- Email: [email protected]
The elimination of learned helplessness deficits as a function of induced self-esteem
JOURNAL
OF RESEARCH
IN PERSONALITY
16, 51 l-523 (1982)
The Elimination of Learned Helplessness Deficits as a Function of Induced Self-Esteem ISRAEL ORBACH Bar-llan
AND
ZIVA
HADAS
University
The efficiency of induced self-esteem in reducing various deficits caused by learned helplessness was tested in this study. Sixty undergraduate students were divided into three equal groups. The first group received uncontrollability treatment, the second received controllability treatment, and the third received no treatment. The subjects in the first two groups were asked to reduce the anxiety reaction of a confederate, as shown on an oscilloscope, by talking to him. The anxiety waves were shown on the oscilloscope and were preprogrammed so that subjects in the uncontrollability treatment group experienced lack of control over the results, while the ones in the controllability group were led to belive that they successfully controlled the changes of the confederate’s anxiety. Then, half of the subjects in each of the three groups received positive feedback on their personality, while the other half received no feedback. In the last phase all subjects participated in a word recognition task using a tachistoscope operated by a combined push-button and microphone device. Response latency, number of correct identifications, and persistence in the task were recorded. In addition, the subjects completed a mood scale. The results indicate that subjects who received induced self-esteem treatment showed significantly more deficit reversal as reflected in response latency, persistence, feelings of potency, and sadness. The results are discussed in relation to (a) the assumption regarding the similarities between learned helplessness and depression, and (b) the usefulness of induced self-esteem as a form of treatment for helplessness depression.
Learned helplessness has been described by Seligman (1975) as the end result of a process in which an organism learns to believe that desired outcomes are independent of its responses (uncontrollability). Such an experience has been found to cause deficits in motivation, cognition, and emotion which are generalized to new situations when uncontrollability no longer exists (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Seligman, 1975; Seligman, Klein, & Miller, 1976). Seligman (1975) argued that there is a strong similarity between learned helplessness and depression in humans. His argument was supported by some studies (Hammen & Krantz, 1976; Klein, Fencil-Morse, & SeligRequests for reprints should be sent to Israel Orbach, Department of Psychology, BarRan University, Ramat-Can, Israel. 511 0092-6566/82/040511-13$02.00.0 Copyright 0 1982 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
512
ORBACH
AND
HADAS
man, 1976; Klein & Seligman, 1976; Miller & Seligman, 1976; Miller, Seligman, & Kurlander, 1975; Pittman & Pittman, 1979; Rizley, 1978). Others, however, did not support Seligman’s model or they interpreted the data differently (Buchwald, Coyne, & Cole, 1978; Costello, 1978; Depue & Monroe, 1978; Price, Tryon, & Raps, 1978). Abramson et al. (1978) and Seligman (1978) reformulated the theory, emphasizing that learned helplessness can serve as a model for helplessness depression caused by uncontrollability. They claim that there are three attributional dimensions which are crucial in explaining both helplessness and depression: (a) When uncontrollability is attributed to internal factors of personality rather than external factors, it leads to lowered self-esteem; (b) attribution of uncontrollability to stable factors leads to deficits extended across time; and (c) attribution of lack of control to global factors leads to generalization of helplessness symptoms across situations. According to Seligman (1978), the reformulated model resolves the inadequacies of the previous model in explaining at least some types of depression. Based on the new model, Abramson et al. (1978) conclude that lowered self-esteem is actually one of the outcomes of depression and helplessness, while theoretical formulations and empirical studies view self-esteem as an intervening process in causation and reversal of both depression and helplessness. The centrality of impaired self-esteem in some types of depression is emphasized by Beck (1%7), Bibring (1953), Blatt, D’Afflitti, and Quinlan (1976), Cohen, Baker, Cohen, Fromm-Reichman, and Weigert (1954), Jacobson (1971), Melges and Bowlby (1969), and Sullivan (1956). Plutchik, Platman, and Fieve (1970), for example, found that feelings of depression are experienced as the “least-liked” me. Cameron (1963) states that some of the factors which lead to depression are the loss of love, status, and prestige. Such factors are known as components of self-esteem (Sullivan, 1956). Viewing self-esteem as an intervening variable in helplessness or depression implies that self-esteem is a structural entity of personality which organizes behavior and integrates experiences and perception on the basis of preexisting beliefs regarding oneself. Thus, the uncontrollability experience affects self-esteem through changes in self perception. A decrease in self-esteem leads in turn to the experience of helplessness. If this assumption is valid, one can hypothesize that changing a person’s self perception directly can increase his self-esteem and, subsequently, eliminate his learned helplessness deficits. Support for the notion that self-esteem is a mediating process in depression is found indirectly in Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, and Von Bayer (1979). They report that depressed students, as opposed to nondepressed ones, attributed bad outcomes to internal, stable, and global personality
ELIMINATION
OF LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
513
aspects (namely, the self). More importantly, relative to the nondepressed, the depressed attributed good outcomes to external and unstable factors. Similarly, Miller and Norman (1979) and Roth and Kubal (1975) reported that the experience of uncontrollability in important tasks for the individual led to helplessness, whereas unimportant tasks did not. Dweck and Reppucci (1973) found that children who attributed lack of control to their ability showed more deficits than children who attributed lack of control to their performance. Now, why should depressed students attribute bad outcomes to themselves and good outcomes to external factors? Why should failure on an important task or attribution of failure to ability cause helplessness to a greater degree than unimportant tasks or failure due to performance? It is difficult to answer these questions unless one assumes an intervening process, such as self-esteem, which organizes behavior and determines one’s attributional processes. Variables such as importance of a task or sense of ability are closely related to self-esteem. Failure under such circumstances hurts one’s self-esteem which in turn brings about feelings of helplessness and depression. This issue has important implications for the reversal of helplessness deficits. The reformulated model of helplessness clearly states that lowered self-esteem is an outcome of controllability. Thus, merely increasing self-esteem cannot eliminate learned helplessness unless it is accompanied by an experience of actual success (Klein & Seligman, 1976; Teasdale, 1978). Indeed, Abramson et al. (1978) states that changing one’s “attributional dimensions” in the direction of increasing selfesteem, in addition to increasing the probability of success, can help reverse the deficits. Abramson et al. (1978), however, do not describe clearly how this happens. On the basis of the new model, one can infer that changing the attributional dimensions helps the depressed person to attribute future successes to internal causes, thereby turning the success into a reinforcement for the response which caused the success. This response, then, reoccurs until the deficits disappear. Unlike the above notion, the self-esteem as a mediator hypothesis asserts that induced self-esteem can help reverse the negative effects of helplessness even without exposure to the experience of actual success. This hypothesis was tested by exposing subjects to a learned helplessness procedure by failing them on a task. This task required that they reduce the anxiety of another person. Then, some of the subjects were given positive feedback about their personality which was unrelated to the task. The degree of deficit reversal was tested by means of a word recognition task and response to a mood check list.
514
ORBACH
AND
HADAS
METHOD Design The study was based on a 2 x 3 factorial design with three levels of controllability (controllability, no controllability, and no treatment groups) and two levels of feedback (positive feedback, no feedback). The dependent variables consisted of a number of measures related to performance in a word recognition task (response latency, persistence, number of correct identifications of words) and a mood check list.
Subjects Sixty male first-year psychology students participated in the study. They were randomly selected from a group of 80 subjects and equally divided into each of the six experimental groups. For his participation, each subject received experiment credits in an introductory psychology course. Prior to the experiment, subjects responded to Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (1966). This questionnaire was introduced as a personality test, the results of which were needed for a later phase of the experiment.’
Measures and Procedure The experiment took place in a laboratory crowded with electric wires and various instruments. The experiment was introduced to each subject as a study of the relation between some personality aspects of psychology students, the ability to reduce anxiety of another person, and the students’ sensitivity in perception. It was emphasized that such abilities are important for a psychologist. If the subject still agreed to participate in the study, he was told that a person (a confederate), whose level of anxiety was raised experimentally, would be placed in an adjoining room with a one-way mirror and that his pulse and blood pressure would be represented on the screen of an oscilloscope by a running wave. Each subject was shown a sample of high and low amplitudes of the wave as indications of high and low anxiety.* The subject’s task was to reduce the other person’s anxiety by talking to him via an intercom. It was pointed out that the changes in anxiety levels would be shown on the oscilloscope which was visible to the subject. The subject was advised that when the wave dropped, he had succeeded in reducing the confederate’s anxiety. The subjects were also informed that they could see the confederate through the mirror and talk to him via the intercom, but that he would not answer.
Manipulation
of Controllability
and Uncontrollability
In the controllability group, the waves shown on the oscilloscope were controlled by the experimenter. There were four possible prearranged amplitudes of waves. In the first few minutes (about 3), each subject received four reinforcements (four reductions in amplitude). He was asked by the experimenter “What, in your words, has an impact on the person in the other room?” On the basis of the subject’s specific answer (e.g., “my low voice,” a certain word, talking about a certain topic),’ the wave was lowered 10 more ’ The use of this scale had a double purpose: (1) to study the effects of locus of control on helplessness and reversal of its symptoms (although findings were not significant in most comparisons), and (2) to use it as a face validity technique for information given to subjects in the positive feedback groups. * This procedure was pretested before the actual experiment took place. All subjects in the pretest and in the experiment could easily attribute the “success” to their behavior and tended to repeat that particular response. 3 No subject refused to participate in the study.
ELIMINATION
OF LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
515
times, on the 10 occasions in which that particular response was repeated by the subject. Each subject was encouraged to talk until he received 10 such reinforcements. In any case, this procedure did not last for more than 10 min. This procedure took place before the recording of the dependent measures. The fluctuations in the waves of each subject in the controllability group were recorded by a computer and then used for the manipulation of the uncontrollability treatment. For each subject in the uncontrollability groups, a recorded series of waves from a subject in the controllability situation was randomly chosen so that the fluctuations were not related to any specific response of the subject in the uncontrollability groups. He was actually yoked to a record of another subject in the controllability group. Subjects in the no treatment groups did not participate in this part. Munipularion offeedback. After the first part was over, each subject in the feedback groups was reminded that sometime ago he had answered a questionnaire which revealed some of his personality characteristics. He was offered the analysis of his answers. In the positive feedback groups the experimenter read the following summary: “This person is interested in people and is ready to help them when needed. He is able to express concern and respect for others. He has the ability to make people confide in him. He is also sensitive, thoughtful, and flexible enough to establish good rapport with others.” Subjects in the no feedback treatment group received no feedback at all. Dependent variables. All 60 subjects participated in the third phase of the experiment. In this part they were asked to participate in a word recognition task as a test of sensitivity in perception. Five different words were used in this test. The words were screened on a tachistoscope operated by a microphone and push-button combination. The instructions for this part were as follows: Each word will be shown on the screen for a very short time. With its disappearance you are to say what you have seen by using this microphone. Please react after every exposure even if you don’t identify it. You may say “I didn’t see anything” or you can name one letter or the word you think you saw. You should then press this button and the same word will reappear. You are allowed 30 trials for each word, if you wish. If you want to go from one word into a new word before you have used all 30 trials, tell the experimenter and he will change it for you. The tachistoscope was operated with the aid of a computer so that only the full series of actions in the correct order (speaking into the microphone and pressing the button) would release a pulse to expose the word. Duration of exposure varied from 10 to 97 msec. Each exposure was 3 msec longer than the previous one. The response latency included the time sequence between pressing the button for the onset of a word and pressing it for another trial of the same word. This time sequence was recorded by computer.4 The tachistoscope operation was automatically terminated after 30 trials of each word or by the experimenter when the subject asked to pass on to a new word before using all 30 trials5 4 This time duration from one button press to another included the subject’s verbal attempt to identify the word exposed on the screen. Such a measure, although more complicated than simple response time, can give more information about the helpless subject’s state of mind. This measure included, in addition to response time, also the subject’s confusion, forgetting to press the button, inappropriate pressure on the button, etc. 5 The experimenter also stopped the tachistoscope operation when the subject successfully identified a word before the 30 trials were up, or when a subject did not press for
516
ORBACH
AND
HADAS
The dependent variable consisted of the following measures: (a) motivational effects: (1) response latency in the word recognition task, for the trials in which the word was not correctly identified; (2) persistence in the word recognition task. This measure consisted of the mean number of requests to go from one unidentified word to a new word, before utilizing all 30 available trials. A high score indicates a low degree of persistence. (b) cognitive effects: This consisted of the number of correct identifications of words in the word recognition task. (c) Emotional effects. This measure was obtained by a mood scale (Nowlis, 1965) administered to all subjects following the word recognition task. It included the following scales: sadness, anxiety, aggression. potency, concentration, nonchalance, fatigue, vigor, controllability, and sociability. At the end of the experiment the subject was informed that he would receive a letter explaining the nature of the study and its procedure.
RESULTS Two multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) for a 2 x 3 design were employed for the analysis of the data. One multivariate analysis was used for the motivational and cognitive effects, and the other for the emotional effects. In addition, a simple effects analysis and the Newman-Keuls (in Winer, 1971) were used to assess differences among individual groups when it was permitted by a statistical rationale. The MANOVA for the motivational and cognitive effects yielded a significant main effect of controllability (F(6, 106) = 6.99, p < .Ol), and a significant main effect of feedback treatment (F(3, 52) = 8.42, p < .Ol). These significance levels were based on the Pillia Trace criterion. The interaction was not significant according to the Pillia Trace, but it was significant according to the Wilks criterion (F(6, 104) = 3.47, p < .04). Similarly, the MANOVA for the emotional effects yielded significant differences (Pillia Trace criterion) for controllability (F(4, 108) = 8.03, p < .Ol), feedback (F(2, 53) = 4.33, p < .02), and for the interaction (F(4, 108) = 2.72, p < .05). The univariate analysis and the simple effect tests will be presented below for each dependent variable separately. Motivational Effects The means and standard deviations of the response latencies for the five words on the recognition task in each of the groups are presented in Table 1. The univariant analysis reveals that there was a significant main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 22.13, p < .Ol), a another trial because he was sure he had identified the word. In these cases, response latency was not recorded. The response latency recording was automatically set on by one button pressing and set off by the following button pressing. Thus, in cases of correct or assumed identification of the word, the subjects did not press the button for the offset of the response latency.
ELIMINATION
OF LEARNED
TABLE
517
HELPLESSNESS
1
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF RESWNSE LATENCY IN THE WORD RECOGNITIONTASK FORALL GROUPS’ Controllability groups
Treatment Self-esteem feedback
Uncontrollability groups
No treatment groups
Totals for feedback treatment
1013.48 (270.83)
1439.68 (426.62)
1203.91 (425.05)
1219.13 (408.30)
self-esteem feedback
1108.59 (333.83)
2949.53 (715.97)
1409.91 (584.96)
1822.68 (986.06)
Totals for controllability treatments
1061.21
2194.60
1306.91
(299.82)
(963.81)
(SO8.75)
No
a n = 10; N = 60; response time in milliseconds;
standard deviations in parentheses.
main effect of feedback treatments (F(1, 54) = 14.71, p < .Ol), and a significant interaction (F(2, 54) = 5.90, p < .Ol). The simple effects analysis shows that, when no feedback was given, there was a significant difference among the groups in response latency (F(2, 27) = 41.72, p < .Ol), namely the controllability group was faster than the no treatment group and the uncontrollability groups. When feedback was given, however, there was no significant difference among the three groups (F(2, 27) = 1.94, p > .05). The Newman-Keuls yielded a significant difference in the uncontrollability treatment between the feedback group and the no feedback group (q(3, 6) = 7.49, p < .lO). The means and standard deviations of changing an unidentified word for a new one before using the 30 allowed trials are presented in Table 2. This measure has been defined as an indication of persistence. The MEANS
TABLE 2 AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF NUMBER OF REQUESTS WORD RECOGNITION TASK (MEASURE OF PERSISTENCE)
Treatment Self-esteem feedback No
self-esteem feedback
Totals for controllability treatments
TO A NEW WORD IN THE FOREACH GROUPS Totals for feedback treatment
Controllability groups
Uncontrollability groups
No treatment groups
0.20 (0.42)
0.80 (1.03)
0.20 (0.42)
0.40 (0.72)
0.20 (0.63)
3.30 (1.15)
(Y::)
(1.79)
0.20
2.05
0.55
(0.53)
(1.66)
(1.23)
’ n = 10; N = 60. Standard deviations in parentheses.
1.47
518
ORBACH
AND
TABLE MEANS
AND STANDARD
Treatment
HADAS
3
DEVIATIONS OF CORRECT RESEQNSES IN THE TASK FOR THE VARIOUS GROUPS”
Controllability groups
Uncontrollability groups
WORD RECOGNITION
No treatment groups
Totals for feedback treatment
Self-esteem feedback
4.2 (0.63)
2.5 (1.43)
3.6 (1.57)
3.43 (3.42)
No self-esteem feedback
3.3 (1.49)
1.0 (1.05)
2.7 (1.63)
2.33 (1.53)
Totals for controllability treatments
3.75
1.75
3.5
(3.75)
(1.34)
(1.34)
a n = 10; N = 60. Standard deviations in parentheses.
univariate ANOVA shows a main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 19.53, p < .Ol), a main effect of feedback treatments (F(1, 54) = 17.25, p < .Ol), and a significant interaction (F(2, 54) = 3.41, p < .Ol). The simple effect analysis indicates that there was a significant difference only in the no feedback treatments (F(2, 27) = 19.03, p < .05), namely, the controllability group was the most persistent, followed by the no treatment group and then by the uncontrollability group. Similarly, there was a significant difference between the self-esteem feedback group and the no self-esteem feedback group only in the uncontrollability treatment (F(1, 27) = 4.82, p < .05), namely the first group showed more persistence than the second group. Cognitive Effects
Cognitive deficits were measured by the number of correct identifications on the five-word recognition test. The means and variances of correct recognitions in each group are presented in Table 3. The univariate ANOVA indicated a main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 11.52, p < .Ol) and a main effect of self-esteem feedback treatments (F( 1, 54) = 9.93, p < .Ol). The interaction was found to be nonsignificant (F(2, 54) = -33, p > .05). None of the simple effects comparison were significant although the differences were in the hypothesized direction. Emotional Effects
A factor analysis (principal component with iterations, orthogonal rotations) of the various mood scales revealed four factors which account for 73% of the variability? Factor A (competence) included the scales 6 The 10 mood scales included 64 items. The factor analysis was performed in order to identify any existing factors in scales scores.
ELIMINATION
OF LEARNED
519
HELPLESSNESS
TABLE4 MEANS AND
STANDARD
Treatment
DEVIATIONS ON THE Moor
Controllability groups
OF SCORES(2 SCORES)ON FACTOR A QUESTIONNAIRE FORALL GROUPS” Uncontrollability groups
(POTENCY)
No treatment groups
SCALES
Totals for feedback treatment
Self-esteem feedback
0.764 (0.40)
-0.167 (0.628)
0.078 (0.640)
0.23 (0.857)
No self-esteem feedback
0.293 (0.835)
-1.318 (0.779)
0.349 (0.599)
-0.23
Totals for controllability treatments
0.529 (0.682)
-0.742 (0.907)
(1.15)
0.213 (0.619)
n n = 10; N = 60. Standard deviations in parentheses.
of potency, vigor, controllability, and with a negative sign the scales of anxiety and nonchalance; Factor B (depression) included the scales of sadness, aggression, fatigue, and with a negative sign the scale of initiative; Factor C included the scale of concentration, and Factor D the nonchalance and sociability scales. Factors C and D had a very low eigenvalue: .68 and .63, respectively. The means and variances of the competence scales factor are shown in Table 4. The univariate ANOVA indicated that there was a main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 20.00, p < .Ol), a main effect of self-esteem feedback treatments (F(1, 54) = 6.99, p < .Ol), and a significant interaction (F(2, 54) = 5.74, p < .Ol). The Newman-Keuls for simple effects showed that in the self-esteem feedback treatments, the uncontrollability group felt less potent than the controllability and no treatment group (q(2, 6) = 5.77, p < .Ol). Similarly, in the no selfesteem feedback treatments, the uncontrollability group felt less potent than the controllability and no treatment group (q(2, 6) = 20.46, p < .Ol). Another significant difference was found between the uncontrollability group with no self-esteem feedback and the uncontrollability group which received self-esteem feedback (q(2, 6) = 15.12, p < .Ol). The rest of the differences were not significant. The means and variances of the depression scales factor are presented in Table 5.’ The univariate analysis shows a main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 5.90, p < .Ol), but the main effect of self-esteem feedback treatments was not significant, although the results are in the predicted direction (F(1, 54) = 2.93, p > .05). The interaction and differences between individual groups were nonsignificant. The ANOVAs for Factors C and D show that none of the differences were significant. ’ The raw scores were transformed into two scores.
520 MEANS
ORBACH
AND
STANDARD SCALES
Treatments
DEVIATIONS ON THE Moor
Controllability groups
AND
HADAS
TABLE 5 SCORES(Z SCORES)ON
OF
QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR ALL
Uncontrollability groups
FACTOR
B (DEPRESSION)
GROUPS”
No treatment groups
Totals for feedback treatment
Self-esteem feedback
-0.364 (0.441)
-0.038 (0.945)
-0.124 (1.134)
-0.18 (0.942)
No self-esteem feedback
- 0.391 (0.453)
0.979 (1.035)
- 0.061 (0.370)
0.18 (0.99)
Totals for controllability treatments
-0.378
0.470
-0.092
(0.766)
(1.211)
(0.872)
a n = 10; N = 60. Standard deviations in parentheses.
The scores on the sadness scale in the depression factor are most important for the issue of the relation of helplessness and depression. For this reason, the scores on this scale were analyzed separately. According to the univariate ANOVA, there was a main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 14.05, p < .Ol) and of self-esteem feedback treatments (F( 1, 54) = 8.46, p < .Ol). The interaction was also significant (F(2, 54) = 7.81, p < .Ol). The Newman-Keuls analysis showed that in the uncontrollability treatment, subjects who received self-esteem feedback were less sad (x = 1.3) than subjects who did not receive such feedback (J? = 5.7). This difference was significant (q(3, 6) = 21.23, p < .Ol). In the self-esteem feedback treatment there was a significant difference (q(3, 6) = 24.12, p < .Ol> between the uncontrollability group (2 = 5.7) and the controllability group (x = .30). DISCUSSION There are clear indications that the manipulation of helplessness was successful. In the no self-esteem treatment, subjects in the uncontrollability groups had a longer response latency, showed less perseverance, and felt less potent and more sad than subjects in the controllability groups. The differences regarding success in word recognition and the depression factor in mood were nearly significant. Moreover, there was a sign&ant main effect of controllability regarding all dependent variables. These results indicate that the operational procedures for inducing the experience of helplessness used in the present study were valid. Other findings show the effectiveness of induced self-esteem in reversing the helplessness effects. Thus, in the uncontrollability condition, subjects who received self-esteem feedback had a shorter response la-
ELIMINATION
OF
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
521
tency, and felt more potent and less sad than subjects who did not receive self-esteem feedback. Moreover, in the self-esteem feedback treatment, there was no difference among controllability, uncontrollability, and no treatment groups with regard to response latency, perseverance, and feelings of potency and sadness. The analysis of correct identification of words shows a significant main effect of feedback. There was, however, no main effect for the mood factor of depression, although the results were in the desired direction. These findings support the notion that self-esteem is an important intervening variable in helplessness and depression. Unlike Teasdale’s (1978) findings, this study shows that reversal of the helplessness deficits can be achieved by other ways than a real success in a task performance. This is consistent with Fitts, Adams, Rudford, Richard, Thomas, Thomas, and Thompson (1971) who maintain that one’s self-esteem is a function of success and failure experiences and of the perception and responses of other people to the individual. The information from the two sources is subjectively interpreted to form a certain self-perception which in turn influences one’s self-esteem. It will be most useful to compare the effects of induced self-esteem and positive reinforcement in future research. The fact that self-esteem feedback by itself was more effective in reversing some deficits (latency response, persistence, sadness, potency) than with others (correct identification of words and depression factor in the mood check) needs some attention. Apparently, the negative experience of helplessness on the one hand, and a subsequent global positive feedback on the other, combine to create a high motivation in performance, but with cautiousness. This is consistent with observations of patients’ reaction to therapy where improvement is gradual rather than drastic. It is most likely that a more prolonged experience of positive feedback could result in more confidence and success. The procedure and findings of this study suggest that in addition to the three attributional dimensions pointed out by Abramson et al. (1978) the degree of importance that one ascribes to the task or the degree to which the task is related to the person’s self-esteem-should be considered in the study of helplessness or its reversal. The interpretations provided above should be regarded with some caution because of several problems. One concerns the lack of an actual measurement of change in self-esteem following the manipulation of positive feedback. The self-esteem manipulation in the present study has an obvious face validity. Yet, it is still possible that the positive feedback produced another impact on the subject, rather than increasing selfesteem. Another problem in this study is the absence of a direct measure of perceived uncontrollability. Although the helplessness manipulation was
522
ORBACH
AND
HADAS
followed very carefully in the procedure it can still be argued that the subjects could have perceived this experience differently (i.e., failure due to inability rather than lack of control). A third problem regards the apparent similarity between the failure in reducing another person’s anxiety and the nature of positive feedback given to that subject about his “ability to make other people confide in him.” It seems likely that the very dimension on which subjects were made to feel shaky was the one for which they subsequently received positive feedback (without experiencing an actual success). It would be interesting to find out if positive comments about personality less relevant to the dimension in which failure occurred can be as successful in eliminating subsequent performance deficits. In conclusion, the results of this study generally support the hypothesis about the role of self-esteem in the elimination of learned helplessness. The direct measurement of the subjective lack of control and in selfesteem future studies, however, will help further clarify the function of self-esteem in both the formation and elimination of learned helplessness. REFERENCES Abramson, Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 49-74. Beck, A. T. Depression: Clinical, experimental and theoretical aspects. New York: Hoeber, 1967. Bibring, E. The mechanism of depression. In P. Greenacre (Ed.), Affective disorders: Psychoanalytic contribution to their study. New York: Intern. Univ. Press, 1953. Blatt, S. J., D’Afllitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. Experience of depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85(4), 883-889. Buchwald, A. M., Coyne, J. C., & Cole. S. C. A critical evaluation of the learned helplessness model of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 180-195. Cameron. N. Personality development andpsychopathology: A dynamic approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963. Cohen, M., Baker, G., Cohen, R. A., Fromm-Reichman, F., & Weigert, E. V. An intensive study of twelve cases of manic-depressive psychosis. Psychiatry, 1954, 17, 103-137. Costello, C. G. A critical review of Seligman’s laboratory experiments on learned helplessness and depression in humans. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 1978,87, 21-31. Depue, R. A., & Monroe S. M. Learned helplessness in the perspective of the depressive disorders: Conceptual and definitional issues. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 3-20.
Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 109-l 16. Fitts, W. H., Adams, J. L., Rudford. G., Richard, W. C., Thomas, B. K., Thomas, M. M., & Thompson, W. The self concept and self actualization. Nashville, Tennessee: Dede Wallace Center Monograph, 1971, 3. Hammen, C. L. & Krantz, S. Effects of success and failure on depressive conditions. Journal
of Abnormal
Psychology,
1976, 85, 577-586.
Jacobson, E. Depression: Comparative studies of normal. ditions. New York: Intern. Univ. Press, 1971.
neurotic,
and psychotic
con-
ELIMINATION
OF
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
523
Klein, D. C., Fencil-Morse, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness, depression and the attribution of failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 508-516. Klein, D. C., & Seligman, M. E. P. Reversal of performance deficits in learned helplessness and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 1l-26. Melges, F. T., & Bowlby, J. Types of hopelessness in psychopathological process. Achives of General Psychiatry, 1969, 20, 690-699. Miller, I. W., & Norman, W. H. Learned helplessness in humans: A review and attributiontheory model. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86, 93-118. Miller, W. R. & Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1975, 84, 228-238. Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness, depression, and the perception of reinforcement. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1976, 14, 7-17. Miller, W. R., Seligman, M. E. P., & Kurlander, H. M. Learned helplessness, depression and anxiety. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 1975, 161, 347-357. Nowlis, V. Research with the mood adjective list. In S. Tomkins & C. Izard (Eds.), Cognition and personality. New York: Spring Pub., 1965. Pittman, N. L., & Pittman, T. S. Effects of amount of helplessness training and internal-external locus of control on mood and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 39-47. Plutchik, R., Platman, S. R., & Fieve, R. R. Self-concepts associated with mania and depression. Psychological Reports, 1970, 27, 399-405. Price, K. P., Tryon, W. W., & Raps, C. S. Learned helplessness and depression in a clinical population: A test of two behavioral hypotheses. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 113-121. Rizley, R. Depression and distortion in attribution of causality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 32-48. Roth, S., & Kubal, L. Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on tasks of differing importance: Facilitation and learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 680-691. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal v. external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80 (Whole No. 609). Seligman, M. E. P. Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975. Seligman, M. E. P. Comment and integration. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 165-179. Seligman, M. E. P., Abramson, L. Y., Semmel, A., & Von Bayer, C. Depressive attributional style. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1979, 88, 242-247. Seligman, M. E. P., Klein, D. C., & Miller, W. R. Depression. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of behavior modi$cation and behavior therapy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Sullivan, H. S. Clinical studies in psychiatry. New York: Norton, 1956. Teasdale, J. D. Effects of real and recalled success on learned helplessness and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 155-164. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
OF RESEARCH
IN PERSONALITY
16, 51 l-523 (1982)
The Elimination of Learned Helplessness Deficits as a Function of Induced Self-Esteem ISRAEL ORBACH Bar-llan
AND
ZIVA
HADAS
University
The efficiency of induced self-esteem in reducing various deficits caused by learned helplessness was tested in this study. Sixty undergraduate students were divided into three equal groups. The first group received uncontrollability treatment, the second received controllability treatment, and the third received no treatment. The subjects in the first two groups were asked to reduce the anxiety reaction of a confederate, as shown on an oscilloscope, by talking to him. The anxiety waves were shown on the oscilloscope and were preprogrammed so that subjects in the uncontrollability treatment group experienced lack of control over the results, while the ones in the controllability group were led to belive that they successfully controlled the changes of the confederate’s anxiety. Then, half of the subjects in each of the three groups received positive feedback on their personality, while the other half received no feedback. In the last phase all subjects participated in a word recognition task using a tachistoscope operated by a combined push-button and microphone device. Response latency, number of correct identifications, and persistence in the task were recorded. In addition, the subjects completed a mood scale. The results indicate that subjects who received induced self-esteem treatment showed significantly more deficit reversal as reflected in response latency, persistence, feelings of potency, and sadness. The results are discussed in relation to (a) the assumption regarding the similarities between learned helplessness and depression, and (b) the usefulness of induced self-esteem as a form of treatment for helplessness depression.
Learned helplessness has been described by Seligman (1975) as the end result of a process in which an organism learns to believe that desired outcomes are independent of its responses (uncontrollability). Such an experience has been found to cause deficits in motivation, cognition, and emotion which are generalized to new situations when uncontrollability no longer exists (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Seligman, 1975; Seligman, Klein, & Miller, 1976). Seligman (1975) argued that there is a strong similarity between learned helplessness and depression in humans. His argument was supported by some studies (Hammen & Krantz, 1976; Klein, Fencil-Morse, & SeligRequests for reprints should be sent to Israel Orbach, Department of Psychology, BarRan University, Ramat-Can, Israel. 511 0092-6566/82/040511-13$02.00.0 Copyright 0 1982 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
512
ORBACH
AND
HADAS
man, 1976; Klein & Seligman, 1976; Miller & Seligman, 1976; Miller, Seligman, & Kurlander, 1975; Pittman & Pittman, 1979; Rizley, 1978). Others, however, did not support Seligman’s model or they interpreted the data differently (Buchwald, Coyne, & Cole, 1978; Costello, 1978; Depue & Monroe, 1978; Price, Tryon, & Raps, 1978). Abramson et al. (1978) and Seligman (1978) reformulated the theory, emphasizing that learned helplessness can serve as a model for helplessness depression caused by uncontrollability. They claim that there are three attributional dimensions which are crucial in explaining both helplessness and depression: (a) When uncontrollability is attributed to internal factors of personality rather than external factors, it leads to lowered self-esteem; (b) attribution of uncontrollability to stable factors leads to deficits extended across time; and (c) attribution of lack of control to global factors leads to generalization of helplessness symptoms across situations. According to Seligman (1978), the reformulated model resolves the inadequacies of the previous model in explaining at least some types of depression. Based on the new model, Abramson et al. (1978) conclude that lowered self-esteem is actually one of the outcomes of depression and helplessness, while theoretical formulations and empirical studies view self-esteem as an intervening process in causation and reversal of both depression and helplessness. The centrality of impaired self-esteem in some types of depression is emphasized by Beck (1%7), Bibring (1953), Blatt, D’Afflitti, and Quinlan (1976), Cohen, Baker, Cohen, Fromm-Reichman, and Weigert (1954), Jacobson (1971), Melges and Bowlby (1969), and Sullivan (1956). Plutchik, Platman, and Fieve (1970), for example, found that feelings of depression are experienced as the “least-liked” me. Cameron (1963) states that some of the factors which lead to depression are the loss of love, status, and prestige. Such factors are known as components of self-esteem (Sullivan, 1956). Viewing self-esteem as an intervening variable in helplessness or depression implies that self-esteem is a structural entity of personality which organizes behavior and integrates experiences and perception on the basis of preexisting beliefs regarding oneself. Thus, the uncontrollability experience affects self-esteem through changes in self perception. A decrease in self-esteem leads in turn to the experience of helplessness. If this assumption is valid, one can hypothesize that changing a person’s self perception directly can increase his self-esteem and, subsequently, eliminate his learned helplessness deficits. Support for the notion that self-esteem is a mediating process in depression is found indirectly in Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, and Von Bayer (1979). They report that depressed students, as opposed to nondepressed ones, attributed bad outcomes to internal, stable, and global personality
ELIMINATION
OF LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
513
aspects (namely, the self). More importantly, relative to the nondepressed, the depressed attributed good outcomes to external and unstable factors. Similarly, Miller and Norman (1979) and Roth and Kubal (1975) reported that the experience of uncontrollability in important tasks for the individual led to helplessness, whereas unimportant tasks did not. Dweck and Reppucci (1973) found that children who attributed lack of control to their ability showed more deficits than children who attributed lack of control to their performance. Now, why should depressed students attribute bad outcomes to themselves and good outcomes to external factors? Why should failure on an important task or attribution of failure to ability cause helplessness to a greater degree than unimportant tasks or failure due to performance? It is difficult to answer these questions unless one assumes an intervening process, such as self-esteem, which organizes behavior and determines one’s attributional processes. Variables such as importance of a task or sense of ability are closely related to self-esteem. Failure under such circumstances hurts one’s self-esteem which in turn brings about feelings of helplessness and depression. This issue has important implications for the reversal of helplessness deficits. The reformulated model of helplessness clearly states that lowered self-esteem is an outcome of controllability. Thus, merely increasing self-esteem cannot eliminate learned helplessness unless it is accompanied by an experience of actual success (Klein & Seligman, 1976; Teasdale, 1978). Indeed, Abramson et al. (1978) states that changing one’s “attributional dimensions” in the direction of increasing selfesteem, in addition to increasing the probability of success, can help reverse the deficits. Abramson et al. (1978), however, do not describe clearly how this happens. On the basis of the new model, one can infer that changing the attributional dimensions helps the depressed person to attribute future successes to internal causes, thereby turning the success into a reinforcement for the response which caused the success. This response, then, reoccurs until the deficits disappear. Unlike the above notion, the self-esteem as a mediator hypothesis asserts that induced self-esteem can help reverse the negative effects of helplessness even without exposure to the experience of actual success. This hypothesis was tested by exposing subjects to a learned helplessness procedure by failing them on a task. This task required that they reduce the anxiety of another person. Then, some of the subjects were given positive feedback about their personality which was unrelated to the task. The degree of deficit reversal was tested by means of a word recognition task and response to a mood check list.
514
ORBACH
AND
HADAS
METHOD Design The study was based on a 2 x 3 factorial design with three levels of controllability (controllability, no controllability, and no treatment groups) and two levels of feedback (positive feedback, no feedback). The dependent variables consisted of a number of measures related to performance in a word recognition task (response latency, persistence, number of correct identifications of words) and a mood check list.
Subjects Sixty male first-year psychology students participated in the study. They were randomly selected from a group of 80 subjects and equally divided into each of the six experimental groups. For his participation, each subject received experiment credits in an introductory psychology course. Prior to the experiment, subjects responded to Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (1966). This questionnaire was introduced as a personality test, the results of which were needed for a later phase of the experiment.’
Measures and Procedure The experiment took place in a laboratory crowded with electric wires and various instruments. The experiment was introduced to each subject as a study of the relation between some personality aspects of psychology students, the ability to reduce anxiety of another person, and the students’ sensitivity in perception. It was emphasized that such abilities are important for a psychologist. If the subject still agreed to participate in the study, he was told that a person (a confederate), whose level of anxiety was raised experimentally, would be placed in an adjoining room with a one-way mirror and that his pulse and blood pressure would be represented on the screen of an oscilloscope by a running wave. Each subject was shown a sample of high and low amplitudes of the wave as indications of high and low anxiety.* The subject’s task was to reduce the other person’s anxiety by talking to him via an intercom. It was pointed out that the changes in anxiety levels would be shown on the oscilloscope which was visible to the subject. The subject was advised that when the wave dropped, he had succeeded in reducing the confederate’s anxiety. The subjects were also informed that they could see the confederate through the mirror and talk to him via the intercom, but that he would not answer.
Manipulation
of Controllability
and Uncontrollability
In the controllability group, the waves shown on the oscilloscope were controlled by the experimenter. There were four possible prearranged amplitudes of waves. In the first few minutes (about 3), each subject received four reinforcements (four reductions in amplitude). He was asked by the experimenter “What, in your words, has an impact on the person in the other room?” On the basis of the subject’s specific answer (e.g., “my low voice,” a certain word, talking about a certain topic),’ the wave was lowered 10 more ’ The use of this scale had a double purpose: (1) to study the effects of locus of control on helplessness and reversal of its symptoms (although findings were not significant in most comparisons), and (2) to use it as a face validity technique for information given to subjects in the positive feedback groups. * This procedure was pretested before the actual experiment took place. All subjects in the pretest and in the experiment could easily attribute the “success” to their behavior and tended to repeat that particular response. 3 No subject refused to participate in the study.
ELIMINATION
OF LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
515
times, on the 10 occasions in which that particular response was repeated by the subject. Each subject was encouraged to talk until he received 10 such reinforcements. In any case, this procedure did not last for more than 10 min. This procedure took place before the recording of the dependent measures. The fluctuations in the waves of each subject in the controllability group were recorded by a computer and then used for the manipulation of the uncontrollability treatment. For each subject in the uncontrollability groups, a recorded series of waves from a subject in the controllability situation was randomly chosen so that the fluctuations were not related to any specific response of the subject in the uncontrollability groups. He was actually yoked to a record of another subject in the controllability group. Subjects in the no treatment groups did not participate in this part. Munipularion offeedback. After the first part was over, each subject in the feedback groups was reminded that sometime ago he had answered a questionnaire which revealed some of his personality characteristics. He was offered the analysis of his answers. In the positive feedback groups the experimenter read the following summary: “This person is interested in people and is ready to help them when needed. He is able to express concern and respect for others. He has the ability to make people confide in him. He is also sensitive, thoughtful, and flexible enough to establish good rapport with others.” Subjects in the no feedback treatment group received no feedback at all. Dependent variables. All 60 subjects participated in the third phase of the experiment. In this part they were asked to participate in a word recognition task as a test of sensitivity in perception. Five different words were used in this test. The words were screened on a tachistoscope operated by a microphone and push-button combination. The instructions for this part were as follows: Each word will be shown on the screen for a very short time. With its disappearance you are to say what you have seen by using this microphone. Please react after every exposure even if you don’t identify it. You may say “I didn’t see anything” or you can name one letter or the word you think you saw. You should then press this button and the same word will reappear. You are allowed 30 trials for each word, if you wish. If you want to go from one word into a new word before you have used all 30 trials, tell the experimenter and he will change it for you. The tachistoscope was operated with the aid of a computer so that only the full series of actions in the correct order (speaking into the microphone and pressing the button) would release a pulse to expose the word. Duration of exposure varied from 10 to 97 msec. Each exposure was 3 msec longer than the previous one. The response latency included the time sequence between pressing the button for the onset of a word and pressing it for another trial of the same word. This time sequence was recorded by computer.4 The tachistoscope operation was automatically terminated after 30 trials of each word or by the experimenter when the subject asked to pass on to a new word before using all 30 trials5 4 This time duration from one button press to another included the subject’s verbal attempt to identify the word exposed on the screen. Such a measure, although more complicated than simple response time, can give more information about the helpless subject’s state of mind. This measure included, in addition to response time, also the subject’s confusion, forgetting to press the button, inappropriate pressure on the button, etc. 5 The experimenter also stopped the tachistoscope operation when the subject successfully identified a word before the 30 trials were up, or when a subject did not press for
516
ORBACH
AND
HADAS
The dependent variable consisted of the following measures: (a) motivational effects: (1) response latency in the word recognition task, for the trials in which the word was not correctly identified; (2) persistence in the word recognition task. This measure consisted of the mean number of requests to go from one unidentified word to a new word, before utilizing all 30 available trials. A high score indicates a low degree of persistence. (b) cognitive effects: This consisted of the number of correct identifications of words in the word recognition task. (c) Emotional effects. This measure was obtained by a mood scale (Nowlis, 1965) administered to all subjects following the word recognition task. It included the following scales: sadness, anxiety, aggression. potency, concentration, nonchalance, fatigue, vigor, controllability, and sociability. At the end of the experiment the subject was informed that he would receive a letter explaining the nature of the study and its procedure.
RESULTS Two multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) for a 2 x 3 design were employed for the analysis of the data. One multivariate analysis was used for the motivational and cognitive effects, and the other for the emotional effects. In addition, a simple effects analysis and the Newman-Keuls (in Winer, 1971) were used to assess differences among individual groups when it was permitted by a statistical rationale. The MANOVA for the motivational and cognitive effects yielded a significant main effect of controllability (F(6, 106) = 6.99, p < .Ol), and a significant main effect of feedback treatment (F(3, 52) = 8.42, p < .Ol). These significance levels were based on the Pillia Trace criterion. The interaction was not significant according to the Pillia Trace, but it was significant according to the Wilks criterion (F(6, 104) = 3.47, p < .04). Similarly, the MANOVA for the emotional effects yielded significant differences (Pillia Trace criterion) for controllability (F(4, 108) = 8.03, p < .Ol), feedback (F(2, 53) = 4.33, p < .02), and for the interaction (F(4, 108) = 2.72, p < .05). The univariate analysis and the simple effect tests will be presented below for each dependent variable separately. Motivational Effects The means and standard deviations of the response latencies for the five words on the recognition task in each of the groups are presented in Table 1. The univariant analysis reveals that there was a significant main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 22.13, p < .Ol), a another trial because he was sure he had identified the word. In these cases, response latency was not recorded. The response latency recording was automatically set on by one button pressing and set off by the following button pressing. Thus, in cases of correct or assumed identification of the word, the subjects did not press the button for the offset of the response latency.
ELIMINATION
OF LEARNED
TABLE
517
HELPLESSNESS
1
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF RESWNSE LATENCY IN THE WORD RECOGNITIONTASK FORALL GROUPS’ Controllability groups
Treatment Self-esteem feedback
Uncontrollability groups
No treatment groups
Totals for feedback treatment
1013.48 (270.83)
1439.68 (426.62)
1203.91 (425.05)
1219.13 (408.30)
self-esteem feedback
1108.59 (333.83)
2949.53 (715.97)
1409.91 (584.96)
1822.68 (986.06)
Totals for controllability treatments
1061.21
2194.60
1306.91
(299.82)
(963.81)
(SO8.75)
No
a n = 10; N = 60; response time in milliseconds;
standard deviations in parentheses.
main effect of feedback treatments (F(1, 54) = 14.71, p < .Ol), and a significant interaction (F(2, 54) = 5.90, p < .Ol). The simple effects analysis shows that, when no feedback was given, there was a significant difference among the groups in response latency (F(2, 27) = 41.72, p < .Ol), namely the controllability group was faster than the no treatment group and the uncontrollability groups. When feedback was given, however, there was no significant difference among the three groups (F(2, 27) = 1.94, p > .05). The Newman-Keuls yielded a significant difference in the uncontrollability treatment between the feedback group and the no feedback group (q(3, 6) = 7.49, p < .lO). The means and standard deviations of changing an unidentified word for a new one before using the 30 allowed trials are presented in Table 2. This measure has been defined as an indication of persistence. The MEANS
TABLE 2 AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF NUMBER OF REQUESTS WORD RECOGNITION TASK (MEASURE OF PERSISTENCE)
Treatment Self-esteem feedback No
self-esteem feedback
Totals for controllability treatments
TO A NEW WORD IN THE FOREACH GROUPS Totals for feedback treatment
Controllability groups
Uncontrollability groups
No treatment groups
0.20 (0.42)
0.80 (1.03)
0.20 (0.42)
0.40 (0.72)
0.20 (0.63)
3.30 (1.15)
(Y::)
(1.79)
0.20
2.05
0.55
(0.53)
(1.66)
(1.23)
’ n = 10; N = 60. Standard deviations in parentheses.
1.47
518
ORBACH
AND
TABLE MEANS
AND STANDARD
Treatment
HADAS
3
DEVIATIONS OF CORRECT RESEQNSES IN THE TASK FOR THE VARIOUS GROUPS”
Controllability groups
Uncontrollability groups
WORD RECOGNITION
No treatment groups
Totals for feedback treatment
Self-esteem feedback
4.2 (0.63)
2.5 (1.43)
3.6 (1.57)
3.43 (3.42)
No self-esteem feedback
3.3 (1.49)
1.0 (1.05)
2.7 (1.63)
2.33 (1.53)
Totals for controllability treatments
3.75
1.75
3.5
(3.75)
(1.34)
(1.34)
a n = 10; N = 60. Standard deviations in parentheses.
univariate ANOVA shows a main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 19.53, p < .Ol), a main effect of feedback treatments (F(1, 54) = 17.25, p < .Ol), and a significant interaction (F(2, 54) = 3.41, p < .Ol). The simple effect analysis indicates that there was a significant difference only in the no feedback treatments (F(2, 27) = 19.03, p < .05), namely, the controllability group was the most persistent, followed by the no treatment group and then by the uncontrollability group. Similarly, there was a significant difference between the self-esteem feedback group and the no self-esteem feedback group only in the uncontrollability treatment (F(1, 27) = 4.82, p < .05), namely the first group showed more persistence than the second group. Cognitive Effects
Cognitive deficits were measured by the number of correct identifications on the five-word recognition test. The means and variances of correct recognitions in each group are presented in Table 3. The univariate ANOVA indicated a main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 11.52, p < .Ol) and a main effect of self-esteem feedback treatments (F( 1, 54) = 9.93, p < .Ol). The interaction was found to be nonsignificant (F(2, 54) = -33, p > .05). None of the simple effects comparison were significant although the differences were in the hypothesized direction. Emotional Effects
A factor analysis (principal component with iterations, orthogonal rotations) of the various mood scales revealed four factors which account for 73% of the variability? Factor A (competence) included the scales 6 The 10 mood scales included 64 items. The factor analysis was performed in order to identify any existing factors in scales scores.
ELIMINATION
OF LEARNED
519
HELPLESSNESS
TABLE4 MEANS AND
STANDARD
Treatment
DEVIATIONS ON THE Moor
Controllability groups
OF SCORES(2 SCORES)ON FACTOR A QUESTIONNAIRE FORALL GROUPS” Uncontrollability groups
(POTENCY)
No treatment groups
SCALES
Totals for feedback treatment
Self-esteem feedback
0.764 (0.40)
-0.167 (0.628)
0.078 (0.640)
0.23 (0.857)
No self-esteem feedback
0.293 (0.835)
-1.318 (0.779)
0.349 (0.599)
-0.23
Totals for controllability treatments
0.529 (0.682)
-0.742 (0.907)
(1.15)
0.213 (0.619)
n n = 10; N = 60. Standard deviations in parentheses.
of potency, vigor, controllability, and with a negative sign the scales of anxiety and nonchalance; Factor B (depression) included the scales of sadness, aggression, fatigue, and with a negative sign the scale of initiative; Factor C included the scale of concentration, and Factor D the nonchalance and sociability scales. Factors C and D had a very low eigenvalue: .68 and .63, respectively. The means and variances of the competence scales factor are shown in Table 4. The univariate ANOVA indicated that there was a main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 20.00, p < .Ol), a main effect of self-esteem feedback treatments (F(1, 54) = 6.99, p < .Ol), and a significant interaction (F(2, 54) = 5.74, p < .Ol). The Newman-Keuls for simple effects showed that in the self-esteem feedback treatments, the uncontrollability group felt less potent than the controllability and no treatment group (q(2, 6) = 5.77, p < .Ol). Similarly, in the no selfesteem feedback treatments, the uncontrollability group felt less potent than the controllability and no treatment group (q(2, 6) = 20.46, p < .Ol). Another significant difference was found between the uncontrollability group with no self-esteem feedback and the uncontrollability group which received self-esteem feedback (q(2, 6) = 15.12, p < .Ol). The rest of the differences were not significant. The means and variances of the depression scales factor are presented in Table 5.’ The univariate analysis shows a main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 5.90, p < .Ol), but the main effect of self-esteem feedback treatments was not significant, although the results are in the predicted direction (F(1, 54) = 2.93, p > .05). The interaction and differences between individual groups were nonsignificant. The ANOVAs for Factors C and D show that none of the differences were significant. ’ The raw scores were transformed into two scores.
520 MEANS
ORBACH
AND
STANDARD SCALES
Treatments
DEVIATIONS ON THE Moor
Controllability groups
AND
HADAS
TABLE 5 SCORES(Z SCORES)ON
OF
QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR ALL
Uncontrollability groups
FACTOR
B (DEPRESSION)
GROUPS”
No treatment groups
Totals for feedback treatment
Self-esteem feedback
-0.364 (0.441)
-0.038 (0.945)
-0.124 (1.134)
-0.18 (0.942)
No self-esteem feedback
- 0.391 (0.453)
0.979 (1.035)
- 0.061 (0.370)
0.18 (0.99)
Totals for controllability treatments
-0.378
0.470
-0.092
(0.766)
(1.211)
(0.872)
a n = 10; N = 60. Standard deviations in parentheses.
The scores on the sadness scale in the depression factor are most important for the issue of the relation of helplessness and depression. For this reason, the scores on this scale were analyzed separately. According to the univariate ANOVA, there was a main effect of controllability treatments (F(2, 54) = 14.05, p < .Ol) and of self-esteem feedback treatments (F( 1, 54) = 8.46, p < .Ol). The interaction was also significant (F(2, 54) = 7.81, p < .Ol). The Newman-Keuls analysis showed that in the uncontrollability treatment, subjects who received self-esteem feedback were less sad (x = 1.3) than subjects who did not receive such feedback (J? = 5.7). This difference was significant (q(3, 6) = 21.23, p < .Ol). In the self-esteem feedback treatment there was a significant difference (q(3, 6) = 24.12, p < .Ol> between the uncontrollability group (2 = 5.7) and the controllability group (x = .30). DISCUSSION There are clear indications that the manipulation of helplessness was successful. In the no self-esteem treatment, subjects in the uncontrollability groups had a longer response latency, showed less perseverance, and felt less potent and more sad than subjects in the controllability groups. The differences regarding success in word recognition and the depression factor in mood were nearly significant. Moreover, there was a sign&ant main effect of controllability regarding all dependent variables. These results indicate that the operational procedures for inducing the experience of helplessness used in the present study were valid. Other findings show the effectiveness of induced self-esteem in reversing the helplessness effects. Thus, in the uncontrollability condition, subjects who received self-esteem feedback had a shorter response la-
ELIMINATION
OF
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
521
tency, and felt more potent and less sad than subjects who did not receive self-esteem feedback. Moreover, in the self-esteem feedback treatment, there was no difference among controllability, uncontrollability, and no treatment groups with regard to response latency, perseverance, and feelings of potency and sadness. The analysis of correct identification of words shows a significant main effect of feedback. There was, however, no main effect for the mood factor of depression, although the results were in the desired direction. These findings support the notion that self-esteem is an important intervening variable in helplessness and depression. Unlike Teasdale’s (1978) findings, this study shows that reversal of the helplessness deficits can be achieved by other ways than a real success in a task performance. This is consistent with Fitts, Adams, Rudford, Richard, Thomas, Thomas, and Thompson (1971) who maintain that one’s self-esteem is a function of success and failure experiences and of the perception and responses of other people to the individual. The information from the two sources is subjectively interpreted to form a certain self-perception which in turn influences one’s self-esteem. It will be most useful to compare the effects of induced self-esteem and positive reinforcement in future research. The fact that self-esteem feedback by itself was more effective in reversing some deficits (latency response, persistence, sadness, potency) than with others (correct identification of words and depression factor in the mood check) needs some attention. Apparently, the negative experience of helplessness on the one hand, and a subsequent global positive feedback on the other, combine to create a high motivation in performance, but with cautiousness. This is consistent with observations of patients’ reaction to therapy where improvement is gradual rather than drastic. It is most likely that a more prolonged experience of positive feedback could result in more confidence and success. The procedure and findings of this study suggest that in addition to the three attributional dimensions pointed out by Abramson et al. (1978) the degree of importance that one ascribes to the task or the degree to which the task is related to the person’s self-esteem-should be considered in the study of helplessness or its reversal. The interpretations provided above should be regarded with some caution because of several problems. One concerns the lack of an actual measurement of change in self-esteem following the manipulation of positive feedback. The self-esteem manipulation in the present study has an obvious face validity. Yet, it is still possible that the positive feedback produced another impact on the subject, rather than increasing selfesteem. Another problem in this study is the absence of a direct measure of perceived uncontrollability. Although the helplessness manipulation was
522
ORBACH
AND
HADAS
followed very carefully in the procedure it can still be argued that the subjects could have perceived this experience differently (i.e., failure due to inability rather than lack of control). A third problem regards the apparent similarity between the failure in reducing another person’s anxiety and the nature of positive feedback given to that subject about his “ability to make other people confide in him.” It seems likely that the very dimension on which subjects were made to feel shaky was the one for which they subsequently received positive feedback (without experiencing an actual success). It would be interesting to find out if positive comments about personality less relevant to the dimension in which failure occurred can be as successful in eliminating subsequent performance deficits. In conclusion, the results of this study generally support the hypothesis about the role of self-esteem in the elimination of learned helplessness. The direct measurement of the subjective lack of control and in selfesteem future studies, however, will help further clarify the function of self-esteem in both the formation and elimination of learned helplessness. REFERENCES Abramson, Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 49-74. Beck, A. T. Depression: Clinical, experimental and theoretical aspects. New York: Hoeber, 1967. Bibring, E. The mechanism of depression. In P. Greenacre (Ed.), Affective disorders: Psychoanalytic contribution to their study. New York: Intern. Univ. Press, 1953. Blatt, S. J., D’Afllitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. Experience of depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85(4), 883-889. Buchwald, A. M., Coyne, J. C., & Cole. S. C. A critical evaluation of the learned helplessness model of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 180-195. Cameron. N. Personality development andpsychopathology: A dynamic approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963. Cohen, M., Baker, G., Cohen, R. A., Fromm-Reichman, F., & Weigert, E. V. An intensive study of twelve cases of manic-depressive psychosis. Psychiatry, 1954, 17, 103-137. Costello, C. G. A critical review of Seligman’s laboratory experiments on learned helplessness and depression in humans. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 1978,87, 21-31. Depue, R. A., & Monroe S. M. Learned helplessness in the perspective of the depressive disorders: Conceptual and definitional issues. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 3-20.
Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 109-l 16. Fitts, W. H., Adams, J. L., Rudford. G., Richard, W. C., Thomas, B. K., Thomas, M. M., & Thompson, W. The self concept and self actualization. Nashville, Tennessee: Dede Wallace Center Monograph, 1971, 3. Hammen, C. L. & Krantz, S. Effects of success and failure on depressive conditions. Journal
of Abnormal
Psychology,
1976, 85, 577-586.
Jacobson, E. Depression: Comparative studies of normal. ditions. New York: Intern. Univ. Press, 1971.
neurotic,
and psychotic
con-
ELIMINATION
OF
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
523
Klein, D. C., Fencil-Morse, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness, depression and the attribution of failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 508-516. Klein, D. C., & Seligman, M. E. P. Reversal of performance deficits in learned helplessness and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 1l-26. Melges, F. T., & Bowlby, J. Types of hopelessness in psychopathological process. Achives of General Psychiatry, 1969, 20, 690-699. Miller, I. W., & Norman, W. H. Learned helplessness in humans: A review and attributiontheory model. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86, 93-118. Miller, W. R. & Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1975, 84, 228-238. Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness, depression, and the perception of reinforcement. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1976, 14, 7-17. Miller, W. R., Seligman, M. E. P., & Kurlander, H. M. Learned helplessness, depression and anxiety. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 1975, 161, 347-357. Nowlis, V. Research with the mood adjective list. In S. Tomkins & C. Izard (Eds.), Cognition and personality. New York: Spring Pub., 1965. Pittman, N. L., & Pittman, T. S. Effects of amount of helplessness training and internal-external locus of control on mood and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 39-47. Plutchik, R., Platman, S. R., & Fieve, R. R. Self-concepts associated with mania and depression. Psychological Reports, 1970, 27, 399-405. Price, K. P., Tryon, W. W., & Raps, C. S. Learned helplessness and depression in a clinical population: A test of two behavioral hypotheses. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 113-121. Rizley, R. Depression and distortion in attribution of causality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 32-48. Roth, S., & Kubal, L. Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on tasks of differing importance: Facilitation and learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 680-691. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal v. external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80 (Whole No. 609). Seligman, M. E. P. Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975. Seligman, M. E. P. Comment and integration. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 165-179. Seligman, M. E. P., Abramson, L. Y., Semmel, A., & Von Bayer, C. Depressive attributional style. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1979, 88, 242-247. Seligman, M. E. P., Klein, D. C., & Miller, W. R. Depression. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of behavior modi$cation and behavior therapy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Sullivan, H. S. Clinical studies in psychiatry. New York: Norton, 1956. Teasdale, J. D. Effects of real and recalled success on learned helplessness and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 155-164. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.