INTRODUCTION:

The internal control locus represents the degree to which people consider that achievement is about their strength and actions rather than external forces. The degree to which people understand control has long been studied and discussed inside the literature. An important effect at the locus of control constructs become made by using (Rotter, 1966) stating that the behavioral force (BP) is a function of expected E and reinforcement values (RV), which can take the following method: BP = R (E, RV). Behavior can degree the diploma to which a man or woman can display motion in a given situation.

Time expectation is based totally on beyond personal studies and measures the risk of certain behaviors being strengthened. This assemble extends to the extent of the way people believe that their experience is under their control or beyond. People with internal control locus believe that occasions are the end result in their behavior and resources. They are empowered to find existing possibilities, a good way to lead to automated learning (Gifford, 2003).

The concept was developed by Rotter (1954), an American psychologist who is working on social learning theories latter extended by Phares (1973) and Lefcourt (1976), in his view, the locus of control is defined as the reinforcements that can be the primary indicators of one's attitudes throughout time. The locus of control theory has an important role in the literature for assisting students who have learning and attitude problems (Kutanis et al., 2011). People with internal locus of control are more likely to make an impact on their skills and efforts than they do on external forces. Alternatively, the external locus of control represents a personality trait wherein uncontrollable elements (such as luck, change, and destiny) are responsible for single life events (Perry, 1990: Kaufmann, 1995: Rauch and Frese, 2007: Rotter, 1954). Looking at entrepreneurship, the high internal LOC is positive for business development. Rauch and Frese (2007) discover of their meta-analysis that internal LOC has a significant relation to business creation and business fulfillment in the long run.

In view of Zaidi and Mohsin (2013), those who can control their outcomes have an internal locus of control, whereas those who have an external locus of control view their outcomes to be beyond their control. People with an internal locus of control believe they can determine the outcomes of their jobs through their own abilities, efforts, and characteristics on the other hand people who have an external locus of control think that external variables such as fate, luck, and chance decide the outcome (Schultz and Schultz, 2013). In view of Karabulut (2016) entrepreneurs who have internal locus of control think that their own individual actions decide the result of their enterprise. Self-confidence is also allied with internal locus of control (Fine et al., 2012). As a result, the current study was carried out to compare the locus of control of male and female students of management institutes in Delhi, NCR.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

According to Elliott (1997) locus of control is important for advising children with learning or behavior difficulties. Many empirical evidence from various literatures imply that internal locus of control is an entrepreneurial trait (Cromie, 2000; Koh, 1996; Ho and Koh, 1992; Robinson et al., 1991a). Internal locus of control was seen as positively allied with intention to turn into a business visionary (Bonnett and Furnham, 1991). Though results differ over the different studies, they often show a relationship among few personality factors viz., locus of control, risk-taking propensity and attitude towards entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention (Turker and Sonmez, 2009). In their study, Ghasemzadeh and Saadat (2011) discovered that female students have a better locus of control than male students. The students of different stream showed significant difference in external and internal locus of control. Çağlar et al. (2009) found significant results regarding the locus of control and levels of decisiveness of students.

According to Bowling et al. (2010) internal locus of control usually illustrates more grounded relationship with work related criterion viz. affective assurance, burnout and job satisfaction than external locus of control. In view of Kader (2014) locus of control furthermore related with a fear of failure. Since individuals with an internal locus of control have greater control over their environment, they are less concerned and concerned about the intended outcome of a particular task than people with an external locus of control. According to Kusmintarti et al. (2018) the respondents who show internal locus of control tend to have higher potential to be entrepreneurs compared to other. Students with internal locus of control would exhibit positive attitude towards entrepreneurship and have higher intention to turn into a business visionary (Khan et al., 2011; Gürol and Atsan, 2006). On the other hand, there are researches that contradict current findings, such as Parsons and Schneider (1974), who discovered that male students have a lower external locus of control than female students. Earlier studies have recommended certain personality traits as essential prerequisites for start entrepreneurship as a career choice (McClelland, 1961; Hisrich and Peters, 1998). However, only a few researchers conducted the research to explore locus of control among management students. Thus, this study in a way that compared the locus of control among male and female students of management institutes.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The Study:

The current study is an exploratory research enquiry that investigates the internal locus of control among students in the Delhi NCR. The study is based on primary data obtained via questionnaire and intends to examine internal locus of control among male and female students of management institutes in Delhi NCR. For estimating the sample size Cochran (1963) will be used to identify representative sample for proportions. The requisite random and representative sample size calculated is 385. So, total 400 respondents were interviewed. The numbers of students selected for study were 217 male student and 183 female students.

Tools for Data Collection:

As this research has a quantitative foundation, the questionnaire employed in this study was a closed-ended questionnaire. The data collection instrument was based on Rotter (1966) and was utilized with slight modifications by Gürol and Atsan (2006). The questionnaire is comprised of five close-ended questions on an interval scale. On a five-point Likert scale, respondents were asked to express their level of agreement with each of the questions. Secondary data was gathered from a variety of research periodicals, journals, and newspapers.

Tools for Data Analysis:

To compare students' internal locus of control, an independent sample test and mean were used. The data was examined using the Social Science window-based Statistical programme (SPSS).

Item Total Correlation:

The questionnaire undertaken for study has 5 questions, and item total correlation was used to assess the sample's normality. Given the sample size of 400, any item having a correlation value less than 0.1948 should be eliminated. Because all of the questions in the study had correlation values greater than 0.1948, no item was excluded from the questionnaire.

Reliability of the Measures:

Cronbach's alpha was used to examine the reliability of the measures on all five items. Cronbach's alpha is intended to be a measure of internal consistency, or if all of the items in the instrument measure the same thing. It allows us to assess the dependability of various variables by estimating how much variance in the scores of various variables can be attributable to chance or random errors (Selltiz et al., 1976). A coefficient greater than or equal to 0.7 is considered desirable and a good sign of construct dependability (Nunnally, 1978). Table 1 shows the Cronbach's alpha for the questionnaire (0.732). Hence, it is reliable and can be used for analysis.

Table 1: Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha	Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items	N of Items
0.732	0.732	5

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of the present study are:-

1. To compare the internal locus of control between male and female students of management institute.

2. To open up new vistas of research and develop a base for application of the findings in terms of implications of the study.

Hypothesis:

H₀₁: There is no significant difference between internal locus of control of male students of management institutes and female students of management institutes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

Result of Independent Sample t Test:

Table 2 displays the findings of an independent sample test performed to compare the internal locus of control of male and female management students. The F value is 0.028 and the sig value is 0.866, which is greater than 0.05 (95 percent confidence interval), indicating that there is no significant difference in the Internal locus of control with respect to gender in Delhi NCR Institutes. As a result, the null hypothesis is not rejected, and we may conclude that there is no significant difference in internal locus of control in students based on gender. Male students have a mean value of 3.76, while female students have a mean value of 3.62, indicating that male and female students in Delhi NCR institutes have the same internal locus of control.

This finding confirms Rastegar and Heidari's (2013) conclusion that there were no significant differences between males and females in internal locus of control and external locus of control. Meghan (2012) confirmed that there is no statistically significant relationship between Locus of control and gender. Lynton (2012) discovered no significant association between locus of control and gender in his study conducted in China. Clarke (2004) discovered no significant differences between genders on any mean locus of control score in his study. On the contrary, one study found that male students had a higher internal locus of control while female students had a higher external locus of control (Zaidi and Mohsin, 2013). In another study, female means were shown to be more external than males on the Locus of control (Wehmeyer, 1993). Our findings were unexpected, as they failed to reveal the existence of a gender difference in entrepreneurial trait locus of control.

CONCLUSION:

The study's goal was to compare the internal locus of control of male and female students of management institutes. The results of t-test indicate that there is no significant difference in students’ internal locus of control between male students of management institute and female students of management institute. Therefore, institutes should also develop programs that enable students to take their entrepreneurial careers into account. The results of this study also have implications for educationalists looking to gain a better understanding of students’ psychosomatic characteristics. Such studies will offer insight into how initiatives can be built in order to promote unique qualities in students.

REFERENCES:

1. Bonnett, C. and Furnham, A. (1991). Who wants to be an Entrepreneur? A Study of Adolescents Interested in a Young Enterprise Scheme. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12(3), 465-478.

2. Bowling, N.; Eschleman, K. and Wang, Q. (2010). A Meta Analytic Examination of Work and General Locus of Control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 761-768.

3. Çağlar, S.; Dinçyurek, S. and Silman, F. (2009). Determination of the Locus of Control and Level of Assertiveness of the Students Studying in the TRNC in Terms of Different Variables. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 12–22.

4. Clarke, D. (2004). Neuroticism: Moderator or Mediator in the Relation between Locus of Control and Depression. Journal Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 245–258.

5. Cochran, W. (1963). Sampling Techniques, Wiley, New York.

6. Cromie, S. (2000). Assessing Entrepreneurial Inclination: Some Approaches and Empirical Evidence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 7-30.

7. Elliott, J. (1997). Locus of Control, Personal Control, and the Counselling of Children with Learning and/or Behaviour Problems. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 25(1), 27-46.

8. Fine, S.; Meng, H.; Feldman, G. and Nevo, B. (2012). Psychological Predictors of Successful Entrepreneurship in China: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Management, 29(1/2), 279- 292.

9. Ghasemzadeh, A. and Saadat, M. (2011). Locus of Control in Iranian University Student and its Relationship with Academic Achievement. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2491–2496.

10. Gifford, S. (2003). Risk and uncertainty. In Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 37-53). Springer, Boston, MA.

11. Gürol, Y. and Atsan, N. (2006). Entrepreneurial Characteristics amongst University Students: Some Insights for Entrepreneurship Education and Training in Turkey. Education + Training, 48(1), 25–38.

12. Hisrich, R. and Peters, M. (1998). Entrepreneurship (4th ed.). Boston: Irwin Mcgraw Hill.

13. Ho, T. and Koh, H. (1992). Differences in Psychological Characteristics between Entrepreneurially Inclined and Non-Entrepreneurially Inclined Accounting Graduates in Singapore. Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change: An International Journal, 1, 43-54.

14. Kader, A. (2014). Locus of Control, Student Motivation, and Achievement in Principles of Microeconomics. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(9), 1-24.

15. Karabulut, A. (2016). Personality Traits on Entrepreneurial Intention. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 12-21.

16. Kaufmann, P. and Welsh, D. (1995). Locus of Control and Entrepreneurship in the Russian Republic. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 20 (l), 43-56.

17. Khan, M.; Ahmed, I.; Nawaz, M. and Ramzan, M. (2011). Impact of Personality Traits on Entrepreneurial Intentions of University Students. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(4), 51-57.

18. Koh, H. (1996). Testing Hypotheses of Entrepreneurial Characteristics: A Study of Hong Kong MBA students. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11 (3), 1225.

19. Kusmintarti, A.; Thoyib, A.; Ashar, K. and Maskie, G. (2014). The Relationships among Entrepreneurial Characteristics, Entrepreneurial Attitude, and Entrepreneurial Intention.IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 16(6), 25-32.

20. Kutanis, R.; Mesci, M. and Övdür, Z. (2011). The Effects of Locus of Control on Learning Performance: A Case of an academic Organization. Journal of Economic and Social Studies, 1(2), 113.

21. Lefcourt, H. (1976). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. Hilldale: new Jersey, Erthaum.

22. Lynton, N. (2012). Connected but not alike: Cross-Cultural Comparison of Generation Y in China and South Africa. Academy of Taiwan Business Management Review, 8(1), 67-80.

23. McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society. Free Press, New York.

24. Meghan, M. (2012). Satisfaction in Adult Romantic Relationships after Parental Divorce: The Role of Locus of Control. Natalie Hill.

25. Nunnally, C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.

26. Parsons, O. and Schneider, J. (1974). Locus of Control in University Students from Eastern and Western Societies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(3), 456.

27. Perry, C. (1990). After Further Sightings of the Heffalump. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 5(2), 22-31.

28. Phares, E. (1973). Locus of Control: A Personality Determinant of Behavior. General Learning Press.

29. Rastegar, M. and Heidari, N. (2013). The Relationship between Locus of Control, Test Anxiety, and Religious Orientation among Iranian EFL Students. Scientific Research, 3, 73-78.

30. Rauch, A. and Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of work and organizational psychology, 16(4), 353-385.

31. Rauch, A. and Frese, M. (2000). Psychological Approaches to Entrepreneurial Success: A General Model and an Overview of Findings. In C. Cooper and I. Robertson (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2000. Chichester: Wiley.

32. Robinson, P.; Stimpson, D.; Huefner, J. and Hunt, H. (1991a). An Attitude Approach to the Prediction of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 13-31.

33. Rotter, J. (1954). Social learning and Clinical Psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.

34. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1), 609.

35. Schultz, D. and Schultz, S. (2013). Theories of Personality, Wadsworth, 10th ed., CA, USA.

36. Selltiz, C.; Wrightsman, L. and Cook, W. (1976). Research Methods in Social Relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY.

37. Turker, D. and Sonmez, S. (2009). Which Factors affect Entrepreneurial Intention of University Students? Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(2), 142-159.

38. Wehmeyer, M. (1993). Gender Differences in Locus of Control Scores for Students with Learning Disabilities. Percept Mot Skills, 77(2), 359-366.

39. Zaidi, I. and Mohsin, M. (2013). Locus of Control in Graduation Students. International Journal of Psychological Research, 6(1), 15-20.

Received on 15.07.2021 Modified on 05.08.2021

Asian Journal of Management. 2021;12(4):483-486.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2021.00075

Independent Samples Test
		Levene's Test for Equality of Variances		t-test for Equality of Means
		F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
									Lower	Upper
ILOC	Equal variances assumed	0.028	0.866	1.906	398	0.057	0.14336	0.07522	-0.00452	0.29123
	Equal variances not assumed			1.901	382.893	0.058	0.14336	0.07540	-0.00489	0.29160