Helplessness and optimism Flashcards
Timeline of early helplessness research
1967 ― Triadic experiments with dogs
1969 ― Theory of learned helplessness
1975 ― First human ‘helplessness’ experiment
published
1978 ― Attributional reformulation
1989 ― Hopelessness depression theory
1991 ― ‘Learned Optimism’ published
1993 ― ‘Learned Helplessness’ published
ORIGINAL DOG EXPERIMENTS
In the 1960s, Bruce Overmier, Martin
Seligman & Steven Maier at the University of
Pennsylvania observed that:
- dogs receiving electric shocks in a
classical conditioning experiment did not
learn to escape from shocks in a shuttle
box (usually dogs do this easily)
Did receiving electric shocks make dogs ‘helpless’ later
in the shuttle box?
OR
Did receiving uncontrollable electric shocks make dogs
helpless?
To answer the research question: the researchers
designed a 3-group ‘triadic’ experiment.
DESIGN OF YOKED ‘TRIADIC’ DOG EXPERIMENTS
PHASE 1: PAVLOVIAN HARNESS
GROUP 1 ― escapable shock (dog can turn off shock
with nose)
GROUP 2 ― inescapable shock (yoked to Group 1)
GROUP 3 ― no treatment (Control)
RESULTS OF YOKED ‘TRIADIC’ DOG EXPERIMENTS
PHASE 2: SHUTTLE BOX
GROUP 1 ― escapable shock ― Normal Learning
GROUP 2 ― inescapable shock ― Interference,
two-thirds failed to learn
GROUP 3 ― no treatment ― Normal Learning
ORIGINAL THEORY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS
Exposing organisms to UNCONTROLLABLE OUTCOMES
(outcomes independent of responding)
produces 3 DEFICITS
1. COGNITIVE deficit: belief that outcomes are
uncontrollable;
2. MOTIVATIONAL deficit: lack of response initiation;
and, if the outcomes are aversive
3. EMOTIONAL deficit: fear & eventually depression
The theory goes well beyond the original
experimental findings in 3 ways
- applies to all organisms (not just dogs);
- assumes even non-aversive uncontrollable outcomes
can produce learned helplessness deficits; - claims to explain depression, but experimenters did
not check for signs (symptoms) of depression in the
dogs
CRITICISMS OF YOKED ‘TRIADIC’ DOG EXPERIMENTS
- Does not rule out possibility of instrumental
response - Possible neurochemical explanation
- Application of Church’s (1964) critique of yoked
control designs:
* Subjects may differ in sensitivity to shock
* Sensitivity to shock may fluctuate over time - Results could be due to unpredictability (NOT
uncontrollability)
CRITICISMS OF ORIGINAL
THEORY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS
- Goes beyond the experimental findings
(effect in dogs exposed to electric shocks) - Fails to explain why a third of subjects show
no effect (do not become helpless) - As a theory of depression:
(a) paradox of self-blame
(b) fails to explain why not everyone is
depressed
HIROTO & SELIGMAN’S 1975 EXPERIMENTS
Used human participants, with a loud irritating noise
(instead of shock) as the uncontrollable stimulus.
All participants were told noise would stop if they
solved a puzzle correctly:
GROUP 1- could press a series of buttons to
turn off noise (could stop noise &
control environment)
GROUP 2- given puzzles that could not be
solved (could not stop noise &
could not control environment)
CRITICISMS OF HIROTO & SELIGMAN’S 1975
EXPERIMENTS
Described 4 experiments using:
* 2 induction procedures (instrumental & cognitive)
* 2 test tasks (instrumental & cognitive)
Problems:
* induction procedures confounded various extraneous
variables with uncontrollability;
* this means validity of the results is open to question
as various alternative explanations may account for
the experimental findings;
* many later experiments on human helplessness used
similar procedures
PROBLEMS WITH EXPERIMENTS USING
HUMAN PARTICIPANTS
- Amount & pattern of reinforcement (don’t all use
yoking) - Yoking may produce ‘illusion of control’
- Some experiments used different instructions
- Perceived success/failure: most experiments
confound uncontrollability & failure - Predictability/unpredictability: difficult to
separate experimentally - People don’t just give up altogether (like most
dogs did)
Learned helplessness
A psychological state in which individuals consider adverse outcomes inevitable and resign themselves to their environment. Give up even when possibilities are presented.
REVISED THEORY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS (1978)
When organisms experience uncontrollable outcomes,
they explain it in terms of 3 attributional dimensions:
(a) INTERNAL - EXTERNAL DIMENSION:
Determines personal or universal helplessness
(& accordingly self-blame)
(b) STABLE - UNSTABLE DIMENSION:
Determines ‘chronicity’ (persistence)
(c) GLOBAL - SPECIFIC DIMENSION:
Determines generalisability to new situations
EXAMPLE 1: You fail exam (negative outcome)
Two possible explanations:
a) I’m stupid (internal, stable, global)
b) Exam was unfair (external, unstable, specific)
EXAMPLE 2: You come top in exam (positive outcome)
Two possible explanations:
a) I’m brilliant (internal, stable, global)
b) I was lucky (external, unstable, specific)
Pessimism in revised learning theory
The revised theory assumes some people have a
depressive (pessimistic) attributional style:
1) a tendency to give ‘internal, stable, global’
attributions for bad outcomes and
2) a tendency to give ‘external, unstable, specific’
attributions for good outcomes
DEPRESSIVE REALISM HYPOTHESIS
(TAYLOR & BROWN, 1988)
Alloy and Abramson (1979) showed that:
* depressed college students were more
accurate (realistic) in making judgments
about their performance in an experimental
task
* non-depressed college students tended to
over-rate their performance
