Introduction
Learned helplessness is one of the phenomena thought to be relevant in understanding depression in humans. Depression is believed to be a reaction learned by a person from events known to be stressful, but inescapable at the same time. Although the “learned helplessness” theory does not completely explain human depression, it is essential for understanding the reasons behind the feelings of depressed individuals such as being helpless and hopeless. Also, the theory explains the loss of sense of personal control over life events of many individuals. Thus, enhancing the sense of personal control may improve the situation of individuals that had learned helplessness (Ludwig, n.d.).
Avoidance Learning and the History of Learned Helplessness Theory
The discovery of Learned Helplessness theory was accidental. During the 1960s, the researchers of laboratory of Richard L. Solomon at the University of Pennsylvania focused on understanding the phenomenon called avoidance learning. In this process, a warning signal is given before the onset of an aversive stimulus. The animal responds either to escape the stimulus after the aversive event, or avoids the stimulus during the warning signal (Seligman and Maier, 1967).
Researches were done to understand this phenomenon, and researches were developed under the principles of a two process theory. The first process includes a classical conditioning of fear to the subject using a stimulus after a warning signal. The second process includes the addition of an escape for the subject during the fear-provoking signal (Maier et al., 2000). To test the predictions, Solomon and his students prepared an experiment. First, the animal will be classically conditioned to a fear using light. Then, in a different environment, the avoidance learning of the animal will be tested using another signal, a tone. The third phase of the experiment will be very crucial. The avoidance learning of the animal will be tested using the signal it was classically conditioned, which is the light. However, they had a major problem. After the animals were classically conditioned, they did not learn to escape the shock during the avoidance procedure which is a precondition for the third phase. As it turned out, the solution was to reverse the processes, starting with the avoidance learning process, then the classical conditioning process. The research was done, and the process of prediction testing was successful (Maier et al., 2000).
However, a student of Solomon laboratory and a graduate student in Henry Gleitman's laboratory, named Martin Seligman and Steven Maier, respectively, pondered about the reason behind the inability of the animals to learn to avoid the shocks in the first prediction testing. Clearly, there must be something about the classical conditioning process that hindered the ability of the animals to escape the shock in the second process (Maier et al., 2000).
And so, Seligman and his colleagues conducted a series of experiment. In these experiments, they used dogs to understand avoidance learning, and the phenomenon they had observed during the prediction testing. First, they replicated the predictions of the previous researches. A dog was placed in a shuttle box. This shuttle box is a special cage that had a barrier low enough for the dog to jump across. This barrier divides the cage into two compartments (Ludwig, n.d.).
In this experiment, they placed the dog on one of the compartments. Then, a shock will be delivered onto the compartment the dog was on. The shock was administered by a switch that could control where the shock will be directed. The dog could escape the shock by jumping across the barrier into the other compartment. The process was repeated few more times. The result of this method was that the dog learned to escape the shock by jumping across the barrier. This method confirms the escape learning theory (Ludwig, n.d.).
The researchers then proceeded with another experiment using the same process, but this time, before the shock was delivered, a light will be turned on. Also, the researchers used naive dogs, or dogs that hadn’t learned to escape the shock. Initially, the light was turned on, then the shock will be directed where the dog was on. Again, the shock could be escaped by crossing the barrier onto the other compartment. But, after 50 trials, the dog learned to cross the barrier during the light was on. That is, the dogs were waiting for the light to be turned on, then they just calmly crossed the barrier. That means that they learned to avoid the shock by associating light as a signal for the incoming shock. Thus, the dogs exhibited the results of avoidance learning process (Ludwig, n.d.).
However, experiments they had done still haven’t answered why the dogs in the first prediction testing did not learn to escape the shock. So, Seligman further delved into understanding the dogs’ behavior by adding some new factor for the proceeding experiment. Seligman and Maier added a trait of the environment similar with the classical conditioning process. They argued that since the shocks were inescapable, then, it must be a major factor leading to the inability of the dogs to learn to escape the shock. And so, they did an experiment with the dogs strapped using a harness to prevent them from escaping the shocks. At first, the dogs behaved just like the other dogs in the previous experiments. But, after the dogs panicked, they stopped moving, laid down, and just whined. The behavior was observed to be an acceptance of the shocks to be inescapable. And so, it was concluded that the dogs learned that the shocks were uncontrollable, and that they were helpless. Later on, they did another experiment where these dogs were placed in the same environment but without the harness. That is, they could escape the shocks by crossing the barrier. But, even though they could escape, the dogs did not. Their notion that the shocks were uncontrollable, thus, inescapable, were so powerful that they accepted the shock without trying to escape (Ludwig, n.d.).
Finally, the series of experiments by Solomon, Seligman and Maier were published, and was collectively known as the “Learned Helplessness Hypothesis” (Maier et al., 2000).
Learned Helplessness and Humans
At first, the theory of learned helplessness focused on animal behaviors by exposing many species of animals in a series of experiments. But, the effects of learned helplessness could also be seen on humans, especially about the way humans deal with negative events, or what we often call stressful events. Thus, it is believed that the concept of learned helplessness theory can explain more about individuals dealing with stressful events which leads to depression (Cherry, n.d.).
Just like the observations on the animals, an individual may feel depressed if the person learned to be helpless from a stressful event. This implies that a depressed person is depressed because he or she accepted the fact that some factors in the environment is uncontrollable, and that whatever they do does not help in the situation. For instance, a person with extreme shyness in social situations may eventually realize that there is nothing he or she can do about eliminate the symptoms. But, eventually, he or she will develop a loss of sense of personal control over his or her shyness, thus, even enhancing her condition (Cherry, n.d.).
However, the findings just proved that learned helplessness could be applied to humans. It only suggested that humans could develop learned helplessness. But, how can humans develop learned helplessness in the natural world? How do we recover from being helpless? Thus, there is a need to understand the reasons behind the development of learned helplessness to humans, and discuss the preventions and therapies for individuals with learned helplessness.
Hopelessness and Attributions
The idea behind this is because of the observation that when individuals were to be exposed to uncontrollable aversive events, they tend to find a reason why. Thus, the answers they come up become critical to understanding human helplessness and depression. These answers would then define their future expectations, thus, further affecting the individual’s behavior. Moreover, the answers would be characterized by three parameters; stable versus unstable, global versus specific, and internal versus external. Let’s take a look at a guy failing a math exam for example (Alloy et al., 1984).
A stable attribution is any attribution that would not change across time. In the example, if the individual argues that he failed the math exam because he is stupid, then, he is giving a stable attribution. Stupidity does not change across situations. On the other hand, unstable attribution is an attribution where the individual may change the future by changing the reason. For example, if he said that he failed because he did not study for the exam, then he’s giving an unstable attribution. He could study for the next exam, thus changing the expectation. An attribution becomes global if it affects many situations, and not just a particular situation. If he said that he failed because he’s stupid, that is true not just in math but also other fields, thus, that is a global attribution. But, if he failed because he is not good at math, then that is a specific attribution. An attribution becomes internal if it is factor made by the individual, while, it becomes external when the cause is outside the person’s control. Saying that he failed the exam because he is stupid is an internal attribution, but saying that he failed the exam because the exam was hard is an external attribution (Boyd, n.d.).
Also, the categorization of attributions led to the treatments that could prove important to people with learned helplessness. Exposing the individual to successful experiences until he or she realizes that the events are controllable could help in the recovery. For example, a class with learned helplessness children were able to improve in academics by persuading to exert more effort. Later, they were observed to perform better (Fogle, 1978).
Overall, the incorporation of the ideas from attribution theory made relevant discoveries. By analyzing the reasons made by people facing stressful events, expectations could be predicted. Also, being helpless could be prevented by teaching the individual the right perspective, and improve the performance by exposing to successful events.
Conclusion
The learned helplessness theory is relevant in understanding the human behavior, especially about confronting events in life. Although it started as a series of experimentation on animals, and how they behave when events were introduced, clearly, it reflects on how humans behave. By introducing events that are uncontrollable and inescapable, animals learned to accept that there has nothing they can do. And so, using the same premises, humans may as well behave the same. The human behavior to these events were tested, and was proven that learned helplessness could also happen to humans. Seligman proposed that depression is an effect of learned helplessness. Also, the attribution theory explains the reasons why people develop helplessness, and proved that the reasons they blame for the stressful events have a significant connection to helplessness. People giving global and stable attributions are more likely to feel helpless, while internal attributions cause loss of self-esteem. In the end, helplessness could be prevented by incorporating successful events and improving the perspective to stressful events.
References:
Alloy, L. et al. (1984). “Attributional Style and the Generality of Learned Helplessness”. American, Psychological Association, Inc.: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, volume 46 no. 3 pages 681-687.
Boyd, N. (n.d.). “How Seligman's Learned Helplessness Theory Applies to Human Depression and Stress”. Applied Social Psychology: Education Portal. Retrieved From http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/how-seligmans-learned-helplessness-theory-applies-to-human-depression-and-stress.html#lesson
Cherry, Kendra. (n.d.). “What is Learned Helplessness?”. About Education: About.com. Retrieved from http://psychology.about.com/od/lindex/f/earned-helplessness.htm
Fogle, Dale. (1978). “Learned Helplessness and Learned Restlessness”. University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Psychotherapy: Theory, Resarch and Practice, volume 15 pages 39-47. Print.
Ludwig, T. (n.d.). “Helplessly Hoping”. Worth Publishers. Retrieved from http://bcs.worthpublishers.com/WebPub/Psychology/griggs3e/PsychSim_Tutorials/Helplessly_Hoping/helplessly_hoping.htm
Maier, S., Peterson, C., & Schwartz, B. (2000). “From Helplessness to Hope: The Seminal Career of Martin Seligman”. The Science of Optimism and Hope (pp. 11-37). Radnor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.
Seligman, M. & Maier, S. (May 1967). “Failure to Escape Traumatic Shock”. Journal of Experimental Psychology, volume 74, no. 1.
