Locus of Control and Its Relationship with Motivation: Mediated by Grit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between locus of control and academic motivation among adolescents, with grit examined as a potential mediating variable. Methods and Materials: The study employed a descriptive correlational design and was conducted among 380 high school students in Canada, selected based on the Morgan and Krejcie sample size table. Participants completed three standardized instruments: the Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S), and the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS). Data were analyzed using SPSS-27 to compute descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients, while Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was performed using AMOS-21 to evaluate the mediating effect of grit and assess the fit of the proposed model. Findings: Descriptive analysis showed that the mean scores were 12.86 (SD = 3.47) for locus of control, 3.62 (SD = 0.58) for grit, and 5.14 (SD = 0.76) for academic motivation. Pearson correlations revealed significant positive relationships between all variables: locus of control and grit (r = .41, p < .001), grit and motivation (r = .47, p < .001), and locus of control and motivation (r = .36, p < .001). SEM results indicated a good model fit (χ²/df = 1.90, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.048). Grit significantly mediated the relationship between locus of control and motivation, with both direct (β = .25, p = .002) and indirect effects (β = .18, p < .001) being statistically significant. Conclusion: The findings suggest that adolescents with an internal locus of control tend to demonstrate higher grit, which in turn enhances their academic motivation. Grit functions as a key psychological mechanism that strengthens the influence of control beliefs on motivational outcomes, indicating its importance in educational development and intervention planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".