Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

17
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1975, Vol. 31, No. 2, 311-327 Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man Donald S. Hiroto and Martin E. P. Seligman University of Pennsylvania Learned helplessness, the interference with instrumental responding following inescapable aversive events, has been found in animals and man. This study tested for the generality of the debilitation produced by uncontrollable events across tasks and motivational systems. Four experiments with college students were simultaneously conducted: (a) pretreatment with inescapable, escapable, or control aversive tone followed by shuttlebox escape testing; (b) pretreat- ment with insoluble, soluble, or control discrimination problems followed by anagram solution testing; (c) pretreatments with inescapable, escapable, or control aversive tone followed by anagram solution testing; (d) pretreatments with insoluble, soluble, or control discrimination problems followed by shuttlebox escape testing. Learned helplessness was found with all four ex- periments: Both insolubility and inescapability produced failure to escape and failure to solve anagrams. We suggest that inescapability and insolubility both engendered expectancies that responding is independent of reinforcement. The generality of this process suggests that learned helplessness may be an induced "trait." Inescapable aversive events presented to animals or to men result in profound inter- ference with later instrumental learning (e.g., Hiroto, 1974; Overmier & Seligman, 1967; Seligman & Maier, 1967; Thornton & Jacobs, 1971). If a subject can escape the aversive event, later instrumental behavior remains normal. This phenomenon has been inter- preted as learned helplessness (Maier, Selig- man, & Solomon, 1969; Seligman, Maier, & Solomon, 1971). This interpretation claims that organisms learn that responding and reinforcement (e.g., shock termination) are independent when shock is inescapable. Such learning undermines the motivation for initi- ating instrumental responses. Is learned helplessness a specific state which only impairs performance in situations similar to original training, or does it impair a broad range of behavior? It is possible that The research reported in this article was con- ducted while the first author was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania. This re- search was supported, in part, by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MHS3982. Requests for reprints should be sent to Donald S. Hiroto, University of California Medical Center, Ambulatory Psychiatric Services, Room A-830, 400 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, California 94143. This study is part of a program of research at the University of Pennsylvania supported, in part, by National Institute of Mantal Health Grant MH19604 to Martin E. P. Seligman. specific environmental cues of training medi- ate the interference. In contrast, Hiroto (1974) and Miller and Seligman (1973) hypothesized that expectancy of indepen- dence is an internal state of the organism that is broadly transferred. If interference with learning occurs fol- lowing uncontrollable events from very dif- ferent response and stimulus modalities, learned helplessness would seem to be a stable and pervasive process. To put it loosely, is learned helplessness a state or trait? This question is of particular interest since learned helplessness has been postulated as under- lying human depression (Seligman, 1973, in press a; Seligman, Klein, & Miller, in press). Hiroto (1974) reported results which dem- onstrated parallel behaviors between animals and man in a learned helplessness paradigm. One group received aversive loud noise which it could escape by button pressing. A second group received inescapable noise, and a third group received no pretreatment. All groups then received controllable noise in a two-way shuttlebox. As with animals, the inescapable group tended to sit and take the noise with- out responding, while the escape and no- pretreatment groups escaped readily. A per- sonality measure, external control of rein- forcement (Rotter, 1966), as well as the in- structions of chance both produced passivity similar to the effects of inescapability. Hiroto 311

Transcript of Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

Page 1: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1975, Vol. 31, No. 2, 311-327

Generality of Learned Helplessness in ManDonald S. Hiroto and Martin E. P. Seligman

University of Pennsylvania

Learned helplessness, the interference with instrumental responding followinginescapable aversive events, has been found in animals and man. This studytested for the generality of the debilitation produced by uncontrollable eventsacross tasks and motivational systems. Four experiments with college studentswere simultaneously conducted: (a) pretreatment with inescapable, escapable,or control aversive tone followed by shuttlebox escape testing; (b) pretreat-ment with insoluble, soluble, or control discrimination problems followed byanagram solution testing; (c) pretreatments with inescapable, escapable, orcontrol aversive tone followed by anagram solution testing; (d) pretreatmentswith insoluble, soluble, or control discrimination problems followed byshuttlebox escape testing. Learned helplessness was found with all four ex-periments: Both insolubility and inescapability produced failure to escape andfailure to solve anagrams. We suggest that inescapability and insolubility bothengendered expectancies that responding is independent of reinforcement.The generality of this process suggests that learned helplessness may be aninduced "trait."

Inescapable aversive events presented toanimals or to men result in profound inter-ference with later instrumental learning (e.g.,Hiroto, 1974; Overmier & Seligman, 1967;Seligman & Maier, 1967; Thornton & Jacobs,1971). If a subject can escape the aversiveevent, later instrumental behavior remainsnormal. This phenomenon has been inter-preted as learned helplessness (Maier, Selig-man, & Solomon, 1969; Seligman, Maier, &Solomon, 1971). This interpretation claimsthat organisms learn that responding andreinforcement (e.g., shock termination) areindependent when shock is inescapable. Suchlearning undermines the motivation for initi-ating instrumental responses.

Is learned helplessness a specific statewhich only impairs performance in situationssimilar to original training, or does it impaira broad range of behavior? It is possible that

The research reported in this article was con-ducted while the first author was a PostdoctoralFellow at the University of Pennsylvania. This re-search was supported, in part, by National Instituteof Mental Health Grant MHS3982.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Donald S.Hiroto, University of California Medical Center,Ambulatory Psychiatric Services, Room A-830, 400Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, California 94143.

This study is part of a program of research atthe University of Pennsylvania supported, in part,by National Institute of Mantal Health GrantMH19604 to Martin E. P. Seligman.

specific environmental cues of training medi-ate the interference. In contrast, Hiroto(1974) and Miller and Seligman (1973)hypothesized that expectancy of indepen-dence is an internal state of the organismthat is broadly transferred.

If interference with learning occurs fol-lowing uncontrollable events from very dif-ferent response and stimulus modalities,learned helplessness would seem to be astable and pervasive process. To put it loosely,is learned helplessness a state or trait? Thisquestion is of particular interest since learnedhelplessness has been postulated as under-lying human depression (Seligman, 1973, inpress a; Seligman, Klein, & Miller, in press).

Hiroto (1974) reported results which dem-onstrated parallel behaviors between animalsand man in a learned helplessness paradigm.One group received aversive loud noise whichit could escape by button pressing. A secondgroup received inescapable noise, and a thirdgroup received no pretreatment. All groupsthen received controllable noise in a two-wayshuttlebox. As with animals, the inescapablegroup tended to sit and take the noise with-out responding, while the escape and no-pretreatment groups escaped readily. A per-sonality measure, external control of rein-forcement (Rotter, 1966), as well as the in-structions of chance both produced passivitysimilar to the effects of inescapability. Hiroto

311

Page 2: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

312 DONALD S. HIROTO AND MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN

I N S 1 I N S I

button PressingPretreatment-

Shuttlebox Testing

COG INS!

Levine DiscriminationPretreatment

Shuttlebox Testing

PretreatmenlContingency

Escapable

E

InescapableE

Tone

Tone

Control

C

Soluble Problem

S

Insoluble Problem

S

Control

C

INST-COG

Button PressingPretreatment-

Anagram Testing

COG-COG

Levine DiscriminationPretreatment-

Anagram Testing

FIGURE 1. Designs of experiments. (Inst. refers toinstrumental; Cog. refers to cognitive.)

Escapable ToneE

Inescapably ToneE

ControlC

Soluble ProblemS

Insoluble ProblemS

ControlC

FIGURE 2. Designs of experiments. (Inst. refers toinstrumental; Cog. refers to cognitive.)

Z05inauua<uinm0

in4a

4ill

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

-

S.O. 2.61 S.D. 8.38 S.D. 5.58

EscAPE INESCAPE CONTRO

— P<.01 ' 1 P<.05

FIGURE 3. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the instrumental pretreatment-instrumental test forhelplessness experiment: mean trials to criterion for escape acquisition.

Page 3: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

GENERALITY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN MAN 313

nu

8E

J

IU.0

0

20

12

10

B.D. 2.45

ESCAPE

8.D. 6.80

INHCAPE

B.D. 5.87

.05-

-P> .05

FIGURE 4. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the instrumental pretreatment-instrumental test forhelplessness experiment: mean number of failures to escape.

concluded that all three variables—inescapa-bility, externality, and chance instructions—engender a similar state, that is, the expec-tancy that reinforcement is independent ofresponding.

The Hiroto study, like most others in thehelplessness literature, tested its subjects in asituation similar, but not identical, to the onein which helplessness is trained: Both train-ing and testing used aversive loud noise andan instrumental problem. The study we reporttrains its subjects in either instrumental help-lessness with loud noise or insoluble cognitiveproblems and then tests them in both newinstrumental or cognitive problems which aresoluble. It should be pointed out that insolu-bility in a cognitive task is formally anal-ogous to inescapability, since in both theprobability of reinforcement (correct or in-correct, or shock or no shock) is independent

of responding. So we determine whether in-strumental helplessness or mastery transferto cognitive task and whether cognitive help-lessness or mastery transfer to instrumentaltasks.

METHODOverview

The study consisted of four independent, but si-multaneously conducted, experiments. Two of thefour experiments used an instrumental (Inst.) orcognitive (Cog.) pretreatment followed by aninstrumental test for helplessness (Inst.-Inst., Cog.-Inst.). The other two experiments used an instru-mental or cognitive pretreatment followed by a cog-nitive test for helplessness (Inst.-Cog., Cog.-Cog.).Each experiment consisted of three groups whichreceived escapable (soluble), inescapable (insoluble),or a control pretreatment prior to the test for help-lessness. Figure 1 presents the design for the Inst.-Inst. and Cog.-Inst. experiments, and Figure 2 pre-sents the design for the Inst.-Cog. and Cog.-Cog.experiments.

Page 4: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

314 DONALD S. HIEOTO AND MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN

Subjects

Ninety-six undergraduate students, consisting ofSI men and 45 women, at the University of Penn-sylvania participated in the study. They respondedto advertisements for a study in noise pollution andwere advised prior to their participation that theymight be exposed to a "slightly unpleasant" tone.Two women refused to participate and were re-placed. None of the subjects had previously par-ticipated in an experiment using an aversive stimu-lus. Each subject was paid $2.00 at the end of theexperiment and debriefed.

Apparatus

Instrumental pretreatment. The apparatus was aspring-loaded button in the center of a 12-in. (30cm.) circular base. Symmetrically on each side of thebutton were two 24-V dc lights. In the escapablecondition, pressing the button four times terminatedthe tone. In the inescapable condition the buttonhad no effect on the tone.

Cognitive pretreatment. A series of four-dimen-sional stimulus patterns used in previous discrimi-nation learning studies (Levine, 1966, 1971) wasthe cognitive task. Each of the four dimensions hadtwo associated values: (a) letter (A or T); (b)letter color (black or white); (c) letter size (largeor small) ; (d) border surrounding letter (circle orsquare). In the soluble condition, one value of oneof the dimensions, for example, square border, wasalways correct. In the insoluble condition, no valuewas consistently correct. Levine (1971) provides adetailed description of the patterns. Each patternwas on a 4 X 6-in. (10 X 16 cm.) "wire-index" card.

Soluble instrumental test task. The apparatus wasa modified Turner and Solomon (1962) humanshuttlebox. Moving a knob from one side to theother escaped and avoided the tone. Specifications ofthe manipulandum have been described elsewhere(Hiroto, 1974).

The aversive stimulus in both instrumental taskswas a 3,000 hertz tone emanating from an Eicoaudio generator (Model 377). The tone was pre-sented to the subject at 90 decibels through cali-

4

8

7

ui 6in

\ 5

h2 4

| 3

2

1

^

i

i

S.D. 1.96

IBB ^

S.D. 1.91 S.D. 1.43

ESCAPE 1NEBCAPE CONTP.O

P<.02 ' ' P>.05

O~> OS — ^— — — —

FIGURE S. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the instrumental pretreatment-instrumental test forhelplessness experiment: mean response latency.

Page 5: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

GENERALITY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN MAN 315

20r

* 18g

2 16

Eu 14Ul

\ 12uinu 10

0h 8in

1 6hZ 4UlS 2

.

-

m

m

m

-

'

S.D. 6.71

SOL.UBLK

-P<.01

so. 647

CONTHOI-

p< .02

• P > 05

FIGURE 6. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the cognitive pretreatment-instrumental test for help-lessness experiment: mean trials to criterion for escape acquisition.

brated Grason-Stadler earphones (Model TDH-39),and as we see the tone was generally judged "mod-erately aversive."

Soluble cognitive test task, A series of 20 ana-grams taken from a list of five-letter anagrams(Tresselt & Mayzner, 1966) was used as the cogni-tive test task. The anagrams were placed indi-vidually on 4 X 6-in. (10 X 16 cm.) wire-indexcards and composed of J in. (.64 cm.) letters spaced•fa in. (.48 cm.) apart. Examples of the anagramswere: (a) I A R D T; (b) B I A T H; (c)U L A T F; (d) E R L K C. The letter orderfor all anagrams was 3-4-2-5-1. This enabled us tolook at both the time to solution of each anagramand trials to catching on to the pattern.

Communication between subject and experimenterwas conducted with a two-way intercom. Control-ling circuitry was located in an adjacent room sepa-rated by a one-way mirror. All response variableswere measured by (1/100-sec.) times for the instru-mental tasks and a (1/100-min.) stopwatch for thecognitive tasks.

Procedure

The subjects were assigned into 1 of the 12possible groups generated by the four experimentseach with the three pretreatment contingencies. Thefirst study used an instrumental pretreatment (but-ton press) followed by a second instrumental task(shuttlebox) to test for helplessness. The secondstudy used a cognitive task (Levine discriminationproblems) for the pretreatment followed by theinstrumental task. The third and fourth studies usedan instrumental and cognitive pretreatment task,respectively, and followed by the cognitive test task.There were 24 subjects in each experiment.

The three groups pretreated with the instrumentaltask were: (a) escapable (E) subjects who received4$ trials of unsignaled escapable noise; (b) ines-capable yoked (E) subjects who received the iden-tical 45 trials of unsignaled inescapable loud noise;and (c) control (C) subjects who passively listenedto the identical number and duration of tones as Eand fi subjects. The C group differed from £ groupin that C was instructed merely to sit and listen to

Page 6: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

316 DONALD S. HIROTO AND MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN

the tones, while E was instructed to try to terminatethe tones (see "Instructions," below). Both C andE received identical patterns of tones, since wedeemed it important that the inescapable groupdiffer from the control group not in habituation totone, but only in perceived inescapability (Geer,Davison, & Gatchel, 1970; Glass, Singer, & Fried-man, 1969). The groups pretreated with the cogni-tive task were: (a) soluble (S) which received threesoluble concept identification problems; (b) insolu-ble (S) which received three identical concept prob-lems but with no consistent correct values; (c)control (C) which inspected the three problems butlike the instrumental control group received noinstructions to solve the problems and no feedback.

Instructions for instrumental pretreatment. Thebutton press-shuttlebox and button press-anagramgroups were pretreated with the same instrumentalbutton pressing task. Each subject was initiallyinformed that the study involved listening to noiseand was given the option of leaving after listening

to brief samples of the tone. The control groupswere told only "From time to time a loud tonewill come on for awhile. Please sit and listen to it."The E and E groups were told "From time to timea loud tone will come on for awhile. When thattone comes on there is something you can do tostop it." The function of the two lights on theapparatus was next described, but only to E and Egroups.

There are two lights located on this base. Thelights will tell you how the noise on each trialwas controlled. If you find the way to stop thenoise then the green light marked 'S-out' willmomentarily flash on after each time you stopthe loud tone. If you don't stop the tone thenthe red light marked 'time out' will flash whenthe tone stops. Remember, when the green lightflashes on this means that you have stopped thetone. But if the red light flashes this means youdid not stop the tone but that it stopped auto-

uia<uinui

inuaa

Iu.0

b

4ui

20

14

12

10

S.D. 5.79

BOLUBLB

SO 5.66

INBOLUBLE

I P<.01 • -P< .02

•P> .05

FIGURE 7. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the cognitive pretreatment-instrumental test for help-lessness experiment: mean number of failures to escape.

Page 7: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

GENERALITY OP LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN MAN 317

0

111§<1U

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

-

-

-

S.D. 2.19 S.D. 1.49 S.D. 1.09

SOLUBLE INSOLUBLE CoryTHa

-P> .05 -

P> .05

FIGURE 8. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the cognitive pretreatment-instrumental test for help-lessness experiment: mean response latency.

matically. Taking the earphones off or disman-tling the apparatus is not the way to stop thenoise.

The pretreatments consisted of 45 unsignaledtrials with the 90-decibel tone. If a subject in the Egroup failed to terminate the tone it lasted for 5sees. The onset of the red (failure) light was corre-lated with the end of the S-sec. interval. The onsetof the green (success) light was correlated withsubject's termination of the tone. The intertrialinterval (ITI) ranged from 10 to 25 sees, with a14-sec. mean ITI. Triads of subjects in all groupsreceived identical, yoked durations of tone. At theconclusion of the pretreatments subjects rated theaversiveness of the tone.

Instructions for cognitive pretreatment. The Le-vine discrimination-anagram and Levine discrimina-tion-shuttlebox groups received the following in-structions to introduce the cognitive task:

In this experiment you will be looking at cardslike this one. Each card has two stimulus pat-

terns on it. The sample patterns are composed offive different dimensions and two values associ-ated with each dimension. The dimensions andtheir values are [experimenter described eachdimension and value]. Each stimulus pattern hasone value from each of the five dimensions.

Here the C instructions ceased and the rest of theinstructions were given to S and S groups.

I have arbitrarily chosen one of the ten values asbeing correct. For each card I want you to choosewhich side contains this value, and I will thentell you if your choice was correct or incorrect.In a few trials you can learn what the correctvalue is by this feedback. The object for you isto figure out what the answer is so you canchoose correctly as often as possible.

Five sample trials of a single five-dimension prob-lem was first presented. This clarified the task offinding the "correct" value. The C group was merelyshown the sample trials without any clarifying in-

Page 8: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

318 DONALD S. HIEOTO AND MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN

structions. All subjects were asked if there were anyquestions. No subject asked if the experimentalproblems were soluble or insoluble.

The experimental stimulus patterns were composedof four dimensions. Three different problems werepresented in blocks of 10 trials each. At the end ofeach 10-trial problem S and S groups were asked forthe correct answer. The criterion for acquisition wassubject identifying the correct value after each 10-trial block. Six subjects were discarded for notmeeting criterion on all of the three problems andwere subsequently replaced. The S group receiveda predetermined schedule of "correct" and "incor-rect" regardless of what value was guessed. In thismanner reinforcements were independent and notcontingent on the S groups responding. The scheduleof reinforcements were: (a) C-I-I-C-C-I-I-C-C-Ifor the first problem; (b) I-C-I-C-C-I-C-I-C-I forthe second; and (c) I-C-I-C-I-C-C-I-C-I for thelast problem. In addition, the S group was told"that's the wrong answer" when subject tried toguess the correct value after each problem.

Instructions to the S and S groups were "We arenow starting a new problem. You do not know atthis point if I have chosen a different value for thisproblem. I will continue telling you if you arecorrect or incorrect."

The C group was instructed to "Please continuestudying each stimulus pattern carefully and turneach card when I ask you to."

The S and § groups were allowed 10 sees, to makea decision before the experimenter warned them thata decision must be made within 5 sees. In otherwords, a trial could never be longer than 15 sees., butno subject took longer than 10 sees, on any trial.

Instructions for instrumental test trials. The in-strumental test trials were conducted at a differentlocation but within the same experimental room asthe pretreatments. The manipulandum was covereduntil subject received the following instructions:

You will be given some trials in which a rela-tively loud tone will be presented to you. When-ever you hear the tone come on there is some-

20auHII0

0h

U)

<ah

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

-

1

-

I ^HH

^ •MH

S.D. 8.88 S.O. 14.38 5.D. 9.75

ESCAPE INEBCAPE CONTP.O

P>.05 ' ' P>.05 — -J

-P> .05

FIGURE 9. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the instrumental pretreatment-cognitive test for help-lessness experiment: mean trials to criterion for anagram solution.

Page 9: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

GENERALITY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN MAN 319

20

8 -

0Z

Z<l111

7

6

5

3

2

1

-

-

-

•• •H

__

S 0 2.45 S 0 3.96 S D 3.53

ESCAPE INESCAPE CONTHC

P< .02 •P< 05 •

-P> .05

FIGURE 10. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the instrumental pretreatment-cognitive test for help-lessness experiment: mean number of failures to solve.

thing you can do to stop it. Taking the earphonesoff or dismantling the apparatus is not the way tostop the noise. I'll answer all questions and payyou for your time at the completion of the study.Uncover the apparatus and we'll begin.

The sliding knob was always located at the mid-point of the manipulandum such that the subjectcould slide the knob with equal ease to either theleft or right end of the box. A 24-V dc warning lightat the midpoint of the manipulandum cover was onfor S sees, before and terminated when the S-sec.tone began. The test phase consisted of 20 signaled10-sec. trials with the IT1 ranging from 10 to 45sees, and a mean ITI of 21 sees.

The appropriate response was moving the knobto one side of the manipulation to throw the micro-switch controlling the stimulus light or noise. Onthe next trial, moving to the opposite side escapedor avoided the noise. The instructions specifiedescape contingencies only, but an avoidance responsewas possible by sliding the knob to the appropriate

side before the noise began. A response latencyunder 5 sees, terminated the warning light andavoided the tone. If the subject d'd not terminatethe light (latency less than S sees.) or escape thetone (between 5 to 9.99 sees.) a latency of 10 sees,was given for that trial. At the completion of thetest phase subjects rated the unpleasantness of the3,000 hertz tone and completed qusstionnaires relat-ing to the pretreatment and test trials.

Instructions jor cognitive test trials. The cognitivetest was located in the same location as the instru-mental test task. The following instructions intro-duced the trials:

You will be asked to solve some anagrams. Asyou know anagrams are words with the lettersscrambled. The problem for you is to unscramblethe letters so they form a word. When you'vefound the word tell me what it is over the inter-com system. Now [subject's name], there could bea pattern or principle by which to solve the ana-grams. But that's up to you to figure out. Ican't answer any questions now. After the cxperi-

Page 10: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

320 DONALD S. HIEOTO AND MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN

ment is over I'll answer all questions and payyou for your time.

All 20 anagrams were soluble and had the sameletter sequence. The anagrams could be solved indi-vidually; but the easiest method was to learn to usethe letter sequence. The anagrams were selected suchthat only one word could be arranged with eachanagram. But there were two instances in whichsubjects found additional words. The anagramB L O E N ("noble") was rearranged as "Nobel"by three subjects, but experimenter disqualified thisanswer since it was a proper name. On these occa-sions subject was asked to try again, and each sub-ject eventually found the acceptable word. Theanagram U N A T J ("jaunt") was seen as "junta"by three different subjects and scored as acceptableanswers (experimenter was tempted to award thesesubjects a medal). In cases in which subject gave anonsense word experimenter replied, "that's not aword, please try again."

Three dependent variables were analyzed on theinstrumental and cognitive test tasks. The instru-

mental measures were: (a) trials to criterion forescape acquisition, defined as subject completingthree consecutive escape responses; (b) number offailures to escape, defined as the number of trialswith latencies of 10 sees.; and (c) the mean latencyfor the 20 trials. Three analogous measures wereanalyzed for the cognitive test task: (a) trials tocriterion for anagram solution was defined as sub-ject solving three consecutive anagrams in less than15 sees. each. (Reaching this criterion meant thatsubject recognized the principle of fixed-letter se-quence. The definition, although arbitrary, washighly reliable. When subject "caught on" to theanagram construction, latencies dropped dramaticallyfrom an average of 45 sees, to well below 15 sees.) ;(b) number of failures to solve, defined as thenumber of trials with latencies of 100 sees., the pointat which the trial ended; (c) mean response latencyfor the 20 anagrams. The last two measures for theinstrumental and cognitive tests parallel the indicesreported in the human and animal learned helpless-ness literature.

UIIIIfl

U

III

J

III

IOC

50

40

30

20

10

BO 15.31

ESCAPE

S.D. 21.S3

INEBCAPE

S.D. 20.64

CONTROL

|—— P< .02- -P<.05

•P> .05

FIGURE 11. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the instrumental prelreatment-cognitive test for help-lessness experiment: mean response latency.

Page 11: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

GENERALITY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN MAN 321

g\5uon

5

Ul

20

18

16

14

12

10

P> .05

FIGURE 12. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the cognitive pretreatment-cognitive test for helplessnessexperiment: mean trials to criterion for anagram solution.

RESULTS

Overall, interference was produced by in-escapability and insolubility in three of thefour experiments: Inst.-Inst.; Inst.-Cog.,Cog.-Inst. The Cog.-Cog. experiment did notshow significant effects although the resultswere in the predicted direction.

Pretreatment Trials

All subjects who received the escapable orsoluble pretreatments performed appropri-ately to the relevant contingencies duringpretreatment. No significant differences in thenumber of trials to escape the tone by buttonpressing were found between the button-pressescapable group followed by the instrumentaltask and the button-press escapable groupfollowed by the cognitive test. Likewise, no

differences appeared in solution of the Levinediscrimination pretreatment between the solu-ble group followed by the cognitive test andthe soluble group followed by the instru-mental test (all ps > .OS). All subjects in theescapable and soluble pretreatments reachedthe criteria of learning in pretreatment.

A check on the pretreatment manipulationwas conducted to assess the effectiveness ofthe inescapability and insolubility manipula-tions. The subjects in the helplessness-induc-tion groups (i.e., E and S) believed they hadno control over solution. Two items from aquestionnaire relating to controllability in thepretreatment provided the relevant informa-tion. The items were worded to determine ifsubject attributed uncontrollability to himselfor to the task. Question 1 asked if subject

Page 12: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

322 DONALD S. HIROTO AND MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN

believed "you couldn't solve the problem"while the second asked if subject believed the"problem was unsoluble—that it couldn't besolved." Answers were recorded on a 7-pointscale with higher scores denoting greater in-solubility. All E and S groups believed theylacked the ability to solve their respectivetasks relative to E and S groups. Subjects inthe E groups had a mean rating of 4.4 onQuestion 1 and the S groups a rating of 4.9.This compares with a rating of 2.25 for theE groups. The difference between the pooledE and S groups versus pooled E and S groupswas significant, F ( 1 , 6 2 ) = 43.54, p < .001.In addition, the E and S groups believed theproblem was unsolvable. The mean rating forE groups on Question 2 was 4.63 while themean rating for S groups was 4.31; the Egroups had a rating of 2.37 on the same ques-

201

tion and S groups rated the question at 1.56.The difference between the pooled E and Sversus pooled E and S groups was significant,F ( 1 , 6 2 ) = 5.13, p< .001.

Helplessness Test Trials 1

Inst.-Inst. The group pretreated with ines-capable tone in button pressing escaped sig-nificantly more poorly in the shuttlebox thanthe escapable and control pretreated groupson all measures. Figures 3, 4, and 5 presentthese results and significance levels for trials

1 Since it was predicted that groups pretreatedwith inescapability (insolubility) would demon-strate an interference to learning relative to groupswithout such pretreatments, the following statisticaltests were one-tailed: E versus E, E versus C, Sversus S, and S versus C; tests between escapable(soluble) and control pretreated groups were two-tailed: E versus C and S versus C.

Ul *

1 7E «

! 5

i »f 2

-•

.

• ^ '

S.D. 3.54 B.D. 5.67 8.D. 3.11

SOLUBLK INBQLUBLK CONTHOI

•P> .05

FIGURE 13. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the cognitive pretreatment-cognitive test for helplessnessexperiment: mean number of failures to solve.

Page 13: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

GENERALITY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN MAN 323

100

40

uHI> 30

S

5\ 20Ul2

10

^^^*m

mm^mm

8.D. 20.56 8.D. 28.82 8.D. 18.77

SOLUBLE INSOLUBLE CONTROL

P>.05 1 1 P>.05

FIGURE 14. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the cognitive pretreatment-cognitive test for helplessnessexperiment: mean response latency.

to escape criterion, number of failures to es-cape, and mean latency.

Cog.-Inst. The group pretreated with in-soluble discrimination problems did signifi-cantly worse on shuttlebox escape than thesoluble and control pretreated groups in theshuttlebox. Figures 6, 7, and 8 present theseresults and significance levels for trials toescape criterion, number of failures to escape,and mean latency.

Inst.-Cog. The group pretreated with ines-capable tone in button pressing generally wasworse at solving anagrams than the solubleor control pretreated groups. Figures 9, 10,and 11 present these results and significancelevels for trials to criterion for anagram solu-tion, number of failures to solve, and meanlatency.

Cog.-Cog. No significant differences werefound on anagram performance following in-

soluble, soluble, or control discriminationproblems. Figures 12, 13, and 14 present thetrials to criterion for anagram solution, num-ber of failures to solve, mean latency, andsignificance levels for anagram solution.

Questionnaire scores. The subjects pre-treated with inescapable tone were yoked tosubjects pretreated with escapable tone suchthat density, frequency, and duration of tonewere equated. It is possible that differentialsubjective aversiveness of tone have producedthe subsequent retarded performance. How-ever, all subjects rated the pretreatment toneas moderately unpleasant on a 7-point scale.The pretreated E groups rated the tone at3.91, while E groups rated the stimulus at3.70. The C groups who passively listened tothe 3,000 hertz tone rated the same stimulussomewhat lower at 3.14. These differences

Page 14: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

324 DONALD S. HIROTO AND MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN

were not significant, F (2 ,45) = 1.02, p>.05.

Additional post hoc comparisons on thequestionnaires were conducted. There were nodifferences in "amount of trying" betweenpretreated groups in either the pretreatmentor test trials (p > .10), nor did they changein amount of trying from pretreatment totest trials (p > .10). All subjects were askedif they felt "frustrated" during any part ofthe experiment. The E and S groups rated thepretreatment as more frustrating than thepooled E and S groups (4.5 vs. 2.2, respec-tively), F (1 ,62) = 42.3, p < .001. Withinthe helplessness-induction groups two S pre-treated groups indicated greater frustrationthan the two E pretreated groups (5.3 vs. 3.6,respectively), F (1, 62) = 6.96, p < .018.

Since only the cognitive pretreated grouptested with anagrams failed to show helpless-ness, we repeated the Cog.-Cog. procedurewith four insoluble Levine discrimination

problems rather than three. The subjects, ap-paratus, and procedures were identical to theCog.-Cog. experiment reported above, exceptthat the S group (n = 8) received four 10-trial block insoluble problems, the S group(n = 8) received four soluble problems, andthe C group (n = 8) looked passively at four10-trial block problems without attemptingsolution.

When four insoluble problems were usedinterference with anagram solution was found.Figures 15, 16, and 17 present the trials tosolution criterion, number of failures to solve,and mean latency to solution as well as sig-nificance levels for anagram performance ofthe three pretreated groups.

DISCUSSION

There were three main findings of theexperiment: (a) a group pretreated with aninescapable aversive tone showed greatly de-bilitated tone-escape performance in a shut-

05ua.u0

nia,

Ul

20

18

16

14

l*i12

10

8

6

4

2

-

^H

S.D. 6.

SOLI

^H

MBIBM

3 S.D. 7.2 s.D. 6.

JBLE INSOLUBLE COIMT

5POU

FIGURE IS. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the revised cognitive pretreatment-cognitive test forhelplessness experiment: mean trials to criterion for anagram solution.

Page 15: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

GENERALITY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN MAN 325

§00)

20

/

10

§ 6

u.0

-P> .05

FIGURE 16. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the revised cognitive pretreatment-cognitive test forhelplessness experiment: mean number of failures to solve.

tlebox; a control group and an escapable pre-treated group performed well in shuttleboxescape. This replicates the findings of Hiroto(1974) and again demonstrates a learnedhelplessness phenomenon in man, directlyparallel to learned helplessness in dogs, cats,and rats (cf. Seligman, in press b, for across-species review), (b) A group pretreatedwith four insoluble discrimination problemswas debilitated at solving later anagramsrelative to a control and soluble pretreatedgroups. This demonstrates that learned help-lessness can be produced within cognitivetasks, without aversive unconditioned stimulior instrumental components, (c) Cross-modalhelplessness was also found. A group pre-treated with insoluble cognitive problems wasdebilitated at instrumental escape. Interest-ingly, this group was just as debilitated asthe group pretreated with instrumental ines-

capability. In addition, a group pretreatedwith inescapable tone was debilitated at ana-gram solution to the same extent as the grouppretreated with four insoluble discriminationproblems.

The finding of cross-modal helplessness isof considerable theoretical interest. Initially,critics of the animal helplessness findingsargued that failure to escape in a shuttleboxfollowing inescapable shock might have re-sulted from a competing motor response,rather than a more general "organismic" de-bilitation (e.g., Miller & Weiss, 1969). Maier(1970) and Seligman and Maier (1967) dis-confirmed this peripheral interpretation byusing very different training and testingsituations. These situations, however, weresimilar at least in the fact that pretreatmentand testing both involved the same uncondi-tioned stimulus-shock-and instrumental re-

Page 16: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

326 DONALD S. HIKOTO AND MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN

100

0I40

30

20

10

-P> .05

FIGURE 17. Group means, standard deviations, and significance levels of threedependent variables for the revised cognitive pretreatment-cognitive test forhelplessness experiment: mean response latency.

spending. Our present findings provide thecoup de grace against any peripheralist in-terpretation. No competing motor responsecould generate cognitive interference frominstrumental inescapability or instrumentalinterference from cognitive insolubility.

Alternatively, neither frustration, differen-tial aversion of tone, nor demand character-istics (Orne, 1962) seem able to account forthese differences. Frustration was experiencedto a greater extent in the inescapable andinsoluble pretreatments than in the soluble,escapable, or control pretreatment groups.Frustration is usually interpreted as energiz-ing, rather than deenergizing, motivation(e.g., Amsel & Roussel, 1952). One canchoose to interpret frustration post hoc asrigidifying rather than energizing responses,but then the explanation becomes difficult to

differentiate from learned helplessness, whichis not post hoc (e.g., Schmeck & Clements,1971; Schmeck & Ribich, 1969). Since thegroups all reported similar levels of aversive-ness to the tone, this variable does not ex-plain the findings. Finally, during our de-briefing no subject gave evidence of havingdetected the purpose of the study or whatwas predicted of him.

One limitation on the generality of theseeffects should be mentioned. The subjectsclearly perceived both tasks, as different asthey are, as part of the same experiment. Wedo not know whether any learned helpless-ness was carried out of the laboratory. Fu-ture research with unobtrusive tests shoulddetermine the extraexperimental generality ofour effects.

What is the process of learned helplessness,

Page 17: Generality of Learned Helplessness in Man

GENERALITY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN MAN 327

then? If the interference produced was bothshort-lived and highly specific to the condi-tions of training, we might call it a transientand peripheral "state." Since it is generalacross motivations and tasks, however, wesuggest that the process induced by uncon-trollability may be the rudiment of a "trait."Further research on the long-livedness of thisprocess in humans may bear this out. At anyrate the expectancy that responding and rein-forcement are independent generalizes widely.

Seligman (1973, in press a) and Seligmanet al. (in press) proposed that learned help-lessness is a model for depression in man.This speculation entails the consequence thatour procedure for producing debilitationshould also produce those symptoms associ-ated with mild depression: self devaluation,psychomotor retardation, feelings of sadness,etc. Future research should answer thesequestions.

In conclusion, we have produced learnedhelplessness in humans. The process engen-dered debilitates performance well beyondthe condition under which helplessness is firsttrained. We suggest therefore that learnedhelplessness may involve a trait-like systemof expectancies that responding is futile.

REFERENCES

Amsel, A., & Roussel, J. Motivational properties offrustration: I. Effect on a running response of theaddition of frustration to the motivational com-plex. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1952,43, 363-368.

Geer, J. H., Davison, G. C., & Gatchel, R. L. Re-duction of stress in humans through nonveridicalperceived control of aversive stimulation. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16,731-738.

Glass, D. C., Singer, J, E., & Friedman, L. C. Psy-chic cost of adaptation to an environmental stres-sor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1969, 12, 200-210.

Hiroto, D. S. Locus of control and learned helpless-ness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,102, 187-193.

Levine, M. Hypothesis behavior by humans duringdiscrimination learning. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 1966, 71, 331-338.

Levine, M. Hypothesis theory and nonlearning de-spite ideal S-R reinforcement contingencies.Psychological Review, 1971, 78, 130-140.

Maier, S. F. Failure to escape traumatic shock:Incompatible skeletal motor responses or learnedhelplessness? Learning and Motivation, 1970, 1,157-170.

Maier, S. F., Seligman, M. E. P., & Solomon, R. L.Pavlovian fear conditioning and learned helpless-ness. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.),Punishment. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,1969.

Miller, N. E., & Weiss, J. M. Effects of the somaticor visceral responses to punishment. In B. A.Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.), Punishment.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.

Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. Depression andthe perception of reinforcement. Journal of Ab-normal Psychology, 1973, 82, 62-73.

Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the psycho-logical experiment: With particular references todemand characteristics and their implications.American Psychologist, 1962, 17, 776-783.

Overmier, J. B., & Seligman, M. E. P. Effects ofinescapable shock upon subsequent escape andavoidance responding. Journal of Comparativeand Physiological Psychology, 1967, 63, 28-33.

Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internalversus external control of reinforcement. Psycho-logical Monographs, 1966, 50(1, Whole No. 609).

Schmeck, R. R., & Clements, P. Resistance to setbreaking as a function of frustrative error making.Psychonomic Science, 1971, 24, 297-298.

Schmeck, R. R., & Ribich, F. Rigidity as a func-tion of task complexity. Psychonomic Science,1969, 17, 323.

Seligman, M. E. P. Fall into helplessness. Psychol-ogy Today, 1973, 7, 43-48.

Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and learned help-lessness. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.),The psychology of depression: Contemporarytheory and research, in press, (a)

Seligman, M. E. P. Helplessness. San Francisco:Freeman, in press, (b)

Seligman, M. E. P., Klein, D., & Miller, W. R.Depression. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbookof behavior therapy. New York: Appleton-Cen-tury-Crofts, in press.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. Failure to es-cape traumatic shock. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 1967, 74, 1-9.

Seligman, M. E. P., Maier, S. F., & Solomon, R. L.Unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events.In F. R. Brush (Ed.), Aversive conditioning andlearning. New York: Academic Press, 1971.

Thornton, J. W., & Jacobs, P. D. Learned help-lessness in human subjects. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology, 1971, 87, 367-372.

Tresselt, M. E., & Mayzner, M. S. Normative solu-tion times for a sample of 134 solution words and378 associated anagrams. Psychonomic MonographSupplements, 1966, 1, 293-298.

Turner, L., & Solomon, R. L. Human traumaticavoidance learning: Theory and experiments onthe operant-respondent distinction and failures tolearn. Psychological Monographs, 1962, 76(1,Whole No. 559).

(Received July 31, 1973)