SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2006, 34(7), 777-796

© Society for Personality Research (Inc.)

Locus of Control and the Attribution for

Poverty: Comparing Lebanese and South African
University Students

Ramzi Nasser and Kamal Abouchedid

Notre Dame University, Lebanon

The attitudes of a sample of 443 Lebanese and South African college students towards the
causes of poverty as measured by their locus of control and socio-demographic background
were studied. Cross-national differences and personality style constructs of external and
internal locus of control were used in a MANCOVA design. No significant interaction
differences appeared between national status and locus of control, which gave no support
to the main hypothesis of this study that respondents from individualistic cultures (South
Africa) have internal locus of control and make more individualistic attributions of poverty.
Lebanese students were more structuralistic, and had more external than internal locus of
control than South Africans. The independent variable of class did not appear as a predictor to
the structural attribution for poverty. Hence, university education may be the most important
factor in the attributions of poverty. Conceptualization in the design as to how individuals see
poverty outside their immediate environment and how this can affect the formation of their
poverty attitudes are suggested as areas for further research.

Keywords: causes of poverty, Lebanese students, South African students, locus of control.

What do youth think of the causes of poverty? Do they think of them in the
same way in different places in the world? A number of studies have investigated
laypersons’ attitudes as to why poverty persists in society, or why people are
poor. Among the first is Feagin’s (1972) study, which provided an attribution
model of the causes for poverty. He presented three dimensions to causes of
poverty: the fatalistic (caused by factors such as the unknown, fate, or luck),

Ramzi Nasser and Kamal Abouchedid, Notre Dame University, Lebanon.

Appreciation is due to reviewers including: Daniel T.L. Shek, PhD, FHKPs.S, BBS, JP, Department
of Social Work, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, P.R.C., Email:
danielshek@cuhk.edu.hk
Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Ramzi Nasser, Notre Dame University,
P.O. Box 72, Zouk Mosbeh, Lebanon. Phone: 9616-405-843; Email: rnasser@ndu.edu.lb or
kabouchedid@ndu.edu.lb

777
778 LOCUS OF CONTROL

individualistic (reasons such as responsibility of the individual i.e., individual

effort), and the structuralistic attribution (factors were powerful others such as
institutions or systems of control). A number of studies conducted in the US and
elsewhere have replicated the work of Feagin, and have shown that the socio-
demographic variables of religion, ethnicity, region, and other socioeconomic
variables such as income, age, and education have also predicted attribution of
the causes of poverty.
Subsequent studies in other countries have followed Feagin’s original model
of poverty attributions, and more recently studies emanating from the US by
Cozzarelli, Wilkinson, and Tagler (2001) and Kay, Jost, and Young (2005)
have shown that context and stereotypes have an overbearing effect on the
way attributions are made, whether in derogating the victim or “lionizing the
winners.” Poverty attributions among young British subjects based on class and
education variables, showed that middle-class children provided more societal
than fatalistic or structuralistic interpretations to the causes of poverty (Furnham,
1982). Morcol’s study (1997) showed that young Turks were more structuralistic
than individualistic in their perception of the causal attribution for poverty.
Similarly, a high structuralistic attribution was found among well-to-do Lebanese
(Abouchedid & Nasser, 2002) and a predominance among White Americans
to attribute poverty to individualistic reasons (Feagin, 1975; Kluegel & Smith,
1986). These variations in attributions were tangibly different in Encaenia.
For instance, both adolescent Chinese in Hong Kong and their parents showed
greater factor loading on the exploitation of the poor as an attribution for poverty
(Shek, 2003). However, New Zealand adolescents were more individualistic in
their attitudes (Stacy & Singer, 1985), while Australian college students were
more structuralistic than their Malawi counterparts (Carr & MacLachan, 1998).
Attributions for poverty may depict a different behavioral structure that can be
universally contoured by the sociopolitical and ideological make-up of a society,
particular to each national state or even at the microlevel, for ethnic or racial
groups.
Beyond cultural similarities and differences, research has explored attribution
for poverty on the basis of political ideology; between Conservative versus
Labour party affiliations (see Furnham, 1982), Democrats versus Republicans
(Kluegel & Smith, 1986), Conservative versus Liberal (Williams, 1984) and
at the ethnic level, Hispanics versus Afro-American (Hunt, 1996). Despite the
proliferation of poverty studies, there remains a paucity of research that seeks to
examine the possible connection of personality style and attributions for poverty.
The examination of poverty attitudes in terms of individual personality style as
opposed to group indicators such as class or educational level is needed in order
to further understand the impact generated by locus of control on the attributions
of poverty. In this way the socioeconomic model can be integrated within
 LOCUS OF CONTROL 779
personality style theory as a framework for the analysis of causal attribution for
poverty across two national groups, in the case of this study, South African and
Lebanese college students.

External and Internal Attributions

Cognitive-emotion research suggests that attribution for poverty might be of
a reasoned or causal type (Shoeneman & Rubanowitz, 1985). A causal type of
attribution made by an observer provides no explanation for the causes of poverty
(Jones, 1976), while those more influenced by situational factors give reasoned
and rational explanations which they find to be legitimate. For example, they
explain that government is not able to eradicate poverty because the machinery
available to do so is lacking, or because there are desperate economic conditions
that render the task impossible.
The study by Schoeneman and Rubanowitz (1985) portrayed the causal/
reason dichotomy from an observer/actor personality style perspective. On
one hand, observers have no preference for situational reasons and provide no
explanation for salient events outside the immediate environment. Observers are
more likely to attribute causes to personal ability, that is, individualistic factors
(Von Bergen 1995). While actors are more disposed to the situation they often
provide reasonable estimates to attributions, in the wake of negative or positive
events. Depending on the situation actors are affectively more responsible and
make reasoned and rational explanations which they find legitimate. Difference
in attribution and locus of control provides a good indication as to whether
individuals are actors or observers.
There may be an attribution bias among observers for events having negative
consequences. Observers tend to see events uncritically as they run over detail,
they lack the interest or faculties to assess the event and thus bestow blame on
the personal effort of the individual, that is, individualistic attribution (Carr &
MacLachan, 1998; Jones & Nisbett, 1972). Cross-national research indicates
that individuals in the West with observer status have a propensity to attribute
the causes of poverty to dispositional factors of the poor, while actors in this case
consider that those that are poor act within the framework of their status when
making attributions (Carr & MacLachlan, 1998; Feather & Barber, 1983; Hine &
Montiel, 1999). Thus a bias is increased when an observor in the West observes
poverty outside his/her immediate environment.
Two theoretical generalizations spring from the discussion above: attributions
involve first, the object or attitude in a Western or Third World nation and
second, the personality style of the person who is making the attribution. When
observers consider negative events under the control of a target, the individ-
ualistic attribution is greater and the displacement of the attribution to personal
efforts and abilities of the object of attitude are increased. The salience of the
780 LOCUS OF CONTROL

attribution is heightened when the observer makes the attribution for poverty
in a Western nation as opposed to an Asian or Eastern one. On the other hand,
actors may perceive the causes of poverty in a reasoned way and approach them
with consideration and understanding. Thus, actors have a lower possibility of
attributing causes to individualistic factors (Schmidt & Weiner, 1988; Zucker
& Weiner, 1993). Thus identifying the person-perceiver as observer or actor
by causal antecedents of locus of control can predict the type of attribution for
poverty. Whether the individual has internal or external locus of control can give
an indication of the type of attribution for poverty to be made.

Locus of Control
Internal and external locus of control dimensions demonstrate the extent to
which individuals exercise control over their lives or the degree to which they
feel their destinies are controlled by luck, fate or by powerful others (Rotter,
1966). Very little is known of the way in which Third World youth (Lebanese)
compared to postindustrial youth (South African) make attributions for poverty
in relation to locus of control. Specifically, with the exception of Furnham’s
(1985) cross-national comparison between British and South African subjects,
there is a lack of research on Lebanese and South African youth in the way they
make attributions for poverty with respect to the locus of control measure. These
two polemics have their origins in the behavioral structure of society, within the
individual’s psychological beliefs in ability to either control conduct or submit to
luck, fate, or to powerful others.
Rotter’s (1966) original internal/external locus of control (I-E) has been used
as a measure of goal setting and motivation in organizations (e.g., Bergen,
1995; Biggs, 1987) as well as in learning and performance in educational and
organizational settings (e.g., Kishor, 1983; Rose, 1996). Despite differences in
scope and objectives of studies employing Rotter’s I-E construct, a consistent
finding in this line of research is that whether individuals’ personality styles are
subject to external or internal control affects their perception of outcomes (Wan
& Bond, 1982). Those who have an external locus of control view the outcomes
of events as the results of external forces beyond their control such as luck, fate,
chance, or powerful others. On the other hand, those who have an internal locus
of control, usually termed internals (McCormick & Solman, 1992), believe that
the resulting behavior is consequential to their own reinforcements (Cooley &
Nowicki, 1984). From this perspective, an internal control status is related to
active involvement and self-assertiveness and takes the actor status, while an
external control status is related to a general passivity and inactivity around the
operational field status. Thus, internal locus of control is associated with the actor
status and external locus of control with the observer status. Thus, by identifying
each individual as either internal or external, we can determine whether the
 LOCUS OF CONTROL 781
person is an observer or an actor and thus provide the type of attribution for
poverty that could be made by either.

Cultural Variation and Causal Attribution

Proponents of the theory of cultural variation and causal attribution explained
by Hine and Montiel (1999) consider that individuals from Third World countries
tend to attribute poverty to external factors (i.e., structural factors) because of
a general support for the poor and grievance against governmental institutions,
structural deficiencies and rampant corruption in public administration places
(Stapenhurst & Langseth, 1997). Without government welfare institutions in
place, a general sense of injustive prevails in Lebanese society, demanding
greater need for transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. Shek (2004) found
that Chinese adults externalized attribution knowing that Chinese from Hong-
Kong live in a free-market society quite detached from Marxist mainland China;
however, the highest attribution was found for the exploitation factor as opposed
to blame for the poor. This indicates there may be a salient factor of culture and
nation in the attribution of the poverty dimension. Attitudes toward poverty from
a Western observer position are prone to be individualistic; attributions of success
are often attributed to personal effort or abilities and, retrospectively, perceptions
of the causes of poverty are attributed to a lack of effort and personal qualities.
These two styles are not free of personality styles and a question remains
as to whether an external locus of control demonstrates a tendency toward in-
dividualistic attributions and internal locus of control gives more rational and
balanced attributions.
Very few studies on the lay explanations of poverty have taken into
consideration an individual’s locus of control. In addition, cross-national studies
on attribution style have given little confidence in the use of personality style
dimension to understand the attribution for poverty. For instance, Shoeneman
and Rubanowitz (1985) suggest that bias held by observers may be a more salient
factor in the Western world or societies that promote individualistic attitudes.
The examination of the internal/external hypothesis can be generalized from the
actor/observer dichotomy instance. Those persons who have an external locus
of control tend to believe that the causation of poverty is under the control of a
force, a person, or a situation more powerful than the object of attitude. Those
with an internal locus of control search within to find reasons for causes and are
likely to use the situational argument for the attribution of poverty.
The present study involves the analysis of phenomenal causality in examining
the attributions of poverty in its relation to personality styles. Two important
aspects to this theory limited our study. First, there are no measures established
for the actor/observer dichotomy since the type of attributions individuals make
in association with the locus of control identifies whether one is an actor or
782 LOCUS OF CONTROL

an observer. It is hypothesized that individualistic attribution by an individual

with external locus of control will place this person in the observer’s position.
Conversely, the propensity of an internal locus of control person to make
external (societal and structuralist) attributions is more probable than for an
individual with external locus of control. The second assumption or hypothetical
proposition we made was that South African university students as possible
observers/people with external locus of control would be more apt to make
more structuralist attributions. The major research hypothesis was that a person
of an individualistic culture (e.g., South African) may have an internal locus
of control and make more individualistic attributions compared with a person
from a collectivistic culture (e.g., Lebanese) who may have an external locus of
control and make more structuralistic attributions.

Method

Sample
The sample consisted of 443 university students drawn from South Africa and
Lebanon (251 Lebanese and 192 South Africans). The Lebanese sample was
selected from a private four-year comprehensive university that accommodated
urban as well as rural areas. The South African sample was obtained from a large
public university in Capetown.
The Lebanese sample consisted of 219 Christian and 21 Muslim students. South
African students’ ethnic backgrounds were Afrikaners (n=59), Colored (n=90),
Whites (n=21) and Black (n=1), while 21 did not report their racial make-up.
Studies in cross-national contexts have used ethnicity as the unit of analysis to
measure differences as a surrogate to other factors that might provide indication
as to differences on the causal attribution for poverty. While ethnicity is used
as a measure of difference for sociodemographic representation, the measure
does not appear in cultures that are ethnically homogeneous but religiously
heterogeneous. These dimensions are, in essence, used interchangeably.
Two measures of socioeconomic status were employed following the concep-
tualization of Skafte (1988). Perceived economic status was obtained by asking
each student to rate the social class of his/her family. Three main questions
addressed the economic status measure. Students rated the class they belonged
to; (i) Affluent; (ii) Upper Middle Class; (iii) Middle Class; (iv) Lower Middle
Class; and (v) Poor. The class items were collapsed and were recoded into a 3-
point scale. The affluence category was collapsed with the upper middle class,
coded as 3, middle class as 2, lower middle class and poor as 1.
The economic status indicator pointed to a modal middle-class distribution
among the Lebanese and South African samples. The middle-class consisted of
36.4% and 40% respectively for the Lebanese and South African students. Upper
 LOCUS OF CONTROL 783
middle class consisted of 16.3% and 18.7% respectively for the Lebanese and
South African samples. Almost half the Lebanese sample and approximately
one-third of the South Africans were below the middle-class category.

Questionnaire
The researchers attempted to explore the main questions of this study through
the analysis of the data obtained from a three-part questionnaire. The first
part asked for data regarding students’ sociodemographic and socioeconomic
background variables such as class, religion and gender. It was important to
include these variables in the present investigation since they represent different
life experiences. For example, religious affiliation of respondents may be an
important determinant in the variation of attitudes, because differences on these
variables could represent different ideological beliefs (Kluegel & Smith, 1986;
Nilson, 1981). Moreover, class was another important determinant of variation
in explaining student attributions because the latter are functions of expectation
of either increased economic prosperity and wealth or a deteriorating situation
owing to unfair competition and exploitation.
The second part of the questionnaire was based on Rotter’s (1966) scale and
aimed to assess students’ perceptions of their operational field through their
beliefs about the nature of the world. Rotter’s scale has 23 items in addition
to 6 fillers used to make the test more ambiguous. These fillers were removed
from the 29-item list originally conceptualized by Rotter. As a result, 23 items
were included in the final format of the questionnaire administered to students.
Respondents were asked to select from each paired-item only one statement
which represented the closest answer to their own personal belief. Rotter’s
original rationale for the inclusion of fillers is to provide some ambiguity to
the scale. The inclusion of the third as well as the first part of the questionnaire
included the sociodemographic variables and the poverty scale; both provided
enough ambiguity for the locus of control items of Rotter’s scale. In the present
study, internal consistency requirements of the locus of control scale were
generally low because forced-choice items (either internal or external) were not
compatible with each other and split-half and other reliability measures tend to
underestimate the internal consistency. Evidence from Rotter and other studies
suggests that test and post test are better indicators of reliability. However,
because of the locale of the authors, a test-retest was obtained for the Lebanese
sample, which showed good consistency results and a moderate confidence in
the scale. Table 1 shows reliability data provided for both Lebanese and South
African students.
784 LOCUS OF CONTROL

Table 1
Internal Consistency of Rotter’s 23-Item Scale

Guttman Split Half Unequal-length Spearman Brown Split Half Test-retest

Lebanese -0.25 0.199 -0.11 0.65

South African -0.027 0.012 -0.01 NA

The third part of the questionnaire constituted 15 items dealing with the
causal attribution for poverty. The poverty scale was constructed by the authors
and adapted from Feagin’s (1972) original three dimensions of fatalism,
individualism, and structuralism. These dimensions were developed on the
basis of the attribution style (Heider, 1958), which reflects how certain events
may befall a person or how the person may attribute reasons outside the
self (Bernstein, Roy, Srull, & Wickens, 1991). For example, items that were
fatalistic attributed the causes of poverty to external forces such as God, luck,
misfortune, and lack of control. The individualistic dimension attributed poverty
to individual adjustment, and to disposition factors of a target. The structuralist
dimension items portrayed the educational, governmental, or religious systems
as being responsible for the perpetuation of poverty. In this way individuals are
presented with hypothetical events for which they respond to events that they
may think involve them. Students then rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree items preconceptualizing the three
dimensions in the scale (fatalism, individualism and structuralism).
Several criteria were developed to ensure the validity of the instrument.
Preliminary interviews, panel discussions, and open-ended interviews with
faculty and students were conducted to give some indication of appropriateness,
quality, and applicability of the instrument. One South African faculty member
from the University in Capetown reviewed the questionnaire and made minor
modifications by adding the ethnicity variable to the South African version of
the questionnaire.
In order to obtain both the reliability and validity of the poverty scale, a
principal component analysis with a varimax rotation was computed using
all 15 items of the devised scale. Factors with an eigenvalue greater than one
were set as defaults. Items that loaded with a 0.4 on each factor constituted the
dimension for the causal attribution for poverty (Stevens, 1986). The first factor
showed high loading for items that were individualistic (see items 11-15 in the
questionnaire); these had 18.2% of the variance explained by the factor (alpha
coefficient = 0.71). The second factor had three factors which loaded highly
a priori and was considered as the structuralist dimension. The structuralist
dimension (items 3, 4, and 5) accounted for 14.1% of the variance (alpha
coefficient = 0.5). The fatalistic dimension loaded on items 7, 8, 9, & 10 and
 LOCUS OF CONTROL 785
explained 10.9% of the variance (alpha coefficient = 0.62). The fourth and fifth
factors had heterogeneous loading and were removed from the analysis of the
conceptualized constituent factors.
Items that loaded on the preconceptualized factors were used to calculate the
construct for the attributions whether fatalistic, individualistic, or structuralistic.
Hence, each item that loaded on a factor was summed with items that had a high
loading on the preconceptualized factor then divided by the number of item
loadings. This allowed us to obtain a mean rating for each factor. For instance,
items 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 were summed and divided by 5 (mean rating) and
a ratio form measure was obtained for each dimension. For the individualistic
dimension; items 7, 8, 9, and 10 were also summed and divided by 4. For
the fatalistic dimension items 2, 3 and 4 were considered as measures of the
structuralist dimension they were summed and divided by 3. The higher the
mean score the higher the disagreements, conversely the lower the mean score
the higher the agreements. Items 1 and 6 were removed from the analysis, since
their loading as single items on factor 5 and 4 respectively accounted for 3.1%
and 2.5% respectively of the variance.

Procedure
The questionnaire was administered to the South African students in Capetown
with the aid of an affiliate. The authors administered the instruments in
Lebanon.

Results

Table 2
Paired t-test Values for South African and Lebanese Samples on the Three Dimensions
of Causal Attributions

Individualistic Structuralistic
South Africa Lebanon South Africa Lebanon

Fatalistic 3.93** (df=180) 5.86** (df=225) -8.6** (df=185) -14.5** (df=234)

Individualistic -6.0** (df=182) -10.3** (df=232)
** Significant at the 0.001 level

The preconceptualized items of the poverty scale corroborated with the factor
analysis used for the study. A mean score was obtained for the Lebanese and
South African samples on the three attributions of the poverty scale. Table 2
presents the t-test mean difference between each of the three attributions for the
South African and Lebanese samples. Mean significant differences appeared
for all combinations of paired attributes for each of the Lebanese and South
African samples. The Lebanese and South African samples showed a greater
786 LOCUS OF CONTROL

difference between structuralist and fatalist dimensions of the causal attribution

for poverty. Both samples appeared to include more structuralists than fatalists
or individualists.

Table 3
Mean Rating on the Three Attributions of the Poverty Scale

Fatalistic Individualist Structuralist

M SD ns M SD ns M SD ns

Lebanese 3.22 0.9 236 2.8 0.8 234 2.1 0.8 243
South African 2.95 0.9 187 2.6 0.8 185 2.1 0.9 189

Note: Mean rating scores are from high agreement of “1” through high disagreements of “5”

Table 3 reports the mean rating on each of the three dimensions of the
attributions by national grouping. No differences appeared between Lebanese
and South African students on the structuralistic dimension. Further analysis
of covariance provided the mean differences between the South African and
Lebanese samples as the mean ratings. The highest agreements were obtained
for the structuralistic attributions followed by individualistic and fatalistic
attributions.

Table 4
Mean Count for the Internal and External Measure for the Locus of Control
Crossed with Country

Internal External

M SD n M SD n

Lebanese 11.5 3.3 251 11.1 3.4 251

South African 12.8 3.1 192 10.0 3.0 192

In order to obtain a measure of locus of control we obtained a total score for

each student on the internal and external dimensions of locus of control. Our
Lebanese sample was divided equally between externals and internals. The mean
count for the 23 items for the total score for internal locus of control was 11.5
(SD= 3.3). The mean for external locus of control was 11.05 (SD=3.37) (see Table
4). A t test comparing the mean differences t= -1.05, df= 250, p>0.05 indicated no
significant differences between those mean counts of internal or external locus of
control of personality style for the Lebanese students. The South African sample
had a mean rating of 12.83 (SD=3.05) for the internals and 10.01 (SD=3.01) for
the externals. A t test compared internals and externals which showed that South
Africans were significantly more internal than external with t=6.45, df=191,
 LOCUS OF CONTROL 787
p<0.001. The difference in internal locus of control between Lebanese and South
African samples was significant with a t=-4.41, df=441, p<0.001. A significant
difference among external locus of control between Lebanese and South Africans
also appeared, with a t=3.36, df=441, p<0.01 where the Lebanese appeared to be
more external than were the South Africans. These results concur with a general
assumption that postindustrial South African students are more individualistic
and tend to be more internal than do their collectivistic Lebanese counterparts.
Conversely, members of societies that are more collectivistic, as is the case
of Lebanon, are more apt to make external attributions than are members of
societies with an individualistic cultural orientation. Cultural variations in self-
concept and causal attributions explain that persons from a collectivistic culture
have interdependent self-concepts, whereas individuals from individualistic
cultures tend to have independent self-concepts (Carpenter, 2000) and value
internal and personal goals more than do individuals from collectivistic societies.
Collectivists have an “in-group” mentality; they are concerned about how actions
and decisions contribute to the group with a blurred distinction between the
individual and the group. With this in mind it would be expected, for instance,
that an observer of a negative event in South Africa (individual) would produce
individualistic attributions in comparison to Lebanese (collectivist) youth on
their causal attributions for poverty.

Table 5
Mean Adjusted Attribution Scores by Country and Locus of Control

Attribution Country M SD

Fatalism Lebanon 3.03 0.14

South Africa 3.19 0.18
Individualism Lebanon 2.74 0.13
South Africa 2.71 0.17
Structuralism Lebanon 1.83 0.12
South Africa 2.53 0.17

Attribution Locus of Control M SD

Fatalism External 2.99 0.06

Internal 3.23 0.08
Individualism External 2.72 0.06
Internal 2.73 0.07
Structuralism External 2.27 0.06
Internal 2.09 0.07

To test our main hypothesis, we conducted a multiple analysis of covariance

(MANCOVA) with measures of class and racial/confessional affiliation (Black,
White, Colored, & Afrikaners) confessional affiliation (Muslim/Christian) as
788 LOCUS OF CONTROL

covariates. Comparisons are often complicated and confounded by associating

ethnicity and confessional affiliation as constituents of sociodemographic status.
South Africans comprise more than the two distinct linguistic and racial groups,
Afrikaans and English South Africans, which are similar in terms of their
socioeconomic status. Blacks and Colored experience a different reality from
that of the former two ethnic groups in terms of their socioeconomic status and
social orientations. In addition, both groups differ in terms of their lifestyles
and social behavior (Duckitt, 1983). Keeping in mind that South Africa’s socio-
demographic make-up has changed over the century through revolution and
postcolonial replacement, with all its societal cleavages, South Africa currently
has a sort of “forced” multiculturalism made up of Afrikaners, Blacks, Colored,
and English-speaking Whites. The comparison of South Africans and Lebanese
along the dimensions of confessional affiliation could confound our results since
such a construct in a cross-cultural context is too asymmetrical for comparison,
although Khashan (1992) argued that confessionalism and ethnicity are two
inseparable properties of Lebanese sociopolitical make-up. The behavior of
Lebanese confessional communities corresponds exactly to ethnic behavior
conceptualized in multiethnic contexts (Phares, 1995). Ethnicity in South
Africa is an accepted measure of sociodemographic classification; it remains
a measure of status. Similarly, confessionalism relegates certain powers and
privileges to some ethnic group over others. As a consequence, we collapsed the
dimension of confessional affiliation (Muslim and Christian) for the Lebanese
sample on the South African ethnicity (Afrikaner, Black, Colored, and White)
sample into one variable. This variable and class were used as covariates along
with the independent variables of country (Lebanon/South Africa), and locus of
control (internal/external) was further used in a multivariate factorial design on
the three mean ratings of the attributions for poverty (fatalistic, individualist,
structuralist).
Multivariate F-tests revealed no significant interaction effect between country
(Lebanon/South Africa) and locus of control (internal/external) on students’
attribution for poverty. Main significant effects (F(1,358)=6.22, p=0.013)
were found between the Lebanese and South African samples on the rating
of the structuralist dimension taking into account the covariate scores. A
main significant effect was found between external and internal locus of
control on the structuralist dimension (F(1,358)=4.00, p=0.046), and on the
fatalistic dimension (F(1,358)=6.13, p=0.014). The covariate of class and
attribution factor scores were significantly related, F(3,350)=3.50, p=0.015, and
Wilks’ Lambda=0.97. The covariate of ethnicity/confessional affiliation was
also significantly related F(2,350)=3.30, p=0.021 and Wilks’ Lambda= 0.97.
Lebanese students attributed the causes of poverty to their government; they
were more structural than their South African counterparts. Internal locus of
 LOCUS OF CONTROL 789
control students showed a higher attribution rating on structuralism than did their
external counterparts. Surprisingly, no significant differences were found on the
individualistic attribution. However, students with an internal locus of control
were less fatalistic than were those with an external locus of control personality
style. These results do not support our main research hypothesis.

Discussion

The dimensions derived from the component analysis provide a consistent

cross-cultural construct validity of the poverty scale as conceptualized by
the researchers. The highest attribution on the poverty scale appeared on
the structuralist dimension with the measure derived from our component
analysis. The findings showed that Lebanese students were less individualistic
and more structuralistic than South Africans when removing correlates such
as confessional association/ethnicity, and subjective class identification. The
attributions of the poverty scale of both the Lebanese and South African samples’
were significantly different for all combinatorial comparisons; with both
samples rating the structuralist dimension the highest. This high structuralism
among the Lebanese sample possibly derives from the hardships of ordinary
citizens and their condition as victims who must endure multiple deprivations
owing, in part, to the fact that they have little control over their institutions,
economic dissolution in their daily life, and a loss of confidence in a ‘clanocratic’
government (Haddad, 1996).
Also, structuralism appeared to be the highest causal attribution among
South African students. Perhaps because South African society has experienced
more than two decades of internal struggle through institutionalized apartheid,
governmental policies have not dealt with the chaos in South African shantytowns
and the economic dismay that persists among youth. These results were opposite
to those in Furnham’s (1985) study of South African youth and their attributions of
a Just World. Furnham found that White English-speaking people and Afrikaners
posited more individualistic attributions and strong beliefs in a Just World. It
could be that Colored persons blame poverty on successive White governments’
biased politics, while Whites attribute poverty to the current institutionalized
Black government which stripped legitimacy from Whites’ prolonged rule of
Blacks. In other words, Colored structuralism points to White government
subordination, while Whites point the finger at new Black government policies,
which have failed to provide the economic recovery needed by all South African
nationals.
As the world gravitates towards a social policy that emphasizes individual
effort and achievement and encourages individualistic attitudes, it is, perhaps,
an outmoded social reality that is being replaced by a strong moral positioning.
790 LOCUS OF CONTROL

This is, perhaps, more evident in studies emanating from Turkey (Morcol, 1997)
and more recently Hong Kong (Shek, 2003, 2004). Both societies have trudged
into the information age with attributions for poverty which are more external
rather than believed to be poor people’s predicament. Similarly, a high level of
structuralism among affluent Lebanese and South African students (not reported
in the Results Section) is the reverse of what Feagin (1972) and Kluegel and Smith
(1986) reported in the US. On this issue, Della Fave (1974) offers a pertinent
perspective; he suggests that in times of political change there is a tendency to
blame governments and their institutions for potentially negative change. As for
the poor, the tendency to hold to egalitarian attitudes is a characteristic of “less
well-to-do societies” and the underpinning fiber of the ideological structure of
societies swept by global change; hence, it is not surprising to see that struc-
turalistic attitudes have permeated both societies in our study owing to the fact
that major social changes as well as structural changes have swept through both
South Africa and Lebanon in the last decade. There is a social awareness and a
strong feeling of justice permeating the world as a whole.
From the perspective of a human resource theory, postindustrial societies are
prone to have increased modes of production, and a strong investment in human
capital that boosts a return on capital-producing activities. South African society
is considered as a technological one, with heterogeneous sociodemographic
characteristics. The changes that were brought about postapartheid at the start of
the reform program gradually waned after 1993. After apartheid, with the hard
facts of unemployment and income differentials among Whites, they did not
favor their current government. Perhaps, they accepted reform and felt unsure
about the deterioration of their traditional power base (Harris, 2004). In both
cases South African Whites and Colored persons have developed their discontent
by blaming government or by expressing exasperation with it whenever they
were put in a negative situation.
A more pressing issue considered in the introduction to this study is the idea
of attribution bias or error. Ross (1977) considered that attributions of poverty
could be confounded by an attribution bias. In Western society this bias is
increased among observers under conditions where negative events occur
outside the immediate environment of the observer and without them having the
knowledge of contextual factors or remoteness of the event (e.g., poverty) in the
Third World. This, according to Ross, has resulted in an inflated individualistic
attribution for negative events (i.e., poverty) whether in domestic or Third World
nations. Although differences were reported between the Lebanese and South
African students on the structuralistic attributions, the high level of agreement
of South African students on the structuralist scale suggests that no such bias
exists. If such a bias exists, it is to be found in postindustrial South Africans and
mainly between English-speaking Afrikaans students and Colored persons. The
 LOCUS OF CONTROL 791
mean rating between the cluster of Black and Colored South Africans compared
to English-speaking and Afrikaans students was insignificant (t=-0.091, df=161,
p=0.926) which gives an indication that such a bias is evident in our study and
attribution errors may be more coincident with factors of age, education, and
situational factors, or types of target events.
Significant differences between affluent and less well-to-do South African
students were not reported on the ratings on the individualistic dimensions or
within differences on the structuralist dimension. Although status differentials
encourage individualistic behaviors among high socioeconomic status students
(Kluegel & Smith, 1986), these differences did not appear among those
individuals who could gain the most from the system. The upper class South
Africans were structuralistic not individualistic; hence, this did not support
the results by Kluegel and Smith (1986) in the US. We are convinced that the
university education of the sample offset the attributions, because it is probable
that students are more informed of the victim’s conditions, and that they hold
a more idealistic view of justice in the world as they tend to blame the system
strongly (Carr & MacLachan, 1998; Guimond & Palmer, 1990).
The South African students had a higher internal locus of control mean count
than did their Lebanese counterparts. Conversely, Lebanese students had a
higher external locus of control mean count than did South African students.
Assuming that South African students are more socialized into individualistic
attitudes, the patterns of attributions with themes of personality style might
give some indication that South Africans are likely to make more individualistic
attributions and can be classified as observers. Similarly, assuming that Lebanese
students are products of a collectivist society, and could have an external locus
of control, they are more likely to make more situational attributions. Main
significant differences were found between South African and Lebanese students
on the structuralist dimension as confessional affiliation/ethnicity and class were
entered as covariates. In addition, the attributions of external locus of control
were significantly more fatalistic than internal locus of control in their attribution
for poverty. No differences appeared on the individualist dimension, which gives
no palpable support for the “observer-external locus of control-individualistic
attribution hypothesis.” The interaction effects between nation and locus of
control were not significant. As expected with the internal locus of control
dimension, Lebanese and South African internal locus of control individuals
had a higher mean rating on structuralist attributions than did those who were
external locus of control with ethnicity/confessional affiliation, and class as
covariates. There were no significant differences reported between Lebanese
and South African students on their attribution of the fatalist dimension and in-
dividualistic attributions. These results did not support fully the notion ascribed
to the Lebanese sample as being collectivist and thus more likely to make more
792 LOCUS OF CONTROL

individualistic attribution than were South Africans. However, these results are
not surprising given the accumulated empirical perspective on Third World
youth and they suggest that individuals have greater confidence in expectations
that structure or chance will control events.
The higher level of agreement by internal locus of control counts on the
structuralist attributions by South Africans provided the understanding that
individuals with internal locus of control were translating the causes of negative
outcomes to external causes. As McFarland and Ross (1982) suggested, if
obstacles cause one’s failure – such as powerful others – then those external
constraints bring out blame on others. The high rating on the structural attribution
may be a sign of frustration and lack of trust which, together with government
inability to deliver for the poor, negates the attribution bias theory. The results
may say simply that youth around the world are critical of policies that do not
eradicate poverty.
The results provide a positive picture of university students continents apart.
Our general conception of students is that they are behaviorally coerced into
individualistic attitudes through a process of achievement. However, this
generalization is made with some reservation as students retain a moral standing
(moral hypothesis) which explains social responsibility as part of a more widely
based social consciousness permeating all socioeconomic strata of society.

Limitations

The poverty attitudes in this study do not necessarily represent the attitudes
of all Lebanese or South African citizens or even of all university students
since both samples were relatively small and skewed. In Lebanon, for
instance, respondents were drawn from two university campuses with a higher
Christian than Muslim representation. Similarly, the South African sample
was distributed among Colored, White and Afrikaner students with almost no
Black representation. These limitations, however, did not prevent commonsense
discussion and making recommendations for further research with a larger and
more heterogeneous student sample. Second, because of logistics we were not
able to obtain consistency or stability statistics for the poverty scale. Only one
study in the literature provides stability results of the poverty scale (see Shek,
2004) and more empirical evidence is needed to provide better validity and
reliability statistics. Furthermore, the locus of control scale was limited by the
forced-choice format. The adaptation and reconstruction of Rotter’s scale through
a continuum from fate to powerful others may have been more appropriate in use
with the poverty scale.
 LOCUS OF CONTROL 793
Recommendations

Further recommendations are that as the area of poverty has received

considerable attention from researchers in the field, much research is needed
in the consideration of the psychological style of individuals in their view of
poverty. In this direction, Cozzarelli et al. (2001) related affective attitude to
cognition about attribution of poverty. A cross-cultural controlled experimental
study should provide a better understanding of how students provide attributions
for positive or negative events and their interactions with psychological styles.
Our research appears one-sided in the consideration of the event of poverty as
an outcome of attitude. Further attitudinal research should view the event of
poverty in close proximity to the person. For example, the individual could be
asked to juxtapose him/herself or imagine s/he is empathizing with the poor.
This control may give a completely different picture from the standpoint of
the attributer of a target object. Even given the choice of whether or not the
attributer causes the victim to suffer, it projects the attribution from a different
praxis; hence, a completely different pattern of societal explanation may result.
In addition, a more comprehensive approach would have given a clearer picture
of the behavioral structure of society. As Xenikou, Furnham, and McCarrey
(1997) propose, individuals must be seen not only on other dimensions of
internal and external locus of control but also from the position of optimistic
and pessimistic style. Optimistic styles usually attribute failures to external
factors, while success or positive events are attributed to internal and stable
conditions. Pessimists, on the other hand, attribute negative events to internal
and stable causes while positive events are attributed to external and unstable
causes. Considering requesting actors to change to the position of observers and
vice-versa could alter the attribution for poverty. There has been more than one
scale used in the research on the dimensions of fatalistic, individualistic, and
structuralistic attributions of the poverty scale. A need to put closure on a poverty
scale should be a must for research on poverty attitudes. Perhaps a symposium
on this specific area of research would be helpful.
The fact that our analyses presented high structuralist attribution for poverty
among Lebanese and South African youth provides a caution to government
policy and its attempt to combat poverty. The high level of dissatisfaction with
government should provide a gentle warning as to the economic and social
situations in both countries. Overall, endeavors should be made to revitalize
the civic education program to provide a better understanding of what poverty
is, with the focus on promoting responsibility as opposed to obedience and
acceptance of the status quo.
794 LOCUS OF CONTROL

References

Abouchedid, K., & Nasser, R. (2002). Attributions of responsibility for poverty among Lebanese and
Portuguese university students: A cross-cultural comparison. Social Behavior and Personality:
an international journal, 30 (1), 25-36
Bernstein, D., Roy, E. J., Srull, T., & Wickens, C. D. (1991). Psychology (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Australian Council for Educational
Research.
Carpenter, S. (2000). Effects of cultural tightness and collectivism on self-concept and causal
attributions. Cross-Cultural Research, 34, 38-56.
Carr, S., & MacLachlan, M. (1998). Actors, observers, and attributions for Third World poverty:
Contrasting perspectives from Malawi and Australia. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138,
189-202.
Cooley, E., & Nowicki, S. (1984). Locus of control and assertiveness in male and female college
students. The Journal of Psychology, 117, 85-87.
Cozzarelli, C., Wilkinson, A., & Tagler, M. (2001). Attitudes toward the poor and attributions for
poverty. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (2), 207-227.
Della Fave, L. R. (1974). On the structure of egalitarianism. Social Problems, 22, 199-213.
Duckitt, J. (1983). Culture, class, personality, and authoritarianism among White South Africans. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 191-199.
Feagin, J. (1972). Poverty: We still believe that God helps those who help themselves. Psychology
Today, 6, 101-129.
Feagin, J. (1975). Subordinating poor persons: Welfare and American beliefs. Englewood Cliff, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Feather, N., & Barber, J. (1983). Depressive reaction and unemployment. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 92, 185-195.
Furnham, A. (1982). Why are the poor always with us? Explanations for the poverty in Britian.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 311-322.
Furnham, A. (1985). Just World beliefs in an unjust society: A cross cultural comparison. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 363-366.
Guimond, S., & Palmer, D. (1990). Type of academic training and causal attributions for social
problems. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 61-75.
Haddad, A. (1996). Poverty in Lebanon. Abbad, 2, 35-48.
Harris, R. (2004). Democratization of state: A global perspective and South African case study.
International Journal of Public Administration, 27, 1061-1080
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hine, D., & Montiel, C. (1999). Poverty in developing nations: A cross-cultural attributional analysis.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 943-959.
Hunt, M. (1996). The individual, society, or both? A comparison of Black, Latino and White beliefs
about the causes of poverty. Social Forces, 75, 293-322.
Jones, E. (1976). How do people perceive the causes of behavior? American Scientist, 6, 300-305.
Jones, E., & Nisbett, R. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of
behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, D. Valins, & B. Weiner.
Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning
Press.
Kay, A., Jost, J., & Young, S. (2005). Victim derogation and victim enhancement as alternate routes
to system justification. Psychological Science, 16 (3), 240-246.
Khashan, H. (1992). Inside the Lebanese confessional mind. Boston: University Press of America.
 LOCUS OF CONTROL 795
Kishor, N. (1983). Locus of control and academic achievement. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 14, 297-308.
Kluegel, J., & Smith, E. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ view of what is and what ought
to be. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
McCormick, J., & Solman, R. (1992). Teachers’ attributions of responsibility for occupational stress
and satisfaction: An organizational perspective. Educational Studies, 18, 201-222.
McFarland, C., & Ross, M. (1982). The impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to success
and failure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 43, 937- 946.
Morcol, G. (1997). Lay explanations for poverty in Turkey and their determinants. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 137 (6), 728-738.
Nilson, L. (1981). Reconsidering ideological lines: Beliefs about poverty in America. The
Sociological Quarterly, 22, 531-548.
Phares, W. (1995). Lebanese Christian Nationalism: The rise and fall of an ethnic resistance.
London: Lynne, Rienner.
Rose, R. (1996). Locus of control and college students’ approaches to learning. Psychological
Reports, 79, 163-171.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution
process. In Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press.
Rotter, J. (1966). Internal-External Locus of Control Scale. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-25.
Schmidt, G., & Weiner, B. (1988). An attribution-effect-action theory of behavior: Replications of
judgments of help-giving. Personality and Social Bulletin, 14, 610-621.
Schoeneman, T., & Rubanowitz, D. (1985). Attributions in the advice columns: Actors and observers,
causes and reasons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 315-325.
Shek, D. (2003). Chinese people’s explanations of poverty: The Perceived Causes of Poverty Scale.
Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 622-640.
Shek, D. (2004). Beliefs about the causes of poverty in parents and adolescents experiencing
economic advantage in Hong Kong. Journal of Generic Psychology, 165 (3), 272-291
Skafte, D. (1988). The effect of perceived wealth and poverty on adolescents’ character judgments.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 93-99.
Stacy, B., & Singer, M. (1985). The perception of poverty and wealth among teenagers. Journal of
Adolescence, 8, 231-241.
Stapenhurst, F., & Langseth, P. (1997). The role of the public administration in fighting corruption.
International Journal of the Public Sector Management, 10 (3), 311-330.
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Von Bergen, C. (1995). Locus of control and goal setting. Psychological Reports, 76, 739-746.
Wan, K., & Bond, M. (1982). Chinese attributions for success and failure under public and
anonymous conditions of rating. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 23-31.
Williams, S. (1984). Left-right ideological differences in blaming victims. Political Psychology, 5,
573-581.
Xenikou, A., Furnham, A., & McCarrey, M. (1997). Attribution style for negative events: A
proposition for a more reliable and valid measure of attribution style. British Journal of
Psychology, 88, 53-69.
Zucker, G., & Weiner, B. (1993). Conservatism and perceptions of poverty: An attributional analysis.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 925-943.