Alcohol consumption by college women following exposure to unsolvable problems: Learned helplessness or stress induced drinking?

Behhoo. Rex & Therapy Vol. 18. pp. 429 to 440 Pergnmon Press Ltd 1980. Printed in Great Britain

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION BY COLLEGE WOMEN FOLLOWING EXPOSURE TO UNSOLVABLE PROBLEMS: LEARNED HELPLESSNESS OR STRESS INDUCED DRINKING? NORA E. NOEL* and STEPHENA. LISMAN~ State University of New York at Binghamton @Zeceiued 20 February 1980) Summary-Three experiments were intended to examine the relationship between alcohol, depression and learned helplessness. In Study I. more female undergraduate heavy drinkers than light drinkers were found to have critically elevated scores on a depression index. A sex difference in the relationship between drinking and depression is suggested since male depressives were equally distributed among drinking categories. In Studies II and III, female undergraduates were given unsolvable problems in a learned helplessness paradigm. Relative to controls these subjects reported increased depressive and hostile affect and drank more beer in a taste rating task. However, we failed to find deficits in anagram solution with those subjects given the learned helplessness manipulation. Specific questions are raised regarding the boundary conditions of learned helplessness while implications bearing on stress-related alcohol consumption are discussed.

In our society, it is commonly held that alcohol helps to ‘fortify’ people in anticipation of unhappiness or that people can ‘drown their sorrows’ in alcohol. These beliefs imply that alcohol both prevents and alleviates depression. However, the behavioral scientist possesses no such certainty about the alcohol-depression relationship. Granted; several studies have been reported dealing with depression among alcoholics and their families (e.g., Schmidt and delint, 1972) while others have examined variables related to depression and depressive mood (e.g., pessimism) (Jessor et al., 1968) and their occurrence relative to alcoholism. While such reports may be relevant to the study of alcoholics, they do not necessarily provide a data base upon which to judge the strength of an alcohol-depression relationship within a non-alcoholic population. For example, many studies of alcohol and depression are difficult to interpret because the authors equate suicide (attempted and/or completed) with depression. Yet, recent data suggest that suicide is probably a weaker index of depression than is commonly assumed (Leonard, 1974). A few controlled studies of the effects of alcohol on depressed patients’ moods suggest that alcohol alleviates depression. Mayfield (1968) separated his subjects (male clinical depressive inpatients) into two groups: excessive drinkers vs moderate or nondrinkers. Following intravenous infusion with ethanol to a mild level of intoxication, all subjects showed decreased depression, with the ndrmally low-level drinkers showing the greatest improvement. Finally, Williams (1966) found that after college students had become mildly intoxicated, they reported levels of depression and anxiety had decreased from baseline. Despite the results of research noted above, which generally focus on the effect of alcohol on depression, there are very few data concerning the effects of depression on alcohol consumption. And yet the importance of such data can be illustrated by the argument put forth by Russell and Mehrabian (1975). These authors reviewed the literature available on the effect of alcohol on emotional states and found that, in general, such research has focused on the use of alcohol to alleviate anxiety. However, they argued that * Currently at Dede Wallace Center, Nashville. Tennessee, U.S.A. t Requestsfor reprints should be addressed to Stephen A. Lisman, Department sity of New York at Binghamton. NY 13901, U.S.A. 429

of Psychology, State Univer-

430

NORAE.

NOEL

and STEPHENA.

LISMAN

in many studies measures of anxiety and depression were strongly correlated. Russell and Mehrabian concluded that since the measures do tend to correlate so well, they are probably measuring a single entity: depression. They based this conclusion on data arising from a number of studies. First, psychophysiological studies often suggest that alcohol, in small or moderate doses, acts as a stimulant. Only in very large doses does it act as a depressant. Second, citing unpublished college students’ self-reports, Russell and Mehrabian found that drinkers expected to experience increases in arousal and pleasure at moderate doses (two drinks) of alcohol but expected a much lower arousal level after a large dose (six or more drinks). Based on these data, Russell and Mehrabian inferred the behavioral characteristics of frequent alcohol drinkers. Since alcohol acts initially to increase arousal, they reasoned, the depressed person would find drinking to be very rewarding (i.e. depressive affect would be quickly alleviated). On the other hand, the anxious person would find that alcohol had the immediate effect of increasing his anxiety and he would probably quit inking before he reached a higher dosage level. Therefore, the depressed person would be more likay to drink than the anxious person. If this is the case, then the systematic investigation of this possible alcohol-depression relationship should be of prime importance to the behavioral scientist. Study I represents an attempt to assess the degree of this suggested relationship with a large subject population potentially available for further, more controlled laboratory studies. STUDY

I

METHOD

Subjects

Ninety-one male and 161 female undergraduates from an introductory Psychology course at SUNY-Binghamton received course credit for their participation in this study. Procedure

At one session, subjects were administered both the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck, 1967) and the Qu~tity-Frequency-V~iability Schedule (QFV) Cahalan, Cisin and Crossley, 1969) which characterizes drinkers as light, moderate or heavy. RESULTS

On the basis of their self-report data, drinkers were categorized and the distribution of their respective BDI scores above or below 14 points were examined. For females only, significantly more (x2 = 7.08, p < 0.01) heavy drinkers than light drinkers showed BDI scores above 14, commonly accepted as the critical point indicating moderate ‘clinical depression. Male depressives were equally distributed among drinking categories. DISCUSSION The

data obtained from the female subjects indicate that there is a relationship between drinking and depression. However, since these data are correlational, the direction of that relationship is not specified. An interesting aspect of these data is that they also indicate a sex difference in this relation. The reasons for this difference are open for speculation at this point. However, based on these results, we used only females as subjects in our subsequent studies in order to maximize the possibility of further efucidating the depression-alcohol relationship among women. Our next step in the investigation of alcohol and depression was to isoiate and manipulate depression in the laboratory in order to examine subsequent alcohol consumption. Yet ethical problems precluded inducing clinical depression in the laboratory. One alternative is the use of an analog of depression, which has been reliabiy induced in the laboratory, is restrictive and can be o~rationally defined. Seligman (1973) has suggested that the learned helplessness paradigm may serve as that analog. He defined learned

Alcohol, stress and college

women

431

helplessness as “the psychological state that frequently results when events are uncontrollable” (Seligman, 1975). When persons perceive themselves as having no control over the consequences in a given situation, they are said to be helpless. They stop reacting presumably because nothing they can do will influence the outcome. Seligman (1975) has pointed out several parallels between learned helplessness effects and the behavior of depressives. For example, both depression and helplessness are characterized by a general motivational deficit and anecdotal reports of depressed patients often emphasize feelings of ‘hopelessness’ or ‘helplessness’. In addition, results of laboratory investigations employing subjects who scored above or below the median on depression inventories (Miller and Seligman, 1973; Miller, Seligman and Kurlander, 1975) have further supported the learned helplessness model as an analog of depression. The suggestion that learned helplessness affects alcohol consumption would also be compatible with the views of Marlatt (1976) and McClelland (1972). Marlatt has proposed that, in general, people drink alcohol because at moderate doses it increases cognitive perceptions of ‘personal control’. McClelland has also suggested, based on reported fantasies of males while drinking, that alcohol, in low or moderate doses, increases the ideas of ‘personal power’ in the drinker. Admittedly, the theoretical underpinnings of learned helplessness have been increasingly questioned (e.g., Glazer and Weiss, 1976; Levis, 1976; Miller and Norman, 1979). Controversy about the basic mechanism leading to learned helplessness is far from resolution and some very recent reviewers have even suggested that the relationship between learned helplessness and depression is tenuous (e.g., Costello, 1978; Buchwald. Coyne and Cole, 1978). However, Seligman and his colleagues have amassed considerable data in support of their position. Therefore, in the following studies we used the learned helplessness paradigm as a manipulation expected to produce an analog of depressive mood. Studies II and III investigated the effects of a learned helplessness manipulation on alcohol consumption. It was hypothesized that subjects given the helplessness manipulation would drink more beer than their non-helpless counterparts.

STUDY

II

METHOD

Design This study was a modified replication of an experiment reported by Hiroto and Seligman (1975-Exp. IV). The major dependent variables in the present study were alcohol consumption and degree of depression, hostility and anxiety due to condition. These affective changes were measured through the repeated administration of the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (MAACL) (Zuckerman and Lubin, 1965). A third measure, anagram solution latency, was intended to assess the comparability of our helplessness manipulation to that of Hiroto and Seligman (1975). A 2 x 2 design was used in which half the subjects were given the helplessness manipulation and half were given the control manipulation. Following this, half the subjects from each condition were given access to alcohol while the rest were given anagrams. Subjects

Forty-four female undergraduates from Introductory Psychology and Introductory Management courses received course credit for their participation as subjects. Data from one of these subjects were not used because of equipment problems. Data from five of these subjects were not included for reasons discussed below (see procedure section). This left 38 subjects-19 in both the helplessness and control conditions. Subjects were selected on the basis of their responses to the QFV Schedule and included seven heavy. four moderate, and eight light drinkers in each condition.

432

NORA E.

NOEL

and

STEPHENA. LISMAN

Procedure

Each subject was tested individually while seated in a small, well-illuminated room containing a table, chair and other equipment described below. Communication from experimenter to subject was limited to taped instructions and a remotely controlled light which indicated ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The subject was monitored at all times through a one-way window and a sound intercom system. Instructions explained that the experimenter was interested in the subject’s problem solving and discrimination skills. After the subject had read and signed a consent form she was given 5 min to complete the MAACL, a list of 140 adjectives’describing emotions which may be scored for anxiety, depression and hostility. Hypothesis testing task. Next, all subjects were presented with a test booklet and asked to solve four concept-formation problems similar to those described in detail by Hiroto and Seligman (1975). Briefly, stimuli comprising fourteen different values were presented in complementary pairs on every two pages of the test booklet. Subjects were told simply to guess initially and to choose any value because the experimenter’s ‘yes-no’ feedback over successive trials would enable them to eliminate alternative concepts and to discover the ‘designated value’. After five sample trials (not enough to allow complete solution of a problem), all control subjects were given accurate feedback by the experimenter and, thus, each of their problems had a single correct solution. In addition, if a control subject could not identify the ‘designated value’ at the end of any of the problems (i.e. if she were not able to solve all four problems), she was dropped from the study.* A predetermined sequence of feedback was given to each subject in the learned helplessness condition. This feedback was given regardless of the response made by the subject. For this reason it was impossible for her to determine a correct value; there was none. Also, if the subject attempted to guess the value at the end of the last question, she was told ‘no’ by the experimenter. Taste rating tusk. When the subject had completed the fourth problem, she was asked to fill out a second MAACL. Subsequently, four heavy, two moderate and four light drinkers from both the helplessness and control conditions were asked to participate in a taste rating task. These groups were designated LH-A and C-A respectively. The prototype of the taste rating task was devised by Schachter, Goldman and Gordon (1968) as an unobtrusive measure of eating behavior, and has been adapted extensively by Marlatt and his colleagues (e.g., Higgins and Marlatt, 1973; Marlatt, Demming and Reid, 1973) to measure drinking in a laboratory setting. In this experiment, taped instructions requested that the subjects taste and rate four containers of beer and ginger ale on a list of 50 adjectives related to taste. It was explained that this was another discrimination task (being physical or sensory in nature, as opposed to the problem solving task, which was considered ‘mental’ discrimination), and that they could have as much of the beer or ginger ale as they wanted. Subjects were given a total 24 oz of beer and 24 oz of ginger ale (12 oz in each container) and allowed 15 min to complete the task. Beverage consumption was measured by recording the amount remaining in the four containers. Anagrams tusk. The remaining nine subjects in each condition (LH-N and C-N) were asked, following the second MAACL, to participate in an anagrams task instead of a taste rating task. Nineteen five-letter English anagrams were presented in random order * Hiroto and Seligman’s rationale for dropping subjects assigned to the control group who failed on one or more problems was that those subjects were not valid controls since they had at least one failure experience in that situation. The crucial issue here is whether the control subjects should experience total success or experience the reasonable opportunity to achieve success as well as some level of less than perfect success (cf. Wortman and Brehm, 1975). Theoretically, the experience of some failure is independent of the perception of having no control. Seligman himself (1975) has speculated that uncontrollable success, as well as uncontrollable failure, can lead to helplessness. Dropping these subjects also creates a situation in which subjects’ problem solving abilities are confounded with condition. There is not a similar selection bias for helpless subjects. However, in order to replicate Hiroto and Seligman’s study accurately, we retained this procedure intact.

Alcohol, stress and college

women

433

to each subject. Latencies were timed from anagram presentation to correct solution or 100 s, whichever came first. These were the same anagrams used by Hiroto and Seligman (1975) with the exception of the word ‘jaunt’ which in pilot work was too often translated as ‘junta’. The arrangement of the letters in each word was always the same (3-4-2-5-l). For example, GAURS is SUGAR. If this ‘key’ was discovered by the subject, the latency to solution would be greatly shortened. Note, however, that we did not include Hiroto and Seligman’s instruction “there may be a pattern by which you can solve these anagrams”. We felt that such a statement may introduce an attentional factor and make data interpretation difficult. Finally, for all subjects, a third administration of the MAACL followed either the taste rating or the anagrams task. RESULTS Beverage consumption The amount consumed by each subject _was recorded in ounces. Mean consumption of each beverage was: for the LH-A group, X beer = 5.7 oz, x ginger ale = 3.4 oz; for the C-A group, % beer = 3.6 oz, x ginger ale = 3.6 oz. Analyses of variance of these data reveals a significant interaction of beverage by condition, F(1,18) = 9.05, p c 0.01. This appeared to be due to the excess of beer that was drunk in the LH-A group. Simple main effects tests showed that subjects in the LH-A group drank significantly more beer than did the C-A subjects, F(l,18) = 4.96; p < 0.05 but there was no difference in ginger ale consumption between the two groups (F < 1). Affective changes Depression. Mean scores were obtained for each group for each administration of the MAACL. Scores for each subject were then compared across groups for each administration in a Condition x Time of administration x Group designations analysis of variance which revealed an interaction for depression F(2,68) = 3.68; p < 0.05. This interaction can clearly be seen in the data plotted in Fig. 1. A simple main effects test at the time of the first administration (pre-manipulation) showed no significant differences between groups (all Fs < 1). At the time of the second administration (immediately post-manipulation), it was found that the LH subjects scored higher on the depression scale than did the control subjects, F(1,34) = 5.41; p < 0.05. All other comparisons on the second administration were not significant. At the time of the third administration (after alcohol or after anagrams), there were no significant differences. DEPFESSlON

HOSTILITY

ANXIETY

O---OLEARNED HELPLESSNESS ANAGRAMS (LH-N) -CONTROLALCOIUIL

f

9

Y

9

:)..

(C-AI

I

I

I 2

3

I

2

3

I

2

3

ADYINlSTRAllON Fig. 1. Mean scores on the MAACL obtained before (first) and after (second) the experimental manipulation and after the anagrams task (third), Study 11.

NORAE. NOEL~~~‘S~PHEN A. LISMAN

434

Hostility. The hostility scores were compared in the same way that the depression scores had been. Again, a significant interaction was found between time of administration and condition, F(2,68) = 4.30, p < 0.025. This interaction is displayed in the data plotted in Fig. 1, and seems to be due to the increase in hostility in the LH groups following the manipulation. Simple main effects tests revealed no difference at the time of the first administration, but at the second LH subjects reported significantly more hostility than did their control groups counterparts, F(1,34) = 14.2, p < 0.001. By the third administration there were. once again, no differences to be found between groups. Anxiety. Mean anxiety scores (see Fig. 1) for each group for each time of administration were subjected to the same analyses as were the depression and the hostility scores. However, there were no significant differences found among any of the groups on any administration of the MAACL. On the second administration, a small difference was found between the LH and C groups, but it only approached significance, F(1,34) = 4.02. p < 0.08. Anagram

latency

Latencies in seconds were recorded for each anagram for each subject. Anagrams were then divided into 3 blocks of 5 trials each and 1 block of 4 trials. A mean latency for each trial block for each subject was then obtained. This mean latency was then averaged across all subjects in a particular group. No difference were found among groups on any of the trial blocks. Thus, it appears that subjects from both conditions solved the anagrams in about the same amount of time. Data for the LH-N and the C-N groups are illustrated in Fig. 2.

DISCUSSION Since the anagram solution late&es of the learned helplessness and control subjects did not differ, it is difficult to argue that learned helplessness was produced in this instance. We might note that in the model of learned helplessness described by Miller and Norman (1979) affective and performance components of learned helplessness may be independent. Furthermore, each component will vary as a function of the attributions of the subject. So, although the manipulation used in this study apparently affected the amount of alcohol consumed and increased self-reported depression and hostility, a helplessness interpretation of these results is unclear without the corresponding evidence of the production of subsequent learning deficits. Accordingly, we set out to find out why the anagram deficits were not observed. Since our procedures paralleled those described

30 I

c_ O---Q

20

01

LEARNED HELPLESSNESSANAGRAMS (LH-N) CONTROL ANAORAMS

(C-N)

l

I

2

3

4

TRIAL BLOCKS Fig. 2. Mean anagram latencies for each block of five trials. Study II.

Alcohol, stress and college women

435

in detail by Griffith (1977). Hiroto and Seligman (1975). and Klein, Fencil-Morse and Seligman (1976) it is difficutt to explain why our helpless manipulation did not hinder subsequent anagram solution, while these studies all demonstrated such deficits. One explanation suggested by Seligman (1976), was that through the timing of the feedback given to the subjects in the present study, it may have been inadvertently revealed to the helplessness subjects that the hypotheses testing tasks were unsolvable. That is, in the present study, subjects were informed whether their choices were correct or incorrect while they were still viewing the testing stimuli on any given trial (i.e. before they turned the test booklet pages to the next stimulus pair). This procedure perhaps gave them enough time to review the stimuli and their hypotheses* and to perceive that they had been given false feedback. While not described in the study of Hiroto and Seligman (1975), Seligman (1976) explained that each stimulus had actually been removed before feedback was given on each trial, perhaps maximizing the attribution of an abihty deficit by each subject. Therefore, in the third study we replicated the procedure used in Study II with one exception: on each trial subjects were given feedback only after the stimuli had been removed. In addition, we decided to limit our subject population to only heavy and moderate drinkers in order to explore any differential effects of the helplessness manipuIation on their drinking. STUDY

III

METHOD Subjecrs

Sixty-nine female under~aduates from Introductory Psychology courses were selected on the basis of their responses to the QFV to be in Study III. Two subjects were dropped because of technical difficulties, 19 because they could not solve the original hypothesis testing problems.? This left 48 subjects, who were divided into four groups: six heavy drinkers and six moderate drinkers in each group, with the exception of the LH-N group in which a light drinker was substituted for one of the moderate drinkers. Procedure Study III was an exact replication of Study II with the exception of the insertion of a blank page between each of the sets of stimuli. Subjects were required, during the hypothesis testing task, to turn to the blank page after making their guess at the answer. In this manner, they were given the feedback (red or green light) after the stimuli had been effectively removed. RESULTS The same comparisons were made with these data as were described in Study II. In addition, there was also a comparison made of beverage consumption by heavy vs moderate drinkers. Beverage consumprion. Analysis of variance of the consumption data revealed a significant interaction of beverage by condition such that, as in Study II, the subjects given unsolvable problems drank more beer than did the control group, F(1,20) = 4.49; * That Sehgman’s suggestion has some merit beyond blind speculation is attested by the results of a recent study by Khsz and Parsons (t977). They used the Levine hypothesis testing task with alcoholic subjects and varied the task presentation style: one group turned over the stimulus card after each choice was made, while the other retained all stimulus cards face up for a continued perusal throughout the task. This latter ‘memory aid’ condition resulted in significantly better performance. t The loss of subjects from the control group in Study III because of inability to solve the problems was at a much higher rate than in Study II. The major reason for this dropout rate was probably a considerable increase in the task difficulty as a result of the procedure change. We are aware of the possibility that subjects may thus have been selected for problem-~lving abilities (see footnote on p. OCBkbut the results of the anagram solution latencies argue against any general effect of doing so.

NORA E. NOEL and S~PHEN A. LISMAN

436

p < 0.05. Again, there was no difference in ginger ale consumption between groups. Also, there were no differences found between the heavy and moderate drinkers on any comparison. Afictiue changes. The patterns of affective scores obtained replicated those found in Study II. That is, subjects given unsolvable problems were found to be more depressed and hostile following these problems than the control groups, F(2,88) = 6.06; p < 0.01; F(2,88) = 12.9; p < 0.01 respectively. There were no differences at any point on the anxiety scores. These data are illustrated in ‘Fig. 3. 20

DEPRESSION

.

HOSTILITY

O---O

LEARNED HELPLESSNESSANAGRAMS fLH-N

-

CONTROL-

ANXIETY

s 0 3

2

I

2

3

I

2

3

ADUINISTRATION Fig.

3. Mean

on the MAACL obtained before (first) and after (second) the experimental manipulation and after the anagrams task (third). Study III.

scores

An exception to the replication was that the subjects in the LH-N group reported significantly less depression and hostility than did the subjects in the LH-A group following the problems. Since these subjects had both been treated comparably to the point of the second MAACL, it is presumed that this happened by chance (i.e. in spite of random assignments to groups). This may have had an effect on the data obtained on the anagram latencies in the LH-N group. Anagram latencies. As illustrated in Fig. 4, subjects who had originally been given

30

20

.---4

LEARNED HELPLESSIESSANAQRAUS (LR-N)

-CONTROLANAGRAMS

TRIAL

K-Ml

BLOCKS

Fig. 4. Mean anagram latencies for each block of five trials, Study III.

Alcohol, stress and college

women

431

unsolvable problems, solved the first five anagrams significantly faster than did the control subjects, F(3,66) = 3.0; # < 0.05. After that there was no difference between the performances of the two groups. GENERAL

DISCUSSION

Essentially, the data from Study III replicate those from Study II. There are a few minor exceptions reported, but these do not appear to result from the procedural change suggested by Seligman (1976). The finding that subjects exposed to the helplessness manipulation had initially solved the anagramsfaster than did the control subjects would argue that, contrary to prediction, the removal of stimuli before feedback had increased their motivation. In any case, this finding casts doubts on the suggested explanation offered by Seligman for differences found between our data (Study II) and data reported by Hiroto and Seligman (1975). Another suggested explanation which can be offered for the differences found between the anagram results of these studies (II and III) and those reported by Seligman is a difference in procedure. As noted above, there was a ‘key’ in the Seligman studies that could be used to solve the anagrams more quickly if the subject discovered and utilized it. In the studies done by Seligman and his group using this task, there is always a statement in the instructions to the subject which suggests that there is a pattern to the anagrams. In Study II and Study III no such instruction was given. The pattern, of course, was still there to be found, but attention was not drawn to it in the instructions. There are a number of ways that this difference could have affected the data. The most salient one may involve the inclusion of an attentional factor in the Seligman studies. It is possible that subjects in the group which was given false feedback have learned to ignore the cues given by the experimenter. Subjects in Se&man’s control groups may have found that this cue facilitated their problem solving on the anagrams especially relative to the learned helplessness subjects who ignored the cue. Such an idea would be compatible with data reported by Levine et al. (1977) that suggest subjects given random feedback on a problem learn to ignore the source of the feedback. This idea is further supported by the finding that in most other studies using similar methods (e.g., Hiroto and Seligman, 1975) control subjects’ anagram solution times were considerably faster than those in the present study. Overall then, our data necessarily call into question some of the assump tions put forth by Seligman and his colleagues in explaining the results of the so-called learned helplessness manipulation. A study investigating the effects of the presence or absence of the pattern instruction may help shed light on these issues. Since we cannot say that this manipulation produced a phenomenon similar to learned helplessness, how are we to explain the reliable and strong effect found with the other dependent measures? We will briefly examine each one in turn. Beverage consumption In both Study II and Study III subjects given four unsolvable problems subsequently drank more beer than did their counterparts who had been able to solve the problems. This probably did not reflect a mere increase in general consumption since there was no difference in the amount of ginger ale consumed by the two groups. Instead, our findings suggest that the beer was differentially selected by those in the learned helplessness group, supporting our prediction that these subjects would drink more alcohol than the control subjects. Interestingly, our informal observations and recordings of each subject’s sipping patterns gives a rough indication of events occurring within the 15 min drinking period. Subjects who had been given unsolvable problems showed the same sip rate as those in the control group during approximately the first 9 min. This 9 min mark roughly coincided with the completion of the rating of the drinks in the taste task. It appears that at this point the control subjects generally stopped drinking, while the learned helplessness subjects continued to drink the beer. It may be suggested that the control subjects, because of prior reinforcement for successful problem solving, were more task oriented

NORA E. NOEL and STEPHENA. LISMAN

438

than the learned helplessness subjects (cf. Wortman and Brehm, 1975). This may explain why, on completion of their rating of the beverages, they stopped drinking, thereby consuming less than did the no-solution subjects. However, while such a suggestion might explain a general increase in drinking by the no-solution group. it would not explain why beer was preferred by these subjects. It would have been most desirable that subjects in both conditions experience similar amounts of reinforcement so that subsequent behavioral differences could be parsimoniously attributable to aspects of the uncontrollable contingency. However, not only did the no-solution subjects find the problem unsolvable each time, but in confounded fashion, they also received more negative feedback during problem trials than did the controls. Thus, in our effort simply to replicate the procedures described in previous successful demonstration of helplessness (e.g., Griffith, 1977; Hiroto and Seligman, 1975; Klein, Fencil-Morse and Seligman, 1976), we may have been ensnared by a confound often overlooked in the random feedback procedure employed by the authors just cited. A&rive

changes

Again in. both Studies II and III, although no differences were found between groups on any MAACL dimension at the outset, both unsolvable problem groups reported more depression and hostility than did the two control groups immediately following the manipulation. There were no differences found on the anxiety measure. It is interesting that hostility increased concurrently with depression since hostility has been psychodynamically linked to depression (e.g., Abraham, 1911; Freud, 1917). At any rate, these increases do support the hypothesis that the experience of unsolvable problems is stressproducing, as has been demonstrated by Gatchel and Proctor (1966) for helplessness induced by aversive noise. The levels of depression reported by the helpless subjects following the manipulation certainly were not high enough to suggest a clinical depression. In addition, interpretation of the data based on the depression score alone cannot be done since this score is at least correlationally linked with the hostility score. Thus, although these data offer some indication that the emotional state produced led to measured drinking and may be an analog to depressive mood, at least two alternative interpretations can be suggested. First of all, the subjects in the unsolvable problems group may have correctly seen their lack of success as due to task difficulty (i.e. there really were no problem solutions), rather than their own lack of ability. Such an attributional explanation may not only remove responsibility for failure from the subject, but may tend to increase feelings of hostility as well. Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale (1978) among others, have suggested that the key to whether uncontrollability produces depression is to be found within such attributional analyses. A second alternative, suggested by Boyd (1978) is that frustration plays a crucial role in producing the behavioral changes in those subjects not given control. This frustration could have led to both increased hostility and alcohol consumption, although why depression scores rose from before to after the manipulation is unclear. However, work in the area of stress-related depression (McLean, 1978) would suggest that stress reactions (e.g., hostility, frustration) are often precursors of depressive episodes. Taken together, then, what kinds of conclusions can we draw from these studies? First, the results of Study I suggest that, at least for college females, there appears to be a relationship between self-reports of alcohol use and depression. In addition, the unsolvable problems manipulation used in Studies II and III consistently led to increased alcohol consumption as well as increased depression and hostility scores. The actual mechanism through which these changes occurred is unclear and several alternative explanations have been discussed. It is possible that the manipulation produces an analog of depressive mood or precursors of depressive mood which, in turn, mediates alcohol consumption. However, a more compelling explanation would instead suggest that the manipulation led to frustration and the drinking seen is actually a result of frustration or stress. This interpretation of our results is also consistent with the report by

Alcohol_ stress and college women

439

Marlatt, Kostum and Lang (1975) which showed that regaining control in a stressful, situation, in contrast to remaining ‘helpless’, was a critical mediator of alcohol use. While stress induced alcohol consumption has been demonstrated in several other studies (cf. Higgins, 19X), it is of interest here that the stress produced in our Studies II and III was of an impersonal rather than interpersonal nature. Recently it has been suggested that stress solely of an interpersonal nature was crucial in inducing alcohol consumption (Higgins and Marlatt, 1975), a notion that both our data and a recent investigation by Holroyd (1978) call to question. Second, we are faced with a host of unexplained data directly concerning learned helplessness theory and explanation. In spite of the fact that Studies II and III closely followed the procedure used successfully by several investigators, we failed to demonstrate similar deficits in anagram solutions. While possible explanations for our failure to replicate have been offered above, our results certainly question the delineation of the boundary conditions governing demonstrations of learned helplessness (cf. Levis, 1976; Miller and Norman, 1979). Finally, it would seem highly worthwhile in future investigations to compare males and females directly in studies of stress induced drinking, especially since recent work has clearly delineated sex-related response differences to specific types of uncontrolled outcomes (e.g., Dweck and Goetz, 1978). The additional benefits of comparing problem and non-problem drinkers may be to begin more closely clarifying the nature of the distinctions among types of drinkers and their responses to environmental stress. Furthermore, comparing problem drinkers with heavy and moderate ones may begin to clarify the interactions of different types of drinkers and their respective responses to environmental stressors. ~~~Qw~edge~e~rs-This research was supported by grants from the SUNY Research Foundation and from the SUNY-Binghamton Graduate Student Organization. The second study is based on a Master’s thesis by the first author under the direction of the second author. We would like to thank the other committee members, C. James Scheirer and Stanley Scobie for their helpful suggestions. In addition, thanks are extended to Kenneth Leight, Robin Bishop, Judith Solheim, Wendy Silverman and Emily Futch who served as experimenters in one or more of the studies. Special thanks are given to Paul Gabel for assistance in all phases of this research. Portions of this research have been presented at meetings of Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, April, 1977, and Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Atlanta, November, 1977.

REFERENCES ABRAHAMK. (1972) Notes on the psycho-analytical investigation and treatment of manic-depressive insanity and allied conditions (191 I). In Selecred Papers of Karl Abraham, M. D. (Edited by E. JONES).Hogarth

Press, London. ABRAMSON L., SELIGMAN M. and TEASDALEJ. (1978) Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. J. ~~urm. Psychot. 87, 49-74. BECK A. 1. (1967) Depression: Clinicat, Experimental and Theoretical Aspects. Harper and Row, New York.

BoYD T. (1978) Learned helplessness: A critical investigation of the response-outcome contingency space. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton. BUCHWALDA.. COYNEJ. and COLE C. (1978) A critical evaluation of the learned helplessness model of depression. J. abnorm. Psychol. 87, 180-193. CAHALAND., CISINI. and CROWIY H. M. (1969) American Drinking Practices: A National Study of Drinking Behauior and Patrerns. Rutgers Center on Alcohol Studies, New Brunswick, NJ. COSIELLOC. (1978) A critical review of Seligman’s laboratory experiments on learned heiplessness and depression in humans. J. abnorm. Psychof. 87, 21-31. DWECK C. and G~ETZ T. (1978) Attributions and learned helplessness. In New Directions in Attribution Research (Edited by J. HARVEY,W. Ictc.ns and R. KIDD). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. FREUD S. (1917) Mourning and Melancholia. Standard Edition, Volume IF Hogarth Press, London. GATCHELR. and PROCTORJ. (1976)Physiological correlates of learned helplessness in man. J. obnorm. Psychol. 85, 27-34.

GLAZER H. and WEISSJ. (1976) Long-term interference effect: An alternative to ‘learned helplessness’. J. exp. Psychol. Anim. Behar. Processes 2, 202-213.

GRIFFITHM. (1977) Effects of noncontingent

success and failure on mood and performance.

J. Personaliry sot.

Psychol. 45. 442-457.

HIGGINSR. (1976) Experimental investigations of tension reduction models of alcoholism. In Empirical Studies of Alcohdism (Edited by G. GOLDSTEINand C. NEURINGER)Ballinger, Cambridge, MA. HIGGINS R. L. and MARWIT G. A. (1973) Effects of anxiety arousal on the consumption of alcohol by alcohofics and social drinkers. J. cons. clin. Psyc~o~. 41, 426-433. HIGGINSR. L. and MARLAT~ G. A. (1975) Fear of interpersonal evaluation as a determinant of alcohol consumption in male social drinkers. J. abnorm. Psychoi. 84, -651.

NORA E. NOEL and STEPHENA. LISMAN

440

HIROTOD. and SELIGMANM. E. P. (1975) Generality of learned helplessness in man. Personality sot. Psychol. 31.31 l-327. HOLROYDK. (1978) Effects of social anxiety and social evaluation on beer consumption and social interaction. J. Stud. Alcohol. 39. 737-744.

J~sso~ R., CARMANR. and GROGSMAN P. (1968) Expectation of need satisfaction and drinking patterns of college students. J. Stud. Alcohol. 29, 101-I 16. KLEIN D., FENCIL-MORSEE. and SELIGMAN M. E. P. (1976) Depression, learned helplessness, and the attribution of failure. Personality sot. Psychol. 33. 508-5 15. KLISZ D. K. and PARSONS0. A. (1977) Hypothesis testing in younger and older alcoholics. J. Stud. Alcohol. 38, 1718-1729. LEONARDC. (1974) Depression and suicidality. J. cons. clin. Psychol. 42, 98-104. LEVINEM.. ROTKINL.. JANKOVICI. and PITCHFORDL. (1977) Impaired performance by adult humans: Learned helplessness or wrong hypotheses? Cog. Ther. Res. 1, 275-286. LEVISD. (1976) L-earned helplessness: A reply and an alternative S-R interpretation. J. exp. Psychol. General 105.47-65.

MARLATIG. (1976) Alcohol, stress. and cognitive control. In Stress and Anxiety, Vol. 3 (Edited by I. SARASON and C. SPEILBERGER). Hemisphere, Washington, DC. MARLATTG. A., DEMMINGB. and REID J. G. (1973) Loss of control drinking in alcoholics: An experimental analogue. J. abnorm. Psychol. 81, 233-241. MARLATTG. A., KOSTURNC. and LANG P. (1975) Provocation to anger and opportunity for retaliation as determinants of alcohol consumption in social drinkers. J. &norm. Psychol. 84, 652-659. MAYFIELDD. (1968) Psychopharmacology of alcohol: Affective change with intoxication, drinking behavior and affective States. J. new. ment. Dis. 146, 314-321. MCCLELLANDD. (1972) Drinking as a response to power needs in man. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Alcoholism Conference of the NIAAA, pp. 47-64. June 1972, Washington, DC. MCLEAN P. (1976) Depression as a specific response to stress. In Stress and Anxiety, Volume 3 (Edited by I. SARASONand C. SPIELBERGER). Hemisphere. Washington, DC. MILLER I. and NORMAN W. (1979) Learned helplessness in humans: A review and attribution-theory model. Psychol. Bull. 86.93-l 18. MILLER W. R. and SELIGMANM. E. P. (1973) Depression and the perception of reinforcement. J. &norm. Psychol. 82.62-73.

MILLERW. R.. SELIGMANM. E. P. and KURLANDERH. M. (1975) Learned helplessness, depression and anxiety. J. new. menl. Dis. 161, 347-357. RIJ~~ELLJ. and MWRABIAN A. (1975) The mediating role of emotions in alcohol use. J. Stud. Alcohol. 36, 1508-1536. SCIHACHTER S., GOLDMANR. and GORDONA. (1968) The effects of fear, food deprivation and obesity on eating. J. Personality sot. Psychol. 10, 9 l-97. SCHMIDTW. and DELINTJ. (1972) Causes of deaths in alcoholics. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 33. 171-185. SELIGMANM. E. P. (1975) Helplessness. Freeman, San Francisco. SELICMANM. E. P. (1976) Personal communication. WILLIAMSA. (1966) Social drinking, anxiety and depression. J. Personality sot. Psychol. 3. 689-693. WORTMANC. and BREHMJ. (1975) Responses to uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model. In Advances in Experimenral Social Psychology, Vol. 8 (Edited by L. BERKOWITZ). Academic Press New York. ZUCKERMANM. and LUBIN B. (1965) Manual for rhe Mulriple Afect Adjective Checklist. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego; CA.