Introduction

The cultural background of W.E.I.R.D. (W.estern, E.ducated, I.ndustrial, R.ich, D.emocratic; Henrich et al., 2010) societies basically promotes individualism, self-expression and personal success (Hofstede Insights, 2023). Among the most well-established personality constructs in this context are certain core self-evaluations (Judge et al., 2003), namely control or efficacy beliefs. In short, the conventional understanding of an internal control belief is that a person believes to be capable of achieving (or avoiding) an outcome through own actions. In contrast, external control beliefs pertain to the extent of control attributed to some entity outside of the individual, e.g., powerful others, God, luck, or fate. On the level of personality, an individual’s accumulated control experience is continually generalised to form a trait that guides future action. Scoring high on internality is valued especially in Western or Westernized cultures, because it is associated with active problem solving and well-being (e.g., feeling and acting self-efficacious), whereas externality is associated with feelings of helplessness and, in extreme cases, depressive symptoms (Bandura, 1977; Rotter, 1966).

Reality, however, is much more comprehensive. It is out of question that self-efficacy per se is universally important across cultures (Jonas et al., 2009; Luszczynska et al., 2005, 2010; Scholz et al., 2002), but is it confined to self-centredness (“Me, Myself, and I”)? Self-efficacy clearly can be perceived at a collective level when individuals identify with social groups such as families, peer networks, and professional teams (Bandura, 2010; Schwarzer and Schmitz, 1999; Zaccaro et al., (1995)). So Western societies obviously are not made up of solitary fighters, only. In non-Western societies, efficacy beliefs that refer to social, religious, and fatalistic control can be even more pivotal parts of the self. The African Ubuntu philosophy is only one example saying, “A person is a person through other persons” (Bolden, 2014; Mugumbate, 2021). Contemporary transcultural personality models consequently have adopted a perspective that allows for individuals to see themselves as interdependent and related with external agents (Fan et al., 2021; see Fig. 1). However, apart from a few exceptions (e.g., Fritsche, 2022; Krampen, 1991), the Western, individual-centered perspective on control beliefs appears to suffer from an ‘internality bias’ that does not reflect the evolving societies of a globalised world (Triandis, 2002; United Nations, 2020).

Fig. 1
Fig. 1The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Research paradigm within the framework of the new two polarities transcultural model (Fan et al., 2021).

The aim of this study is to explore the construct of competence and control beliefs (including self-efficacy) from the perspective of a socio-culturally related personality (see Fig. 1). Special attention is given to the two functions of the self. One helps the individual to maintain an autonomous identity by fostering independence. The other extends the self when one identifies with, for example, significant others, family, communities, or higher powers. The connection between these functions of the self and feeling a part of a societal world is examined: Are control beliefs connected to how people think their world works altogether (e.g., whether and how application gets rewarded; for an overview see Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005; Leung and Bond, 2009)? And is control connected with perceiving certain social competencies?

Although psychological tests aimed at measuring control beliefs have been translated into many languages (e.g., Scholz et al., 2002), they still do not seem to cover the construct in its entirety, and their cross-cultural invariance is still in question (Huizing, 2015). Transcultural equivalence or invariance is far from certain for the majority of the measures applied. Nevertheless, the study’s results will help establish a foundation for transcultural research in the future by using a multi-method exploration of the construct’s content. Germany is the language region of origin for the control beliefs measures applied, and it is considered to be a typical W.E.I.R.D. country. If there is a research gap to be closed, then the obvious place to start is here. The German data is accompanied by a pilot data collection from Kenya, which features relatively higher collectivistic and religious orientations (Globe, 2025; Hofstede Insights, 2023; Ma and Schoeneman, 1997; Malunga, 2009; Mwipikeni, 2018; Okeke et al., 1999). Both samples were collected as a part of a larger binational research project on culture-specific personality features (Arasa et al., 2016). Examining the two culturally distinct samples simultaneously may provide additional information about the universality or specificity of the construct’s content.

This report provides detailed insights into the following analyses: canonical correlation analyses and difference tests to compare correlations. The results will inform the development of new hypotheses regarding the future assessment of personality traits. The assumption of both independent and interdependent functions of personality allows for the examination of competence and control beliefs in different social and cultural contexts.

Theoretical framework of the new two-polarities model of personality

Personality is not only made of structure (in the sense of “being” somebody somehow), but as well possesses functions. At first glance, this is hardly surprising, as personality has to be evolutionarily adaptive—otherwise individual differences would rather likely cease to exist (Greve, 2023). Fan et al. (2021) have proposed a theory of personality that was concurrently derived from Western and Eastern approaches. According to this model, personality contains a structure of the self as well as a structure of relatedness. At the same time, personality possesses independent and interdependent functions (see Fig. 2). The prominence of each of these four basic dimensions varies in different cultural settings (e.g., face labelling the interdependent self in the East, Cheung et al., 2011). Thus, the model claims universal validity and at the same time allows for culture-specific differences. It allows for the integration of any personality variable of interest.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Research question and operationalisation within the framework of the new two polarities transcultural model (Fan et al., 2021).

The variables examined in this study are to be understood within this framework model. For this study, social axioms and social skills were chosen to measure indicators of relatedness, because they clearly represent action-psychological content (means-ends relations and competencies, respectively). If a connection exists between control beliefs and relatedness, it should be detectable using social axioms and skills as operationalisations for relatedness.

Indicators of the self: competence and control beliefs

As illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2, Competence and control beliefs are located within the self-structure because they are core self-evaluations (Judge et al., 2003). They contain independent functions (e.g., self-concept of own competence) and they may also serve the interdependency of the self (e.g., by beliefs on the impact of powerful others, or through an extended self, Ma and Schoeneman, 1997).

The concept of psychological control concerns the question of who has the power or where lies the force to cause certain consequences that are to be achieved or avoided. Having control is opposed to helplessness (Seligman, 1972). The construct attracted international attention with Rotter’s locus of control (1966) and Bandura’s self-efficacy (1977). The experience as well as the expectation of having control is essential for any human being in order to make decisions and take action in a variety of important areas of life (e.g., learning, development, adaptation, success, well-being, and health recovery; for an overview, see Skinner, 1996; Bukowski et al., 2016).

With only a moderate degree of abstraction, they are considered reliable predictors of numerous achievement criteria (Harrow et al., 2009; Luszczynska et al., 2005; Ng et al., 2006, p. 1074; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). However, the construct has predominantly been evaluated with regard to the typical performance-oriented outcomes of the striving individual. Notable exceptions come from research on interpersonal trust, efficacy on a collective level, and control restoration effects through the social self (Krampen, 1991; Schwarzer and Schmitz, 1999; Stollberg et al., (2017)).

This report focuses on two measures of competence and control beliefs that are rooted in the German language area. The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; Schwarzer and Jerusalem, 1995) aims at self-beliefs reflecting a stable internal attribution of coping success. The I-SEE approach is derived from a distinct theoretical tradition (Greve et al., 2001; Krampen, 1991; see also Krampen’s action-theoretical model, 1988, 2005). In addition to the self-concept of one’s own competence and internality (which sum up to self-efficacy), it assesses powerful others and fatalistic control beliefs (which sum up to an externality score). In contrast to the traditional locus of control, the internal and external beliefs are not considered to be opposing constructs; rather, they may vary independently from each other (see Fig. 3). Sometimes, a negative correlation between the two scales has been documented (e.g., Beierlein et al., 2012). However, the factor structure of psychological control has been disputed for years (Coombs and Schroeder, 1988; Hui and Triandis, 1983; Huizing, 2015). The current re-standardisation of a German short form no longer shows any noteworthy correlation (Miczka et al., 2024).

Fig. 3
Fig. 3The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Competence and control beliefs according to Miczka et al. (2024): primary and secondary scales.

The external aspects of control beliefs seem difficult to grasp, and they are responsible for most of the cross-cultural specificities (Heinecke-Müller et al., 2022; Flammer, et al., 1995; Greve et al., 2001; Jonas et al., 2009; Smith et al., 1995). Western societies tend to perceive it as degrading and stigmatising to admit a belief in social, religious or fatalistic impacts (Jakoby and Jacob, 1999, p. 63). Then again, non-Western cultures, where such beliefs are more prevalent (e.g., collectivist cultures and societies with a high level of religiosity), do not inevitably suffer reduced internality and, consequently, well-being. Recent research in social psychology has demonstrated that individuals may perceive external control aspects as internal resources for coping with demands. Powerful others, such as family members, professionals, or politicians, can be called for support (Agroskin and Jonas, 2013; Friesen et al., 2014; Fritsche, 2022; Greenaway et al., 2015; Stollberg et al., 2017). One may perceive oneself as being favoured by fortune (Fast et al., 2009; Langer, 1975; Whitson and Galinsky, 2008). Finally, religiosity or a belief in higher powers can be perceived as an internal as well as an external resource for coping (Kay et al., 2009; 2010). Overall, this demonstrates the need for clarification of a construct that claims to be of universal applicability.

Indicators of relatedness: social axioms and social skills

Relatedness, as the other component of the personality’s structure, likewise can fulfil two functions (see Fig. 2). Some beliefs about how the world works allow the individual to act self-propelling and feel independent (e.g., how to prepare a proper meal, or how to achieve financial security, whether through legal or illegal means). Such beliefs are called social axioms, and they facilitate the pursuit of meaning and the comprehension of social reality by the individual. They describe individuals’ assumptions about the world and oneself, about people, groups and social institutions, as well as events and phenomena in the social world (Leung and Bond, 2009). In terms of action psychology, such social axioms represent means-ends connections necessary for acting. For example, contingencies like “effort is expected to be rewarded” or “most businesses are trustworthy” are social axioms.

Everyday social situations are navigated using social skills. Fitting in the other component of the relatedness structure, they serve interdependent functions, such as enabling nonverbal and emotional communication skills (Riggio, 1986). For example, a team leader may use social control to earn a reward for the team’s efforts. In the evening, she herself is socially manipulated by her child to serve his favorite dish. Would she recognize her skills in reacting rather sensitively or expressively, or both? It is difficult to imagine a social situation in which our personality does not also reflect our (perceived) social skills. They are therefore used as indicators for the interdependent function of the relatedness structure.

Competence and control beliefs’ connection with relatedness indicators

Within the framework model of Fan et al. (2021), competence and control beliefs represent the self-structure (as opposed to the relatedness-structure; see Fig. 2) because they contain beliefs pertaining to one’s own identity and capabilities. Internal control beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy) focus on independent functions of the self. In contrast, external control beliefs facilitate interdependent functions while remaining within the self-structure. To cover both, two instruments are employed: The GSE and one half of the I-SEE (self-efficacy) aim at measuring the independent function of the self, while the other half of the I-SEE (externality) represents the interdependent function. It is expected, that both instruments or functions are connected with personality features from the relatedness structure.

To cover the relatedness structure of Fan et al.’s (2021) personality model, social axioms and social skills were chosen as target variables (see Fig. 2). Social axioms are a system of beliefs concerning the modus operandi of the social world. This incorporates means-ends relations relevant for the comprehension of and acting in a given society (Leung and Bond, 2009). While they by nature refer to being related with a social context, they nevertheless serve the function of maintaining autonomy and independence. For instance, holding certain beliefs about the trustworthiness of others is not necessarily related to a person’s level of social integration or efficacy. Rather, such a conviction shapes expectancies, decisions, and interpretations in the pursuit of goals within social contexts. Conversely, social skills nourish the ability to create and maintain interpersonal relationships. For example, if a person considers themselves as socially sensitive or manipulative, then this is a manifestation of the personality’s interdependent relatedness.

In summary, it is hypothesised that on the level of personality, competence and control beliefs—indicators of the self—are associated with social axioms and skills, which serve as indicators for relatedness. Second, external control beliefs should be closer connected to relatedness than the internal beliefs. This assumption is somewhat daring, because although the I-SEE features external control beliefs, item content still reflects the criticised “Me, Myself, and I” worldview (e.g., “Other people often prevent my plans from becoming reality”, “Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interests from bad luck happenings”; Greve et al., 2001, p. 332). However, this hypothesis complements the study by clarifying a possible need for revision of the construct applied. Third, though provisionally in an exploratory manner, control beliefs are investigated by comparison between data from Germany and Kenya. It is expected, that results basically can be reproduced within the Kenyan sample, although not in an entirely identical way. It is imperative, that disparities in sociocultural background (for example, with regard to religiosity and collectivism) are reflected in the associations of variables. Furthermore, the majority of instruments utilized in this context have not been definitely demonstrated to be culturally invariant. In any case, given the paucity of research in this field, it is not possible to make any definitive predictions regarding the precise nature of these differences.

Hypothesis I: Competence and control beliefs are associated with personality aspects representing relatedness (namely, social axioms and social skills). There is a significant correlation between the two sets of variables.

Hypothesis II: External control beliefs are more closely associated with social axioms and social skills than beliefs in internal control. A substantial difference is evident in the correlations between the two sets of variables.

Method

Sample structure

We recruited N = 182 respondents in Germany (nG = 91) and Kenya (nK = 91; see Table 1). All subjects were informed adequately, and took part voluntarily. Both convenience samples were collected during the course of a larger research project on personality, recruited from the surroundings of large cities’ universities at the campuses and via snowball sampling. A comparison of the two samples revealed no significant disparities with regard to age (t(178) = 1.46, p = 0.145) or gender (χ²(1) = 0.591, p = 0.539). In the German sample, 11% of the test persons declared to identify with another cultural background other than German, which is roughly half the amount given in the population. In the Kenyan sample, a total of 16 different cultural identifications (20% Kikuyu, 11% African, 9% Luo, 8% Kamba, […]) mirror the high cultural diversity of that country (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2019). Of the German participants, 44% declared to be students and 54% identified as working, while only 26% of the Kenyan participants claimed to be students (with 74% working). Being solely a student is relatively rare in Kenya, so most likely the number of “working” persons comprises part-time students, as well. The two samples differ to a certain extent, not only in average age. By using samples from a specific milieu, only small segments of the populations are taken into account. At the same time, this is an economic approach to at least compare the two samples in the frame of an explorative investigation.

Table 1 Sample structure.
Full size table

The questionnaire

Most surveys were conducted as paper-pencil questionnaires. Parts of the German samples answered using a web-based version. The questionnaire was presented in German or English (Kenyan sample). Given about 70 regional languages spoken in Kenya, with Kiswahili and English being official languages, an English version seemed to provide the highest compatibility.

The entire questionnaire had a duration of around 30 minutes and consisted of three sections covering the four personality aspects of Fan et al.’s framework model (for an overview, see Table 2): 1. Competence and control beliefs. The General Self-Efficacy Scale GSE (Schwarzer and Jerusalem 1995; Hinz et al., 2006) comprises ten items to be answered on a 4-point Likert scale, aiming at self-beliefs reflecting a stable internal attribution of coping success. A huge base of broad applications in more than 30 languages documents its reliability and relevance for clinical practice and behavioural change, e.g., concerning depression, self-esteem, shyness, and optimism. A cross-culturally shared core is captured to some extent (Damásio et al., 2016; Luszczynska et al., 2005, 2010; Scholz et al., 2002). The I-SEE, as a second measure applied, expands the generalised control beliefs with two external scales. The 32-item questionnaire (answered on a 6-point Likert scale) is composed of four relatively independent aspects of control (Greve et al., 2001; German: FKK, Krampen, 1991). Two of them, self-concept of own competence (S) and internality (I), sum up to self-efficacy (SI), and two others, powerful others (P) and chance (C), together make for external control beliefs (PC). It has proven to relate to developmental cognitions and action-related correlates, e.g., developmental control, the elderly’s everyday activities, life satisfaction, engagement in social, political, and therapeutic activities, and features sufficient to good reliability. 2. Social axioms. The Social Axioms Scale (SAS II; Leung and Bond, 2009) was administered in its short form (Leung et al., 2012) and supplemented up to the parsimonious model from Barnard et al. (2017) to fit the African context, resulting in 8 to 15 items per scale, answered by means of a 5-point Likert scale. Five factors were found to represent general knowledge about the world: social cynicism, fate control, social complexity, reward for application, and religiosity. At the individual level (the pan-cultural level is supported as well; Bond et al., 2004b), they have proven to correlate with several attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, such as coping and well-being (Bond et al., 2004a; Lai et al., 2007), gambling behavior, and participation in social movements (Chen et al., 2022), to name only a few. 3. Social Skills. The Social Skills Inventory (SSI; Riggio, 1986, 2005; Riggio and Carney 2003) is a 90-item self-assessment questionnaire for the two categories of skills to interpret, communicate, and regulate verbally and nonverbally. From the seven scales (emotional as well as social expressivity, sensitivity, and control, plus social manipulation), one marker item each was selected that seemed to be easily comprehensible in both languages. The response mode using a 5-point Likert scale was adopted from the original manual. Social skills do not correlate substantially with Rotter’s locus of control (Riggio et al., 1990) but with self-esteem and, most well-established, several aspects of interpersonal online and offline social behaviour, and leadership outcomes (Caplan, 2005; Liu and Peng, 2009; Riggio et al., 2020). Demographic items. Gender, age, occupation, (sub-)culture, and education were recorded. 5. Other variables. On a voluntary basis, some of the participants answered additional qualitative questions on item comprehension (not reported here).

Table 2 Measures applied within the frame of the new two polarities transcultural model (Fan et al., 2021).
Full size table

Data analyses

Separately for each country’s sample, scale characteristics were analysed in advance, and poor items were omitted if the corrected item-total correlation was below 0.30 (see Table 3). Internal consistency was assessed using McDonald’s ω (McDonald, 1999), except for the social skills marker items that do not build a global score. Table 4 displays intercorrelations of the two competence and control beliefs measures, while the same is shown for social axioms and skills in Table 5. It is noteworthy, that full cross-cultural equivalence cannot be assumed for the test battery applied (Chen, 2008). Direct country comparisons of mean scores are excluded, and all data analyses pertain to correlational relations of the constructs involved (Boehnke, 2022).

Table 3 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and internal consistency (McDonald’s ω) of control beliefs and social axioms scales.
Full size table
Table 4 Scale intercorrelations of competence and control beliefs measures.
Full size table
Table 5 Scale intercorrelations of social axioms and skills measures.
Full size table

To test hypotheses, both competence and control beliefs measures were subjected to canonical correlations with social axioms and social skills (see Fig. 2), computed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows 29.0. For multicollinearity could not be ruled out completely, canonical factor loadings as well as redundancy measures are reported. A priori power analyses were conducted using G*Power 3.1.9.6 (Faul et al., 2007, 2009). For hypothesis I, the required sample size to detect a small effect according to Cohen (1988) was N = 84 (β = 0.80, |ρ | = 0.30, α = 0.05; Correlation: Bivariate normal model). For hypothesis II, it was assumed that a small effect is present in the population, but still a moderately increased effect should be detected in the canonical correlations’ difference (β = 0.80, |ρ | = 0.19, α = 0.05; Correlations: Two dependent Pearson r’s with common index). The interdependency between the two sorts of control beliefs regarded was estimated to be r = –0.40, according to the latest population representative data set (Miczka et al., 2024). As a result, the minimum sample size to detect such an effect size was calculated being N = 92. Thus, the given sample sizes are just sufficient to test the study’s hypotheses. In order to proceed with the utmost caution, canonical correlations were adjusted using Thompson (1990) correction with competence and control beliefs representing X-variables. For the same reason, within the test of hypothesis II, correlations were compared by one-tailed Steiger’s z-Test (1980) for dependent samples using the cocor R package (Diedenhofen and Musch, 2015).

Results

Hypothesis I: Competence and Control Beliefs in Conjunction with Relatedness

To give an overview, all competence and control beliefs measures significantly correlated with social axioms and skills in the German sample. Consequently, the indicators for the self-structure are interrelated with the indicators for the relatedness-structure. Although the unidimensional construct of the GSE’s general self-efficacy is closely related to the I-SEE’s self-efficacy, both personality tests related differently to certain aspects of relatedness. In the Kenyan sample, this even made for no significant correlations of one measure (GSE), while the other (I-SEE) featured moderate to strong connections with social axioms and social skills.

In the German sample, the general sense of self-efficacy (GSE; Schwarzer and Jerusalem 1995) showed a significant and moderate canonical correlation (CR) with the social skills marker items (SSI; Riggio, 1986), CR = 0.433, F (7,78) = 2.564, p = 0.020. The Thompson-corrected correlation (CRT) was CRT = 0.512. The canonical variable explains 18.7% of the common variance (redundancy 2.2%). The first pair of canonical variates had high standardised loadings on social sensitivity (–0.903), emotional control (–0.448), and social control (0.446). Thus, participants who reported high general self-efficacy at the same time scored very low on social sensitivity, low as well on emotional control, but higher on social control.

With social axioms (SAS II short; Barnard et al., 2017; Bierbrauer and Klinger, 2001; Leung et al., 2012), general self-efficacy showed one significant and strong correlation, CR = 0.699, F (5,42) = 8.009, p < 0.001, CRT = 0.800. The canonical variable explains 48.9% of the common variance (redundancy 10.7%). The highest standardised loadings occurred for fate control (–0.848) and social complexity (0.383). A high sense of general self-efficacy came with rejecting fatalistic aspects to control societal circumstances, while social impacts were perceived as complex.

Pertaining to the connection of competence and control beliefs (I-SEE; Greve et al., 2001; Krampen, 1991) with social skills, the two significant canonical correlations are displayed in Table 6. The first pair of canonical variates showed that low degrees on self-concept of own competence and internality on the side of efficacy beliefs were associated with social sensitivity, as well as emotional and social expressivity. Second, a strong disbelief in chance control together with relatively low self-confidence was associated with reduced social expressivity as well as low social and emotional sensitivity.

Table 6 Canonical correlations between competence and control beliefs, and social skills.
Full size table

From the four canonical correlations computed for social axioms, only the first pair came out significantly (see Table 7). Participants with an emphasis on external control beliefs thus expressed the assumption, that society is driven by fate and showed skepticism towards social or societal structures.

Table 7 Canonical correlations between competence and control beliefs and social axioms.
Full size table

In the Kenyan sample, the canonical correlation between general self-efficacy and social skills was not significant, CR = 0.366, F (7,76) = 1.681, p = 0.126, CRT = 0.434. The same applied to the canonical correlation with social axioms, CR = 0.325, F (5,76) = 1.798, p = 0.123, CRT = 0.357.

For competence and control beliefs canonically correlated with social skills, Table 6 shows the one significant pair. Participants with a relatively high opinion of their own competence and a low belief in the power of others at the same time scored high on social control skills.

From the four canonical correlations computed for competence and control beliefs with social axioms, the first two came out significant and strong (see Table 7). Participants seeing themselves as capable and in control, held high expectations that effort will be rewarded in society. Second, persons with a low sense of their own capability (although being in control) and low fatalistic belief, perceived their society to be relatively complex—maybe even complicated. Although fatalistic impact was perceived as low, religious forces still were reported to be quite relevant. In this pattern, participants did not seem to expect a remarkable reward for applications made in societal life.

Hypothesis II: Correlation Between Relatedness and Internal versus External Control Beliefs

To test hypothesis II, canonical correlations with social skills and social axioms were compared by using control beliefs labelled as internal (self-efficacy), on the one hand, and those labelled as external, on the other hand (see Table 2). To outline the main point of results, no significant difference could be detected between the independent and interdependent aspects of the self when each was correlated with relatedness indicators.

Correlations of general self-efficacy (GSE) with social axioms and social skills, respectively, are reported above. Krampen’s control beliefs (I-SEE, Greve et al., 2001), though, were regarded on the level of secondary scales, namely, self-efficacy (SI; self-concept of own competence and internality, combined) and externality (PC; powerful others and chance, combined).

In the German sample, the canonical correlation between SI and social skills was significant and strong, CR = 0.601, F (7,80) = 6.461, p < 0.001, CRT = 0.720. The canonical variable explains 36.1% of the common variance (redundancy 6.0%). In the first pair of canonical variates, high standardised loadings occurred for social sensitivity (–0.748) and emotional expressivity (0.560). Hence, high self-efficacy was connected to low sensitivity skills and high emotional expressivity in social contact. SI’s canonical correlation with social axioms turned out significant and strong, CR = 0.535, F (5,43) = 3.451, p = 0.010, CRT = 0.610. The canonical variable explains 28.6% of the common variance (redundancy 6.2%). High self-efficacy scores were associated with a disbelief in fate control (–0.816) and a tendency to perceive society as complex (.346).

PC and social skills correlated moderately, CR = .490, F (7,80) = 3.613, p = .002, CRT = .527. The canonical variable explains 24.0% of the common variance (redundancy 3.7%). The highest standardised loadings were on social (.803) and emotional (.417) sensitivity. External control beliefs thus were related to higher sensitivity skills of both types. The canonical correlation of PC with social axioms was strong, CR = .690, F (5,43) = 7.827, p < .001, CRT = .786. The canonical variable explains 47.6% of the common variance (redundancy 9.8%). High externality was thus connected with social cynicism (0.501) and fate control (0.851).

In the Kenyan sample, the canonical correlation between SI and social skills is significant and of moderate magnitude, CR = 0.434, F (7,77) = 2.549, p = 0.020, CRT = 0.514. The canonical variable explains 18.8% of the common variance (redundancy 2.7%). High standardised loadings in the first pair of canonical variates occurred for social control (.918) and, lesser so, on emotional expressivity (0.438). Self-efficacy therefor was connected to perceived skills in controlling social situations as well as a tendency to express emotions purposively. SI’s canonical correlation with social axioms is significant and moderate, CR = 0.497, F (5,74) = 4.862, p < 0.001, CRT = 0.560. The canonical variable explains 24.7% of the common variance (redundancy 7.2%). The first pair of canonical variates had a high standardised loading on reward for application (0.943), indicating that high self-efficacy comes with an expectation that effort may lead to desirable outcomes.

PC and social skills correlated strongly, CR = 0.513, F (7,76) = 3.881, p = 0.001, CRT = 0.609. The canonical variable explains 26.3% of the common variance (redundancy 5.7%). The higher the external control beliefs, the less social contexts were perceived to be controllable (social control –0.700). The canonical correlation of PC with social axioms came out significant, but small, CR = 0.377, F (5,73) = 2.414, p < 0.044, CRT = 0.426. The canonical variable explains 14.2% of the common variance (redundancy 3.3%). Similar to the German sample, the first pair of canonical variates had high standardised loadings on fate control (0.688) and social cynicism (0.565).

Contrary to expectations, results summarised in Table 8 imply that most differences were too small to reach the significance level. Only the German sample tendentially followed expectations: externality (as measured by PC) correlated somewhat higher with social axioms than internality did (as measured by SI). Altogether though, both samples do not give an impression of interdependent functions of the self being closer connected to relatedness than the independent functions. Even inverse results occurred. Still, some remarkable information can be gathered from Table 8. First, the correlations’ difference was on average 50% higher for the SI scale than for GSE, indicating a larger conceptual differentiation from externality. Second, the average difference of correlations was only 30%, when social axioms and skills are compared. Still, SI and PC showed a greater distance from each other in the case of social skills (as opposed to the case of social axioms). Between the German and Kenyan samples, there were only marginal differences to observe in numeric values. With regard to absolute sample sizes, further interpretations are not appropriate before more investigations are conducted.

Table 8 Compared correlations of ‘independent’ and ‘interdependent’ control beliefs with social axioms and skills.
Full size table

Discussion

In this study, competence and control beliefs were integrated into the framework of the New Two Polarities Transcultural Model of personality (Fan et al., 2021) and assessed using two scales which were selected to represent inter- and independent functions of the self. Their construct validity was explored with regard to the relatedness part of personality, as indicated by social axioms and social skills (Barnard et al., 2017; Bierbrauer and Klinger, 2001; Leung et al., 2012; Riggio, 1986).

The results of the canonical correlation analyses provide substantial support for Hypothesis I, indicating significant correlations between all measures of competence and control beliefs and relatedness aspects. First, it can be concluded that the self-evaluation of generalized competence and control is not constrained to individual-centered correlates and outcomes (Schwarzer and Schmitz, 1999; Zaccaro et al., 1995). Rather, strong correlations were identified with perceptions of the social fabric and the means to communicate and deal with it. This finding calls into question the assumption that the self is confined to a structure enclosing only perceptions of “Me, Myself, and I”. However, this is not a significant departure from previous findings in the field of social and action psychology, as there is evidence that external forces may be perceived as internal resources when it comes to powerful others, ingroups, fate, and faith (e.g., Fritsche, 2022; Kay et al., 2009, 2010; Whitson and Galinsky, 2008).

The canonical correlations of the two competence and control beliefs measures (GSE, Schwarzer and Jerusalem 1995; I-SEE, Greve et al., 2001) resembled each other quite well, indicating a shared content that is connected to social axioms and skills. Self-efficacy, an indicator for an independent function of the self, was most frequently observed in conjunction with a perspective that may be described as follows: Society is complex, so one has to deal with matters according to specific circumstances. Fate has little to do with it (Bond et al., 2004a). One is able to adapt own behaviour to a social context (e.g., negotiation, conflict resolution, leadership), rather than to recognise subtle social signals and be empathetic in return (Riggio and Carney, 2003). This well exemplifies the typical W.E.I.R.D. individualist and performance oriented pattern. But the overlap between the two measures aiming at control beliefs essentially comes down to this fundamental aspect.

Although the unidimensional general self-efficacy (GSE) is closely related to self-efficacy from the 4-factorial measure (I-SEE), the tests still behaved differently towards criteria. In the Kenyan sample, this even made for no significant correlations of one measure (GSE), while the other (I-SEE) showed strong connections with social axioms and social skills similar to like it did in Germany. The GSE with its single factor was highly correlated with I-SEE’s self-efficacy, such as one would expect from two instruments assessing a similar construct. As was to be expected, the GSE’s correlation with I-SEE’s externality subscale was remarkably lower. In other words, the I-SEE encompasses social and fatalistic elements of psychological control, that are not captured by the GSE. Externality, as a separate function of the interdependent self, was as closely connected with social axioms and skills as self-efficacy was. The respective worldview observed can be roughly expressed as: Societal norms are to be viewed with doubt, because personal gain will always prevail. Though, ultimately, fate may control our destinies (Bond et al., 2004a), one understands social signals and others’ emotional experiences to effectively deal with them (Riggio and Carney, 2003).

For the Kenyan sample, the connections between I-SEE’s competence and control beliefs with social axioms and skills turned out comparable, but only to some extent. Similar to the German sample, general self-efficacy (as measured by I-SEE; Greve et al., 2001) was accompanied by the assumption of social complexity, as well as exerting social control, and expressing emotions. Here, a strong expectation of reward for application (Putting effort and resources in leads to positive outcomes; Bond et al., 2004a) was added newly. Neither fate nor religiosity were axioms involved. For externality, the Kenyan sample once more exhibited a comparable response to that observed in the German sample. This suggests, that external factors play a significant role in influencing societal occurrences, which require close monitoring and observation (see above). But while the German participants then relied on heightened social and emotional sensitivity, the Kenyan sample responded with low social control skills, rather. It is still necessary to investigate whether this explorative result is due to subtle nuances in culture-specific comprehension and styles, whether there are practical reasons that shape the social axioms and skills scheme in the respective cultural contexts, or whether this is an issue of non-transferability of the measures applied. In the process of test development, including factor analytical procedures, item content might have got lost. For instance, in the context of transcultural test psychology, Boehnke (2022) deplored that for the sake of equivalence, content with culture-specific functionality often gets discarded and the resulting scale cut by a relevant aspect of the target construct.

Hypothesis II posited that specific forms of control beliefs are more closely associated with aspects of the personality’s relatedness-structure. For external control beliefs are understood to represent an independent function of the self, they were expected to correlate to a greater extent with social axioms and skills than internal beliefs. However, both self-efficacy measures and one externality measure did not differ in the height of their correlations with social axioms and skills, respectively. This may indicate that the structural and functional aspects of personality are intricately intertwined (Fan et al., 2021), and that an understanding of how to navigate the societal environment is so fundamental that it encompasses all competence and control beliefs at once. It is equally plausible that the employed measures may exhibit a lack of construct validity, whereby social and fatalistic content were mixed into the self-efficacy scales. As had been discovered before with the social axiom named fate control, there may be internal as well as external content hidden in a presumably homogenous scale (e.g., fate alterability vs. inevitability; Leung et al., 2012).

To see means-ends relations in everyday life (social axioms), and to perceive oneself as capable of executing some purposeful social behaviour (social skills), both are preconditions strongly connected to the competence and control belief system. In light of the results presented here, it can be concluded that this also applies to self-efficacy—an internal control belief—as well as to externality. These core self-evaluations have long been understood as two extremes of a spectrum, or cleared to build single factors, or designed to be independent of each other (Huizing, 2015; Skinner, 1996). And yet they exhibit comparable relationships to social axioms and skills. Self-efficacious persons tend to view the world as complex and believe it should be dealt with in a flexible manner. Instead of relying on luck or fate, an active and goal-directed approach is favoured. Individuals who are externally orientated do not necessarily perceive a less complex world. They are attentive to other people’s intentions and feelings, which makes them feel they can navigate complex situations more effectively. Empathy here is the way to cope with the nuances of relationships, the influence of destiny, and, when relevant, a potential divine plan. It is somewhat comparable to the difference between sailing and driving a motorboat. It is out of the question that, no matter which boat ignores conditions such as bad weather forecasts, it will put itself in jeopardy.

Limitations and prospects

The study reported here, although comparing samples of two continents, can in no way provide information about culture-specific features. The relatively small convenience samples cannot represent cultures’ populations, least of all in a highly diverse country such as Kenya. It would be beneficial to revisit the doubts and questions raised by this study with a more culturally representative sample, in line with contemporary recommendations on emic-etic scale design for transcultural applications (e.g., made by Boehnke, 2022).

With reference to the construct of competence and control beliefs, this study finds it worth reconsidering. After psychological control has been suffering an internality-bias for decades, the relevance of social and fatalistic aspects for personality is obvious. It is inaccurate to assert that these external control beliefs are irrelevant or harmful. Instead, they fulfil an interdependent function for the self by connecting it with the social context. Future studies should pay greater attention to these functions and address the following two major issues: Firstly, it is necessary to separate the contents of the construct, which have been inadvertently mixed up. For instance, it is certainly possible that social and fatalistic control beliefs can enhance internal control beliefs and thus alter their position (e.g., Greenaway et al., 2015; Kay et al., 2010; Fast et al., 2009; Whitson and Galinsky, 2008). The question of whether a certain content truly reflects an external control belief or belongs to the internal side of the coin remains unresolved. Secondly, external control beliefs are the most significant source of cross-cultural variation within this construct. Once more, research on the construct’s content validity must consider both universality and the substantial variation in form and significance of external beliefs as they are enacted across cultures (Heinecke-Müller et al., 2022; Ji et al., 2000; Jonas et al., 2009).

Following findings from action and social psychology (e.g., Damásio et al., 2016; Fritsche, 2022; Smith and Bond, 2022), boundaries between self-efficacy and externality should be first dissolved to build a contemporary model for global, networked, and ever-migrating societies that suffer an increasing demand for psychodiagnostics in several fields of application. The debate surrounding the precise definition of competence and control beliefs is not a new one, but it is one that needs to be revisited (Coombs and Schroeder, 1988; Hui and Triandis, 1983; Huizing, 2015). This also includes the revision or development of appropriate measuring instruments. In short, the prevailing comprehension of competence and control beliefs ought to be broadened to encompass dimensions of interdependence and relatedness by means of external beliefs. This would also facilitate the revision of internal control scales, which may have hitherto inappropriately overshadowed, or been amalgamated with, other aspects such as external beliefs. To build on established insights into methodological issues (e.g., Cheung et al., 2011; Smith et al., 1995; Smits et al., 2011) and combine them with current directions in research, seems most promising: A personality, learning, acting and feeling well not only when being in sole control over outcomes but who is also aware of the conditions and can work with them in an adaptive manner.