Learning To Be Depressed Seligman, M.E.P., & Maier, S.F. (1967) Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 1-9

Learning To Be DepressedLearning To Be DepressedSeligman, M.E.P., & Maier, S.F. Seligman, M.E.P., & Maier, S.F.

(1967)(1967)Failure to escape traumatic shock.Failure to escape traumatic shock.

Journal of Experimental Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7474, 1-9, 1-9

Learned ExperienceLearned Experience

• We expect that our actions will produce a We expect that our actions will produce a particular consequence.particular consequence.

• Our expectations of these consequences Our expectations of these consequences cause us to behave in a specific way.cause us to behave in a specific way.

• We act based on the fact that we will bring We act based on the fact that we will bring about a certain result or consequence.about a certain result or consequence.

• Ex.Ex. If you are in an abusive relationship, If you are in an abusive relationship, you will take the action to remove you will take the action to remove yourself. You would expect to succeed in yourself. You would expect to succeed in making the change.making the change.

Learned Experience (cont’d)Learned Experience (cont’d)

• We believe that we have power and We believe that we have power and control over our actions and expectations.control over our actions and expectations.

• This is only possible because in the past This is only possible because in the past we have exerted some sort of effort, or we have exerted some sort of effort, or control, and have been successful.control, and have been successful.

• If there is a lack of this control in our lives, If there is a lack of this control in our lives, we believe ourselves to be helpless to the we believe ourselves to be helpless to the situation.situation.

• Ex.Ex. If you’re dependent on the relationship If you’re dependent on the relationship and feel powerless, you would stay in pain.and feel powerless, you would stay in pain.


• Our perceptions of the power and control Our perceptions of the power and control we have over our lives is imperative to we have over our lives is imperative to psychological and physical health.psychological and physical health.

• If you had lost the power to make changes If you had lost the power to make changes in your life, and were independent of your in your life, and were independent of your actions, you would feel hopeless. actions, you would feel hopeless. Eventually you’d give up on trying to exert Eventually you’d give up on trying to exert control. You would become depressed.control. You would become depressed.


• Martin Seligman, a behavioral psychologist, Martin Seligman, a behavioral psychologist, believes that our perception toward power believes that our perception toward power and control are learned through our and control are learned through our experiences.experiences.

• When a person fails at controlling life events, When a person fails at controlling life events, consistently, they may cease the attempt to consistently, they may cease the attempt to exercise control.exercise control.

• If this happens often enough the person will If this happens often enough the person will over generalize their lack of control, and over generalize their lack of control, and cease the attempt, even when control may cease the attempt, even when control may be possible.be possible.


• This person becomes helpless and This person becomes helpless and depressed.depressed.

• Therefore, Seligman termed this particular Therefore, Seligman termed this particular cause of depression, cause of depression, learned helplessnesslearned helplessness..

• Seligman and Maier’s research is an Seligman and Maier’s research is an original demonstration supporting his original demonstration supporting his theory.theory.

Theoretical PropositionsTheoretical Propositions

• Seligman had studied an earlier Seligman had studied an earlier experiment that, when dogs were exposed experiment that, when dogs were exposed to a shock that they could not escape to a shock that they could not escape from, they did not learn that when an from, they did not learn that when an escape was possible they had the power to escape was possible they had the power to take it.take it.

• This is also referred to as escape-This is also referred to as escape-avoidance behavior.avoidance behavior.

Theoretical Propositions Theoretical Propositions (cont’d)(cont’d)

• Seligman theorized that the dogs previous Seligman theorized that the dogs previous experience of being shocked, in which their experience of being shocked, in which their actions were ineffective, effected their actions were ineffective, effected their future power of being able to escape from future power of being able to escape from such situations. Essentially, they had such situations. Essentially, they had learned to be helpless.learned to be helpless.

• To test this theory, Seligman and Maier To test this theory, Seligman and Maier studied the effect of controllable versus studied the effect of controllable versus uncontrollable shock on future ability to uncontrollable shock on future ability to learn to avoid shock.learn to avoid shock.

MethodMethod

• Medium sized dogs received electrical Medium sized dogs received electrical shocks (not meant to produce harm).shocks (not meant to produce harm).

• Subjects were 24 mongrel dogs, weighing Subjects were 24 mongrel dogs, weighing between 25 and 29 pounds. They were between 25 and 29 pounds. They were divided into three groups, eight subjects in divided into three groups, eight subjects in each group.each group.

1) escape group1) escape group

2) no-escape group2) no-escape group

3) no-harness control group3) no-harness control group

Method (cont’d)Method (cont’d)

• Escape and no-escape group dogs were Escape and no-escape group dogs were placed into individual harnesses, in a shuttle placed into individual harnesses, in a shuttle box. Although they were restrained, they box. Although they were restrained, they were able to slightly move.were able to slightly move.

• A panel was placed on either side of the dogs A panel was placed on either side of the dogs head to keep it facing forward. The dog was head to keep it facing forward. The dog was able to push the panel by moving its head.able to push the panel by moving its head.

• When an electrical shock was delivered to When an electrical shock was delivered to the dog, it could stop the shock by pushing the dog, it could stop the shock by pushing its head on the panel (escape group).its head on the panel (escape group).


• Shocks were delivered to the subjects at Shocks were delivered to the subjects at the same time (the subjects were paired, the same time (the subjects were paired, one from the escape group and one from one from the escape group and one from the no-escape group). The no-escape group the no-escape group). The no-escape group had no control over the shock.had no control over the shock.

• The escape group was able to terminate the The escape group was able to terminate the shock upon pressing its head on the panel.shock upon pressing its head on the panel.

• Both groups received the same intensity of Both groups received the same intensity of shock and for the same duration of time.shock and for the same duration of time.

Method (cont’d)Method (cont’d)• During this stage of the experiment the During this stage of the experiment the

no-harness control group did not receive no-harness control group did not receive shocks.shocks.

• The escape and no-escape groups The escape and no-escape groups received 64 shocks at 90 second intervals.received 64 shocks at 90 second intervals.

• The escape group learned to terminate the The escape group learned to terminate the shock by pressing the side panels.shock by pressing the side panels.

• Twenty-four hours later all the subjects Twenty-four hours later all the subjects were tested again in a similar shuttle box.were tested again in a similar shuttle box.

• This time, lights were used to determine This time, lights were used to determine when the shocks would be delivered.when the shocks would be delivered.


• After the lights went on, an electrical current After the lights went on, an electrical current would pass through the box in 10 seconds.would pass through the box in 10 seconds.

• There was an escape available for the There was an escape available for the subjects. They could simply jump over the subjects. They could simply jump over the box onto the other side to escape the shock.box onto the other side to escape the shock.

• If the subject jumped within 10 seconds it If the subject jumped within 10 seconds it would escape the shock, if not the shock would escape the shock, if not the shock would continue for 60 seconds.would continue for 60 seconds.

• Each subject was given 10 trials in the Each subject was given 10 trials in the shuttle box to escape the shock.shuttle box to escape the shock.


• Seligman and Maier measured learning by two Seligman and Maier measured learning by two variables:variables:

1) how much time it took, on average, from 1) how much time it took, on average, from

the time the light came on, until the the time the light came on, until the subject subject

jumped over the boxjumped over the box

2) percentage of subjects in each group 2) percentage of subjects in each group thatthat

failed to learn they could escape the shocksfailed to learn they could escape the shocks


• It should also be noted that the subject in It should also be noted that the subject in the no-escape group had 10 additional the no-escape group had 10 additional trials in the shuttle box seven days after trials in the shuttle box seven days after the initial experiment to notice any long the initial experiment to notice any long lasting effects of the experiment. lasting effects of the experiment.

ResultsResults

• When having been placed in the shuttle When having been placed in the shuttle box for the first time:box for the first time:

- The escape group subjects panel - The escape group subjects panel pressing decreased over the 64 shocks.pressing decreased over the 64 shocks.

- The no-escape group subjects stopped - The no-escape group subjects stopped pressing the panel after 30 trials.pressing the panel after 30 trials.

Results (cont’d)Results (cont’d)• Having waited 24 hours, and being placed Having waited 24 hours, and being placed

in a shuttle box where all had an escape:in a shuttle box where all had an escape:- The escape group learned that they could - The escape group learned that they could easily avoid the shock, after having easily avoid the shock, after having pressed their heads against the panel. It pressed their heads against the panel. It took 27 seconds on average to escape.took 27 seconds on average to escape.- The no-escape group learned that they - The no-escape group learned that they were unable to easily avoid the shock were unable to easily avoid the shock having had no prior way to escape. It took having had no prior way to escape. It took 50 seconds on average to escape.50 seconds on average to escape.

Results (cont’d)Results (cont’d)• In nine out of the ten trials in the ability to In nine out of the ten trials in the ability to

escape, the subjects failing to learn to escape, the subjects failing to learn to escape the shock by far was the no-escape escape the shock by far was the no-escape group. Approximately 80% of the subjects group. Approximately 80% of the subjects failed to learn to escape. Whereas in the failed to learn to escape. Whereas in the escape group, all had learned to escape.escape group, all had learned to escape.

• The no-escape group had learned to The no-escape group had learned to become helpless even when they had the become helpless even when they had the power to escape. Six of these subjects failed power to escape. Six of these subjects failed entirely. In the delayed test 5 of the 6 failed entirely. In the delayed test 5 of the 6 failed to escape. to escape.

DiscussionDiscussion

• Seligman and Maier concluded that the Seligman and Maier concluded that the escape group subjects learned in the escape group subjects learned in the harness phase that their behavior was harness phase that their behavior was related to the termination of he shock. related to the termination of he shock. Hence, they were motivated to escape the Hence, they were motivated to escape the shock by jumping the barrier.shock by jumping the barrier.

• For the no-escape group, the termination of For the no-escape group, the termination of the shock had nothing to do with their the shock had nothing to do with their behavior, they then had no incentive to behavior, they then had no incentive to escape.escape.

Subsequent ResearchSubsequent Research

• In later research Seligman found that In later research Seligman found that depression in humans occurs much in the depression in humans occurs much in the same fashion. Humans lean from their same fashion. Humans lean from their past experiences whether or not their past experiences whether or not their actions will be beneficial or useless.actions will be beneficial or useless.

• Learned helplessness in humans has much Learned helplessness in humans has much more serious consequences rather than more serious consequences rather than depression.depression.

Subsequent Research (cont’d)Subsequent Research (cont’d)

• Ex.Ex. A health psychologist has stated that A health psychologist has stated that in order to be a “good patient”, one must in order to be a “good patient”, one must give up all control. This may create give up all control. This may create learned helplessness in an individual, and learned helplessness in an individual, and hinder their recovery rather than help it. hinder their recovery rather than help it. They may fail to exert control later on They may fail to exert control later on even when it is possible.even when it is possible.

Ethical ConcernsEthical Concerns• A large part of this research experiment that A large part of this research experiment that

must be taken into account are the ethical must be taken into account are the ethical concerns. Is it ethical to endure shock on concerns. Is it ethical to endure shock on animals in order to learn more about human animals in order to learn more about human behavioral patterns?behavioral patterns?

• What about mice or rats used in What about mice or rats used in laboratories? Are those circumstances as laboratories? Are those circumstances as unethical as the use of dogs? What do you unethical as the use of dogs? What do you think?think?

• The important question is whether or not we The important question is whether or not we may benefit from research such as this.may benefit from research such as this.

ConclusionConclusion

• This research began a theory that explains This research began a theory that explains why some people become so helpless and why some people become so helpless and depressed.depressed.

• He has refined his theory over the years He has refined his theory over the years and has established three conclusions and has established three conclusions occurring under particular conditions.occurring under particular conditions.

Conclusion (cont’d)Conclusion (cont’d)

• Individuals are more likely to become Individuals are more likely to become depressed if they’ve learned to attribute depressed if they’ve learned to attribute their lack of control to causes:their lack of control to causes:1) permanent rather than temporary1) permanent rather than temporary2) related to personal factors2) related to personal factors3) affecting many areas of their life3) affecting many areas of their life

These have contributed to therapists These have contributed to therapists being better able to understand, and treat being better able to understand, and treat serious depression.serious depression.

Further QuestionsFurther Questions

• Is it possible that learned helplessness is a Is it possible that learned helplessness is a main source of depression from this main source of depression from this research?research?

• Are we able to prevent learned Are we able to prevent learned helplessness from occurring if we can helplessness from occurring if we can manipulate our environment?manipulate our environment?

Follow-up StudyFollow-up StudyWitkowski, TomaszWitkowski, Tomasz

Performance Levels In Situations Of Performance Levels In Situations Of Helplessness Threat And Group Helplessness Threat And Group

Affiliation: Egoistic Mechanisms In Affiliation: Egoistic Mechanisms In Helpless DeficitsHelpless Deficits

Journal of Social Psychology (Apr. Journal of Social Psychology (Apr. ’97), Vol. 137, Issue 2, 229’97), Vol. 137, Issue 2, 229

AimAim

• Studies the egotism hypothesis for poor Studies the egotism hypothesis for poor performance following insolvable performance following insolvable problems. As well, contributing egotistic problems. As well, contributing egotistic mechanisms to perform in a group and the mechanisms to perform in a group and the helplessness threat condition was studied.helplessness threat condition was studied.

• NOTE: Results to this experiment are NOTE: Results to this experiment are contrary to the learned helplessness contrary to the learned helplessness theory. theory.

Aim (cont’d)Aim (cont’d)

• Researchers have noticed that when Researchers have noticed that when participants undergo helplessness training, participants undergo helplessness training, they performed better than the control they performed better than the control group subjects, on the task being tested.group subjects, on the task being tested.

• In this research, subjects in the failure and In this research, subjects in the failure and group affiliation conditions performed group affiliation conditions performed better than the others.better than the others.

MethodMethod

• Participants were 40 students from Participants were 40 students from secondary schools in Poland (16 boys and secondary schools in Poland (16 boys and 24 girls).24 girls).

• These children had an average age of 17.2 These children had an average age of 17.2 years.years.

• Blind-procedureBlind-procedure

• Two factors were manipulated: problem Two factors were manipulated: problem solving and group affiliation.solving and group affiliation.


• The first task had math problems, they The first task had math problems, they were either solvable or unsolvable were either solvable or unsolvable (discrimination)(discrimination)

• Second tasks were done with and without Second tasks were done with and without group affiliation.group affiliation.

• Each variable had two levels. These levels Each variable had two levels. These levels were varied among subjects.were varied among subjects.


• In the first phase the participants were In the first phase the participants were randomly divided into groups. They were told randomly divided into groups. They were told to solve 4 math exercises each. Twenty to solve 4 math exercises each. Twenty received 4 solvable problems and the other 20 received 4 solvable problems and the other 20 received four unsolvable problems.received four unsolvable problems.

• In the second phase participants were In the second phase participants were randomly divided in 4 equal groups. In 2 randomly divided in 4 equal groups. In 2 groups the group affiliation variable was groups the group affiliation variable was introduced. Both groups had different introduced. Both groups had different instructions.instructions.


• The groups were told they were broken up The groups were told they were broken up in terms of their intelligence. They were in terms of their intelligence. They were told to solve exercises once again.told to solve exercises once again.

• In the groups without affiliation they were In the groups without affiliation they were given the same procedure as the first given the same procedure as the first phase (all participants solved the same phase (all participants solved the same exercises).exercises).


• Following the tasks, all participants were Following the tasks, all participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire. Participants asked to fill out a questionnaire. Participants were asked to evaluate their performance were asked to evaluate their performance on the problems, and to indicate the extent on the problems, and to indicate the extent to which success or failure on the to which success or failure on the unsolvable problems was not under the unsolvable problems was not under the researchers control.researchers control.

• Participants were also asked how well they Participants were also asked how well they performed, with a range of responses on a performed, with a range of responses on a Likert Scale. They were also questioned Likert Scale. They were also questioned about their accreditation.about their accreditation.

ResultsResults• Compared with success, failure in the first Compared with success, failure in the first

phase caused lower ratings of performance phase caused lower ratings of performance on the unsolvable problems.on the unsolvable problems.

• The subjects who had failed in the first The subjects who had failed in the first phase solved tasks much more slowly than phase solved tasks much more slowly than those who were successful.those who were successful.

• The affiliated and unaffiliated subjects The affiliated and unaffiliated subjects performed only a little faster than those performed only a little faster than those without affiliation.without affiliation.

• Unaffiliated subjects who had succeeded in Unaffiliated subjects who had succeeded in the first phase had a faster performance the first phase had a faster performance time than affiliated participants who also time than affiliated participants who also succeeded in phase one.succeeded in phase one.

Questionnaire ResultsQuestionnaire Results• Subjects without affiliation selected abilities Subjects without affiliation selected abilities

and effort as the primary cause of their and effort as the primary cause of their results. The unaffiliated group did not select results. The unaffiliated group did not select abilities and effort as the cause of their abilities and effort as the cause of their results.results.

• After the helplessness training (discrimination After the helplessness training (discrimination problems), subjects without affiliation stopped problems), subjects without affiliation stopped trying to solve the problem. Successful trying to solve the problem. Successful participants without affiliation had the participants without affiliation had the motivation to maintain their effort.motivation to maintain their effort.

DOESN’T THIS SUPPORT THE LEARNED DOESN’T THIS SUPPORT THE LEARNED HELPLESSNESS THEORY?!!!!HELPLESSNESS THEORY?!!!!

DiscussionDiscussion

• Witkowski found that the study supports Witkowski found that the study supports and confirms the egotism explanation.and confirms the egotism explanation.

• After their experience with unsolvable After their experience with unsolvable problems only the subjects without an problems only the subjects without an affiliation performed poorly.affiliation performed poorly.

• Those affiliated attributed results to Those affiliated attributed results to external variables, which in turn caused external variables, which in turn caused them to continue to solve the problems.them to continue to solve the problems.

Documents

Learning To Be Depressed Seligman, M.E.P., & Maier, S.F. (1967) Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 1-9