Learned helplessness in high school students following experience of noncontingent rewards

High school students differing in achievement motivation were subjects in a learned helplessness experiment using a yoked triadic design with noncontingent rewards. A strong helplessness effect was observed in both high- and low-achievement motivation groups. A postexperimental questionnaire revealed that perceived response-outcome independence was induced under the noncontingent reinforcement condition, but was not associated with perceived failure. The results were seen as strong support for the original learned helplessness model in two important respects. First they refute recent claims that learned helplessness depends on aversive outcomes, and second they show that human helplessness can be distinguished from experimenter-induced failure.     

Human judgements of control: The interaction of the current contingency and previous controllability

Two experiments were carried out to determine the effects of the learned helplessness treatment on judgement of control over a outcome. In the first experiment judgements were found to be sensitive to the actual level of response-outcome contingency. When the contingency level was high, this sensitivity was also influenced by pretreatment, in that a prior uncontrollable experience gave rise to lower judgements than both a controllable one and no experience at all. The latter pretreatments produced the most accurate judgements. In the second experiment the judgements after an uncontrollable task were found to be insensitive to a previous controllable or uncontrollable pretreatment. The results are discussed in terms of contingency-learning models.     

Learned helplessness and the detection of contingency: A direct test

Two studies tested a basic hypothesis of the learned helplessness model: That performance deficits associated with exposure to uncontrollable outcomes are directly mediated by an individual's perception of response-outcome independence. In the first experiment 48 subjects were exposed to noise bursts. For one experimental group, the termination of the noise was response-contingent. For five other groups, noise-burst termination was independent of subjects' responses. These five groups varied in the number of trials on which they received positive feedback: As predicted, subjects overestimated the amount of control they had over noise termination as a positive linear function of the amount of noncontingent positive feedback they received. Although subjects exposed to either noncontingent positive or negative feedback showed subsequent performance deficits on an anagrams task, the expected relation between perceived control and subsequent performance failed to emerge. These findings were replicated in a second experiment. In addition, subjects' locus, stability, and globality attributions failed to predict subsequent performance. These results call into question the central premises of helplessness theory: That perceived uncontrollability and causal attributions mediate learned helplessness.     

Learning impairment following insoluble problems: Learned helplessness or altered hypothesis pool?

According to the learned helplessness hypothesis, the learning impairment typically displayed by subjects previously given insoluble problems results from the veridical learning of response-outcome independence. This learning is represented as a belief in helplessness which interferes with the subsequent acquisition of adaptive responses. However, this interpretation is suspect since subjects in a psychology experiment tend not to learn that random relationships are random. Instead, an alternative interpretation of these findings attributes the learning impairment following insoluble problems to a hypothesis pool alteration in the direction of (inappropriately) complex hypotheses. This alternative interpretation tended to be supported ported in Experiment 1, which varied the difficulty of the test task and found the impairment (relative to a no-treatment control) following insolubility to be inversely proportional to the test difficulty. In contrast, Experiment 2 employed a procedure which facilitated the attribution of response-outcome independence and found the impairment following insolubility to be directly proportional to the test difficulty. It was concluded that the results of Experiment 2 represented learned helplessness.     

Learned irrelevance and retrospective correlation learning

In 1973 Mackintosh reported an interference effect that he called learned irrelevance in which exposure to uncorrelated (CS/US) presentation of the unconditional stimulus (US) and the conditioned stimulus (CS) interfered with future Pavlovian conditioning. It has been argued that there is no specific interference effect in learned irrelevance; rather the interference is the sum of independent CS and US exposure effects (CS + US). We review previous research on this question and report two new experiments. We conclude that learned irrelevance is a consequence of a contingency learning and a specific learned irrelevance mechanism. Moreover even the “independent exposure controls”, used in previous experiments to support the CS and US exposure account, provide support for the correlation learning process.     

Latent inhibition and learned helplessness in children: Similarities and differences

Four experiments used a common set of procedures to investigate the occurrence and the generalization of learned helplessness (LH) and latent inhibition (LI) in 10- to 11-year-old children. In Experiment 1, preexposure to response-outcome independence impaired performance (i.e., LH) on two subsequent tests: The first was similar to the preexposure situation, the second was not. Moreover, LH occurred whether preexposure involved positive or negative feedback. On the other hand, noncontingent stimulus preexposure did not impair subsequent performance, i.e., LI was not obtained in the first experiment. Experiment 2 replicated the LH findings of Experiment 1: LH occurred following preexposure to response-independent feedback, regardless of whether that feedback was positive or negative, and LH generalized to a situation that was different from the preexposure situation. In addition, the stimulus preexposure procedures of Experiment 2 were embedded in a “masking” task and, under these conditions, LI was obtained. Nevertheless, LI did not generalize to a testing situation that was different from the preexposure situation. Experiment 3 demonstrated that noncontingent stimulus preexposure impairs performance relative to a nonpreexposed control group, that the effect is dependent upon masking, that masking alone produces no performance decrement, and that LI is, indeed, stimulus specific. In Experiment 4, preexposure to response-outcome independence impaired subsequent performance on similar and dissimilar tests whether feedback was consistently positive, consistently negative, or randomly positive and negative over trials. In addition, stimulus preexposure produced LI only under conditions of masking and even then, LI was not evident in novel test situations. The results are discussed in terms of common and different mechanisms underlying the LI and LH phenomena.     

Laboratory-induced learned helplessness attenuates approach motivation as indexed by posterior versus frontal theta activity

Research suggests that midline posterior versus frontal electroencephalographic (EEG) theta activity (PFTA) may reflect a novel neurophysiological index of approach motivation. Elevated PFTA has been associated with approach-related tendencies both at rest and during laboratory tasks designed to enhance approach motivation. PFTA is sensitive to changes in dopamine signaling within the fronto-striatal neural circuit, which is centrally involved in approach motivation, reward processing, and goal-directed behavior. To date, however, no studies have examined PFTA during a laboratory task designed to reduce approach motivation or goal-directed behavior. Considerable animal and human research supports the hypothesis put forth by the learned helplessness theory that exposure to uncontrollable aversive stimuli decreases approach motivation by inducing a state of perceived uncontrollability. Accordingly, the present study examined the effect of perceived uncontrollability (i.e., learned helplessness) on PFTA. EEG data were collected from 74 participants (mean age = 19.21 years; 40 females) exposed to either Controllable (n = 26) or Uncontrollable (n = 25) aversive noise bursts, or a No-Noise Condition (n = 23). In line with prediction, individuals exposed to uncontrollable aversive noise bursts displayed a significant decrease in PFTA, reflecting reduced approach motivation, relative to both individuals exposed to controllable noise bursts or the No-Noise Condition. There was no relationship between perceived uncontrollability and frontal EEG alpha asymmetry, another commonly used neurophysiological index of approach motivation. Results have implications for understanding the neurophysiology of approach motivation and establishing PFTA as a neurophysiological index of approach-related tendencies.     

习得性无助是习得的吗？——对习得性无助理论及其反思的评述

Seligman和Maier（1967）在动物实验的基础上提出了著名的习得性无助理论,但在2016年,Maier和Seligman二人却联合发文对该理论进行了反思：从最新的神经生物学证据来看,习得性无助的经典理论概括存在基本错误,习得性无助并非习得而来！所谓“习得性”无助,实质上是动物对厌恶刺激长期作用的先天适应性反应,而非认知学习的结果。本文简要梳理习得性无助理论的起源与发展,深入分析这一反思的核心内容、依据及意义,对其中否定习得性无助理论概括的观点,从证据的充分性、研究范式的效度、规范概念等角度作了进行进一步的探讨,并结合新的实验范式对未来研究提出建议。     

The influence of stimulus intensity and motivational differences on learned helplessness deficits

Two experiments are reported which assess the moderating effects on learned helplessness deficits of individual differences in task-specific motivation and expectation of control. In Experiment 1 a neutral stimulus was used and in this case only high motivation subjects displayed helplessness deficits in response to noncontingency training. In addition, high motivation subjects demonstrated greater sensitivity to the noncontingency than did low motivation subjects. However, when an aversive stimulus was used in Experiment 2 the moderating effect of motivational differences was removed and this was accompanied by greater sensitivity to the noncontingency on the part of low motivation subjects. Indeed, the learned helplessness effect in Experiment 2 was more pronounced within the low motivation group. The theoretical significance of these findings is explored and directions for future research are suggested.     

Achievement motivation,psychological reactance,and learned helplessness

Two experiments are reported in which the behavior of subjects classified as high or low on achievement motivation was studied following experience of uncontrollable, nonaversive outcomes, using a triadic design. In both experiments, subjects high on achievement motivation displayed facilitation, whereas subjects low on achievement motivation displayed slight interference or no effect. In the second experiment it was shown that the experimental treatment was successful in inducing the expectation of response-outcome independence without associated perceptions of failure. It differed in this respect from manipulations used in most reported studies of human helplessness. The results are discussed in relation to theories of achievement motivation, psychological reactance, and learned helplessness.The first experiment was conducted by the first author under the supervision of the second author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the B.A. Honors degree in psychology at the University of Adelaide. The authors wish to thank J. M. Innes and E. E. Rump for their helpful comments.     

Learned helplessness or learned inactivity after inescapable stress? Interpretation depends on coping styles

Researches on uncontrollable events in the post-soviet states are overviewed. In our research, susceptibility to learned helplessness is studied in rats with active (KHA strain) versus passive (KLA strain) coping styles. Inescapable footshocks, butnot escapable footshocks, applied to KHA rats induced escape failures, diminished locomotion and coping, reduced measures of anxiety, and resulted in dexamethasone nonsuppression of the brain-hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis—all characteristic of learned helplessness. In contrast, KLA rats demonstrated the same responses upon exposure to both escapable and inescapable stresses. While learned helplessness occurred in KHA rats, it appears that KLA rats exposed to inescapable stress demonstrated learned inactivity based upon the nondifference between effects of escapable and inescapable shocks. Relationships between coping styles and social ranks are discussed. Our and other’s results with genetically selected strains suggest active coping in dominant and subordinate subjects, and passive coping in subdominant animals confirm the importance of coping style and its relation to health under stress.     

Cognitions, affect, and behavior following uncontrollable outcomes: A response to current human helplessness research

A series of articles in the Journal of Personality challenge several central assumptions of the reformulated learned helplessness model: that perceptions of uncontrollability, awareness of noncontingency between responses and outcomes, and attributions made about the outcome are necessary to explain learned helplessness effects. The present article addresses the validity of this challenge through a consideration of the methodology employed in these and other traditional studies of human helplessness conducted in the laboratory. We maintain that although performance deficits can be demonstrated reliably following exposure to uncontrollable outcomes, a number of factors other than expectations of future uncontrollability (i.e., learned helplessness) may be responsible for these effects. In addition, demands of the experimental situation may prevent subjects from admitting their true underlying thoughts and feelings regarding the manipulations employed. Finally, the current use of artificial laboratory paradigms may unnecessarily restrict the study of a complex psychological phenomenon such as learned helplessness. We suggest that future researchers employ paradigms that more closely parallel real world situations to which they hope to generalize, or utilize naturally occurring uncontrollable life events to study the problem. In addition, we argue that future research should broaden its focus beyond attributions to explore other mediators of human helplessness.     

Learned Helplessness or Learned Inactivity after Inescapable Stress? Interpretation Depends on Coping Styles

Researches on uncontrollable events in the post-soviet states are overviewed. In our research, susceptibility to learned helplessness is studied in rats with active (KHA strain) versus passive (KLA strain) coping styles. Inescapable footshocks, but not escapable footshocks, applied to KHA rats induced escape failures, diminished locomotion and coping, reduced measures of anxiety, and resulted in dexamethasone nonsuppression of the brain-hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis--all characteristic of learned helplessness. In contrast, KLA rats demonstrated the same responses upon exposure to both escapable and inescapable stresses. While learned helplessness occurred in KHA rats, it appears that KLA rats exposed to inescapable stress demonstrated learned inactivity based upon the nondifference between effects of escapable and inescapable shocks. Relationships between coping styles and social ranks are discussed. Our and other's results with genetically selected strains suggest active coping in dominant and subordinate subjects, and passive coping in subdominant animals confirm the importance of coping style and its relation to health under stress.     

Uncontrollable shock proactively increases sensitivity to response-reinforcer independence in rats

Learned helplessness theory predicts that animals exposed to inescapable shock acquire an expectancy of response-reinforcer independence, which proactively interferes with learning of response-reinforcer dependence. The theory also predicts that this expectancy can increase sensitivity to subsequent instances of response-reinforcer independence. These experiments test the latter prediction in a paradigm that minimizes the confounding effects of shock-induced activity deficits. Rats were trained to respond for food, then given either escapable, inescapable, or no shock. Subsequently, they received two sessions of response-contingent food followed by sessions of noncontingent food deliveries. During this phase, inescapably shocked animals decreased responding faster than did controls. Experiment 2 replicated this finding with a different schedule of food delivery and a procedure that more directly minimized the possibility that the outcome is due to either direct or indirect shock-induced activity changes. These results support the prediction that uncontrollable aversive events can increase an animal's sensitivity to noncontingent response-reinforcer relationships.     

A revised model of learned helesspleness in humans1

The present paper presents a revised model of learned helplessness in humans. The conditions under which performance deficits (helplessness) or enhanced performance (facilitation) will result from exposure to objective noncontingency are defined by a number of variables that have been shown to have an impact on human helplessness. The reformulated model specifies the operation of moderating variables as they affect a number of relationships: that between objective noncontingency and the perception of noncontingency; that between the perception of noncontingency and the future expectancy of response-reinforcement independence; and finally that between the expectancy of response-reinforcement independence and the behavirol deficits associated with learned helplessness. It is argued that exposure to noncontingency can affect both the value of future reward and the perceived probability of obtaining it. Performance deficits or enhanced performance will result from the perception of noncontingency depending on the nature of this double-edged effect of exposure to noncontingent delivery of reward.     

Learned helplessness deficits: Uncontrollable outcomes or perceived failure?

An experiment is described showing that learned helplessness deficits are produced by prior exposure to uncontrollable outcomes rather than perceived failure. Although the controllability manipulation did produce differences in perceived success or failure, similar differences were also induced by means of instructional feedback. These latter differences, within the controllable and uncontrollable groups, were not associated with poorer performance by subjects given failure feedback. Moreover, the instructional feedback did not influence subjects' perceptions of controllability or uncontrollability. The results confirm that helplessness deficits cannot be explained as reactions to task failure.This research was supported by Research Grant A28015473 from the Australian Research Grants Scheme.     

Repeated failure: a source of helplessness or a factor irrelevant to its emergence?

We tested the validity of the egotism model of human helplessness. In contrast to the original theoretical approach of Seligman and his associates, which points to response-outcome noncontingency as the main source of helplessness, the egotism alternative proposes that repeated failure itself is the critical determinant of helplessness symptoms. Repeated failure threatens the self-esteem of the subject, who supposedly engages in a least-effort strategy during the test phase of a typical learned helplessness study, which results in performance impairment. To examine the egotism explanation, we gave subjects noncontingent-feedback training with or without repeated failure on five consecutive discrimination problems. In two experiments, noncontingent-feedback preexposure produced helplessness deficits in performance on avoidance learning, whereas repeated failure appeared irrelevant to helplessness. This and our other findings from research are inconsistent with the egotism explanation and support instead Seligman's original proposal, in which helplessness is attributed to prolonged experience with noncontingency.     

Learned helplessness and judgments of control

One of the central hypotheses of learned helplessness theory is that exposure to noncontingency produces a reduced ability to perceive response-outcome relations (the postulated "cognitive deficit"). To test this hypothesis, subjects were exposed to a typical helplessness induction task and then asked to make judgments of the amount of control their responses exerted over a designated outcome (the onset of a light). Support for the postulated cognitive deficit would be found if subjects who experienced the induction underestimated the relation between their responses and outcomes. The results, however, demonstrated that induction subjects (n = 30) made higher and more accurate judgments of control than subjects in a no-treatment control group (n = 30). This finding clearly fails to support the postulated cognitive deficit and highlights the need for other direct tests of the basic hypotheses of helplessness theory.     

Human Reactions to Uncontrollable Outcomes: Further Evidence for Superstitions Rather Than Helplessness

Recent research has shown superstitious behaviour and illusion of control in human subjects exposed to the negative reinforcement conditions that are traditionally assumed to lead to the opposite outcome (i.e. learned helplessness). The experiments reported in this paper test the generality of these effects in two different tasks and under different conditions of percentage (75% vs. 25%) and distribution (random vs. last-trials) of negative reinforcement (escape from uncontrollable noise). All three experiments obtained superstitious behaviour and illusion of control and question the generality of learned helplessness as a consequence of exposing humans to uncontrollable outcomes.     

Learned helplessness and immunization: sensitivity to response-reinforcer independence in immunized rats

In experiments 1 and 2, we examined the learned helplessness and immunization effects using a test in which appetitive responding was extinguished by delivering noncontingent reinforcers. Contrary to learned helplessness theory, "immunized" animals showed performance virtually identical to that of animals exposed only to inescapable shock, and different from nonshocked controls. Experiment 2 suggests that the helplessness effect and the lack of immunization are not due to direct response suppression resulting from shock. In Experiment 3, where the immunization effect was assessed by measuring the acquisition of a response to obtain food when there was a positive response-reinforcer contingency, immunization was observed. These results cannot be explained on the basis of proactive interference, but suggest that animals exposed to the immunization procedure acquire an expectancy of response-reinforcer independence during inescapable shock. Thus, immunization effects may reflect the differential expression of expectancies, rather than their differential acquisition as learned helplessness theory postulates.