Reactance and helplessness following exposure to unsolvable problems: the effects of attributional style

I assessed the effects of internal-external attributional style and amount of unsolvable problems on subsequent task performance. Undergraduate subjects were divided according to their attributional style for bad events into internal, nondefined, and external attributors and were exposed to either one, four, or no unsolvable problems. Following exposure to a single unsolvable problem, internal attributors exhibited greater frustration and hostility and better performance in a subsequent cognitive task than did external attributors. Following exposure to four unsolvable problems, internal attributors exhibited stronger feelings of incompetence and a decrease in performance compared with external attributors. The results are discussed in terms of Wortman and Brehm's (1975) approach to reactance and helplessness.     

Attributional processes in the learned helplessness paradigm: behavioral effects of global attributions

Following the learned helplessness paradigm, I assessed in this study the effects of global and specific attributions for failure on the generalization of performance deficits in a dissimilar situation. Helplessness training consisted of experience with noncontingent failures on four cognitive discrimination problems attributed to either global or specific causes. Experiment 1 found that performance in a dissimilar situation was impaired following exposure to globally attributed failure. Experiment 2 examined the behavioral effects of the interaction between stable and global attributions of failure. Exposure to unsolvable problems resulted in reduced performance in a dissimilar situation only when failure was attributed to global and stable causes. Finally, Experiment 3 found that learned helplessness deficits were a product of the interaction of global and internal attribution. Performance deficits following unsolvable problems were recorded when failure was attributed to global and internal causes. Results were discussed in terms of the reformulated learned helplessness model.     

Causal attribution, cognitive interference, and the generalization of learned helplessness

We assessed the role of off-task cognitions in mediating the performance effects of global and specific attributions for failure. In Experiment 1, subjects were divided into global and specific attributors and were exposed to either no feedback or failure feedback. In Experiment 2, subjects were exposed to no feedback or to unsolvable problems wherein they received attribution for failure to specific or global causes. Experiment 3 added a condition in which subjects were restrained from engaging in off-task cognitions. Results showed that exposure to unsolvable problems deteriorated performance and increased off-task cognitions mainly among subjects who attributed failure to global causes. In addition, the enhancement of off-task cognitions interfered with performance following unsolvable problems. The introduction of instructions that discouraged subjects from engaging in off-task cognitions eliminated the detrimental effects of global attribution. Results are discussed in terms of test anxiety and excuse-making conceptualizations of learned helplessness.     

Epistemic needs and learned helplessness

This study assesses the impact of non-specific epistemic needs—the need for structure and the fear of invalidity—on expectancy of control and performance following unsolvable problems. Subjects answered a questionnaire tapping their non-specific epistemic needs and were exposed to either no feedback or failure in unsolvable problems. Then their expectancies of control and performance were assessed. The results showed that a high need for structure was associated with a transfer of the expectancy of uncontrollability and worse performance following failure. The results are discussed in terms of Kruglanski's lay epistemic theory.     

Learned helplessness in groups

Group learned helplessness is demonstrated in Experiment I. Groups of 2 tried to turn off noise by their joint action. In the solvable group (S), noise offset was contingent on their sequence of button pushing. In the yoked, unsolvable group (U), noise offset was independent of all sequences of button pushes they produced. In a practice group (O). subjects practiced coordinated sequences of button pushes with their partners, but heard no noise. Later, all 3 groups were tested in pairs in a shuttlebox which required coordinated joint responding to turn off noise. The unsolvable group escaped more poorly than the other 2 groups, paralleling helplessness effects with individuals. Experiment 2 and 3 found no transfer from individual helplessness training to group testing and no transfer from group helplessness training to individual testing. We suggest that the same mechanism, the expectation of response ineffectiveness, may mediate both individual and group learned helplessness.     

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.     

A case study of three theories of learned helplessness: The role of test importance

The current study tests three alternative explanations (learned helplessness, cognitive interference, and egotism) for poor performance following unsolvable problems. In Experiment 1, subjects were exposed to no feedback or to failure in unsolvable problems and were further divided according to the importance of a test task (unstipulated, low, and high importance). In Experiment 2, during the training phase subjects were exposed to either no feedback, failure, or failure plus explicit hypothesis instructions. Then, subjects in each group received either low or high test-importance instructions. Results bring support to the cognitive interference explanation of performance deficits. Exposure to unsolvable problems was found to impair performance in a high importance task, but not in a low importance task. Such a deleterious effect of prior failure and high importance instructions was reversed by discouraging people from engaging in state-oriented actions. The theoretical implications of the findings were discussed.     

Generalization of motivational and functional helplessness

The learned helplessness theory (Seligman, 1975) claims that permanent failure causes an expectation of uncontrolability that generalizes to subsequent test tasks and produces (mediated by motivational deficits) performance deficits. In contrast, Kuhl (1981) states that permanent failure produces not only the expectation of uncontrolability but also a functional deficit, called state orientation. State orientation, but not the expectation of uncontrolability, should generalize to the test tasks and cause the performance deficits. These opposing assumptions concerning the generalization of the expectation of uncontrolability and state orientation were tested in a helplessness experiment. During a training phase, 45 college students were confronted with either one success, one failure, or three failures in discrimination problems (Levine, 1966). In a subsequent test phase, which was disguised as a second experiment, subjects had to solve anagrams. Expectations of uncontrolability and the amount of state orientation were assessed after success or failure in the training phase (t1) as well as during the test phase while working on the anagrams (t2). Results showed that only state orientation generalized from t1 to t2 and not expectation of uncontrolability. The results are considered to support Kuhl's conception of functional helplessness. Implications for further development of learned helplessness theory are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Three accounts of the learned helplessness effect

Two experiments tested predictions drawn from test anxiety theory, learned helplessness theory, and Wortman and Brehm's (1975) integration of helplessness and reactance theories. Experiment 1 demonstrated that performance deficits predicted by learned helplessness do not rely on experimenter-induced failure. It also showed such deficits to be unrelated either to negative affect following exposure to pretreatment or to causal attributions about pretreatment task performance. Experiment 2 showed that experience of uncontrollability need not result in impaired performance, because failure on an unimportant task did not produce the deficits predicted by learned helplessness theory. This result provides qualified support for the integrative model. Finally, because the subjective measures used in Experiment 2 were not consistent with performance measures, the reliability of self-reports is questioned.     

Learned helplessness in chess players: The importance of task similarity and the role of skill

Summary The effects of noncontingency between subjects' responses and outcomes were examined with respect to treatment-and-posttest similarity and skill in the task. The experimental design consisted of three groups. The first group had to solve chess problems with objective solutions and received veridical feedback; each member of the second group faced problems with no objective solutions, and received the same feedback as the member of the first group he was yoked with, but without any control on it; the control group received a waiting task. It was found at the end of the experiment that the group with unsolvable problems was more depressed than the two other groups. The mid-strength players were the most sensitive to the manipulation, and the weakest players showed little effect of learned helplessness. It was also found that the effects were proportional to the degree of similarity between the treatment and the posttest. The results limit the domain of applicability of the learned-helplessness model.     

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.     

The cognitive specificity of learned helplessness and depression deficits: The role of self-focused cognitions

Abstract

Four experiments assessed similarities and differences in learned helplessness and depression-related deficits in cognitive performance and self-focused cognitions. Subjects answered the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961), were exposed to no-feedback or failure in unsolvable problems, and their response time in a digit comparison task (with or without a memory component, with different number of digits, and different number of mental transformations) and self-focused cognitions were assessed. Learned helplessness and depression deficits were found in a memory task, and the deficits increased with the number of digits. Depression deficits also increased with the number of transformations, and were also found in the no-memory/two transformation condition. Finally, task-related worries were related to learned helplessness deficits, and task-irrelevant thoughts were related to depression deficits. Findings were discussed in terms of the cognitive specificity of learned helplessness and depression deficits.     

The relationship of probability of success and performance following unsolvable problems: Reactance and helplessness effects

The present study assessed the effects of amount of helplessness training and probability of success given prior to performance on motivational involvement and on subsequent task performance. Subjects were exposed to either high, low, or no helplessness training on a series of cognitive discrimination problems and were given instructions regarding the probability of success on those problems. In the low helplessness condition, subjects who received moderate probability of success exhibited higher motivation to perform, higher levels of frustration and hostility, and better performance than subjects in the no helplessness condition. In the high helplessness condition, subjects who received moderate or high probability of success exhibited higher motivational involvement and greater performance decrements in the subsequent task than did control subjects. The results are discussed within the context of Wortman and Brehm's theory of reactance and helplessness.     

Factors associated with helplessness among Japanese collegiate swimmers

In this study the factors that lead to learned helplessness among Japanese collegiate swimmers were examined. Participants were 135 men and 72 women swimmers (ages 18 to 22 years). A Sports Attributional Style Scale measuring helplessness in performance and daily life was administered, and the participants were divided into two groups: those scoring high and low. Analysis indicated that (1) there was no significant correlation between helplessness scores and performance. (2) The group scoring high on learned helplessness reported a strong tendency towards helplessness not only in competitive life but also in daily life, which implied the generalization of helplessness. (3) The tendency to helplessness in performance was more closely related to the attributional style of positive events than negative events. In conclusion, some factors involved in helplessness among athletes can be explained by the theory of learned helplessness; however, some characteristics of athletes may be better described by attributional style in positive events.     

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.