Locus of control and learned helplessness.

Abstract

Failure to escape, the defining characteristic of learned helplessness, was investigated with perceived and instructed locus of control 5s in a learnedhelplessness paradigm. Three groups, equally divided between internals and externals and counterbalanced for sex, received different treatments with an aversive tone prior to the testing for helplessness. The first group could neither escape nor avoid an aversive tone, the second group could escape the tone, and the third group was not exposed to the treatment. Eighteen escape-avoidance trials followed, using a human analogue to an animal shuttle box, in which 6s received an instructional set describing the task as skill or chance determined. In addition to a complete replication of learned helplessness in man, externals were significantly more helpless than internals, and chance-set 5s were more helpless than skill-set 5s. Since uncontrollability of noise, externality, and chance instructional set all impaired escapeavoidance in parallel ways, it was speculated that a common state may underlie all 3 dimensions-expectancy that responding and reinforcement are independent.

The role of pretest and test similarity in producing helpless or reactant responding in humans

“…Within the control group, this difference was even more pronounced , with internal subjects solving an average of 8.3 anagrams and external subjects solving 5.1 anagrams [t(1 7) =2.32, p < .0 1] . Such results were in keeping with the stud ies by Hiroto (1974) and Jones et al (1977), which suggested that external subjects would make fewer attempts at problem solutions than would internal subjects .…”

Studies of learned helplessness in honey bees (Apis mellifera ligustica).

“…Learned helplessness has been studied in cats (Seward & Humphrey, 1967), cockroaches (Brown, Busby, & Klopfenstein, (1992); Brown, Howe, & Jones (1990);Brown, Hughes, & Jones, 1988;Brown & Stroup, 1988;Brown, Anderson, & Scruggs, 1994), dogs (Overmier, 1968;Overmier & Seligman, 1967;Seligman & Groves, 1970;Seligman & Maier, 1967;Seligman, Maier, & Geer, 1968), gerbils (Brown & Dixon, 1983), goldfish (Nash, Martinez, Dudeck, & Davis, 1983;Padilla, Padilla, Ketterer, & Giacalone, 1970;Brown, Smith, & Peters, 1985), humans (Hiroto, 1974;Thornton & Jacobs, 1971;Hokanson, DeGood, Forrest, & Brittain, 1971;Fosco & Geer, 1971;Glass & Singer, 1972;Hiroto & Seligman, 1975;Klein, Fencil-Morse, & Seligman, 1976;4 Krantz, Glass, & Snyder, 1974;Roth, 1973;Roth & Bootzin, 1974;Roth & Kubal 1975;Thornton & Jacobs, 1971), mice (Braud, Wepman, & Russo, 1969), rats (Maier, Albin, & Testa, 1973;Seligman & Beagley, 1975;Seligman, Rosellini, & Kozak, 1975), and slugs (Brown, Davenport, & Howe, 1995;Brown, Davenport, & Howe, 1994). Even though learned helplessness is deep seated and ubiquitous behavior, interest in learned helplessness has been steadily decreasing since the 1980s.…”

“…The behavioral analogs between learned helplessness and human depression are of particular note. Hiroto (1974) investigated learned helplessness in humans utilizing a triadic design typical of animal learned helplessness research. The triadic design consisted of an escape condition group that could escape an aversive noise by a button press, an inescapable condition group yoked to the escape condition group that could not escape the noise, and a group that received no noise.…”

Between Hope and Fear: The Psychology of Risk

“…When aversive events occur despite one's efforts to prevent them, motivation to control events is reduced both in animals (Maier & Seligman, 1966) and in humans (Hiroto, 1974;Hiroto & Seligman, 1975). When control is later made possible, the motivational deficit prevents learning from occurring.…”