Bandura (1982) suggested that judgments of personal efficacy and outcome expectancies (i.e., locus of control) jointly affect behavior. We hypothesized that different combinations of these two sets of beliefs would characterize the thought structures of normal subjects and of psychiatric patients suffering from distinctly different disorders. Normal subjects, depressed subjects, and paranoid subjects completed scales with which we measured beliefs in personal efficacy and beliefs that outcomes are controlled either by chance or by powerful others, as well as a scale with which we assessed perceived contingency of parental reinforcement. The major findings were as follows: Normals judged themselves to be more efficacious than did psychiatric subjects; whereas depressives expected outcomes to be controlled by chance, paranoids expected outcomes to be under the control of powerful others; among the normals, outcome expectancies were strongly associated with personal efficacy, but among the psychiatric patients, these beliefs were unrelated; depressives and paranoids equally reported more noncontingent parental reinforcement than did normals; and perceived contingency of parental reinforcement was predictive of outcome expectancies but not of personal efficacy. The data suggest that low personal efficacy may be a distinguishing characteristic of all psychiatric patients, whereas outcome expectancies may determine the specific nature of the psychiatric disorder.