A parametric study of learned helplessness in humans

In two experiments designed to assess the effect of varying amounts of exposure to noncontingency training, it was discovered that performance decrements could be produced after relatively brief training and again after extended training. Between these conditions was a period of recovery during which no performance deficits were evident. There was also a tendency for individual differences in motivation to moderate deficits following brief but not extended training. A four-stage model is proposed to account for these results. In response to uncontrollable outcomes, individuals are said to pass through a phase of no effect, followed by temporary helplessness, recovery, and final helplessness. The model also proposes that motivational differences and perceptions of noncontingency exert independent and opposing influences on learned helplessness deficits.     

Random Yoking: An Alternative to Feedback Procedures for Preventing Superstition in the Human “Learned Helplessness” Paradigm

The “learned helplessness” model of human depression requires that humans demonstrate deficits similar to animals following exposure to noncontingent events. However, the feedback procedure usually employed in the triadic instrumental induction phase represents a confound in studies of the interference effect in humans. Matute (1994) concluded that the feedback procedure is necessary for the interference effect, which is thus due to feedback induced failure rather than learned helplessness. As an alternative, we hypothesize that feedback alerts participants to noncontingency, such that subsequent interference is not inconsistent with learned helplessness theory. The present study evaluates these competing claims by incorporating a novel manipulation designed to promote the perception of noncontingency in Matute's (1994) triadic no-feedback-procedure induction. A second noncontingent yoked group received the same tones as the usual direct yoked group, but in random order so as to disrupt the “late trials” distribution of short-latency tones which promotes superstitious responding. As predicted, the random-yoking procedure inhibited superstition. The interference effect was observed in the random-yoked but not the direct-yoked triad. Thus random-yoked participants may have developed the expectation of noncontingency which is critical to learned helplessness. It is concluded that the confounded feedback procedure is not necessary for the interference effect and should be avoided in future research.     

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.     

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.     

Learned helplessness in humans: A developmental analysis

The investigation of learned helplessness (LH) in children is integrated with (a) research on LH in adults and (b) basic developmental research relating to the processes which theoretically mediate LH. It is concluded that developmental changes in perceptions of noncontingency, causal understanding, and expectations of future noncontingency are all likely to influence the process whereby children of different ages manifest LH. Several sets of hypotheses relating to each of these variables are presented. In addition, it is argued that developmental research on LH should examine the relationship between the components of the attributional reformulation of LH and should be explicit about the conceptual status of these variables. Finally, several approaches to understanding the origins of individual differences in LH are evaluated. It is proposed that exposure to noncontingency, performance feedback, modeling, and parental attributions may each contribute to the ontogenesis of individual differences in LH.     

Learned helplessness as conditioned inattention to the target stimulus

Learned helplessness theory explains the impaired performance that follows exposure to uncontrollable outcomes by assuming learned expectation of response-outcome independence that is transferred between tasks. Recent evidence has shown that introducing a second neutral stimulus, contingent on the offset of the uncontrollable stimulus, removes the subsequent interference. This finding has been claimed to support the view that the interference is a result of conditioned inattention rather than of the expectation of response-outcome independence. These conflicting explanations were examined in a series of four experiments that varied induction procedures (passive exposure or inescapability) and stimulus quality (aversive or nonaversive). All four experiments found the predicted interference, but only one, in which passive exposure was combined with an aversive stimulus, obtained results supporting the conditioned inattention hypothesis. We conclude that learned helplessness probably involves more than a single mechanism and that the passive exposure procedure may not be appropriate for demonstrating genuine helplessness deficits.     

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 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.     

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 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.     

The role of perceptions and attributions for response-outcome noncontingency in learned helplessness: A commentary and discussion

Three papers in the Journal of Personality (Oakes & Curtis, 1982; Tennen, Drum, Gillen, & Stanton, 1982; Tennen, Gillen, & Drum, 1982) report that behavioral deficits characteristic of learned helplessness occur independently of perceptions of and attributions for noncontingency. The present article discusses the problems for the cognitive mediational component of helplessness theory raised by these three papers. It is argued that while these papers do not seriously challenge helplessness theory because they fail to test adequately the central proposition of the model, they point to the theory's need for greater elaboration of the processes or mechanisms linking objective experiences, perceptions, attributions, expectations, and behavioral effects of uncontrollability. Suggestions for some of the additional mediational processes a revised helplessness theory should incorporate are offered, followed by a discussion of the role of these processes in leading to the relatively greater support found for perceptions and attributions as mediators of behavioral helplessness in natural vs. laboratory environments.     

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.     

Learned helplessness,depression and the perception of reinforcement

Depressed and nondepressed subjects were given escapable, inescapable, or no noise. Then, their perceptions of reinforcement contingencies in skill and chance tasks were assessed. Depressed-no noise and nondepressed-inescapable noise subjects exhibited smaller decreases in expectancy following failure in skill, but not in chance, than nondepressed-no noise subjects. So, depression and inescapable noise both produced perception of failure in skill as response-independent. Contrary to predictions, neither depression nor inescapable noise had a significant effect on increases in expectancy after success. These results partially support the learned helplessness model of depression which claims that a belief in independence between responding and reinforcement is central to the etiology and symptoms of depression in man.     

The conceptualization of helplessness: II. Laboratory correlates of the phenomenological definition of helplessness

The present research was designed to investigate the correspondence between the phenomenological definition of helplessness and its laboratory analogue—the learned helplessness paradigm. In experiment 1, subjects were exposed to unsolvable, solvable, or no problems. It was found that exposure to unsolvable problems increased the report of helplessness feelings and impaired subsequent performance. In addition, experiment 1 demonstrated a negative and significant correlation between performance and the report of helplessness feelings. Experiment 2 isolated the cognitive component of helplessness by measuring the amount of expectancy changes following success and failure. The amount of expectancy changes was negatively correlated with the belief in an outcome's uncontrollability. Finally, experiment 3 showed that exposure to only one unsolvable problem was associated with the reports of coping and anger feelings, whereas exposure to four unsolvable problems was related to surrender feelings. These results demonstrated that laboratory-induced helpless situations elicit the same feelings as real-life helplessness situations.The study was conducted by the first author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the M.A. degree at Bar Ilan University under the supervision of Prof. R. E. Lubow.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Learned helplessness: Not dependent upon cognitions, attributions, or other such phenomenal experiences

Subjects shot a light gun at a target with a photorecepter cell in the bull's-eye, with the only information regarding their accuracy being provided by reinforcing tone signals. Half the subjects received reinforcers contingent upon their hits. The others were yoked to the contingent subjects, receiving non-contingent reinforcers in the same patterns. Experiment 1 compared contingent or noncontingent positive or aversive reinforcers in their effect on subsequent anagrams performance. Phenomenal experiences, such as cognitive awareness, attributions, and moods, were assessed. Subjects exhibited a strong helplessness effect independent of their phenomenal experiences. In Experiment 2 the independent variables of contingent/noncontingent reinforcement and awareness of noncontingency were manipulated orthogonally by informing half the subjects that their reinforcement had been noncontingent in the target-shooting. Actual noncontingency produced a strong helplessness effect whereas “awareness of noncontingency” did not.     

Attributional style and the type A coronary-prone behavior pattern

The present two studies examined the attributional styles of Type A and B individuals. Past research suggests that Type A's exhibit greater performance deficits than Type B's following exposure to extended, salient uncontrollable stimuli. The reformulated learned helplessness model suggests that individuals most prone to such performance deficits should exhibit an attributional style characterized by internal, stable, and global attributions for negative outcomes, but external, unstable, and specific attributions for positive outcomes. However, a self-esteem protection explanation of learned helplessness findings predicts an opposite, self-serving attributional style. Results from both studies indicated that Type A's are more self-serving than Type B's in their attributions for positive and negative outcomes.     

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.