The objectives of the study were: (1) To note the characteristic influence of locus of control at ATL of collegiate students. (2) To note the characteristic influence of first and second order PFs on ATL of collegiate students. (3) To note the characteristic influence of sex on ATL of collegiate students. (4) To study the bivariate interactional effects of different independent variables on ATL of collegiate students. (5) To study the trivariate interactional effects of different independent variables on ATL of collegiate students for deeper understanding of the problem. (7) To explore the area of learning or anagram task performance of collegiate students as it specifically relates to locus of control, first and second order personality factors and sex. 

The hypotheses of the study were: (1) Locus of control affect ATL of collegiate students. (2) First and second order personality factors (PF) affect ATL of collegiate students. (3) Sex affects ATL of collegiate students. (4) Locus of control and PF interact in the set while affecting ATL of collegiate students. (5) Locus of control and sex interact in the set while affecting ATL of collegiate students. (6) PF and sex interact in the set while affecting ATL of collegiate students. (7) Locus of control, PF and sex interact among themselves while affecting ATL of collegiate students. 

The tools used for data collection were- Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale, 16 PF Questionnaire by R.B. Cattell, Scrambled Word Tool Test by D.N. Shrivastava and C. Goel.

The present study was ex-post-facto type research. The intermixing variables- institutional differences, SES, subject differences, culture, ecology, noise, time of task, religion, aptitudes, age, caste, education, monotony and fatigue were control by randomization, consistency, stratification and elimination techniques. For drawing the sample, stratified random sampling technique was used. 

The findings of the study were: (1) Locus of control of collegiate students promoted ATL in an important way. Two intra-level comparisons showed that internal locus of control was a promoting correlate of ATL. (2) Low level of personality factors A, I, L, Q and Q2 promoted anagram task learning of collegiate students. (3) High level of personality factors B, C, N, Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 promoted anagram task learning of collegiate students. (4) Personality factors E, G, F, H, M, O and Q4 and Q5 were not significant in promoting anagram task learning of collegiate students. (5) The sex was significantly related to ATL of collegiate students. Female sex promoted anagram task learning of collegiate students. (6) The impact of the two levels of locus of control on ATL was dependent of the two levels of PF (A or B one) and vice-versa. (7) The impact of the two levels of locus of control on ATL was independent of the two levels of PF (E or F or G or H) and vice-versa. (8) The impact of the two levels of locus of control on ATL was dependent on the two levels of PF (I or Q, or Q2 or Q3) and vice versa. (9) The impact of two levels of locus of control on ATL was  independent of the two levels of PF (L or M or N or O or Q4) and vice versa but it was dependent on the two levels of PF (Q1 or Q2 or Q7 or Q8) and vice versa. (10) The impact of the two levels of locus of control on ATL was independent of the two levels of PF Q8, Q4 and vice versa. (11) The impact of the two levels of locus of control on ATL was dependent on the two levels of sex and vice versa. (12) The impact of the two levels of PF (A or B or C) on ATL was dependent on the two levels of sex and vice versa. (13) The impact of the two levels of locus of control on ATL was dependent on the levels of sex and vice versa. (14) The impact of the two levels of PF (E or R or G or H) on ATL was independent of the two levels of PF (L or Q1 or Q2 or Q3). The impact on ATL was dependent on the two levels of sex and vice versa. (15) The impact of the two levels of PF (L or Q1 or Q2 or Q3) on ATL was dependent on the two levels of sex and vice versa. (16) The impact of the two levels of PF (L or M or N or Q4) on ATL was independent of the two levels of sex and vice versa. (17) The impact of the two levels of PF (Q1 or Q2 or Q7 or Q8) on ATL was dependent on the two levels of sex and vice versa. (18) The impact of the two levels of PF Q3 or Q4 on ATL was dependent on the two levels of sex and vice versa. (19) Locus of control, PF (A or C or F or G or H or L or M or O or Q3 or Q4) and sex were independent of each other while affecting ATL of collegiate students. (20) Locus of control, PF (B or E or I or N or Q1 or Q2 or QI or QII or QVII) and sex were dependent on each other while affecting ATL of collegiate students. (21) Locus of control, PF (QIII or QIV or QVIII) and sex were independent of each other while affecting ATL of collegiate students.