Children who felt events were outside their control were more often depressed as teenagers, in a 7,058 child cohort
In the Avon cohort, each step towards an external sense of control at 8 and 16 went with 40 percent higher odds of depressive symptoms at 18, and 12 percent at 12. The link to psychotic experiences was stronger still.
Reasonable evidence with real limitations. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: Observational cohort with self-reported symptoms dichotomised at a cutoff and imputed missing data; the authors' own hypothesis was that externality would predict psychotic experiences, not depression. The 1988 meta-analysis it sits beside could not be read and is cited without figures.
A prospective British cohort on "locus of control", the belief that what happens to you depends on you or on outside forces, and later mood.
Significant findings
Sullivan and colleagues followed 7,058 children in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. External locus of control was measured with the shortened Childhood Nowicki-Strickland scale at 8 and 16. Depressive symptoms were measured with the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire at 12 and 18, with scores of 11 or more counted as high. Each standard-deviation step towards externality went with higher odds of depressive symptoms: odds ratio 1.12 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.22) at 12 and 1.40 (1.28 to 1.52) at 18. For psychotic experiences the odds ratios were 1.23 at 12 and 1.38 at 18. In the authors' words: "At 18 years change in externality, between 8 and 16 years were associated with a larger increase in the risk of depression."
The authors had predicted that externality would relate to psychotic experiences but not to depression. The depression link appeared anyway, and by 18 the two had converged.
The classic 1988 meta-analysis on this question (Benassi, Sweeney and Dufour, Journal of Abnormal Psychology 97:357) reported a link in the same direction, higher externality with more depression. We could not read it in full, so its figures are not given here.
The other direction
Association, not proof of cause. Depressive symptoms were self-reported and cut at a threshold. No measure of psychotic experiences existed before 12, so for that outcome the risk factor cannot be shown to come first. Missing data were imputed. Externality was the stronger predictor of psychotic experiences, not of depression. And an internal sense of control is not the same as blaming yourself for everything: the scale asks whether effort and choices matter, not whose fault things are. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust; the authors declare no conflicts.
What this does not show
It does not show that changing how someone thinks about control prevents depression. The authors note there is evidence that locus of control is modifiable, and frame that as an implication "if our results reflect the causal effect", not as a finding. Nothing here concerns medication.
Worth asking
When something goes wrong, what do I believe I could have done, and is that belief accurate?
Source
The longitudinal association between external locus of control, social cognition and adolescent psychopathology — Sullivan SA, Thompson A, Kounali D, Lewis G, Zammit S (2017)
Reputable peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1359-z
DOI: 10.1007/s00127-017-1359-z
How this was scored
- Study design
- Cohort study
- Funding
- Independently funded
- Published in
- Reputable peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- 7,058
- Preregistered
- not recorded
- Conflicts disclosed
- Yes
- Independent of proponent
- not recorded
- Retracted
- No
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published October 7, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
veisund rates this source "moderate evidence". Reasonable evidence with real limitations. It scores 69 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: Observational cohort with self-reported symptoms dichotomised at a cutoff and imputed missing data; the authors' own hypothesis was that externality would predict psychotic experiences, not depression. The 1988 meta-analysis it sits beside could not be read and is cited without figures. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
The longitudinal association between external locus of control, social cognition and adolescent psychopathology — Sullivan SA, Thompson A, Kounali D, Lewis G, Zammit S (2017). Published in: Reputable peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.1007/s00127-017-1359-z. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Who paid for this research, and does that matter?
Study design: Cohort study. Funding: Independently funded. Independence from the proponent is not recorded. Industry sponsorship is one of the most reliably measured biases in medicine, which is why funding carries real weight in the score rather than sitting in a footnote.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.