Helplessness In Humans Research Articles

Deprivation of control and the attribution process.

SummaryThe present study was designed as a firstattempt to manipulate the degree of controlmotivation, which has generally been assumedto be the prime reason for making attribu-tions. The results indicate that such manipu-lations are feasible and that variations in ex-perience with lack of control do affect subse-quent attributional tendencies. These findingsopen the way for further investigations of thenature of control-deprivation-attributional-activity relationships in specific, and of therelatively neglected topic of motivational an-tecedents of attribution processes in general.Reference Note 1. Snyder, M. L., Smoller, B., Strenta, A., & Frankel,A. A comparison of egotism, negativity, andlearned helplessness as explanations for poor per-formance after unsolvable problems. Unpublishedmanuscript, Dartmouth College, 1979. References Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale,J. D. Learned helplessness in humans: Critiqueand reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-ogy, 1978, 87, 49-74.Bern, D. J. Self-perception: An alternative interpre-tation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psycho-logical Review, 1967, 74, 183-200.Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingentsuccess. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 1978, 36, 405-417.Bersheid, E., Graziano, W., Monson, T., & Dermer,M. Outcome dependency: Attention, attribution,and attraction. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1976, 34, 978-989.Brehm, J. W. A theory of psychological reactance.New York: Academic Press, 1966.Chaikin, A. L., & Cooper, J. Evaluation as a func-tion of correspondence and hedonic relevance.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1973,9, 257-264.Frankel, A., & Snyder, M. L. Poor performance fol-lowing unsolvable problems: Learned helplessnessor egotism? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1978, 36, 1415-1423.Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relation-ships. New York: Wiley, 1958.Heller, J. F. Attribution theory: Self and other at-tributions as a determinant of attitude change.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofIowa, 1972.Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. Control of attributionsabout the self through self-handicapping strategies:The appeal of alcohol and the role of under-achievement. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 1978, 4, 200-206.Jones , E. E. & Davis K From acts to disposi-tions: The attribution in person perception. InL. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology (Vol. 2). New York: AcademicPress, 1965.Jones, E. E., & McGillis, D. Correspondent infer-ences and the attribution cube: A comparative re-appraisal. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd(Eds.), New directions in attribution research(Vol. 1). Hillside, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976.Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. The actor and theobserver: Divergent perception s or the cause fbehavior. In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.), Attribution:Perceiving the causes of behavior. New York:General Learning Press, 1971.Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychology.In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Mo-tivation (Vol. 15). Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress, 1967.Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social interaction.In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.), Attribution: Per-ceiving the causes of behavior. New York: Gen-eral Learning Press, 1971.Kiesler, C. A., Nisbett, R. E., & Zanna, M. On in-ferring one's beliefs from one's behavior. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11,321-327.Langer, E. J. The illusion of control. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 311-

Learned helplessness in humans: An analysis of learning processes and the roles of individual and situational differences.

Learned helplessness in humans: An analysis of learning processes and the roles of individual and situational differences.

Learned helplessness in humans: An analysis of learning processes and the roles of individual and situational differences.

Learned helplessness in humans: An analysis of learning processes and the roles of individual and situational differences.

Learned helplessness in humans: A review and attribution-theory model.

Learned helplessness in humans: A review and attribution-theory model.

Prevention of learned helplessness in humans.

Prevention of learned helplessness in humans.

Prevention of learned helplessness in humans.

Prevention of learned helplessness in humans.

Learned helplessness in humans: A review and attribution-theory model.

Learned helplessness in humans: A review and attribution-theory model.

Learned Helplessness, Immunization and Importance of Task in Humans

Prevention of laboratory induced learned helplessness in college students was demonstrated. Three groups of 20 subjects received failure, success, or success followed by failure (immunization) on blocks taken from the WISC and WAIS block design tests. Half of the subjects in each condition were informed that the task was valid in predicting IQ and college success (high task importance) while the other half was simply told that the task involved concept-formation learning (low importance). Following pretreatment all subjects were tested on a series of 20 patterned anagrams. High task importance—failure subjects had longer latencies on the anagrams relative to the high task importance—immunization subjects. The superior performance of the immunization condition relative to the failure condition indicates that learned helplessness in humans, as in infra-humans, can be prevented by prior success on a similar task. High task importance was generally associated with poorer anagram performance thereby supporting Roth and Kubal's (1975) findings which relate helplessness to the impact of “no control.”

Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation.

The learned helplessness hypothesis is criticized and reformulated. The old hypothesis, when applied to learned helplessness in humans, has two major problems: (a) It does not distinguish between cases in which outcomes are uncontrollable for all people and cases in which they are uncontrollable only for some people (univervsal vs. personal helplessness), and (b) it does not explain when helplessness is general and when specific, or when chronic and when acute. A reformulation based on a revision of attribution theory is proposed to resolve these inadequacies. According to the reformulation, once people perceive noncontingency, they attribute their helplessness to a cause. This cause can be stable or unstable, global or specific, and internal or external. The attribution chosen influences whether expectation of future helplessness will be chronic or acute, broad or narrow, and whether helplessness will lower self-esteem or not. The implications of this reformulation of human helplessness for the learned helplessness model of depression are outlined.

A critical review of Seligman's laboratory experiments on learned helplessness and depression in humans.

A critical review of Seligman's laboratory experiments on learned helplessness and depression in humans.

A critical review of Seligman's laboratory experiments on learned helplessness and depression in humans.

Six laboratory experiments on learned helplessness and depression in humans reported by Seligman and his colleagues were critically reviewed. They were found to provide little or no support for the learned helplessness theory of depression. A number of methodologica l and conceptual problems were discussed. In conclusion, it was suggested that heuristic theories such as Seligman's should be closely examined before psychologists embark on an extensive series of experimental tests. Seligman and his colleagues have conducted a number of laboratory experiments on learned helplessness and depression in humans. The findings have been considered by Seligman to provide support for his learned helplessness theory of depression, and one will usually find the reports of these experiments listed in writings about the theory. I shall attempt to show that the findings of his experiments provide little or no support for his theory. This review will be restricted to the six articles reporting experiments with humans that have been conducted by Seligman and his colleagues.1 It would seem particularly important at this stage to evaluate Seligman's own thinking and work in this area rather than to venture into an evaluation' of work in other laboratories that may be based on a misinterpretation of Seligman's ideas. The present article has been divided into three sections. In the first section, methodological and conceptual problems specific to each experiment will be noted. In the second section, these problems and some additional problems common to all of the studies will be discussed more generally. In the third section, I shall comment on the popularity of the learned helplessness theory. I shall also comment on the importance of scrutinizing the

Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation.

Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation.

Persistence training: a partial reinforcement procedure for reversing learned helplessness and depression.

This article examines the relative merits of either partial or continuous (total) success therapy as a device for reversing learned helplessness and depression in humans. College students experienced (a) no treatment followed by either abbreviated (20 trials) or extended (40 trials) continuous success therapy, (b) soluble problems followed by either abbreviated or extended continuous success therapy, (c) insoluble problems followed by either abbreviated or extended continuous success therapy, or (d) insoluble problems followed be either abbreviated or extended partial success therapy. Subsequently, subjects in all eight groups received 40 escape-extinction trials in which aversive tones were not controllable. The results of this experiment indicated that both continuous and partial success schedules were effective in reversing depressed responding (helplessness) induced by prior exposure to insoluble problems. However, only the partial success therapy schedules produced persistent escape responding in extinction. Also, across therapy procedures, extended therapy generated more response persistence in escape extinction than did abbreviated therapy. Theoretical implications of these results are discussed, and a compatible new treatment program, labeled persistence training, is introduced.

Locus of control and the generality of learned helplessness in humans.

Locus of control and the generality of learned helplessness in humans.

Locus of control and the generality of learned helplessness in humans.

Locus of control and the generality of learned helplessness in humans.