Technical Paper 341

REPLICATION AND EXTENSION OF COLLINS’

LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

Paul J. Duffy, Samuel Shiflett ,

and

Ronald G.Downey

PERSONNEL ACCESSION & UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA

DDC

__ 

~~~7 B

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

S ptember 1978

Apptov.d for Oublic rels is; distribution unhimitsd.

“ _ L- ~~~~~~~~~~~

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BE HAVIOR A L AN D SOCIAL SCI ENCES

A Field Operating A gency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, US Army

Technical t)irector Com mander

NOTICES

DlSTRlBUTlON~ Primsry distribution of this report has been made by ARI Please sddreu cor r spondsnc5

concerning distribution of reports to U. S. Army Research Instit uti for the Befteviorel end Soci.l Sc ..nce,. ATT N PEAl-P . 5001 Eisenhower Avenue . Alexandria, Virginia 22333

FINAL DISPOSITION This report may be destroyed wisen it is no longer needed, Pie.., do not return it tO

me U. S. Army Rew.rch Insiutut. for the Bettesiorel end Soc ial Sciences.

~~~~ The finding, in th i, report are not to be construed esen offIclil Department of the Army position.

unles, so designated by other suthoriisd documsnt,.

‘

~~~ . ‘ 

.1. ’

•

~~~

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--_
Ijnrlassifipd 

, 

. / I / ~ ~ I

SECURITY CLASSiFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When D.la Ent.r.d) -.—-- - , , - - .-- —

REP”RT DOCIIME~ITA ~~

I(

~~I PA’ E READ INSTRUCTIONS

“ ~~ ‘‘~~ ‘

~ ~ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM —

~ . REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Pape r 341 ,.— ____________________________

4. TITLE id Si,btltl.i —~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘— 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

I_REPL ICATION AND EXTENSI ON OF COLLINS ’

~~~OCUS --

J OF CONTROL SCALE ’ . ‘ ____________ __________________________

— 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

— f. AUriioR (.) _ / . . .. 5. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUHBER(.)

‘

/t .T~~

ul

~~

7DuffY. SamuelJShiflett~~~~~~ Ronald G. ~ -—

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 1

~~ PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT . TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral ( j-——--—

and Social Sciences (PERT-IL) _../2Q762717A766

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22333,.- ____________________________

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ,,.c° -12 . gFPt

~RT DATE -

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel ,I// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L ,_.•178

Washington , DC 20310 ~~~~~ _. 

. BE~~

2

OF PAGES ”

~

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(II dilI.ronI trot,, Controlling Offir.) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of Ohm roporl)

-- ~ 

7 Unclassified

‘ ISa. OECLASS IFICATION /D OWNG RA D I N G

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Shim R•porl)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited . -

I i ~~~~ I? OISIRifl UT1ON STATEMENT ( I fh. ab.trect ins or 20 Il diff.,wf tram R.po I)

IS. SUPPL EM ENTA RY NOTES

t

~ KEY WORDS (Con(inu. on 1•r., .fd. if niC•.i ry wd id~nthIy by block ,omib.r) —

~

Leadership Leadership behavior

Ljkert scales Locus of control

Questionnaire construction Factor analysis

20. A T,~

iACT (ConSlno. on r..’oti. •id. If n.c.a.m,y m.d icfpnESty by block nim.b. ,)

‘

~Leadership style and group effectiveness have been shown to be related

to individual beliefs concerning the attribution of control of events. The

individual believes that events are controlled either externally or by internal , personal forces. The research reported here involves measurement of

the basic belief patterns and the investigation of the relationships with

leadership style and group effectiveness. _._~~~ ~~~~~~. ~~

° /~ 1‘;.-.c~ (continued )

DD ~~~~~~~ 1473 EDITION OF 1 NOV 55 Is Oe,OLETE 

U n cla ssified

1’

~ ‘ ~~4CU RITY C LAS$ ~P

~~ ATION ? FT ~~ 1 PASI.(~~im. Dali fnlot.d~ /

— 

Jo j ~~i ~

- -

~ I -

_ _

—
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFI CATION OF THIS PAOEf1Thw Data Ent.r.d)

~~Q..~~~ (continued)

Survey instruments , including the Rotter Internal—External (I—E) scale ,

the Mach IV Machiavellian scale , Budner ’s Intolerance of l1⁄2mbiguity scale ,

Fiedler ’ s Least—Preferred Co—worker scale , and the Military Leadership Behavior Scale , were administered to 275 Special Forces Reserves during their

2—week active duty training period. Analysis of the results showed the factor structure of the Rotter I—E scale to be similar to the original , supporting the common idea of internal-external locus of behavioral control and ,

further , that locus of control beliefs are multidimensional. The concept of

the I—E scale is sound and moderately useful in understanding reward expectations of soldiers and improving effectiveness of military units.

I

NTIS ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

~~

ff

~~ C~

iOE U

U1IANN~UNCED 0

JUSTIFICATW~

4

__ -

~ *1lPfAYMLkWTT’ ~

&S

Dist. AVML .m~

/cr SPECIAL

_____ __ 

t

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF IHIS PAGEI’WRon D.Ia Ent.rad)

~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - . .
Technical Paper 341

REPLICATION AND EXTENSION OF COLLINS’

LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

Paul J. Duffy, Samuel Shiflett , and Ronald G. Downey

William H . Helme , Work Unit Leader

PERSONNEL ACCESSION & UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved By: technically accurate by: Ralph R. Canter, E. Ralph Dusek , Director

TechnIcal Area Chief INDI VIDUAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeldner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORA L AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Fisenhower Avenue, Alexandria. Virginia 22333

Office , Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

September 1978

Army Prolect Number Officer Careers

2076271 7A766

A~

mprowd for public release; dIstribution unl imited

- — - ---~~~~ ----——--—-~~~~-

~~~~~ - -— -~ — I
f

I ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task , formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

I

_____________________________________________ ___________________________ S

- _____ - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. -~~~~ -- ~-
FOREWORD

An important -and continuing concern within the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences has been the improvement of

military competence , through enhanced troop training and morale and selection and training of officers. This research investigated specific

aspects of how leadership style and group effectiveness are related to

soldiers’ beliefs in whether outside forces or internal personal factors

primarily govern rewards and events in their lives. Work was done as

part of the technological base research in the Personnel Accession and

Utilization Technical Area , under Army Project 2Q762717A766.

e ical Director

-
REPLICAT ION AND EXTEN SION OF COLLIN S’ LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

BRIEF

Requirement:

To investigate specif ic relationships of leadership style and group

effectiveness with an individual’s beliefs about locus of control (i.e.,

whe ther events and rewards are controlled primarily by external environmental factors or internal personal factors) .

Collins had adapted Rotter ’s Internal—External (I-E) scale into a

46—item Likert—scale questionnaire and , from college studen ts ’ responses ,

distinguished four dimensions within the I—E scale: beliefs that the

world is predictable or unpredictable , just or unjust , politically responsive or unresponsive , and easy or difficult.

The research reported here replicated that of Collins and investigated its applicability in a military setting .

Procedure :

Data were collected from a sample of 2 75 Army reservists during a

2—week field training exercise . Responses to the 46—item scale were

factor-analyzed and compared to Collins ’ results and to resul ts of other

measures.

Findings:

Five factors were found , four of them clearly replicating Collins’

and the fifth dealing with the belief that the world is friendly or hostile. The total I—E scale and the factors were selectively related to

measu res of Mach iavellianism , intolerance of ambiguity , perceived leadership beh avior , and job satisfaction . For example , those who believed

in a politically responsive and easy world were more likely to report

greate~ ~ob satisfaction.

Utilization of Findings:

The concept of the I—E scale is sound and can be useful in military

units . Descriptors such as the I—E factors can aid in understanding

small group processes, - particularly leadership processes. An understand-’

ing of the locus of control beliefs and reinforcemenL expectations of

soldiers is important in improving the effectiveness of military units.

it

— - .

~~~~~~~~~~~~ r ’ ?. -. - - - ‘

~~~..‘ 

- -
REPLICATION AND EXTENSION OF COLLINS ’ LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

METHOD 3

Subjects 3

Survey Instruments 3

RESULTS 4

DISCUSSION 12

REFERENCES 17

DISTRIBUTION 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Factor loadings for the five-factor solution from the

internal—external items 5

2. Comparison of Collins ’ four—factor solution with the

present five—factor solution , using phi ’s 8

3. Intercorrelations of total I—E and the five subscales

(n = 27O) 10

4. Correlations of I-E scales with personality and workrelated measures 11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Task-oriented leadership behavior and locus of

control interactions in predicting job satisfaction . . 13

2. People—oriented leadership behavior and locus of

control interactions in predicting unit performance . . 14
REPLICATI ON AN D EXTENSI ON OF COLLIN S’ LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE

INTRODUCTI ON

Military management has traditionally recognized the importance

of the role of leadership in the effective functioning of military units.

Management has also recognized the complex interactions among the leader ’s skills and aptitudes , the context of the situation , and the characteristics of unit members who determine the effectiveness of the unit.

This research was designed to develop instrumentation for meas uring bas ic

belief patterns and to investigate the relationships of these belief patterns with leadership style and the effectiveness of the group. -

An approach to understanding human motivation and behavior has received considerable attention over the past decade . The approach involves the attributions that a person believes to operate for behavioral

consequences and reinforcement : An individual believes that events are

controlled by either the internal , personal forces of the actor (“internals”) or by the external forces of the environment (“externals”).

Rotter ’s (1966) approach to this topic has given rise to the internal—

external (I—E) locus of control scale. Research using this scale has

been both popular and fruitful (Lefcourt , 1972), and general expectations of reinforcement measured by this scale have been shown to be related to a number of personality variables and behaviors .

Part of this interest has been in the relation between locus of

control and work situation variables . For example, severa l investigations have shown that individuals who scored high on measures of externality were less satisfied with their jobs (Pryer & Distefano, 1971;

Mitchell , Smyser , & Weed , 1975 ; Organ & Greene , 1974), more al ienated

from the work setting (Neal & Seeman , 1964; Wolfe , 1967), and less involved in their jobs (Runyon , 1973) than those scoring high on measures

of internality . Some evidence also relates locus of control to supervisory style. Pryer and Distefano found internal supervisors significantly more considerate than externals. Similarly , Goodstadt and Ujelle

(1973) reported that externally controlled supervisors used significantly

more coercive power than internals , and internals used more personal persuasion than did externals.

Beyond these direct relationships between locus of control and

supervisory style , subordinate locus of control and supervisory style

interact in predicting subordinate job satisfaction (Runyon , 1973;

Mitchell et al., 1975) . Specifically, internal subordinates preferred

a particiçative management style, whereas external subordinates preferred a directive management style . The occasionally contradictory

relationships found between supervisory style and subordinate satisfaction (Korman , 1966; Stogd ill , 1974) perhaps may be explained by a mismatch of the locus of control orientation of the superiors and subordinates.

1

- .. — La- .
In spite of the popularity of the Rotter locus of control scale ,

the ori ginal scale has certain weaknesses and may oversimplify the actual dimensionality of the construct. Gurin , Gurin , Lao, and Beattie

(1969) and Lao (1970) suggest that the I—E scale :

~ 1ri be meaningfully

described as two major independent dimensions , “personal control” and

“control ideology .” M i r e ls (1970) and Cherlin and Bourque (1974) defined the two dimensions differentl y and called them “pblitical control” and “general control .”

There is also evidence for the existence of sever~ 1 subscales that

may be useful for predicting specific types of behaviors (Reid & Ware ,

1973) . Collins , Martin , Ashmore, and Ross (1973) , in reviewing the general internal-external construct in personality theories , concluded that

a single dimension probably oversimplified the true situation. By

factor-analyzing a number of scales dealing with the internal—external

concept , they obtained four independent factors , which they labeled

“other—direction ,” “inner—direction ,” ‘ lack of constraints on behaviors ,”

arid “trans—situational predictability of behavior. ”

In an analysis directed specifically toward the Rotter scale , Collins (1974) rejected the original 23—item , forced-choice format and developed a 46—item Likert scale format. Responses obtained from 300

undergraduate students using this new format were factor—analyzed , and

a four—factor rotated structure resulted . The factors were (a) the

easy—difficult world , (b) the just—unjust world , (c) the predictableunpredictable world , and (d) the politically responsive—unresponsive

world . Collins interpreted his findings as demonstrating that an external person , as originally defined on Rotter ’s scale , believes in a

difficult and unjust world that is unpredictable and politically unresponsive . An internal person ’s beliefs would be the opposite of these .

Thus , Collins obtained evidence for a complex belie f structure based

on source of reinforcement.

Several authors have pointed out that the relationships found between un idimensional locus of control measures and other personality

variables are usually slight (Lefcourt , 1972 ; Reid & Ware , 1973). How—

ever , if a multidimensional representation of locus of control is more

appropr i~~te , as appears likely , then it should be possible to establish

more definitive relationshi ps between such dimensions and other relevant variables. This paper examines the dimensionality of locus of

control. Specifically, this paper replicates Collins ’ methodology and

compares the factor structure that he obtained using college students

with one that was obtained using a different population. In order to

valuate the usefulness of a more complex concept of locus of control ,

the st~~i y focu~~ d on the relationship between the I—E dimensions and

~

ej ~-ra1 other personality variables. Finally , the relationship of the

1—E dimensions to behavior and attitudes in a formal leadership situa—

tiori was irIve~ ti pited.

2
METHOD

Subj ects

Subjects were 275 members of the U.S. Army Special Forces Reserves

in 23 groups , who were participating in 2 weeks of active duty for

training . A highly realistic field simulation reproduced activities in

which Special Forces troops mi ght engage during war. As operational

detachments , the 23 groups were dispatched from a central point to various locations throughout the United States. The mission of each detachment was to contact a guerrilla group in the field and to train the

guerrillas in counterinsurgency measures. The guerrilla roles were

played by other reservists who also were fulfilling their training requirement. A detachment consisted of 11 to 12 members , including a commanding officer , an executive officer , and various enlisted military

specialists. All detachment members were males between 21 and 49 years

of age (mean 28.6). Most of the men had been in the Reserves for 3

or more years (52%), and 62% had served on active duty up to 3 years

prior to joining the Reserves.

Survey Instruments

Before going into the field , detachments were briefed on their mission for approximately 36 hours. Near the beginning of this ori~ ntation

session , the men completed a questionnaire that dealt with leadership

effectiveness. The questionnaire included Collins ’ adaptation of Rotter ’s (1966) “Internal-External Control of Reinforcement ” scale. Possible responses to the 46 items ranged on a 5-point Likert scale from

“agree strongly ” (5 points) to “disagree strongly ” (1 point). Items were

arranged so that a high score would indicate a high degree of internality .

Collins reported that the median test—retest item reliability of the 46-

item scale was .54.

The questionnaire also included the Mach IV version of the Machiavellianism scale (Christie & Geis , 1970) . The scale , designed to indicate an individual’s strategy in dealing with others (especially the

degree to which the individual believes people can be manipulated in

interpersonal situations) , consisted of 20 items. Possible responses

ranged along a 7-point Likert scale . A third component of the quest ionnaire was Budner ’s (1962) intolerance—of-ambiguity scale , containing i6

Likert—type scale items. This measure was designed to assess an individual’s tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as sources of threat.

Budner characterized ambiguous situations as novel, complex , or insoluble. Finally, Fiedler ’s least—preferred ccworker (LPC) scale was included . The LPC score reflects the degree to which a respondent describes

the person with whom he could work least well in relative ly favorable

terms (high LPC) or unfavorable terms (low LPC).

3 

- - - - -
After the training exercise , detachment members completed a second

questionnaire. This questionnaire contained a n umber of items constructed to assess the subjects ’ perceptions and attitudes regarding

various aspects of the exercise . Factor analyses of these items resuited in the construction of two scales. One scale reflected the subjects’ own estimates of their job satisfaction . The other scale reflected perceptions of unit effectiveness (Downey , Duffy, & Shiflett ,

1975). The questionnaire included Fiedler ’s (1967) group atmosphere

scale , which measures warmth of interpersonal relationships within a

group.

The Military Leadership Behavior Survey ( MLBS) (Downey , 1974) also

was administered to the men after the exercise to measure their perceptions of leadership style. The MLB S is constructed of 53 7-point Lik~ rt

items comprising four dimensions: task professionalism , task-oriented

consideration, person—oriented consideration , and personal/interpersonal

professionalism. This instrument is quite similar , in both format and

content , to Stogdil l’s (1963) Leader Behavior Description 2uestionnaire .

RESULTS

In the analysis of responses from the first questionnaire , Collins ’

46—item I—E scale was subjected to a principal axes factor analysis with

unities entered on the diagonal. Several rotations were performed , us—

ing the varimax method . The four—factor sol~ tion , accounting for 32.5%

of the total rotated variance , appeared very simi lar to that reported by

• Collins , and phi’s of .81, .90, .92, and .83 between the corresponding

pairs of factors in each solution indicated strong replication (Hartman ,

1967). However , the five—factor solution , accounting for 36.5% of the

total rotated variance , was believed to provide an additional interpretable factor . Factor loadings for the five-factor solution are presented

in Table 1.

To assess the extent of replication , phi ’s were computed between

each possible pair of the present five—factor solution and c3llins ’

four—factor solution . The results are presented in Table 2, where Collins ’ factors are represented by the columns and the present factors

are represented by the rows . In each column of Table 2, the appropriate

factor of the present solution is related most highly to its counterpart

in Colli~is ’ solution . Therefore , following Collins ’ terminology , the

first four factors of the present solution were named Predictable—

Unpredictable World , Just—Unjust World , Politically Responsive—

Unresponsive World , and Easy—Difficult World , respectively .

The last nine items listed in Table 1 failed to meet Collins ’ cri—

teria for inclusion in his structure. In the present solution , four of

the nine items clearly define the fifth factor with loadings greater

than .4~

l. Two of the items deal with wars or their inevitability. The

4

— .- .- -- - -- ----—— ——-- -— - —- .— -. ___ _

~~~~~~~~
Table 1

Factor Loadings for the Five-Factor Solution

from the Internal—External Items

Scale Items I II III IV V

1. Many times exam questions tend to be so unre— -~l1 04 05 53 08

lated to course work that studying is really

useless.

2. Sometimes I feel that I don’t have enough 15 16 —13 53 01

control over the direction my life is taking.

3. ~~st people don’t realize the extent to which 33 07 —10 48 06

their lives are controlled by accidental

happenings.

4. Sometimes I can’t understand how teachers 02 08 —09 54 10

arrive at the grades they give.

5. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who 35 —16 —01 55 —04

was lucky enough to be in the right place

first.

6. Many times I feel that I have little influence 05 01 —26 60 —03

over the things that happen to me.

7. Unfortunately, an individual ’s worth often 02 —00 —14 66 —19

passes unrecognized no matter how hard he

tries.

8. t.

~st students don’t realize the extent to 25 04 —14 56 —00

which their grades are influenced by

accidental happenings.

9. I have often found that what is going to 36 —04 —12 15 05

happen will happen.

10. Wi thout the right breaks one cannot be an 35 —12 —20 36 —24

effective leader .

11. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in 49 —11 —15 29 —21

the right place at the right time.

12. People ’s misfortunes result from the mistakes 25 26 06 —09 28

they make.

13. Capable people who fail to become leaders 26 37 —27 —15 10

have not taken advantage of their opportunities.

14. The idea that teachers are unfair to students 21 38 09 33 18

is nonsense.

5

_________ 

- — __________ - -- —-—

—4
Table 1 (continued)

Scale Items I II III IV V

15. In the long run , people get the respect they 09 48 00 27 06

deserve in this world.

16. In the case of the well—prepared student , 05 45 09 24 12

there is rarely if ever such a thing as an

unfair test.

17. What happens to me is my own doing. 14 38 —27 38 —06

18. People are lonely because they don’t try to —01 66 —06 —08 —05

be friendly.

19. i~~st misfortunes are the result of lack of 24 61 04 07 03

ability, ignorance , laziness, or all three.

20. In the long run, the bad things that happen —20 52 —09 —09 —15

to us are balanced by the good ones.

• 21. People who can’t get others to like them —07 57 —27 —14 —12

don’t understand how to get along with

others.

22. There is a direct connection between how hard 16 42 —14 27 —02

I study and the grades I get.

23. In my case, getting what I want has little or 61 14 —21 22 —08

nothing to do with luck.

24. There really is no such thing as “luck.” 74 19 03 —02 06

25. It is impossible for me to believe that 72 06 —00 —01 07

chance or luck plays an important role in

my life.

26. Many of the unhappy things in people’s lives 66 —04 10 08 00

are partly due to bad luck.

27. Getting people to do the right thing depends 41 21 —28 17 —04

upon ability; luck has little or nothing to

do with it.

2~

3. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work; 62 14 —25 04 —02

luck has little or nothing to do with it.

29. Trusting to fate has never turned out as 33 25 —36 07 —07 well for me as making a decision to take a

definite course of action .

6

________________ ________ - - -— - -~~~~~~~~~
Table 1 (co ntinued)

Scale Items I II III IV V

30. By taking an active part in political and 12 25 —56 —02 24

soc ial affairs the people can control world

events.

31. This ~~ rld is run by the few people in power , 10 06 —51 13 —07

and there is not much the little guy can do

about it.

12 . With enough effort we can wipe out political 22 21 —35 —22 30

corruption .

H. The average citizen can have an influence in —05 09 —63 07 01

government decision.

34. It is difficult for people to have much 01 04 — 65 03 04

control over the things politicians do in

office. -

35. As far as world affairs are concerned, most 01 —12 —54 16 09

of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand, nor control.

36. In the long run, the people are responsible 07 08 —47 08 —00

for bad government on a national as well as

on a local level.

37. (

~ie of the major reasons why we have wars is 05 09 —25 —27 43

because people don ’t take enough interest in

politics.

3d . There will always be wars, no matter how hard —05 —20 —17 08 65

people try to prevent them.

39. ~~ matter how hard you try, some people just —02 —05 03 33 ~~ don ’t like you.

40. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead 12 —12 —36 38 13

because Lhings turn out to be a matter of

good or bad fortune anyhow.

41. It is hard to know whether or not a person —03 03 —34 31 10

really likes you.

42. There’s not much use in trying too hard to 03 —03 —18 12 42

please people , if they like you, they like

you.

7

I

________ • 

_ . _ _~~~

,

• ‘,

~~

_

~_ - _ _ •

. • • ‘

~~.•—•‘.

, - • .
Table 1 (continued)

Scale Items I II III IV V

43. Most of the time I can ’t understand why 17 —21 —44 18 03

politicians behave the way they do.

44. When I mak e plans , I am almost certain that 15 06 —46 18 —35

I can make them work .

45. How many friends you have depends upon how -09 28 17 -19 37

nice a oerson you are .

46. Many times we might as well decide what to 28 -00 -37 22 18

do by flipping a coin .

Note . Underscore indicates items defining each factor .

Table 2

3 

Comparison of Collins ’ Four-Factor Solution with the

Present Five-Factor Solution , Using Phi ’s

Present Collins ’ solution

solution I II III IV

I .26 .27 .64 .41

II .06 .90 .34 .26

III .31 .30 .34 .66

IV .53 .20 .3 1 .38

V .01 .08 .05 .46

Note . Underscore indicates highest column-row value .

8

_____i_ii

~ - - — - -___ _

_ _

~~~L_~

y.~~~~~g-

~~ -. .

- __ i

~~ • ~~~~~~~
other two items appear to reflect a fatalistic belief that some people

will always be friendly , whereas others will always be hostile. The

emergence of the fif th factor , labeled Friendly—Hostile World , perhaps

can be attributed to the nature of the subject population . The sub- p

jects of this study had experienced considera ble combat, had committed

part of their lives to the military, and presumably had a different

conception of war than did the college-undergraduate subjects of Collins ’ study.

A total I-E scale was formed by summing all 46 items , scaled so

that higher scores indicate increasing internality. Scales defining the

five dimensions were formed by summing the responses to each item that

showed a loading greater than .40 on a given factor . Higher scores on

these scales indicate , respectively , the subjects ’ belief in a predictable , just, politically responsive , easy , and friendly world . The resulting scales were then correlated among themselves (Table 3).

Except for the Friendly-Hostile World factor , the subdimensions

• were fairly strongly related to beliefs about locus of control (sum of

all 46 items). The correlations of individual subdimensions with the

total I—E are spuriously high because of part—whole relationships , but

in general , the positive intercorrelations among the subscales and between the subscales and the total~ I—E scale support Collins ’ assertion

of a common theme throughout the I-E scale. The data also strongly

confirm Collins ’ findings regarding the factor structure of I-E and

support his conversion of the forced—choice format to a Likert format.

P Table 3 also shows Cronbach ’s alpha estimates of internal consistency

for all of the scales (Nunnally, 1967). Except for the Just—Unjust and

Friendly—Hostile World scales , internal consistency appears to be good

for a research instrument of this type.

Several significant but small correlations between the I-E subscales and personality measures were obtained (Table 4). Subjects intolerant of ambigui ty tended to see the world as difficult and politically unresponsive . Also , people who believed that people are easily

manipulated (high Mach) tended to believe that the world is hostile ,

difficult , unpredictable, or pol itically unresponsive . However , it

should be noted that total I-E was correlated more highly with Mach

than any of the subscales, and i

~ s magnitude (r = - .32) is consistent with previous findings (Christie & Geis, 1970).

Table 4 also shows that those sub~ects who believed in a political ly responsive and easy world reported greater job satisfaction than

did thos~ subjects who believed in an unresponsive and difficult world.

Subjects who viewed the world as relatively easy were more likely to

report that the group atmosphere in their unit was high. The total I—E

scale also correlated with group atmosphere- and job satisfaction but

not to an appreciably greater degree thftn~ the subscales.

-~~~~~~~ -

-

~~~~~~~~~~~ - ----~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -— -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -_ -.-- -—— -----
m

-

~ m .-4 N

N

N

H m I_n ~~ 3D

I

~~~ 

I 

I: 

____ ____

_____ —4
I

-4 ’--l ’U ~ ‘U~~ - 4 - -l ~

-4 N I_fl CO m 3.0 ‘.0 ~

Q (N 0 0 ‘-4 ‘.4 0 0 0

4)5 0 4 I I I I .-4 0 ~~~

Ill

‘-4 I ~~‘U ~ -p

>~ u .—4 ~~‘ m i_n m ~ 3D ~

n _-4 ‘-4 0 0 0 -.4 .-i ,—i

(

~~~‘

4-4 O I I I

~~~~~~~ ~~ - ‘.4

0

~ ,I ci)

-p -p (

~~ - .-4 5 ’t, o UI ~~ 4 N (N (‘4 3D ‘.1 0 I_fl I_fl ( J C-I 0 0 0 ~

-4 ‘.- 0

I I I I I I

• .-

~ W O Q ) ~~~~~

u o (1)

U,

4)5 I U) i—i

w ,-4 I_fl 3D rfl I_fl Co (N I_fl

—4 0 0 0 0 0 —l 0 I C I I I ci)

U,

~

1

~ 4)’O In ci) I

~~~ 4-J

~~~ 0 (13

.0 U) .-4 4)

‘13 4) J —-4 F-’ i

~~~~~~~

—4 1-4 4-J O r-4 ‘? I_f) 0 I_fl ~~ 0” 3.0 30 4-4 0 U . -4 1-i --~ 0 ‘-4 0 0 0 0 0 8 -l’U O ‘ u

cc 0 0’13

4)

cci —I 4)

4) —i 14 ‘ci~~~ 4 ‘U 14 4) I N ‘

-4 N If) 0 N (.0 0 o 04.1 (fl r 4 0 0 0 e-4 ,—4

(_ ) F-’ I’ I I I

U)

04 U) -.1 -‘.4

04 .

~~ B - ‘-4 U)

-‘.4 ,4 1-4 0

cii • 14 ‘0 -.4 4) ci) .0 ‘U C) S

B IC ‘0 B C) (1) C) C)

I.1 ‘U 1-4 0 0

-‘.4 4.4 4) 4) -‘-4 C) C) 0 ‘U 4.) -~ 4) 4~ IC 4) C) 0, C.) ~~

- ‘-4 II) 4-I 13) (4) IC 1-i 4 ‘—4 C.) ~ .

~

4 0 14.4 0 (4)

—4 C) 4) 1-1 8 U) II.4 -

0) 4) IC -.~ 0 4) --4 1.4 Z 0 0 4) > 1.4 1-4 4 4) 4)

14 IC 13) 0 ~ ) IC 04

S -‘4 -.4 I .-4 04 (1) • V V U) .

~l 0 .

~~ 04 5 4) 4) if) C.) 4-’ C) (4) 0 0 .0 --4 1) 0404

IC (ci 13) 14 0 ~ 0 ~~~~.

~~ 4.4 ~ 1-’ 04 0 P~ ) z

11

_____________ ____— I

_____________ — -• ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~

lL.A~~1
The two task-related scales and the two person—oriented scales of

the MLBS were combined to form a perceived task—oriented leadership

behavior scale and a perceived people-oriented leadership behavior

scale. These two scales were strongly related (r = .85), which is common with scales of this tyDe (House & Dessler , 1974; Weissenberg &

Kavenaugh , 1972). The data in Table 4 show that subjects who believed

in a hostile world perceived their leaders as behaving in both taskoriented and people-oriented manners.

As a test of the interactive effects of locus of contro l and leadership behavior in predicting job satisfaction and unit performance ,

full and restricted regression models were formulated (Bottenberg &

Ward , 1963; Kelley , Beggs , & McNeil , 1969) . Full models included the

appropriate leadership behavior and locus of control scales and showed

their interaction term in predicting the given criterion of interest.

The corresponding restricted model did not contain the interaction term ,

so as to test the statistical significance of the proportion of criteria

variance that was accounted for by the interaction . Results are presented in Figure 1 for the job satisfaction criterion , and in Figure 2

for the unit performance criterion . The incremental R2’s in Figures 1

and 2 are the proportion of criterion variance that can be accounted

for by the interaction over and above the additive effects. To demonstrate the meaning of these interactions more clearly, predicted criten on values were calculated for hypothetical points arbitrarily defined at plus and minus one stindard deviation on each predictor .

Figure 1 illustrates the four significant interactions (AR 2) found

when task—oriented leadership behavior and locus of control scales were

used to predict job satisfaction in a series of six tests, one for each

I-E subscale and one for the total. None of the six interactions was

found to be significant when task—oriented leadership behavior and locus

of control were used in predicting unit performance .

Figure 2 illustrates the two significant interactions found (again

out of six tests) when people—oriented leadership behavior and locus of

control were used to predict unit performance. No significant interactions W (

~r (- found in predicting job satisfaction from people-oriented

1eadershi~ behavior and locus of control.

DISCUSSION

The factor structure underlying the Rotter I-E scale that was obtained in this study has shown a gratif ying similarity to that originally reported by Collins (1974). That these comparable results were

obtained under substantially different conditions of administr~ction

(Army field setting versus college classroom ) and with comp]e~~~ly differenL populations (male Army res~-rvists versus male and female college

undergraduates) attests to the generality and importance of the

phenomenon .

12

__ ____ • •

~~~~~~~~~~~ •~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -~~-~~~~ - I
~

1

~

It) (‘4

— N .— 0

— 0 . . U)

fl Ii N II * 

N a ii 

~

(P.- N-. (‘1 N.— C cc cc cc u cc ~at ~c ~ -~~ 

-

LI ~~

\

I

UO!1-3V~S~)N$ uO!pe~

s!wS .

~~ ~~ .0

o

CS

cc

o 0. -el

a -‘.4 4-I

• * .2~~t 0 ,

~~~ 1(1 .4

CO Lt) —. 0 It) N ‘- ~, 14

(N -: . ‘- 0

. 0

p p N N N N II 

. ‘,

-~~~~~~~ 4)0)

(‘4 N-.-- rs . 

-

~~ 

-

~~

cc cc cc u cc cc cc u. * 4) .4

-

~~ -

~ .2 -.4 4)

140

~~~~~~~~~~ 

- 

~~ o

~~~~~~~~~~

~~

F”

UO!Pe.

(S!ICS

13 

___________________________ —
In C’)

o 0 0

(0

p N I N

(‘J.... N’- N cc cc cx: LI. -d

LI

4. — .

~ —.4

2

~ i I 8

.+ ~~~~ -

~

-

~~~ -

.

.

~~C, ~ - 14.4

o 1-4 14 0 4 )

aouewioji ~~ .

~~ 

04

413 4) CS . 0-el cc

2(0 .05

0 . 0’

• elC)

-c --I

I— ti

1 4 0

4)) If) ~ ~-. cc ( 3) - I c 0 ~~ t—. ~~~o d 0~~~~ I II .! N.- N... N ~ cc cc cc LI. C)U)

‘IC C, .c- ’

-- >—~~~~ 4 - E - 4 0

a ~~~~~~~~ (S c, 1 0

L ~~~~o ..-. ‘-4 1-4

.

~~ 0_ Ct. 2 .

~~,,..

~~~~~

~ ‘ (0 ..-. (‘4..—

0 cco *

—_______ 

-II

aouewiopaa

14

- , 

~ L~~~A~~

- - -

was n~~ related to any other self-report variable. Further examination

of these factors might include a consideration of their differential

usefulness in predicting related behaviors .

In conclusion , the research results summarized in this paper

strongly support earlier research findings regarding the multidimen—

sionality of locus of control beliefs. Also , correlations between these

scales and other personality and work—related variables indicate that

Collins ’ I—E scales and subscales are based on sound and useful concepts ,

although the moderate degree of the relationships and the relatively

low internal consistency of some of the scales also indicate that they

should be further refined .

Research results offer moderate support for the concept that an

understanding of the locus of control beliefs and the reinforcement

expectations of unit members is important in improving the effectiveness

of military units. One of the remaining problems is that the scales

used in the present research instrument include items specific to college students. Elimination of such problems undoubtedly would increase

t hl:- usefulness and acceptability of the scales in a difficult , unpredictable , unjust , politically unresponsive , and hostile world .
REFERENCES

Bottenberg , R. A., & Ward , J. H., Jr. Applied Multiple Linear Regression . Personnel Research Laboratory report PRL—TDR-63-6 . Lack—

lan d Air Force Base , Tex., 1963. (AD 413128)

Budner , S. Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable . Journal

of Personality, 1962 , 30, 29—50.

Cherliri , A., & Bourque , L. B. Dimensionality and Reliability of the

Rotter I-E Scale. Sociometry, 1974, 37, 565—582 .

Christie , R ., & Geis , F. L. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York :

Academic Press, 1970.

Collins , B. E. Four Components of the Rotter Internal-External Scale :

Belief in a Difficult World , a Just World , a Predictable World

and a Politically Responsive World. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 381—391.

Collins , B. E., Martin , J . C., Ashmore, R. D., & Ross , L. Some Dimensions of the Internal—External Metaphor in Theories of Personality .

Journal of Personality, 1973 , 41, 471—492 .

Downey , R. G. Development of a Measure of Army Leadership Climate :

The Military Leadership Behavior Survey. ARI Research Problem

Review 74—5 , December 1974.

Downey, R . G ., Duffy , P. J., & Shiflett , S. Criterion Performance

Measures of Leadership and Unit Effectiveness in Small Combat

Units. ARt Research Memorandum 75-9 , July 1975.

Fiedler , F . E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York :

McGraw-Hill , 1967.

Goodstadt , B. E ., & Hjelle , L. A. Power to the Powerless: Locus of

Control and the Use of Power. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 1973 , 190-196.

Gurin , P., Gurin , G., Lao, R’. C., & Beattie , M. Internal-External

Control in the Motivational Dynamics of Negro Youth. Journal

of Social Issues , 1969, 25 , 29—53. -

Harman , H. H. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago : The University of

Chicago Press , 1967.

House , R. J ., & Dessler , G. The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership : Some

Post—Hoc and A Priori Tests. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),

Contingency Approaches to Leadership. Carbondale , Ill.: Southern

Illinois University Press , 1974.

17

• — — -.-— ~

-

*

—-~~~~~- r— - — - - — --- • - ---

~~~ — .~~

—--•--•--- — - ____ -—-———-

• - •

~‘• j~~•~~
Kelley , I- . J . , -0- in , [) . L. , & McNt ’i I , K. A. Research Desi gn in 3 he

I y~~~~~~~~~~~ J~~

e Regression Aj~e~ oacIi. (‘arhond-ile ,

Ill .: hoit t li.- ru Illinois University Press , 1969 .

Korman , A. K . , rv:II-i it u n , mu I ~ it u -

ig hi r i~~~t . iir.. - , ~

t iid Orq1rl izatior lal

‘ II ti-r1i : A P - VI eW . li ;c iini l P s y holc u j y , ] )hii , J O , 341—361.

I~_ i , , R. ( _ l i ii ( r n! i —I: x t irn . I • nit tel .suj ( cm!i - I eii t .111(1 liiricv ~ t i

l i a v i o r Amonq N - ;lc ( 1 1 4 3 1 - St nih - ru s. b u r nt! of i (-rs on al it y m u

So - i ~ 1 ~ cho 1 jy , 1ulO , 14 , 263—270.

L

~~ 3 unIt t , i f . 1.1. I I I - r r un I V - - ii ; Fx t - r n i l ( ,ti I to 1 r u f I

~ - i n 3 (it ( 4 -m en t He —

visited : Pm eril l ) i- V & l cpini-nt . In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress

Lum- r u t ml I’ en - ni.mlit ~~~~H -:s-u rn-h (Vol. 6) - Nw York : A c auh-rrui c

P ress, I

~ i •/ 2 .

Mi ri Is , II. I . . Dimensions (ii lnt ernn 1 V. r : 1:: E xt em nil Control. Journal

of Corusu i and C lin ica i Psyeholi~~~ , 1)70, 34 , 2 2 3—2 2 8 .

Mi t elum- i l , T. H., Srny .er , C. M. , t. W I , S. F. leun ; ci Control: Supervision and erk hi t i ;f ~~t I o n . A a

~~~~y ci M irni ~ u-rn e n t bournal , 1)/h ,

10 , (i2 3 — h 31

N i - i! , A. 0. , & Seeman , M. ( ) r u ;mn I/li ions and luiwerlessness: A Test of

the Mediation t i ~ j>ct hiesis . tim -rican Sociclojical Review, 1964 , 28 ,

2 1( . —226 .

N unna 1 ly , 3 . C. 1 ;ycln in eLric itunu r

~~~. New York : McGraw—H ill , I 11- 7

D . W . & 1 - ; r eels- , C . N. Ho l it Auth jun ty , Locus of Con t . r 1) 1 , and

Work h it i ;t ,mt 1)1!. Jo urn~.i 1 ~~~~~~~~~ I oil Pt

~

ychology , 3/4 , 59 ,

10! —1 02 .

i n y - -r , M. W ., & D jn t . efano , M . K., I n . Perceptions of Leadership Behavior , Job Satisf ietic r u , and Internal—Externa l Controi Across Three

N lir sinq Leve l ;;. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1971 , 20 , 5 34—537.

H i -I t , I). W., & W i r e , E. E. Mu ltidimen :;ionnlity of Internal— L-xternal

ic!: Imp li u - i t ions for ii ;I and Future Research . Canadian

liii run i ci Rehavicral Sciem- - , 197 3 , 5, 20 4 — 2/1 .

Hct t -r , J. 13 . Generalized f-: x~s-c t ine i i . - ;; for Internal Versus External

t ent rd ci R i - m t en :erni r u t - ~_?~~ luo l ogical Mono9raphs, 11 )1,1 - , 80,

— 2 0

Hurl /eli , K. F. Some lIlt (

~~~ i i t IOnS hi-i w i- er! l e rnona Ii ty Variablen and

M aru iqe rnen t St y les. icur n il ci ~~j~j~1ied ~~~~~~~~~~ 1973 , 57 ,

21-30—204.

18

__ -- ---__ _ ___

- . :-i —• 

..

-.-
Stogdill , R. M . Han dbook of Leadership . New York : Free Press , 1974.

Stoqdill , R. M . Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII. Columbus , Ohio: Bureau of Business Research ,

Ohio State University, 1963.

Weissenb erg, R., & Kavenaugh , M . J. The Independence of Initiating

Structure and Consideration : A Review of the Evidence . Personnel

Psychology, 1972 , 25 , 119—130.

Wolfe , R. N. Effects of Economic Threat on Anomia and Perceived Locus

of Control. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1967, 86, 233-240.

19

• :

~

•

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISTRIBUTION

ARt Distrib ution List

4 OASD )M&RA) 2 HOUSACDEC , F’ Ord. ATTN . Library

? 

HODA DAMI cSzt I HQUSACDEC. Ft 

Ord, ATTN; ATEC- EX-E

— Hum Factors

1 HODA (DAPE-

~

BFI 2 USAEEC . Ft Benjamin Harrison . ATTN: Library

7 HODA IDAMA-AR ) 1 USAPACOC . Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATT N ATCP—HR

1 HODA (DAPE HREP0l 1 USA Comm—Elect Sch Ft Monmou t h . ATTN ATSN—EA

1 HODA ISGR OI D) 1 USAEC . Ft Mon mou th . ATTN AMSEL

—CT— HDP

1 HODA 

(DAMI

DOT

C) 1 USAEC , Ft Monmouth , ATTN: AMSEL-PA —P

I HODA (DAPC-PMZ-AI 7 USAEC, Fr Monmout

h, ATTN AMSEL

— Sl—CB

1 HODA b ACH PPZ-A I 1 USAEC, Ft Monmoutl,. ATTN 

C. Fact 

Dee Br

I HODA IDAPE

. HREI 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy. Aberdeen . ATT N AMX

SY P

1 HODA (DAPE MPO.C) 1 Edgewood Arsenal Aberdeen, ATTN SAREA

— BL-H

1 HO

~tA IDAPE DW) 1 USA Ord 

Crr & Sch, Aberdeen ATTN ATSL-TEM

—C

I HODA IDAPE HAL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab . Aberdee

n. ATTN Library/D ir

1 HODA IDAPE-CPS) I USA Combat Arms Tng Bd , Ft Bennin g, 

ATTN Ad Supervisor

1 

HODA IDAFD- MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit . Ft Bennin g ATTN: Chief

I HODA (DARD ARSP ) 1 USA Infantry 

Ed. Ft 

Banning. ATTN STEBC —TE—T

1 HODA )DAPC PAS -A) 1 USASMA . Ft Bliss . ATTN ATSS

—LRC

1 HODA IOUSA OH) 1 USA Air Oaf Sch . Ft Bliss . ATTN: ATSA—CTD- ME

1 HODA 

IDAMO.ROR) 1 USA Air Oct 

Sch, Fr Bliss . ATTN: Tech Lib

1 HODA (DASGI 1 USA Air Def Bd . Ft Bliss . ATTN FILES

1 HODA (DAb-Ph 1 USA Air Oct Bd , Ft Bliss ATTN STEB

O—PO

1 Chief , Consult 

Div IDA-OTSGI. 

Adelphi, MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College , Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: 

Lib

r Mil Astt Hum Ret , 000R&E . OAD (E&LSI 1 USA 

Cmii & General Stf COllege . Fr Leavenworth . ATTN ATSW—SE—L

1 HO USARAL

.-APO Seattle. ATTN ARAGP-R 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College. Ft Leavenworth, ATTN Ed Advisor

1 HO Firs t Army, ATTN AF

KA Ol TI 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dee Act . Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act Fr Leavenworth. ATTN: CCS

I Dir , Army Sd Studie s Ott . ATTN OAVC,SA (DSP) I USA Combined Arms Cmbt 

0ev Act . Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: ATCASA

1 Otc Chief of Sd, Studies Of c 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dëv Act , Ft Leavenworth, ATTN ATCAC

O—E

1 DCSPER ATTN CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dcv Act Ft Leavenworth. ATTN ATCACC —Cl

1 The Army Lub Pentagon. ATTN RSB Chief 1 USAECOM , Night Vision Lab . Ft Belvoir . ATTN: AMSEL—NV —SD

1 The Army Lb Pentago.. , ATT N ANRAL 3 USA Compu ter 

Sm’s Cmd , Ft Belvoir . ATTN Tech Libra ry

1 Ofc , 

Assi Sect of the Army lR&Dl 1 USAMERDC . Ft Belvoir , ATTN: STSFB—DO

1 Tech Support Ofc , OJCS 1 USA Eng Sch , Ft Belvoir . ATTN Libra ry

I USASA . Arlingt on A TTN . lAR D T 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir . ATTN ETL -TO—S

1 USA Rsch Otc , Durham , 

ATTN Life Sci -nces Dir 1 USA Topogra phic Lab , Ft Belvoir . ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM . Nat cic , ATTN. SGRD UE-CA 1 USA Topogra phic Lab . Ft 

Belvo ir , ATTN: ETL—GSL

I USATTC . Ft Clayton . ATTN S F ET C MO-A 1 USA Intellige nce 

Ce & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN CTD—MS

I USAIMA , Ft 

Biagg. ATT N: A TSU CTD-OM 1 USA 

Intelligence Ctr & ScIs , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS—CTD—MS

1 U

SAS” , Ft Bragg, ATTN . Marqu at Lb 1 USA Intel ligenc e Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—TE

1 US WAC Cit & Sth . Ft McClellan , ii rTN Lib 1 USA Intellig ence Ctr & Sch Ft Huachuca ATTN: ATSI—TEX—GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sd, Ft McClellan , A1TN : Tng Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CTS —O

R

1 USA Oimarterrnaster Sd,. Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM-TE I USA Intelligen ce Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuc

a , ATTN: ATSI—CTO—DT

1 Intell igence Material Dcv Oft EWL . Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN ATSI—CTD

—CS

1 USA SE Signal Sch , Ft Go

rdon ATTN: ATSO-EA 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & 5th, Ft Huachuca , ATTN DAS/SAD

1 USA Chaplain CIr & 5d, Ft Hamilton . ATTN: ATSC-TE RD 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS I—TEM

1 

IJSATSCH , Ft Eust is ATTN Educ Advi sor 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuc a , ATTN: Library

1 USA War College. Carlis le Barracks , ATTN: Lib 1 CDR , HO Ft Hua

chuca , ATTN: Tech Ret Div

2 WRAIR , Neuropsychiatr y Din 2 COn , USA Electronic Prvg Grd , ATTN STEEP—MT—S

I DLI . SDA . Montere y I CDR . Project MASSTER . ATTN: Tech Info Center

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda . ATTN MOCAWGC 1 Hq MASSTER , USATRADOC , LNO

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy. Bethes da , ATTN MOCAMR 1 Research InstItut e , HO MASSTER , Ft Hood

I USA Concept Anal Agcy , Bethesda , ATTN: MOCA-JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdian , ATTN: USARCPM--P

I USA Artic Test Ctr . APO 

Seattle. ATTN: STEAC-MO-AS L I Senior Army Adv , USAFAGOD/TAC , Elgin AF Au,. FId No. 

9

1 USA Artic Test Cir. APO Seattle, ATTN: AMSTE-PLTS 1 HO USARPAC. DCSPER , APO SF 96558, ATTN GPPE SE

1 USA Armament Cmd . Redsto ne Arsenal , ATTN: ATSK -TEM 1 Stimson Lib . Academy of Health Science s , Ft Sam Houston

1 USA Arma ment Cmd, Rock Island. ATTN AMSAR-TDC 1 Marine Corps 

Inst ., ATtN: Dean—MCI

I FAA-NAFEC , Atlantic City . ATTN Libra ry I HOUSMC, Commandant , ATTN: Code MTMT 51

1 FAA-NA FFC , Atlantic City, ATTN : Hum En~ Br I HOUSMC. Commandant . ATTN: Code MPI—

20

1 FAA Aeronautic al Ctr Oklahom a City, ATTN AAC-44D 2 USCG Academ y, New Loisdon , ATTN Admission

2 USA FId Arty Sctt , Ft Sill , ATTN Libra ry 2 USCG Academy, New London , ATTN : Library

1 USA Armor Sch , Ft Knox . ATTN Libra ry 1 USCG Training Ctr 

NY . ATTN: CO

I liSA Armor Sch , Ft Knox , ATTN ATSB-Dl- E 1 USCG Training Ce, NY , ATTN Educ 

Sec Ofc

I USA Armor Sd

’

.. Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB-DT-TP I USCG, Psyc hol Rev Br . DC, ATTN: GP 

1/62

I USA Armor Sdi. F, Knot., ATTN ATSBCO-Al) 1 HO Mid—Rang . Br , MC Oat , Qu

antlco , ATTN P&S Di

v

~~~~~

-•

--. . —- - 

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.• - 

~

-1

21 • a .i~~ u- 

~~~ IiIUP

• 

~

w~-
I US Marine Corp. Liaiaaon Ofc , AMC. Alexandria, ATTN: AMCGS--F 1 Dat & CivIl Inst of Envlro Medicine. Canada

I USATRADOC, Ft Moons ., ATTN: ATRO-ED I AIR CRESS. KeeseIngEDes . *T1’N : Info Sm’s B’

8 USATRADOC , Ft Monroe , ATTN: ATPR-AD 1 MlIltaerpSykOlogI* TI.ewsas . Copel’.ag.n

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATTS-EA 1 MIlItary Att idse. French Emb.im, . ATrN: Doc Sec

1 USA Forces Cmd, Ft McPherson, ATTN: Library I M diCifl Chef , C.E.R.P.A,— Arisna I. Toulon/Naval France

2 USA Avsa tion Test Ed, Ft Ruckar, ATTN: STEBG-PO 1 PrIn Scientific Off . AggI Hunt Enge Rids Dlv . MInistry

I USA Agey for Aviation Safety, Ft Ruckar , ATI’N: Li brary Of Defense. New Delhi

1 USA Agry for Aviation Safety, Ft Rocker , ATTN: Educ Mvlaor 1 Psrs Rich Ofc Library, AKA. Israel Defense Forces

1 USA Av,atio n Sch, Ft Rucker . ATTN: P0 Drawer o 7 Minhs turis van Osfens le. DOOP/K L Add SoclaiI

1 HOUSA Aviation Sm’s Cmd , St Louis. ATTN : AM$AV-ZDR ~~

ytho4 o

~~~~~ Zaken, The Hague . Netherlands

2 USA AVI.tIo4f ~ s liSt Act., Edwards AFB . ATTN: SAVTE-T

1 USA AIr Out Sch, Ft BlIss, ATTN: ATSA TEM

1 USA Air Mobili ty Rich & Dee Lab. Moff .tt FId, A’fl’N: SAVDL—A S

1 USA Aviation Sd’., Ret Tog MgI, Ft Rucker , ATTN: AT~T—T—RTM

1 USA Aviation Scb, CO. Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST—D—A

1 HO. DARCOM , Alexandria , ATTN: AMXCO—TL

1 HO, DARCOM . Alexandria . ATTN: CDR

I US Military Academy, West Point . ATI’N: Serials Unit

1 US Military Academy, West Point , ATTN: Ofc of MIlt Ldrshp

1 05 Military Academy . West Point . A’fl ’N: MAO R

1 USA Standardization Gp, UK. FPO NY. ATTN: MASE—OC

I Ofc of Naval Axci ’., Arl ington . ATTN: Code 452

3 Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington. ATTN: Code 458

1 Ofc of Naval Rich , Arlington , ATTN: Code 450

1 Ott of Navat Rich, Arlington, ATTN: Code 441

1 Naval Aerospc Med Ret Lab , Pensacola , AT1’N: Acous Sd’. Dlv

1 Naval Aerospc Med Ret Lab . Pensacola , ATTN: Code L51

1 Naval Aarospc Med Ret Lab, Pensacola, ATTN : Code LB

1 Chief of NevPers . ATTN: Pars-OR

1 NAVAIRSTA , Norfolk , ATTN: Safety Ctr

1 Nay Oceanographic , DC, ATTN Cod, 6261. Charts & Tach

1 Center of Naval Anal , ATTN; Doc Ct,

1 NavAir SysCom , ATTN: AIR-5313C

1 Nay BuMed , ATTN : 713

1 N.vHel.copsar SubSgua 2, FPO SF 96601

I AFHRL IFT) William AFB

1 AFHRL ITT) Lowry AFB

1 AFHIIL IASI WPAFB , OH

2 AFHRL IDOJZ( Brooks AFB

1 AFHRL (DOJNI Lackl and AFB

1 HOUSAF (INYSOI

1 HOUSAF (OPXXA(

I AFVTG IRD) Ri. dol pti AFE

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB , OH

2 AF Inst of Tech, WPAFB , OH, ATTN: ENE/SL

I ATC (XPTO) Randolph AFB

1 USAF AeroMed Lib , Brook s AFB (SUL—4), ATTN: DOt SEC

I AFOSR (Nt.) . Arli ngton

1 AF Log Cmd, McClellan AFB. ATI’N: ALC/DPCRB

1 Air Force Academy, CO. AT’TN: Dept of Bet Scn

6 NavPers & Dcv Ctr , San Diego

2 Navy Med Neuro psyc huatri c Rich UnIt . San Diego

1 Nay Electronic Lab, San Diego, ATTN: Rev Lab

1 N.e Trngten, San Diego , ATTN: Code 9000—Lib

I NavPo,tGraSch. Monterey, ATTN: Code 56Aa

1 NavPoatGraSch , Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

1 NavTrngEquipCtr , Orlan do, ATTN: Tech Lib

1 US Dept of Labor. DC. ATTN : Manpower Admin

1 US Dept of Justice , DC. ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin

1 Nat Bur of Standards , DC, ATTN Computer Info Section

I Nat du rIng House to, MU—Info , Rockvill.

1 Denver Federal Ct,, Lakswood. ATTN : ELM

12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych. Army Hg, Russell Ofcs. Canberra

I Scientific Aces, , Mil Bd, Army Hg, Russell Otci. Canberra

1 Mil and Air Attac he, Austrian Embassy

1 Centre dv Rechercts e Des Facteur s , Humaine de Ia Defense

National ,, Brussels

2 Canadian Joint Staff W hington

I C/Air Staff , Royal Canadian AF , ATTN : Pars SM Anal Br

3 Chief , Canadian Dat Rich Staff . ATTN~ C/CRDS(WI

4 8rltleI’. Oaf Staff . British Embassy, Waatilngton

22