Sixty fifth-grade black males from two inner-city elementary schools participated in an experiment designed to examine the effects of variations in locus of controlinternal versus external-on the efficiency of intrinsic and extrinsic types of feedback. The major point of divergence between feedback conditions was whether subjects' knowledge of correctness was acquired by self-discovery of successful task performance (intrinsic reinforcement) or whether the subjects had to depend on the experimenter's personal praise in lieu of being able to directly observe the success of their task performances (extrinsic reinforcement). A combined condition consisting of both intrinsic and extrinsic feedback was also used. Results indicated that, as hypothesized, internally oriented subjects made significantly more "correct" responses in the condition of intrinsic reinforcement than externally oriented subjects, while the reverse was true in the condition of extrinsic reinforcement; that is, the performances of externals were superior to those of internals. It was also found that locus of control did not differentiate performance effects under the combined condition. The implications of these findings for elucidating possible differential motivational bases for the performance of internals and externals is discussed.

Two studies were carried out to establish the generality of Baron and Ganz's finding of a significant Locus of Control X Type of Performance Feedback interaction. The superior performance of internals to externals under a condition of self-discovery of success (intrinsic feedback), as opposed to the superior performance of externals to internals when unverifiable verbal praise is used (extrinsic feedback), was found to occur for lower-class white as well as lower-class black subjects (Study 1), and for college students (Study 2). Study 2 also used a different measure of locus of control, a different problemsolving task, and new procedures for operationalizing the type of feedback variable. Taken together, these studies were seen as providing strong evidence of the generality and usefulness of the Personality X Treatment interaction design in the area of locus of control.

This paper is an analysis and refutation of John Carter's article entitled, “Adams’ Theory of Nouthetic Counseling,” in which Carter attacked Jay Adams’ nouthetic counseling as being inadequate and unbiblical. Carter's accusation of Adams as being close to a “full-fledged” behaviorist is also refuted. Further examined are Carter's attack of Adams’ theory of man, Adams’ counseling model, process, and technology. In all of these areas, Carter either misunderstood or misrepresented Adams and in places contradicted his own argument. A further analysis is made of Carter's understanding of authority and ecclesiology.