EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS DOCUMENT RESUME 24 CG 005 778 EntwiSle , Doris R . ; Greenberger , Ellen A Survey of Cognitive Styles in Maryland

As part of a survey of cognitive style variables in Maryland ninth graders, sense of control is measured by the Crandall scales for intellectual achievement responsibility. Feelings of control over success are greater than those over failure for both sexes. The results of this study disagree with previous work in four ways: (1) control beliefs do not predict school achievement, (2) middle claw girls express lower feelings of control than comparable boys, (3) positive association between IQ and control is manifest only for boys, and (4) relationships between social class and control beliefs are the opposite of what has been found previously, with lower class students expressing higher control beliefs. Explanations for the divergent results are proposed. Sense of control, or feelings of efficacy, have figured prominently as both independent and dependent variables in recent sociological research. In adults, sense of control has been linked to occupational level and to educational attainment. In children, feelings of control have been linked to school achievement and to social class differences in educability. Most well-known, perhaps, is the finding that of all attitudinal, family background, and school variables measured in the Coleman (1966) survey, beliefs in control-of-destiny showed the strongest relation to achievement, with blacks and other minority groups expressing relatively low feelings of control. The present report, one of a series of reports on cognitive style variables in Maryland ninth graders, investigates feelings of academic control in relation to subcultural differences and in relation to academic achievement. Thus the focus is on a narrower conception of control than control-of-destiny as discussed in the Coleman report. Relationships of academic control with other cognitive style variables, as well as with achievement variables, are explored. Perception of internal versus external control of reinforcement has been shown repeatedly to be a variable important to performance (Lefcourt, 1966). Social learning theorists (cf. Rotter, 1954) assume that this is because a reinforcement acts to strengthen an expectancy that a particular behavior will be followed by the same reinforcement in the future. When the reinforcement is seen as not contingent on the subject's own behavior, its occurrence will not increase expectancy as much as when it is seen as contingent. Generalized expectancies about the relation between one's behavior and events that follow it suggest a "sense of control. " The individual who has a strong belief that he can control his own destiny is likely to be more alert to those aspects of his environment which provide useful information for his future behavior. In addition, he will place a greater value on reinforcements for skill or achievement and be generally more concerned with his performance, particularly his failures (Rotter, 1966). Sense of control relates to amount of learning and also to 'what is learned over a broad age range; to mental disease (Cromwell, Rosenthal, Shakow and Kahn, 1961); to conformity (Crowne and Liverant, 1963); to risk-taking (Liverant and Scodel, 1960); to responses to frustration (Butterfeld, 1964); and to political activity (Bullough, 1967). Scales developed to measure control beliefs have taken several forms. Some consist of a few questions covering a wide range of situations (Coleman et.al., 1966). Others, derived from a clinical-psychological tradition, are far longer, and deal with the perceived internality vs. externality (I-E) of control over reinforcements. The best-known I-E scale for adults is that of Liverant, Rotter, Crowne, and Seeman (Rotter, et al., 1962). Several different I-E scales have been used with children (Locus of Control, Bailer, 1961; Children's Picture Test, Battle and Rotter, 1963; Intellectual Achievement Responsibility (IAR) Questionnaire, Crandall, Katkovsky, and Crandall, 1965). Since our primary interest lay in exploring cognitive style variables important for school achievement, we choose the IAR scale because it deals only with academic topics. The IAR scale contains 34 two-option items in which control over failure and control over success are separately measured. Pairs of questions allow the respondent to indicate I-E preference for both successes and failures. Two items, presented below, illustrate this property (such items do not appear consecutively on the test, of course). "When you don't do well on a test at school is it a. because the test was especially hard, or b. because you didn't study for it. " "When you do-Well on a test at school is it more likely to be . because you studied for it, or b. because the test was especially easy? " The questions all limit forces in the external environment to those persons most often in face-to-face contact with the child (parents, teachers, peers). The life-areas covered are limited to those of achievement in academic situations. The complete test is presented in Entwisle and Greenberger (1970a) and in Crandall, Katkovsky and Crandall (1965).