the locus of control among college students in the United States has become increasingly external. However, people's locus of control may not have the same change pattern in different cultural contexts. In this study, we investigated the changes of locus of control of Chinese college students by conducting two cross-temporal meta-analyses. Study 1 was based on Rotter's locus of control scale showing that the level of external control (vs. internal control) displayed by Chinese college students underwent no significant changes between 2001 and 2019. Based on the Levenson's multidimensional locus of control scale, Study 2 found that, from 1997 to 2018, there were also no significant changes in the levels of internality, powerful others, and chance factors for Chinese college students. To the best of our knowledge, the present research is the first to demonstrate that both internal and external controls tended to be stable in the last two decades among Chinese college students. This study expands our understanding that the trend of psychological change may be self-sustaining.

Keywords

locus of control external control internal control college students social change cross-temporal meta-analysis

Introduction

Individuals’ belief as to whether their own fate is controlled by themselves or by some external forces may change according to the economic, social and cultural dynamics (Hamamura, 2020; Twenge et al., 2004). For example, previous studies have demonstrated that American college students become increasingly convinced that their personal destiny is controlled by forces other than themselves (Sherman et al., 1997; Twenge et al., 2004). However, there is no empirical evidence for whether the same trend is also taking place among Chinese college students.

The role of locus of control

Individuals’ different expectations of whether their own destiny is controlled by themselves or by others could directly determine their various behavior choices made in the lifespan. People who believe that their personal destiny is in their own hands will make greater efforts to change their own life circumstances, while those who believe that their personal destiny is not under their control tend to accept reality and are unwilling to make efforts to change their own destiny. In this regard, Rotter first put forward the concept of locus of control to capture this phenomenon (Rotter, 1966). Rotter postulated that the locus of control refers to the individual's general expectation of the world, reflecting the individual's belief in the deciding factors over life events (Galvin et al., 2018; Rotter, 1966). As Rotter notes, the locus of control is composed of two parts, namely, internal and external components. Internal controllers believe they can determine their own destiny and attribute the occurrence of events to personal characteristics and behaviors, such as personal ability or effort (Furnham & Steele, 1993; Rotter, 1966; Wang, 1991). External controllers, in contrast, believe that their fate is determined by external influences, such as luck and other powerful people, and they attribute the occurrence of events to forces, such as opportunities, environmental factors, and the control of others (Lee & McKinnish, 2019; Xiao & Chen, 1989). The internal and external locus of control scale first developed by Rotter directly reflected this conceptual division, exerting an extensive influence on subsequent research in this vein (Lefcourt, 1991; Tong & Wang, 2006), of which the research tools include the child locus of control scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973; Shepherd et al., 2006), the internality, powerful others and chance scale (Levenson, 1981; Maroufizadeh et al., 2018), the multidimensional health locus of control scale (Zawawi & Hamaideh, 2009), and work locus of control scale (Wang et al., 2010), to name just a few. These measurements developed by other scholars all continued Rotter's concept of division and scale. The conceptual framework initiated by Rotter, furthermore, has been introduced and deployed in psychological research in China (Wang, 1991; Xiao & Chen, 1989). Therefore, a large number of empirical studies making use of the two scale tools in the last decades allow us to fully probe the change of the locus of control among college students in China over time.

Locus of control plays an important role in the condition of individual's physical and mental health, as well as the development of economic and social well-being. On the one hand, personal locus of control affects health and behavior. For example, individuals who prefer external control tend to have lower levels of mental health (Groth et al., 2019; Hovenkamp-Hermelink et al., 2019; Kurtović et al., 2018), higher risk of obesity (Cheng et al., 2013; Neymotin & Nemzer, 2014), higher level of anxiety (Archer, 1979; Watson, 1967), and more depressive symptoms (Harrow et al., 2009; Richardson et al., 2012; Zawawi & Hamaideh, 2009). By contrast, internal controllers tend to show lower medical dependence (Kesavayuth et al., 2020), are more receptive to unequal outcomes (Aguiar et al., 2021), exhibit more pro-environmental behaviors (Cleveland et al., 2020), and have higher marital satisfaction (Lee & McKinnish, 2019).

On the other hand, the locus of control also has an important influence on economic activity and social development (Cobb-Clark & Schurer, 2013). Individuals who tend to display internal control are more likely to receive higher salaries (Schnitzlein & Stephani, 2016) and higher economic returns from the labor market (Cebi, 2007). Homeowners who tend to be internal controllers are more likely to apply for real estate insurance for extreme natural events (Antwi-Boasiako, 2017). Compared with external controllers, internal controllers tend to buffer the harmful effects of upward social mobility on individual subjective well-being (Becker & Birkelbach, 2018), take a hostile attitude towards immigrants (Harell et al., 2017), improve entrepreneurs’ opportunity identity (Asante & Affum-Osei, 2019), and stimulate entrepreneurship (Kaufmann et al., 1995).

Changing trend of locus of control

In regard to the important role of locus of control on individual's health and economic social development, it is necessary to explore the changing trend of locus of control among college students in China. Many studies both at home and abroad have repeatedly argued that personality and other psychological variables may shift according to economic, social, and cultural dynamics, that is, psychological changes on the social timeline (Cai et al., 2020; Chi & Xin, 2020; Xin & Chi, 2020; Xin & Xin, 2017; Yang & Xin, 2020; Zhang & Xin, 2019). For example, Xin and Chi systematically summarized the results of more than 60 cross-temporal meta-analysis studies, most of which showed significant change trends of various psychological indicators based on diverse population samples in China (Chi & Xin, 2020; Xin & Chi, 2020). There are also many studies on psychological change in western countries (Curran & Hill, 2019; Hamamura & Septarini, 2017; Karazsia et al., 2017; Sortheix et al., 2019), among which several studies have explored the changes of locus of control (Sherman et al., 1997; Twenge et al., 2004). Specifically, previous research found that American college students and children increasingly believe that their lives are controlled by external forces rather than by themselves (Twenge et al., 2004). This result is corroborated by cross-temporal meta-analyses, which show that during the period from 1960 to 2002, American college students’ locus of control became more externally focused (the score increased by about 0.8 standard deviation). However, the locus of control change among Chinese samples has not been explored.

Moreover, it is worth noting that as a result of the rise in individualistic values, individual's locus of control may become either more externally controlled or more internally controlled. Twenge et al. (2004) points out that the two opposing models, the independent model and the alienation model, could explain the difference of the change of the locus of control over time. Specifically, the independent model holds that the rise of individualistic values leads individuals to become more internally controlled, because individualistic values provide an opportunity for individuals to decide their own destiny independently and freely. The reduction of external social constraints enhances the individual's control over their living environment, which in turn increases internal control. The alienation model, in contrast, argues that the rise in individualistic values may also cause individuals to become more externally controlled, because individualistic values increase egoistic tendency (attributing good things to themselves and bad things to external forces). Higher egoist tendency could help retain one's self-concept by attributing negative events (such as divorce and violent crime) to external forces (personal uncontrollable forces). This in turn leads to the enhancement of external control.

In line with this proposition, the increase of external control of American college students can be explained by the alienation model (Santiago & Tarantino, 2002; Twenge et al., 2004). Accordingly, Twenge and other researchers argued that the rise of individualistic values increases the tendency of egoism, and the increase of negative social events is likely to be driven by external forces such as the desire of self-protection. This in turn leads to the enhancement of external control. However, at present, there is a lack of direct research evidence on the changing trend of locus of control among Chinese college students.

The available evidence showed that the values of individualism in Chinese society are on the rise (Cai et al., 2020; Hamamura & Xu, 2015; Huang et al., 2018). For example, previous research has used Google Ngram Viewer to analyze the changes of Chinese cultural values. The results showed that the frequency of words indicating adaptive individualism increased (the frequency change of words of collectivism is not clear) from 1970 to 2008 (Zeng & Greenfield, 2015). Another study used a similar approach to examine evidence of Chinese cultural change in folk beliefs and also supported the rise of individualism (Xu & Hamamura, 2014). However, the analytical evidence of Hamamura et al. (2021) showed that individualism in Chinese society has not changed. The follow-up study of Bao et al. (2022) found that there were some problems in the analysis of Hamamura et al., such as misinterpretation of statistical results, improper calculation of cultural connections and inappropriate generalization of specific survey results. The results of the reanalysis supported the rising trend of individualism in China (Bao et al., 2022).

To sum up, the individualistic values of Chinese social culture are on the rise. Whether this phenomenon leads to change on the locus of control among Chinese college students remains unknown. In the present study, we approach this research question using the method of cross-temporal meta-analysis.

The present research

As described above, we conducted two cross-temporal meta-analysis studies to test the changing trend of locus of control among Chinese college students. In Study 1, an adapted scale of Rotter's internal–external locus of control was used as the research tool. The scale postulates that the locus of control is a single-dimensional structure, and the internal control and the external control are opposite poles. The higher the measurement score is, the higher the level of external control should be, and the lower the level of internal control should be (Rotter, 1966).

In Study 2, an adapted version of Levenson's multidimensional locus of control scale was used as the research tool. The scale consists of three dimensions. Except for the dimension of internality, which reflects the level of internal control, the dimension of powerful others and the dimension of chance reflect the connotation of external control (Levenson, 1974, 1981). It could be seen that the scale treats internal control and external control as different dimensions, and the score of internal control is high, while the score of external control is not necessarily low.

Although the two scales represent different views on whether internal control and external control are at both ends of the same dimension, or belong to two different dimensions, the results of the two scales should be roughly comparable. Therefore, we conducted cross-temporal meta-analyses based on previous literature using these two scales to investigate the locus of control among Chinese college students. We expect to achieve mutual verification of the results of the two studies to improve the validity of the conclusion about the changing trend of the locus of control.

Study 1: Cross-temporal meta-analysis based on Rotter's locus of control scale (2001–2019)

Methods

Measure

The literature analyzed in this study was all based on the adapted version of the Rotter's locus of control scale (I-ECS). The original scale was developed by Rotter in 1966 and revised by Wang (1991) and Wang et al. (1999). There were 29 items in the scale, among which 23 items were test questions (participating in scoring) and another 6 items were buffer questions (not participating in scoring). Each item consisted of a pair of options describing internal control and external control, respectively. For example, the option for internal control is “whether things are good or bad depends on my personal actions,” whereas the option for external control is “the direction of my life depends on other uncontrollable forces rather than myself.” Participants were asked to choose an option that could represent their situation. The scoring principle is that, 1 point corresponds to the external control option and 0 points corresponds to the internal control option. The total score ranged from 0 to 23. The higher the score was, the more inclined the individual is to external control (the lower the score was, the more inclined to internal control).

Literature collection and inclusion rules

To be included in the cross-temporal meta-analysis, studies had to fulfill the following criteria: (1) empirical papers published in Chinese or English; (2) the study deployed the Rotter's locus of control scale as the research tool; (3) the clear quantitative statistical indicators (including sample size, mean and standard deviation) were reported; (4) for longitudinal studies, only the values of the first measurement point were included; (5) data were collected on the Chinese mainland; (6) all participants were undergraduates, which does not include junior colleges or higher vocational colleges; (7) for different articles published by the same author, if it was the same batch of data, then only the earliest article was selected for our analysis; (8) if the same sample was used in different studies, only studies with a larger sample size were included; (9) data collection was completed before March 2021.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies with experimental manipulation or intervention were excluded; (2) studies focusing on participants with physical and mental disorders were excluded; (3) studies focusing on students in special majors (e.g., armed police and military academy students) were excluded; (4) the studies of scoring rules without using binary reaction options were excluded.

In the literature databases, such as CNKI, Wan Fang, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and X-MOL, a full-text search was conducted using key words such as “internal and external locus of control scale,” “Rotter locus of control scale,” “internal and external locus of control,” and “Rotter internal and external locus of control.” Finally, a total of 36 articles meeting the above criteria were obtained (the literature search flow diagram of Study 1 is shown in Figure 1). In the literature, according to the available information, the scores of internal consistency coefficient self-tested by the authors ranged from 0.60 to 0.83. All the studies were published between 2003 and 2020. Unless a specific year of data collection was indicated by the authors, we calculated the year of data collection (hereinafter referred to as “year”) by subtracting two years from the year of publication (but only subtracting one year if the publication was a thesis). The data collected in this study spanned a total of 19 years from 2001 to 2019. A total of 20,920 participants were involved in these studies, and the details of the literature are shown in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Systematic review flow diagram for the Study 1 literature search.

Table 1.

Rotter's locus of control scale data groups.

Data collection year	Number of data groups	Sample size
2001	2	495
2003	2	858
2005	3	533
2006	2	508
2007	1	618
2008	3	2311
2009	6	2131
2010	3	1925
2011	3	1501
2012	2	621
2014	4	1549
2017	2	614
2018	2	6723
2019	1	533
Total	36	20920

Variable coding and data collation

Consistent with the methods employed in previous studies (e. g., Twenge, 2011), we established the dataset in our current study by: (1) assigning a unique number to each dataset, the publication year of the targeted literature and the sample statistics (N, M, and SD) into the dataset; (2) coding other information about the literature, including type of the document (1 = core publication, 2 = general publication, 3 = thesis or thesis collection), data collection area (0 = no clear regional information, 1 = east coastal area, 2 = northeast region, 3 = central rising region, 4 = western developing area, 5 = including two or more types of areas), place of origin (0 = no clear urban and rural information, 1 = urban, 2 = rural, 3 = both urban and rural), and other information. For the literature that only provided sub-research data (such as gender) but not overall research results, the sub-research results were weighted and synthesized using the following two formulas ( $\bar{x}$ , $s_{T}$ , $n_{i}$ , $x_{i}$ , and $s_{i}$ represent the mean of the overall study, the standard deviation of the overall study, the sample size of the sub-study, the mean of the sub-study and the standard deviation of the sub-study, respectively):

\bar{x} = \sum x_{i} n_{i} \div \sum n_{i}

(1)

s_{T} = \sqrt{[\sum n_{i} s {_{i}}^{2} + \sum n_{i} (x_{i} - \bar{x})] \div \sum n_{i}}

(2)

Results

In order to investigate the change of the level of external locus of control among college students over the years, the correlation between the two variables was presented in a scatter plot (Figure 2), which shows that the level of external locus of control does not change significantly from 2001 to 2019. In addition, it can be observed from Figure 1 that there is an outlier with an extreme sample size in the collected literature, that is, a document in 2018 had a sample size of 6,600. Because it is necessary to control the sample size of the literature when calculating the correlation coefficient between the psychological quantity and the year, the literature with the extreme sample size was excluded in the follow-up analysis.

Figure 2.

College students’ mean score of external control over time, in Study 1.

Next, after excluding the literature with a large sample size in 2018, the correlation between the years and the mean score of the external locus of control were analyzed based on the data obtained from the remaining 35 articles. The results showed that when the sample size was not controlled, there was a positive correlation between them, but the trend was not significant (r = 0.07, 95% CI = [−0.27, 0.39], R² = 0.01, p = 0.70). After weighted control of the sample size, the two variables remained positively correlated, but still not significant (β = 0.13, 95% CI = [−0.20, 0.46], R² = 0.02, p = 0.45). It can be seen that the level of external locus of control among Chinese college students does not change significantly from 2001 to 2019.

Study 2: Cross-temporal meta-analysis based on Levenson's multidimensional locus of control scale (1997–2018)

Methods

Measure

The literature analyzed in this study used the revised Chinese version of the Levenson's multidimensional locus of control scale (internality, powerful others, and chance questionnaire, IPCQ) as the test tool. The scale was compiled by Levenson in 1981 and revised by Xiao and Chen (1989) (Wang et al., 1999). This scale (IPCQ) includes three subscales, namely, internality (I, the degree to which individuals believe that their lives are controlled by themselves), powerful others (P, the degree to which individuals believe that their lives are controlled by others), and chance (C, which reveals the extent to which individuals believe that their lives or learning are affected by opportunities). There were 24 questions in this scale (each subscale includes 8 questions), all of which were rated at a 7-point scale (−3 = strongly disagree; 3 = strongly agree). The total score of an individual on each subscale represented their belief on the intensity of sense of control in this dimension. The higher the score was, the stronger the belief was. In order to avoid the negative output, the total score of each dimension was added to 24, so that the final score of each dimension ranged from 0 to 48.

Literature search and data collation

Except for the second point of the inclusion criteria (the study deployed the Levenson's multidimensional locus of control scale as the research tool) and the fourth point of the exclusion criteria (the studies of scoring rules without using Likert's 7-point were excluded), the other inclusion and exclusion criteria were the same as Study 1. In addition, the variable coding principles and data collation were the same as for Study 1. A total of 64 articles meeting the above criteria were obtained by full-text search using keywords such as “multidimensional locus of control,” “locus of control scale,” “IPCS,” and “IPCQ.” The literature search flow diagram of Study 2 is shown in Figure 3. The score ranges of the three subscales in the literature that have provided the internal consistency reliability (measured by the researchers themselves) were: I scale: 0.60–0.72, P scale: 0.70–0.82, and C scale: 0.68–0.81. In this study, the data collected in the literature spanned a total of 22 years from 1997 to 2018. A total of 44,118 participants were involved in these studies, and the details of the literature are shown in Table 2.

Figure 3.

Systematic review flow diagram for the Study 2 literature search.

Table 2.

Levenson's multidimensional locus of control scale data groups.

Data collection year	Number of data groups	Sample size
1997	1	254
1999	1	140
2003	1	261
2005	5	2161
2006	2	1061
2007	5	2028
2008	3	1734
2009	4	2303
2010	10	6640
2011	7	4568
2012	1	198
2013	2	1721
2014	9	6919
2015	5	2158
2016	1	366
2017	4	1667
2018	3	9939
Total	64	44118

Results

The method used in Study 1 was also used in the present study in order to investigate the changing trend of the mean score of three subscales of multidimensional locus of control among college students over the years. The scatter charts between the mean score of each subscale and the year (Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 in turn) showed that the mean score of internality, powerful others, and chance factors did not change from 1997 to 2018. Moreover, it can be seen from these figures that there was an extreme sample size in the collected literature (the sample size of one of the articles in 2018 is 8,961). This literature was excluded in the follow-up analysis.

Figure 4.

College students’ mean score of internality factor over time, in Study 2.

Figure 5.

College students’ mean score of powerful others factor over time, in Study 2.

Figure 6.

College students’ mean score of chances factor over time, in Study 2.

After excluding the literature with an extreme sample size (published in 2018), the remaining 63 studies were analyzed, and the correlations between the year and the mean score of each factor were calculated. The results showed that the internality factor negatively correlates with year, but the correlation coefficient was not significant, and the other two factors were positively correlated with the year, although the results were not significant either (see Table 3). After the weighted control of the sample size, the three factors were positively correlated with the year, but none of them was significant. It can be seen that from 1997 to 2018, the internality (internality dimension), powerful others, and chance (externality dimension) factors of the college students in China have remained stable.

Table 3.

Correlations between mean score of each factor of the multidimensional locus of control scale of college students and year.

Factors	Uncontrolled sample size		Control sample size
Factors	R [95% CI]	R²	β [95% CI]	R ²
Internality	−0.09 [−0.33, 0.17]	0.01	0.01 [−0.24, 0.26]	0.00
Powerful others	0.05 [−0.21, 0.29]	0.00	0.03 [−0.22, 0.28]	0.00
Chance	0.12 [−0.13, 0.36]	0.01	0.07 [−0.18, 0.32]	0.01

Note: R = the correlation coefficient of uncontrolled sample size; β = the standardized regression coefficient of controlled sample size; R² = the determination coefficient.

General discussion

The results of Study 1 based on Rotter's locus of control scale indicates that the external control level of the locus of control has not changed in the past 19 years among college students in China, suggesting that their internal control (or external control) remains stable. The results of Study 2, furthermore, are based on Levenson's multidimensional locus of control scale and found that the overall levels of internality, powerful others, and chance factors of college students have not changed in the past 22 years. Taking the findings of Study 1 and Study 2 together, it can be concluded that both internal and external control of college students in China have maintained stable levels in the past two decades.

Importantly, these two studies jointly show certain advantages. First of all, the measurement structure of the scale is integrated. Rotter's single-dimensional structure scale obtains external control score (which can also be converted to internal control scores). Conversely, Levenson's multidimensional structure scale treats internal control and external control as different dimensional structures, which allows us to obtain the scores of both the internal control and external control. Taken together, the measurement tools based on different theoretical concepts jointly examine a psychological variable, highlighting the importance of multi-angle investigation of psychological variables (like locus of control) (Karazsia et al., 2017). Moreover, the results of two studies corroborated each other. The score of external control observed by Rotter's scale was logically consistent with that of the powerful others and chance factors (both reflected external control) of Levenson's scale. Overall, the combination of the results of the two studies could enhance the credibility of our research conclusions.

In the present study, we found that the level of external control among Chinese college students remains a stable trend, opposed to the upward trend of external control among American college students identified in previous studies (Sherman et al., 1997; Twenge et al., 2004). The literature analyzed in our Study 1 as well as the first study by Twenge et al. (2004) both used Rotter's locus of control scale, but the results of the two countries were different. The results of our Study 2, meanwhile, also further confirmed the conclusion of our Study 1.

Individualistic value is on the rise in many countries (Santos et al., 2017), including China (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018; Hamamura, 2012; Cai et al., 2020). The cultural concept associated with individualization is individualism (Grossmann & Varnum, 2015; Hamamura & Xu, 2015). In addition to direct research evidence, from the perspective of Chinese social reality, the continuous rise of the individualization of Chinese society also reflects the rising trend of individualistic cultural values. For instance, over the past two decades, the level of urbanization, the divorce rate, and the number of nuclear family have all continued to rise (Xin et al., 2021). As the proxy index of individualistic cultural values (Grossmann & Varnum, 2015; Santos et al., 2017), these macro-level indicators may also indicate the rising trend of individualistic cultural values in China.

It has been confirmed that the independent model can explain the phenomenon of the increasing internal control caused by the rise of individualism (Twenge et al., 2004), while the alienation model can reveal the phenomenon of the enhancement of external control caused by the rise of individualism. However, unlike American college students’ enhanced external control, in line with the interpretation of the alienation model (Twenge et al., 2004), our results are neither consistent with the interpretation process of the alienation model nor the interpretation process of the independent model. Thus, the rise in individualism has not caused a significant change in the locus of control among Chinese college students, and there may be other reasons.

These reasons may be twofold. On the one hand, the rise of individualistic values in China may have nothing to do with the change of locus of control. This means that the rise of individualistic values does not herald the inevitable change of the locus of control of college students in China. On the other hand, the rise may be caused by the mutual cancellation between the internal and external control under the framework of the rise of individualistic values. For instance, the rise of individualistic values in China makes college students in their social interactions behave more independently, choose more freely, expose themselves to lower social constraints, and enhance their sense of control over life, in turn leading to the increase of individual internal control. On the contrary, individualistic values will also lead to a rise of self-interest among Chinese college students, causing individuals to attribute more negative social events (such as unemployment rate, divorce rate, crime rate) (Xin et al., 2019; Xin et al., 2020) to forces other than themselves. This in turn may result in more external control in the locus of control. Possibly because the potential process that the two cancel each other out, we observe that the changing process of locus of control remains stable.

If the results of this study are caused by the mutual cancellation of the so-called potential processes of the two models, it may be necessary for future studies to separate the influence mechanism of individualistic values from the perspective of the two models. In addition, drawing on the principle of self-maintenance from the perspective of development (Xin, 2017), the locus of control among Chinese college students maintains a stable state with the social time, which is also a special dynamic development or change rather than seemingly static. No changes have occurred, which is also a trend.

In addition to using the existing independent model and alienation model (Twenge et al., 2004) to explain the results of this study from the perspective of individualism, we can also seek possible explanations from the perspective of individual external social environment and individual social class.

Within the macro social environment in China, the factors exhibiting higher social control (social restrictive factors) and lower social threat (social order, security, and stability) affect individual sense of control (Friesen et al., 2014; Msetfi et al., 2017). On the one hand, the perception of too much social control power potentially brings the individual a sense of restriction (Lachman & Weaver, 1998) or relative deprivation (Jiang & Gao, 2014; Xiong & Ye, 2016). For example, the long-term existence of high social control, such as strict household registration management systems and social welfare provincial reimbursement systems, could reduce the individual's sense of control in our society. On the other hand, in recent decades, fewer social threats (reduced social uncertainty), such as long-term political and social peace and stability, sustained economic and social development and reduced threats to public health, could increase the sense of certainty and order, thus protecting the individual's sense of control (Friesen et al., 2014; Guo & Guo, 2012). Therefore, the mutual cancellation of the two kinds of macro-social situational factors leads to a stable status of the locus of control among Chinese college students.

Moreover, the social class may also affect the sense of control of college students. Building on the social cognition theory, individuals’ sense of control is influenced by individuals’ social class (Eom et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2015; Lachman & Weaver, 1998). Specifically, individuals from a higher social class tend to be essentialist and show more attribution of one's own characteristics (high sense of control), while individuals from a lower social class tend to be contextualist and show more environmental restrictive attribution (low sense of control) (Bai et al., 2021; Kraus et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2016). However, the amounts of data in the current two studies are too small to support the investigation of the changing trend of locus of control among college students from high and low social classes. In the future, it is suggested that the changing trend of the locus of control or sense of control should be analyzed deeply from the view of social class.

Finally, it is a possible research perspective to analyze the changes of locus of control from a cross-cultural perspective. For example, previous studies have revealed the differences of locus of control in different cultural types. Specifically, compared with individualism culture, external control may have more positive significance for people in collectivism culture (Cheng et al., 2013). Therefore, future researchers may find it worth exploring the changing trend of locus of control under multiple cultural types from a cross-cultural perspective.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-pac-10.1177_18344909231164770 - Supplemental material for Cross-temporal meta-analyses of changes in the locus of control among Chinese college students: No changes were also a trend

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pac-10.1177_18344909231164770 for Cross-temporal meta-analyses of changes in the locus of control among Chinese college students: No changes were also a trend by Xiangkun Wang and Ziqiang Xin in Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-pac-10.1177_18344909231164770 - Supplemental material for Cross-temporal meta-analyses of changes in the locus of control among Chinese college students: No changes were also a trend

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-pac-10.1177_18344909231164770 for Cross-temporal meta-analyses of changes in the locus of control among Chinese college students: No changes were also a trend by Xiangkun Wang and Ziqiang Xin in Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This study was not preregistered. Xiangkun Wang analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. Ziqiang Xin devised the theoretical framework, provided comments on the manuscript, and made revisions. We would like to thank Dr. Feier Gao, School of Foreign Languages, Southeast University, for her selfless contribution to the language revision of this manuscript.

Transparency and openness statement

The data are available from the OSF platforms (the link address: https://osf.io/qg8cy/). The data provided are sufficient for an independent researcher to reproduce the reported results.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This paper was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and the Research Funds of Renmin University of China (No. 22XNKJ01) and the Research and Innovation Fund for postgraduates of Inner Mongolia Normal University (No. CXJB21006).

ORCID iD

Xiangkun Wang

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online: https://osf.io/qg8cy/.

References

Aguiar

Álvarez

Miller

(2021). Locus of control and the acknowledgment of effort. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(11), 1480–1496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764221996754

Antwi-Boasiako

B. A.

(2017). It’s beyond my control: The effect of locus of control orientation on disaster insurance adoption. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.014

Archer

R. P.

(1979). Relationships between locus of control and anxiety. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43(6), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4306_10

Asante

E. A.

Affum-Osei

(2019). Entrepreneurship as a career choice: The impact of locus of control on aspiring entrepreneurs’ opportunity recognition. Journal of Business Research, 98, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.006

Bai

Yang

S. L.

B. X.

Guo

Y. Y.

(2021). How can successful people share their goodness with the world: The psychological mechanism underlying the upper social classes’ redistributive preferences and the role of humility. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(10), 1161–1172. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01161

Bao

H. W. S.

Cai

H. J.

Huang

Z. H.

(2022). Discerning cultural shifts in China? Commentary on Hamamura et al. (2021). American Psychologist 77(6), 786–788, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001013

Becker

Birkelbach

(2018). Social mobility and subjective well-being revisited: The importance of individual locus of control. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 54, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2018.01.001

Beugelsdijk

Welzel

(2018). Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10), 1469–1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118798505

Cai

H. J.

Huang

Z. H.

Lin

Zhang

M. Y.

Wang

X. O.

Zhu

H. J.

Jing

Y. M.

(2020). The psychological change of the Chinese people over the past half century: A literature review. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(10), 1599–1688. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01599

10.

Cebi

(2007). Locus of control and human capital investment revisited. Journal of Human Resources, 42(4), 919–932. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40057334 https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XLII.4.919

11.

Cheng

Cheung

S. F.

Chio

J. H.-M.

Chan

M.-P. S.

(2013). Cultural meaning of perceived control: A meta-analysis of locus of control and psychological symptoms across 18 cultural regions. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 152–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028596

12.

Chi

L. P.

Xin

Z. Q.

(2020). Cross-temporal changes of social psychology in different populations. Psychology: Techniques and Applications, 8(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.16842/j.cnki.issn2095-5588.2020.02.004

13.

Cleveland

Robertson

J. L.

Volk

(2020). Helping or hindering: Environmental locus of control, subjective enablers and constraints, and pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 249, 119394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119394

14.

Cobb-Clark

D. A.

Schurer

(2013). Two economists’ musings on the stability of locus of control. The Economic Journal, 123(570), 358–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12069

15.

Curran

Hill

A. P.

(2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A meta-analysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000138

16.

Eom

Kim

H. S.

Sherman

D. K.

(2018). Social class, control, and action: Socioeconomic status differences in antecedents of support for pro-environmental action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.009

17.

Friesen

J. P.

Kay

A. C.

Eibach

R. P.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2014). Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 590–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035620

18.

Furnham

Steele

(1993). Measuring locus of control: A critique of general, children’s, health- and work-related locus of control questionnaires. British Journal of Psychology, 84(4), 443–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1993.tb02495.x

19.

Galvin

B. M.

Randel

A. E.

Collins

B. J.

Johnson

R. E.

(2018). Changing the focus of locus (of control): A targeted review of the locus of control literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 820–833. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2275

20.

Grossmann

Varnum

M. E. W.

(2015). Social structure, infectious diseases, disasters, secularism, and cultural change in America. Psychological Science, 26(3), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563765

21.

Groth

Schnyder

Kaess

Markovic

Rietschel

Moser

Schmidt

S. J.

(2019). Coping as a mediator between locus of control, competence beliefs, and mental health: A systematic review and structural equation modelling meta-analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 121, 103442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103442

22.

Guo

X. C.

Guo

Y. Y.

(2012). Perceived control in the social context. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(11), 1860–1868. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.01860

23.

Guo

Y. Y.

Yang

S. L.

X. Y.

(2015). Social fairness researches in perspectives of social class psychology. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(8), 1299–1311. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.01299

24.

Hamamura

(2012). Are cultures becoming individualistic? A cross-temporal comparison of individualism–collectivism in the United States and Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411587

25.

Hamamura

(2020). Cross-temporal changes in people’s ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.019

26.

Hamamura

Chen

Chan

C. S.

Chen

S. X.

Kobayashi

(2021). Individualism with Chinese characteristics? Discerning cultural shifts in China using 50 years of printed texts. American Psychologist, 76(6), 888–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000840

27.

Hamamura

Septarini

B. G.

(2017). Culture and self-esteem over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis among Australians, 1978–2014. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(8), 904–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617698205

28.

Hamamura

(2015). Changes in Chinese culture as examined through changes in personal pronoun usage. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(7), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115592968

29.

Harell

Soroka

Iyengar

(2017). Locus of control and anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Political Psychology, 38(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12338

30.

Harrow

Hansford

B. G.

Astrachan-Fletcher

E. B.

(2009). Locus of control: Relation to schizophrenia, to recovery, and to depression and psychosis—A 15-year longitudinal study. Psychiatry Research, 168(3), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2008.06.002

31.

Hovenkamp-Hermelink

J. H. M.

Jeronimus

B. F.

van der Veen

D. C.

Spinhoven

Penninx

B. W. J. H.

Schoevers

R. A.

Riese

(2019). Differential associations of locus of control with anxiety, depression and life-events: A five-wave, nine-year study to test stability and change. Journal of Affective Disorders, 253, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.005

32.

Huang

Z. H.

Jing

Y. M.

R. L.

Zhou

X. Y.

Zhang

J. X.

Cai

H. J.

(2018). Increasing individualism and decreasing collectivism? Cultural and psychological change around the globe. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(11), 2068–2080. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.02068

33.

Jiang

Gao

D. G.

(2014). The factors that influence outcomes in deprivation of control. Chinese Journal Applied Psychology, 20(3), 263–271.

34.

Karazsia

B. T.

Murnen

S. K.

Tylka

T. L.

(2017). Is body dissatisfaction changing across time? A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000081

35.

Kaufmann

P. J.

Welsh

D. H. B.

Bushmarin

N. V.

(1995). Locus of control and entrepreneurship in the Russian republic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879502000103

36.

Kesavayuth

Poyago-Theotoky

Tran

D. B.

Zikos

(2020). Locus of control, health and health care utilization. Economic Modelling, 86, 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.06.014

37.

Kraus

M. W.

Piff

P. K.

Keltner

(2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016357

38.

Kurtović

Vuković

Gajić

(2018). The effect of locus of control on university students’ mental health: Possible mediation through self-esteem and coping. The Journal of Psychology, 152(6), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1463962

39.

Lachman

M. E.

Weaver

S. L.

(1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.763

40.

Lee

W.-S.

McKinnish

(2019). Locus of control and marital satisfaction: Couple perspectives using Australian data. Journal of Economic Psychology, 74, 102205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.102205

41.

Lefcourt

H. M.

(1991). Locus of control. In Robinson

J. P.

Shaver

P. R.

Wrightsman

L. S.

(Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 413–499). Academic Press.

42.

Levenson

(1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal–external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38(4), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1974.10119988

43.

Levenson

(1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In Lefcourt

H. M.

(Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 1, pp. 15–63). Academic Press.

44.

Maroufizadeh

Omani Samani

Amini

Navid

(2018). Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Levenson’s locus of control scale in Iranian infertile people. Journal of Health Psychology, 23(13), 1668–1676. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105316666659

45.

Msetfi

Jay

O’Donnell

A. T.

Kearns

Kinsella

E. L.

McMahon

Muldoon

O. T.

Naughton

Creaven

A–M

(2017). Restricted reproductive rights and risky sexual behaviour: How political disenfranchisement relates to women’s sense of control, well-being and sexual health. Journal of Health Psychology, 23(2), 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317736784

46.

Neymotin

Nemzer

L. R.

(2014). Locus of control and obesity. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 5, 159. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2014.00159

47.

Nowicki

Strickland

B. R.

(1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40(1), 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033978

48.

Richardson

Field

Newton

Bendell

(2012). Locus of control and prenatal depression. Infant Behavior and Development, 35(4), 662–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2012.07.006

49.

Rotter

J. B.

(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

50.

Santiago

J. H.

Tarantino

S. J.

(2002). Individualism and collectivism: Cultural orientation in locus of control and moral attribution under conditions of social change. Psychological Reports, 91(3_suppl), 1155–1168. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.91.7.1155-1168

51.

Santos

H. C.

Varnum

M. E. W.

Grossmann

(2017). Global increases in individualism. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1228–1239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617700622

52.

Schnitzlein

D. D.

Stephani

(2016). Locus of control and low-wage mobility. Journal of Economic Psychology, 53, 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.01.004

53.

Shepherd

Owen

Fitch

T. J.

Marshall

J. L.

(2006). Locus of control and academic achievement in high school students. Psychological Reports, 98(2), 318–322. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.98.2.318-322

54.

Sherman

A. C.

Higgs

G. E.

Williams

R. L.

(1997). Gender differences in the locus of control construct. Psychology & Health, 12(2), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449708407402

55.

Sortheix

F. M.

Parker

P. D.

Lechner

C. M.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2019). Changes in young Europeans’ values during the global financial crisis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732610

56.

Tong

Wang

(2006). Validation of locus of control scale in Chinese organizations. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(5), 941–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.018

57.

Twenge

J. M.

(2011). The duality of individualism: Attitudes toward women, generation me, and the method of cross-temporal meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310395918

58.

Twenge

J. M.

Zhang

L. Q.

(2004). I it’s beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960–2002. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_5

59.

Wang

D. F.

(1991). Revision of Rotter’s internal–external locus of control scale with sample of Chinese college students. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 23(03), 70–76.

60.

Wang

Bowling

N. A.

Eschleman

K. J.

(2010). A meta-analytic examination of work and general locus of control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 761–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017707

61.

Wang

X. D.

Wang

X. L.

(1999). Manual of mental health rating scale (updated version). China Mental Health Magazine.

62.

Watson

(1967). Relationship between locus of control and anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(1), 91–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024490

63.

Xiao

Chen

Z. G.

(1989). A preliminary analysis of the structure of locus of control and IPC scale of college students. Chinese Journal Applied Psychology, 4(2), 22–27.

64.

Xin

S. F.

Jiang

W. Y.

Xin

Z. Q.

(2019). Changes in Chinese nurses’ mental health during 1998–2016: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Stress and Health, 35(5), 665–674. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2907

65.

Xin

S. F.

Liang

Sheng

Zhao

Z. R.

(2021). Changes of teachers’ subjective well-being in mainland China (2002–2019): The perspective of cross-temporal meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(8), 875–889. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.J.1041.2021.00875

66.

Xin

S. F.

Yue

Y. M.

Xin

Z. Q.

(2020). A cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in Chinese old people’s mental health during 1996–2016. Psychological Development and Education, 36(6), 753–761. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2020.06.14

67.

Xin

Z. Q.

(2017). Psychological research methods (2nd edition). Beijing Normal University Press.

68.

Xin

Z. Q.

Chi

L. P.

(2020). The changing trend of mental health of contemporary Chinese people. People’s Tribune, 1, 46–50.

69.

Xin

Z. Q.

Xin

S. F.

(2017). Marketization process predicts trust decline in China. Journal of Economic Psychology, 62, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.07.001

70.

Xiong

Y. D.

(2016). The concept, measurement, influencing factors and effects of relative deprivation. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(3), 438–453. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.00438

71.

Hamamura

(2014). Folk beliefs of cultural changes in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1066. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01066

72.

Yang

S. L.

Guo

Y. Y.

X. Y.

Shu

S. L.

(2016). Do lower class individuals possess higher levels of system justification? An examination from the social cognitive perspectives. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(11), 1467–1478. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01467

73.

Yang

Z. X.

Xin

Z. Q.

(2020). Income inequality and interpersonal trust in China. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 23(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12399

74.

Zawawi

J. A.

Hamaideh

S. H.

(2009). Depressive symptoms and their correlates with locus of control and satisfaction with life among Jordanian college students. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 5(4), 71–103.

75.

Zeng

Greenfield

P. M.

(2015). Cultural evolution over the last 40 years in China: Using the Google Ngram viewer to study implications of social and political change for cultural values. International Journal of Psychology, 50(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12125

76.

Zhang

Xin

Z. Q.

(2019). Rule comes first: The influences of market attributes on interpersonal trust in the marketization process. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 286–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12306

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

0.01 MB