On learned helplessness

“Learned helplessness” and its Pavlovian analog, learned irrelevance, are phenomena thought integral to understanding depression, PTSD, psychosomatic vulnerability, and a variety of diseases and immune disorders. The origin and development of research on learned helplessness is briefly overviewed with attention to the reasons for the controversy that surrounds the study of learned helplessness and derived physiological, psychological, and behavioral phenomena. The need to remedy past focus on American research and English language journals in this area is noted. The heuristic value as well as the wide ranging empirical value of the research domain is lauded. The meretricious emerging social and legal barriers to this research are noted to be unrealistic and unfortunate.     

Learned helplessness in social situations and sociometric status

Learned helplessness theory may provide a framework within which the correlates of sociometric status in children can be fruitfully investigated. Several parallels between learned helplessness and the characteristics of sociometric status groups are noted. It is argued that children who are rejected, and especially neglected, by peers are likely to manifest learned helplessness in social situations. In addition, reanalysis of Goetz and Dweck's (1980) study on learned helplessness in social situations provides data to support this viewpoint as: (a) rejected and neglected children resembled learned helpless children in regard to both attributions and behaviour following social rejection; (b) neglected children showed greater behavioural deterioration following rejection than rejected children. The implications of the proposed integration of research on learned helplessness and sociometric status are outlined, especially in relation to clinical disorders in children.     

Learned helplessness as a schedule-shift effect

The essentials of learned helplessness theory are described and supporting evidence surveyed. It is shown that two main empirical phenomena are associated with learned helplessness: a low rate of responding in laboratory animals following numerous discrete trials with continuous free relief and in human subjects following continuous nonrelief/reward or traditional extinction. The explanation Seligman and Maier give for these findings is critically analyzed and found to be unsupported at several critical points. The “patchwork” nature of the theory and observations is considered and it is contended that what is new in learned helplessness research is a schedule-shift effect like that observed when extinction follows partial reinforcement. A schedule-shift discrimination theory of “learned helplessness” effects is offered which is closely parallel to a widely accepted explanation of other schedule-shift effects, notably the partial reinforcement extinction effect. Although the behavioral effects of some schedule shifts resemble clinical depression, the latter is a more complex behavioral phenomena than the former which in turn has broader relevance to human behavior than just depression.     

Learned helplessness and learned effectiveness: effects of explicit response cues on individuals differing in personal control expectancies

Female undergraduates (n = 62) who scored as extreme internals or externals on the Mirels Personal Fate Control Scale participated in a partial replication of Hiroto's learned helplessness experiment. Lights were added to the treatment apparatus, which made explicit to subjects the contingency or noncontingency between their responses and the termination of an aversive tone. As predicted, the performance of internals was significantly impaired by uncontrollability (learned helplessness), while that of externals was facilitated by controllability (learned effectiveness). Externals performed as well as internals in the "escapable" condition, but their performance was inferior to that of internals in the control condition. Following "inescapable" treatment, internals performed worse than externals. These results are supportive of Lefcourt's theory of cue explication. Implications for locus of control and learned helplessness research 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.     

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.     

Learned helplessness and the schedule-shift hypotheses

The critique of learned helplessness research and theory and the alternative schedule-shift discrimination hypothesis offered by McReynolds (Journal of Research and Personality, 1980,14, 139–157) are considered. Each point made by McReynolds is discussed and a variety of recent experimental evidence is reviewed. It is concluded that McReynolds' critique is without substance and that the schedule-shift discrimination explanation of the learned helplessness effect is contradicted by existing data.     

A re-view of cognitive mediators in learned helplessness

The findings of Oakes and Curtis (1982), Tennen, Drum, Gillen, and Stanton (1982), and Tennen, Gillen, and Drum (1982) provide a challenge to learned helplessness theory's focus on cognitive mediators of the helplessness phenomenon. In response to these findings, Alloy (1982) argues that these studies do not challenge helplessness theory because they do not measure expected control and because they confuse necessary and sufficient causes of learned helplessness. Silver, Wortman, and Klos (1982) contend that these studies provide an inadequate test of the model because subjects are confronted with experiences which are unlike those in their natural environment. The present article argues that by Alloy's (1982) criteria, an adequate test of the learned helplessness model has not yet been conducted. Previous studies which measured expected control have not supported the model's predictions. Moreover, if perceived response–outcome independence is a sufficient, but not a necessary cause of learned helplessness, the model loses much of its heuristic value. In response to the argument that these studies lack ecological validity, this article clarifies the distinction between experimental realism and mundane realism. While real-world studies have discovered intriguing relations between perceptions of control, attributions, and coping with illness or victimization, they have not tested predictions of the learned helplessness model.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

Validation of a subjective helplessness measure

Investigated the potential utility and validity of a measure of subjective helplessness, the H25. Helplessness is defined as the degree to which the individual perceives him/herself to be unable to influence or control the initiation and outcome of a variety of potentially reinforcing activities. Alcoholic subjects were classified into three levels of self-reported helplessness. An initial multivariate analysis of variance indicated that the groups differed with respect to severity level across a number of dimensions of depressive symptomatology, with the High Helplessness group appearing significantly more depressed on each of the measures than Low Helplessness subjects. Subsequent analyses supported the construct validity of the H25. Those measures found to be most descriminating between groups and most predictive of the level of helplessness reflected a dimension of behavioral retardation consistent with the motivational dificits noted in the learned helplessness model. Recommendations for the future validation of individual difference measures of helplessness are discussed.     

Research on Irrelevance, Helplessness, and Immunization against Helplessness in Spain: Past, Present, and Future

The main contribution to helplessness research in Spain was on immunization against helplessness and how it was modulated by predictability in animals or attributions in humans. Recent research have focused on factors determining the perception of non-contingency during learned irrelevance and the illusion of control during an uncontrollable experience. Its subsequent effects on covariation learning and the detection of controllability showed the influence of prior beliefs and attentional factors on covariation learning an learned helplessness whose influence should be integrated into current new learning models.     

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。     

Recent Learned Helplessness/Irrelevance Research in Japan: Conceptual Framework and Some Experiments on Learned Irrelevance

In Section 1, a conceptual framework within which to study learned helplessness (LH), learned irrelevance (LI) and the related phenomena is introduced. In Section 2, three rat experiments on LI conducted in our laboratory using a conditioned suppression of licking preparation are introduced. In Experiment 1, the phenomena of LI and general LI were confirmed. In Experiment 2, random presentations of CST/US were found to interfere with subsequent initial excitatory conditioning to CSL under random CSL/US presentations. In Experiment 3, pre-paired presentations of CSN or CST with US before random CST/US presentations was found to have an attenuating effect on the development of general LI.     

Research on irrelevance,helplessness, and immunization against helplessness in Spain: Past,present, and future

The main contribution to helplessness research in Spain was on immunization against helplessness and how it was modulated by predictability in animals or attributions in humans. Recent research have focused on factors determining the perception of non-contingency during learned irrelevance and the illusion of control during an uncontrollable experience. Its subsequent effects on covariation learning and the detection of controllability showed the influence of prior beliefs and attentional factors on covariation learning and learned helplessness whose influence should be integrated into current new learning models. This research was supported by a Spanish DGICYT (Dirección General de Investigación Científica y Técnica) grant (PB94-0801).     

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.     

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.