Persistence of learned helplessness in humans

The duration of the effects of a common learned helplessness induction procedure, exposure to insoluble concept-formation problems, was assessed by varying the interval between the induction procedure and subsequent exposure to soluble anagrams. Participants tested immediately or 30 min after the induction procedure exhibited reliable helplessness deficits on all dependent measures. These effects, relative to the performance of a nonhelpless control group, were absent in subjects who experienced delays of 2 or 6 hr before anagram testing. The implications of these results for the development of more enduring helplessness effects and for the conducting of research into analogue intervention are discussed.     

Repression-sensitization differences in recovery from learned helplessness.

The performance of repressors and sensitizers on a solvable anagram task was assessed after either a short delay (0 to 30 min) or a long delay (2 to 6 hr) following a standard learned helplessness induction. Results indicated that all subjects exposed to the learned helplessness induction exhibited performance deficits, compared with control subjects exposed to no induction. Furthermore, subjects who were tested after the short delay did not perform as well as subjects tested after a long delay. No difference in overall anagram performance was found between repressors and sensitizers. Consistent with theoretical predictions, however, the anagram performance of repressor subjects was significantly better in the long-delay than in the short-delay condition; this significant recovery effect between short- and long-delay conditions was not obtained for sensitizer subjects. Possible theoretical mechanisms for these effects and implications for future research are noted.     

Schizophrenia: The Narcissistic Retreat

A 27-item Fear of Success Scale (FOSS) was developed to assess individual differences in the motive to avoid success. Females scored significantly higher on the FOSS than did males; the FOSS was positively related to Horner's projective measure of fear of success, and negatively related to Mehrabian's measure of achievement motivation; subjects (both males and females) with high scores on the FOSS (a) performed less well on an anagram test, (b) attributed success more to external factors, and (c) attributed failure more to internal factors than subjects with low scores on the FOSS. These results supported the validity of the FOSS with regard to its use in future research.     

Learned helplessness, depression, and the attribution of failure.

Depressed and nondepressed college students received experience with solvable, unsolvable, or no discrimination problems. When later tested on a series of patterned anagrams, depressed groups performed worse than nondepressed groups, and unsolvable groups performed worse than solvable and control groups. As predicted by the learned helplessness model of depression, nondepressed subjects given unsolvable problems showed anagram deficits parallel to those found in naturally occurring depression. When depressed subjects attributed their failure to the difficulty of the problems rather than to their own incompetence, performance improved strikingly. So, failure in itself is apparently not sufficient to produce helplessness deficits in man, but failure that leads to a decreased belief in personal competence is sufficient.     

Learned helplessness versus reactance: The effects of sex-role stereotypy

Both learned helplessness and reactance theories hypothesize that the effects of noncontingent reinforcement on later performance are related to the amount of experience with noncontingent reinforcement and to the subjects' expectations of control. In addition, learned helplessness theorists have suggested that performance may depend upon the causes to which subjects ascribe failure. The present study investigated these hypotheses by defining expectation of control as the degree of sex-role stereotypy and by assessing causal attributions. Forty men and 40 women were given either zero, three, four, five, or six discrimination problems for which they received noncontingent reinforcement; they were subsequently tested on anagrams and math problems. Causal attributions were rated after each set of tasks. The data suggested the following. (1) In general, under conditions of noncontingency, high masculinity subjects performed better on anagrams and low masculinity subjects performed worse on anagrams than subjects in the control conditions; stereotypic femininity was not related to performance. (2) Ratings of attributions for failing the discrimination problems were generally unrelated to performance, although there was weak support for the facilitating effects of effort attributions. (3) Subsequent to anagram and math performance, women rated external attributions higher following success and internal attributions higher following failure than did men. The implications for learned helplessness and reactance theories are discussed.The authors would like to thank Stephen Haynes and Jack McKillip for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.     

Learned helplessness and learned resourcefulness: effects of noncontingent success and failure on individuals differing in self-control skills

We designed two experiments to investigate the role of self-control processes in learned-helplessness studies by assessing the differential reactions to uncontrollability of subjects who presumably had either a rich (high resourceful, or HR) or poor (low resourceful, or LR) repertoire of self-control skills. HR and LR subjects received noncontingent success feedback, failure feedback, or no feedback on a task that ostensibly assessed "therapeutic abilities." Subjects were subsequently tested on insolvable puzzles (Experiment 1) or on solvable anagrams (Experiment 2). According to Kanfer and Hagerman's (1981) self-regulation model, self-regulatory activities are evoked primarily in situations in which subjects are faced with repeated failure. Hence we predicted that individual differences in self-control would influence performance on the insolvable puzzles and not anagram performance after exposure to noncontingent failure. This prediction was confirmed: Only the performance of LR subjects on the insolvable puzzles was debilitated by the helplessness induction, whereas HR and LR subjects showed equal helplessness-induced deficits on the anagrams. The latter finding was interpreted in terms of the learned-helplessness model without the mediating effects of self-regulatory processes. As predicted from the self-control model, HR subjects more frequently checked statements indicating positive self-evaluations and task-oriented thoughts and less frequently checked negative self-evaluations than did LR subjects during exposure to uncontrollability in both experiments. We concluded that the self-control model accounts best for subjects' self-reactions during exposure to uncontrollability or failure, whereas the learned-helplessness model accounts for the generalization of helplessness from uncontrollable situations to controllable ones.     

Action-oriented versus state-oriented reactions to experimenter-induced failures

The present study assessed different effects of action-oriented versus state-oriented styles of coping with failure on achievement-related performance and cognition. In a learned helplessness experiment, students were exposed to an academic failure situation and were then tested on a series of problem-solving tasks, either immediately after the pretreatment or after a delay of 24 hours. Performance and cognitive concomitants were measured during both experimental periods. Results demonstrated that action orientation was associated with self-immunizing cognitions during helplessness training. Action-oriented participants improved their performance level even after repeated failure feedbacks. Moreover, action-oriented students assigned to the delayed test condition responded with increased striving for success and showed performance increments, even in comparison with control subjects. In contrast, state-oriented participants developed symptoms of helplessness and showed impaired performance during failure inductions. In later tests on problem-solving tasks, state-oriented groups responded with increased fear of failure. Independent of immediate or delayed test conditions, they soon lapsed into new performance decrements.     

The effect of debriefing on laboratory induced helplessness: An attributional analysis1

Debriefing was assessed as means of reversing helplessness deficits through reattribution. Fifty-five subjects listened to escapable or inescapable tones. One inescapable group, prior to anagrams, was debriefed regarding noise uncontrollability. A second inescapable group was administered anagrams by a different experimenter. While exposure to inescapable noise led to performance deficits, switching experimenters obviated these deficits. Debriefing actually facilitated anagram performance. All inescapable subjects—debriefed or not—attributed their lack of control on the noise task to experimenter interference, casting some doubt on reattribution as an explanation of debriefing's effects. Results were discussed in terms of the reformulated learned helplessness model and the ethical implications of debriefing in learned helplessness research.     

Sex differences in attributions for sex-typed tasks1

Recent studies have indicated that males make more egotistical attributions than females, that is, males make more internal attributions for success and more external attributions for failure than females do. These sex differences in attributions were examined in terms of male/female differences in expectancies for success and ego-involvement in the tasks. Male and female subjects succeeded or failed on a masculine or a feminine task. It was found that males made more egotistical attributions than females on the masculine task, but females made more egotistical attributions than males on the feminine task. A covariance analysis revealed that these sex differences in attributions could be explained in terms of the differences between the males and females in expectancy for success and in ego-involvement. Finally, it was found that ego-involvement was a more important determinant of egotisical attributions in the present study than was expectancy.     

Effects of amount of helplessness training and internal-external locus of control on mood and performance.

Based on Wortman and Brehm's integration of reactance theory with Seligman's model of learned helplessness, an investigation was conducted to examine the effects of amount of helplessness training and internal--external locus of control on subsequent task performance and on self-ratings of mood. Subjects were divided into "internal" and "external" groups and were then given either high, low, or no helplessness training on a series of concept-formation problems. After completing a mood checklist, all subjects worked on an anagram task presented as a second experiment by a second experimenter. The results revealed that internals exhibited greater performance decrements and reported greater depression under high helplessness than did externals. In the low helplessness conditions, internals tended to perform better than control subjects, while externals tended to perform worse than control subjects; low helplessness subjects also reported the highest levels of hostility. The results are discussed within the context of Wortman and Brehm's integration of reactance and learned helplessness theories.     

Male responses to female competence

This study investigated the conditions under which a male would denigrate a female because of her competence. Sixty-four male subjects either cooperated or competed on anagram tasks with high/low competence male or female co-workers in the presence of a male or a female experimenter. Subsequently, these subjects evaluated their co-workers. No evidence was found to support the notion that males rejected a female partner because of her competence. In fact, some measures revealed that competent females were valued over their male counterparts in the cooperative conditions. Unexpectedly, sex of the experimenter interacted significantly with sex of the co-worker to determine the subject's responses to his partner's competence on two of the dependent measures. The discrepancies between these findings and earlier research findings are addressed. The implications for females in a mixed-sex work context are discussed.     

Alcohol consumption by college women following exposure to unsolvable problems: Learned helplessness or stress induced drinking?

Three experiments were intended to examine the relationship between alcohol, depression and learned helplessness. In Study I, more female undergraduate heavy drinkers than light drinkers were found to have critically elevated scores on a depression index. A sex difference in the relationship between drinking and depression is suggested since male depressives were equally distributed among drinking categories. In Studies II and III, female undergraduates were given unsolvable problems in a learned helplessness paradigm. Relative to controls these subjects reported increased depressive and hostile affect and drank more beer in a taste rating task. However, we failed to find deficits in anagram solution with those subjects given the learned helplessness manipulation. Specific questions are raised regarding the boundary conditions of learned helplessness while implications bearing on stress-related alcohol consumption are discussed.     

Priming and aging: evidence of preserved memory function in an anagram solution task.

Priming effects in a test of anagram solution were compared with recognition memory in young and older adults. Age and a levels-of-processing study manipulation had little influence on priming in the anagram solution task, whereas significant effects of both of these variables were obtained in a recognition test. These findings extend those of previous studies which have shown little evidence of age differences in implicit memory tasks compared with those of explicit memory. Furthermore, they provide evidence for classifying anagram solution as an implicit memory test.     

Uncontrollability versus perceived failure as determinants of subsequent performance deficits

An experiment is reported that attempted to dissociate the effects of uncontrollability from those of failure in the standard learned helplessness induction procedure involving instrumental tasks. The task was administered to both university and high school students. The primary finding was a grade by controllability interaction, whereby uncontrollability had a larger effect for university students who became much more helpless. Further analysis revealed that while controllability or uncontrollability was the main determinant of university student performance, the performance of the high school students depended primarily upon success or failure. Perhaps we have previously generalized too widely from a restricted subject population.     

Effects of prolonged deprivation on learned helplessness

The influence of prolonged deprivation on response to uncontrollable outcome was investigated among 104 young Indian students. They received an unsolvable block design task followed by an anagram solution test and an attribution questionnaire. As predicted, the high-deprived and the female students displayed greater helplessness than their low-deprived and male counterparts, and they attributed uncontrollable outcome more to internal, stable, and global causes.     

Attributing causes for one's own performance: The effects of sex,norms, and outcome

Two experiments were conducted to determine the effect of sex of subject, stated sex linkage of task, and task outcome on causal attributions of an actor's performance. Results from both studies showed that: (1) males evaluate their performance more favorably than do females, despite equivalent objective scores; (2) males claim greater ability than do females following task performance; and (3) females are more prone to use luck to explain performance. The evidence also suggests that the difference between males and females in performance evaluation and self-attribution occurs most strongly in response to failure and on masculine tasks. The results are interpreted in terms of a general expectancy model.     

Attributional styles for helplessness and depression: The importance of sex and situational context

Differences between the sexes in attributions for positive and negative outcomes in either affiliative or achievement situations were examined using the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ). Separate regression analyses for each sex related the ASQ to a measure of helplessness and the Beck Depression Inventory. No differences were noted for attributions to internality or stability; however, females attributed more global causality to positive outcome affiliative situations and negative outcome achievement situations. Regression analyses failed to support the helplessness attributional model of depression. No ratings on the ASQ predicted depression for males; furthermore, for females, only the internal/external dimension was relevant, moderated by both outcome and type of situation. Sex differences were discussed in light of the higher incidence of depression among females.     

Fear of failure in males: A more salient factor than fear of success in females?

Sex differences in self-attributions following winning or losing in a highly competitive achievement-type situation were investigated. Subjects competed in same- or mixed-sex pairs on an anagram task which was prearranged in difficulty so that one subject would clearly defeat his/her partner. A significant sex of subject × outcome interaction emerged. Males were more likely to attribute their successes to skill and failures to luck. Females attributed both their successes and failures to a relatively equal amount of skill. This self-defensive bias in males was interpreted as indicating a greater fear of failure in males. The relatively rational and objective attributions of females did not support a female fear of success hypothesis. No significant interactions with sex of partner on this variable were found. Finally, subjects were asked to rate their opponents on a series of personality, attractiveness, and happiness dimensions. Neither males nor females were differentially evaluated as a function of winning or losing.The research reported here was partially supported by a grant to the first author from the California State University, Fresno Foundation.     

Individual differences for sex differences in achievement attributions?

Past research has found a self-defensive bias in males and a self-derogatory bias in female achievement attributions. Dispositional explanations for these differences were examined in the present study. Subjects completed measures of Need for Achievement, Self-Esteem, Fear of Success, Attitudes Toward Women, and Androgyny. They later competed in same- or mixed-sex pairs on an anagram task which was prearranged in difficulty so that one subject clearly defeated his/her partner. Consistent with past research, males were more likely to attribute their outcomes to ability, and less likely to attribute their outcomes to effort and luck, than were females. Achievement motivation was the most consistently successful predictor of these sex differences.     

The Effect of Experience on the Goal-Setting Behavior of Type A and Type B Individuals

The effect of experience on the goal-setting behavior of Type A and Type B individuals was assessed using anagram tasks. Sixty men and 60 women were administered the Jenkins Activity Survey as well as a questionnaire assessing their previous experience with anagram tasks. Before each of three anagram trials, subjects set a performance goal and indicated how certain they were that they could reach that goal. The analyses indicated that Type A men had the largest differences between performance goals and actual performance, even though men, in general, were more certain that they would reach their goals. Differences across trials, however, decreased for all individuals. Men with the most prior self-reported experience were least satisfied with their performance. Of interest was the finding that Type B women had higher difference scores than did Type A women.