Locus of Control revisited: development of a new bi-dimensional measure

Locus of control (LOC) has a long tradition in Psychology, and various instruments have been designed for its measurement. However, the dimensionality of the construct is unclear, and still gives rise to considerable controversy. The aim of the present work is to present new evidence of validity in relation to the dimensionality of LOC. To this end, we developed a new measurement instrument with 23 items. The sample was made up of 697 Spanish participants, of whom 57.5% were women (M=22.43; SD= 9.19). The results support the bi-dimensionality of LOC: internal (α=.87) and external (α=.85). Furthermore, both subscales have shown adequate validity evidence in relation to self-efficacy, achievement motivation and optimism (r xy> .21). Statistically significant differences were found by sex (p < .05): men scored higher in external LOC and women in internal LOC. The validity evidence supports a two-dimensional structure for the LOC, and the measurement instrument developed showed adequate psychometric properties.

Unpacking insanity defence standards: an experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law

The present study investigated the impact of different legal standards on mock juror decisions concerning whether a defendant was guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Undergraduate students (N = 477) read a simulated case summary involving a murder case and were asked to make an insanity determination. The cases differed in terms of the condition of the defendant (rationality deficit or control deficit) and the legal standard given to the jurors to make the determination (Model Penal Code, McNaughten or McNaughten plus a separate control determination). The effects of these variables on the insanity determination were investigated. Jurors also completed questionnaires measuring individualism and hierarchy attitudes and perceptions of facts in the case. Results indicate that under current insanity standards jurors do not distinguish between defendants with rationality deficits and defendants with control deficits regardless of whether the legal standard requires them to do so. Even defendants who lacked control were found guilty at equal rates under a legal standard excusing rationality deficits only and a legal standard excluding control and rationality deficits. This was improved by adding a control test as a partial defence, to be determined after a rationality determination. Implications for the insanity defence in the Criminal Justice System are discussed.