Learned helplessness: A reply and an alternative S-R interpretation.

Abstract

At the present stage of development within psychology, a periodic need exists for the introduction of a bold, catalytic viewpoint that challenges the foundation of contemporary thinking by placing stress upon the interpretive boundary conditions of existing models. In addition it should offer an alternative model with integrative and predictive powers. The learned helplessness theory described in the preceding article by Maier and Seligman (1976) fulfills the above objectives. These authors are not only responsible for pioneering new areas of research but have simultaneously challenged, both on empirical and theoretical grounds, the existing infrahuman S-R models and dynamic clinical models of depression. Their extensive review of the literature represents a perceptive critical analysis of their opponents' positions as well as a serious attempt to state the weakness of their own viewpoint. The heuristic value of their position is reflected in the fury of research activity which has been generated over a wide variety of issues. They have succeeded in stimulating both interest and support as well as arousing disbelief and resistance. By pitting cognitive theory against S-R positions, ingenious experimentation has emergedThe author is very grateful for the aid of Thomas L. Boyd who not only helped in the literature review but provided a stimulating source of feedback throughout the preparation of this manuscript. He was especially helpful in the formulation of the section dealing with the discussion of the triadic design and is responsible for preparing the section on the Church (1964) criticisms of the yoked control procedure.

A potential shock-reducing contingency in the backshock technique: Implications for learned helplessness

“…The possibility that learned inactivity, freezing, or the punishment of movement is the cause of the helplessness phenomenon has been proposed by others (Anisman, deCatanzaro, & Remington, 1978;Anisman & Waller, 1973;Bracewell & Black, 1974;Levis, 1976). The present explanation differs from those of other investigators in an important way, however.…”

“…The present explanation differs from those of other investigators in an important way, however. To the extent that any of the other explanations rely on contingencies, those contingencies are implicit in that they are thought to occur due to the fortuitous pairing of inactivity, or some other competing response, and shock offset (Anisman et aI., 1978; Levis, 1976). The experiments reported herein demonstrate the potential existence of an explicit contingency between the subject's behavior and a reduction in the aversiveness experienced by the subject.…”

Escape acquisition following inescapable shock in the rat

“…Although many of the interference effects produced by inescapable shocks can be explained by this learned helplessness hypothesis (Maier & Seligman, 1976), considerable controversy still surrounds the validity of this explanation (Levis, 1976). For example, inescapable shocks can produce interference effects with characteristics which are inconsistent with the learned helplessness hypothesis (Weiss, Glazer, & Pohoreeky, 1975).…”

Loss of controllability in appetitive situations interferes with subsequent learning in aversive situations

“…These are the competing motor response hypothesis (Levis, 1976;Glazer & Weiss, 19700, 1976b), the fear hypothesis (Jackson & Minor, 1988;Minor & LoLordo, 1984), and the norepinephrine-depletion hypothesis (Anisman, 1975;Weiss et al, 1981). The competing motor response hypothesis states that during an inescapable shock, inactivity is associated with and reinforced by the shock offset, and that activity is consequently reduced during the test task, which requires active responses to escape from shock.…”