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.     

Frustation and learned helplessness.

This article reports the transfer of learned helplessness from one aversive motivator, shock to another, frustration. In experiment 1, animals were trained to approach food in a runway and concomitantly exposed to either escapable, inescapable, or no shock in a different situation. Extinction was conducted in the runway, and subsequently the animals were tested for hurdle-jump escape from the frustrating goal box. Inescapably shocked rats failed to learn to hurdle-jump, whereas escapably or nonshocked animals learned the frustration escape response. Experiment 2 replicated the basic finidngs of Experiment 1 and showed transfer of learned helplessness from shock to frustration when no running response had been first acquired in the runway.     

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.     

Effects of learned helplessness training on instrumental heart rate control in humans

In Experiment 1, subjects who received feedback contingent on short interbeat intervals (relative to a baseline period) learned to accelerate their heart rates, but subjects who received noncontingent feedback did not. In Experiment 2, subjects who were exposed to noncontingent aversive noises later showed significant performance deficits on both an instrumental and a cognitive task. Attributional style predicted helplessness deficits on the cognitive but not the instrumental task. Experiment 3 demonstrated that experimentally induced helplessness interferes with biofeedback learning. Attributional style did not predict the occurrence of helplessness deficits in this context. Results are discussed in terms of the nature of biofeedback training and the range of behaviors that learned helplessness training affects.     

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.     

The distortion of self-perception by learned helplessness

This study examined the impact of learned helplessness on self-perception of competence. The participants were 180 undergraduates who were placed in control, failure, or success groups where they were given a list of traits on which to evaluate themselves, followed by an anagram-solution test. Significant performance effects were observed on the test; self-assessment was more representative of actual ability, however, than of the treatment situation. The results suggest that although experiencing uncontrollable failure may result in performance deficits, perception of ability may not be distorted.     

Coping and learned helplessness: Effects of coping strategies on performance following unsolvable problems

The current study assesses the effects of individuals' coping strategies for dealing with stress on cognitive performance following unsolvable problems. In this study, subjects responded to a questionnaire tapping the use of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies in dealing with failure in achievement settings. Then they were exposed to either no-feedback or failure in four unsolvable problems. Upon completing these problems, subjects performed a visual search task with a memory component. Results showed that failure, as compared with no-feedback, produced performance deficits among subjects who habitually relied on a single coping strategy, either problem- or emotion-focused, and among subjects who did not rely on any coping response. Only subjects who relied on both problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies did not show any performance deficit following unsolvable problems. The results are discussed in terms of Lazarus and Folkman's stress-coping model.     

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.     

Richard L. Solomon and learned helplessness

This article reviews the course of development of research on a currently popular explanatory approach to dysfunctional behavior, the learned helplessness analysis. The early history is prominent in this review as it reflects the inspirations of Richard L. Solomon, a scholar who fostered the resurgence of psychologists’ interests in Pavlovian conditioning in the 1950s and 1960s. Current research is characterized as having four separate themes: elaboration of “symptoms,” elucidating the role of fear, explicit modeling, and extensions involving attributional constructs.     

Sex differences in attributions and learned helplessness

This investigation assessed the hypothesis that girls are more likely to be learned helpless in math than boys. Students in grades 5 through 11 completed questionnaires assessing their causal attributions for success and failure in mathematics, their self-concepts of math ability, and their expectations for both current and future success in math. Results indicated that sex differences in attributions depended on the type of methodology used (open-ended or rank-ordered questions). The most consistent difference involved the differential use and ranking of ability, skills, and consistent effort. No sex differences were found in either students' perceptions of their own math ability or in their current achievement expectations. Girls, however, rated their future expectations slightly lower than did boys. Taken together, these results provide little support for the hypothesis that girls are generally more learned helpless in mathematics than are boys.     

The generality of learned helplessness in the rat

Two experiments were simultaneously conducted in which two different groups of 40 rats each were exposed to one of two different stressors. In both experiments half the subjects were pretreated with shock, half with underwater exposure. For each pretreatment stressor, half the subjects were allowed to escape, the other half were not. The experiments differed in the test task used. Approximately 24 hr after pretreatment, one-half the subjects from each pretreatment group received 20 water-escape trials in an underwater maze, the other half received 20 shock-escape trials in a two-way shuttle box. The subjects in each of the inescapable pretreatment conditions were slower to escape in the subsequent shock-escape and water-escape tasks when compared with subjects in the corresponding escapable pretreatment condition. The “learned helplessness” effect appeared to be no smaller when aversive stimuli were changed between pretreatment and test than when they remained the same.     

Attributional style and the generality of learned helplessness

According to the logic of the attribution reformulation of learned helplessness, the interaction of two factors influences whether helplessness experienced in one situation will transfer to a new situation. The model predicts that people who exhibit a style of attributing negative outcomes to global factors will show helplessness deficits in new situations that are either similar or dissimilar to the original situation in which they were helpless. In contrast, people who exhibit a style of attributing negative outcomes to only specific factors will show helplessness deficits in situations that are similar, but not dissimilar, to the original situation in which they were helpless. To test these predictions, we conducted two studies in which undergraduates with either a global or specific attributional style for negative outcomes were given one of three pretreatments in the typical helplessness triadic design: controllable bursts of noise, uncontrollable bursts of noise, or no noise. In Experiment 1, students were tested for helplessness deficits in a test situation similar to the pretreatment setting, whereas in Experiment 2, they were tested in a test situation dissimilar to the pretreatment setting. The findings were consistent with predictions of the reformulated helplessness theory.     

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.