- Email: [email protected]
The learned helplessness effect: An expectancy, discrimination deficit, or motivational-Induced persistence?
JOURNAL
OF RESEARCH
14, 158- 169(1980)
IN PERSONALITY
The Learned Helplessness Effect: An Expectancy, Discrimination Deficit, or MotivationalInduced Persistence? J. LEVIS
DONALD State
University
of New
York
at Binghamton
It would be difficult in recent years to find another psychological topic which has stimulated more research activity, theoretical interest, arguments, and general confusion than that generated by the concept of learned helplessness. The credit for this current state of affairs is shared by M. E. P. Seligman and S. F. Maier (Seligman, 1975; Maier & Seligman, 1976). These investigators not only suggested studying a neglected research paradigm but offered a controversial theory that has reawakened a dormant historical debate between S-R and cognitive psychologists. The broad interest in the learned helplessness area is also related to its suggestive relevance for understanding infrahuman, human, and most importantly, clinical data. W. T. McReynolds (1980) in the preceding article has added additional fuel to the controversy through his critical metaphoric reasoning and by his advancement of an alternative S-R theoretical position. In analyzing these two different theoretical approaches, it is desirable to provide a critique that will produce a positive effect on the field by clarifying issues of contention and pinpointing weaknesses in need of correction. This assignment elicits some trepidation since this reviewer cannot resist the opportunity to suggest yet another alternative theory. Whether this effort will result in muddying the waters or eliminating the pollutants is a judgment which must be left to the reader. THE LEARNED HELPLESSNESS EFFECT
In providing a critique of this area it may prove useful to rereview the theoretical models under discussion and to establish again precisely what Requests for reprints should be sent to: Donald J. Levis, Department of Psychology, State University of New York, Binghamton NY 13901.
158 0092-6566/80/020158-12$02.00/O Copyright All tights
@ 1980 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.
LEARNED
159
HELPLESSNESS
is meant by the learned helplessness effect. Addressing the latter task first, Maier and Seligman (1976) have defined the effect procedurally via their conceptualization of instrumental learning as representing environmental contingencies along a two-dimensional space (see McReynolds, 1980, Figure 1, p. 142). According to their conceptualization, a response R stands in a relation of control to a reinforcer RF if and only if p(RFIR) # p(RF/@. That is to say, a response will procedurally change what the subject receives. However, a response R stands in relation of noncontrol to a reinforcer RF if and only ifp(RF/R) = p)(RF/ii). In other words, a response is independent of reinforcement and will not change procedurally what the subject receives. The learned helplessness effect is produced in the latter case in which the conditional probability of an outcome, given a specific response, does not differ from the conditional probability of reinforcement in the absence of that response. The resulting behavioral effect following exposure to such a procedure is a predicted decrement in acquisition of an instrumental behavior. In determining whether the learned helplessness effect results from experiencing uncontrollable outcomes as opposed to merely experiencing the outcome itself, Maier and Seligman (1976) rely on the use of the “triadic” design. The first group receives as its pretreatment manipulation an experimentally manipulated contingency that can be altered directly by a given response. The second group, the learned helplessness condition, is exposed during pretreatment to exactly the same physical outcome as its counterpart in the first group via a “yoking” procedure which attempts to ensure the subject’s responses have no direct effect on procedurally modifying these outcomes. The third group of the triadic design receives no pretreatment manipulation. Following the above manipulations, all groups are tested on a new task where the procedural contingency used can be altered directly by a given response. During this test phase, the effects of the helplessness manipulation should be manifested in Group 2, the yoked group, by a recorded response decrement in acquisition of the new task. It should be noted that Seligman and Maier are primarily referring to the use of aversive reinforcement. LEARNED Expectancy
HELPLESSNESS
THEORIES
Theory
Seligman and Maier’s theory of learned helplessness can be conceptualized as involving three separate stages(Maier & Seligman, 1976). The first ingredient requires the organism to receive information that the probability of the outcome is independent of performing a given response class. The second stage occurs when the organism registers or processes cognitively the information about the contingency or lack of it outlined in the first stage. The cognitive transformation involved in the second stage
160
DONALD
J. LEVIS
can be subdivided into two processes: (a) the learning that a contingency exists concerning the independence of responding and outcome, and (b) the development of an expectation that responding and outcome will remain independent on future trials. The third stage involves the generalization or transferring to new learning situations the expectation that responding and outcome are independent. The theory also states that a motivational and emotional component are initially produced via exposure to the helplessness procedure (the first stage). Both of these components are viewed as being transient effects with the most striking deficit occurring with the motivational components. This reduction in the motivational state is believed to occur concomitant with the second stage of the theory. Thus, once learned helplessness is developed the theory can be classified as a nonmotivational, cognitive viewpoint. A critical review of expectancy theory has already been provided by this reviewer (Levis, 1976) and need not be repeated here in detail. Problems are believed to exist in defining the learned helplessness effect, in the use of the yoked procedure, and in operational specificity of the theoretical components of the model. The central problem with the theory, however, resides in its reliance upon an expectancy construct. Theoretical purists are not necessarily, on a priori grounds, opposed to the incorporation of cognitive constructs. The fact that an organism responds to stimuli requires a mechanism for internal registering of the external event (e.g., discrimination). The problem is that cognitive theories have a history of incorporating hypothetical constructs that are illusionary in nature in that they can only be judged as operative after the fact by measuring the outcome or dependent variable. More precisely how does the scientist determine independent of outcome when or whether a given procedural manipulation has been registered cognitively? Once registered, what are the rules and measurement criteria for determining whether or not an “expectation” will generalize on future trials or effect current behavior? What are the parameters responsible for facilitating this generalization process, and what are the rules which determine its boundary conditions? What exactly is meant by an expectation, how can it be identified, and more to the point, how can this construct be operationally linked to antecedent conditions? Answers will not be forthcoming to the above questions as long as conditions for producing the expectancy are solely defined by a general procedure manipulation and as long as the determination of whether an expectancy occurred or not is defined solely by the empirical effect. Without specifying a separate and independent measuring index of the construct, one could just as readily postulate that the helplessness effect is due to a suppression of the will or a hindrance in development of the ego.
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
161
Furthermore, the procedural manipulation for producing the learned helplessness effect is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for determining whether an expectancy will effect behavior. If the effect occurs, the expectancy was acted upon, if the effect doesn’t occur the expectancy was not transferred to action. The theorist can’t lose. Unless, the expectancy construct is tied to an observable stimulus or response class, the establishment of functional relationships among variables will be difficult if not impossible to achieve. Schedule-Shift Theory of Discrimination
As might be expected from the foregoing, this reviewer is in general agreement with McReynolds’ (1980) critical analysis of Seligman and Maier’s “expectancy” account of the learned helplessness effect. McReynolds makes many excellent points, the most important being his analysis that the helplessness paradigm simply reflects a particular case of a schedule-shift effect. This conceptual analysis by McReynolds places the helplessness paradigm within a larger family of data involving similar manipulations studied by experimental psychologists. McReynolds’ theoretical contribution is to return helplessness theory to an S-R framework which provides a better model for answering some of the questions raised in opposition to expectancy theory. He offers an alternative explanation involving a schedule-shift discrimination theory. This explanation points to a body of literature involving partial reinforcement manipulations which have demonstrated that acquisition and extinction under such a schedule is slowed or retarded relative to an organism receiving continuous reinforcement. Discrimination theory suggests that the noted deficit in responding is a function of the organism’s inability to detect or discriminate changes in reward/relief scheduling. In applying this interpretation to the learned helpless paradigm, McReynolds (1980) states: . . . an organism subject to continuous free or no relief is slower to begin responding when contingent relief is abruptly instituted compared to an organism operating under two conditions of contingent relief and an untrained organism because the former must first discriminate the changes in relief scheduling before it can begin responding appropriately to that change whereas the latter two conditions require no such discrimination. (p. 152)
According to McReynolds, the main advantage of his position over that proposed by Seligman and Maier is that discrimination theory is less complex and presumptive, resulting in a more parsimonious interpretation. As McReynolds noted, the data are consistent with the prediction from schedule-shift discrimination theory that any procedure, experimental or methodological, that reduces the probability that an organism will
162
DONALD
J. LEVIS
make the response designated for later reinforcement will reduce the likelihood that a change horn response-independent to responsedependent conditions will be detected. According to McReynolds, schedule-shift, discrimination theory, unfortunately, does not result in any significant differential predictions when contrasted with expectancy theory. He sees the major difference between positions as being discrimination theory’s failure to make any concrete statements concerning the putative effects of positive outcomes such as free reward (which this reviewer is not sure is the case). In some way discrimination theory also falls into the same circular trap previously outlined for expectancy theory. Discrimination as an empirical statement simply refers to the observation that differential responding has been recorded to a given stimulus situation. When the term is used as an explanatory concept only the illusion of parsimony is achieved. The theorist is still faced with the task of specifying the necessary antecedent conditions required to insure that the discrimination is registered and acted upon without relying upon an analysis of the dependent measure. However, this circularity can be attenuated somewhat by carefully specifying at an empirical level the stimulus and response requirement necessary for forming the required discrimination. In order to make predictions from discrimination theory, more precise statement must be made about the stimulus situation manipulated as well as statements concerning the rules which restrict the range of generalization and restrain the organism from making the same response to all physically similar stimuli. Thus, to qualify as a theory, a discrimination analysis should make certain statements concerning the precise effects of reward and nonreward on excitatory and inhibitory tendencies to respond, on the method in which these opposing tendencies interact, and how the resolution of the resulting competing tendencies is determined. Although McReynolds has not formally addressed these issues, existing models within the literature may well provide the necessary answers. This task needs to be done if the term “theory” is to be used in a formal sense rather than simply referring to an inductive analysis. An Overview
In their current stage of development, a comparison of the expectancy and schedule-shift discrimination theories unfortunately does not help resolve the learned helplessness controversy. At present, expectancy theory is more formally developed but it is also more complex and perhaps less testable. Discrimination theory is in need of further development but in the last analysis should lead to a better operational analysis and more parsimonious structure. Both can be used to explain infrahuman and human data but neither appears to provide any meaning-
LEARNED
163
HELPLESSNESS
ful predictive difference. Thus, those of us who are more comfortable with S-R terminology will prefer McReynolds’ analysis and those more comfortable with cognitive theory will identify with Seligman and Maier’s viewpoint. Clearly what is needed is a theory to help resolve the controversy by making differential predictions. In an earlier paper (Levis, 1976), this reviewer provided an analysis of the helplessness literature using infrahuman subjects and offered an alternative S-R, motivational theory, referred to as the two-process reinforcement theory of escape learning. The model outlined not only explains the “critical” studies described by Maier and Seligman (1976) as being unanswerable from an S-R position but also made a number of differential predictions. In fact, by directly measuring the activity level of the motoric behavior of each animal following the helplessness training phase, one should be able to predict from the model which animals will or will not display the helplessness effect during the test phase. Although the implications of this theory are still in need of direct testing, the contrasting predictions required to resolve critical issues are available. In the same article, this reviewer suggested that an S-R interpretation of the human data required an alternative motivational theory. It was further stated that an extension of Amsel’s frustration theory to the human helplessness literature may be a worthwhile endeavor. Clearly, there are many procedural differences between helplessness studies conducted with infrahuman and human study. Besides the use of the triadic design and the noted decrement in acquisition during the test phase, little else is similar. As McReynolds (1980) concluded all learned helplessness phenomena do not appear to be of the same ilk and accordingly, a single theory will not encompass them all. A MOTIVATIONAL-INDUCED
THEORY
OF LEARNED
PERSISTENCE
Since it became apparent that an extension of Amsel’s (1972) Frustration analysis may provide a useful explanatory and predictive model of learned helplessness effects conducted with humans, Thomas L. Boyd and I have been actively working on developing this possibility. Boyd deserves considerable credit for working out the details of this extension and much of the analysis to be presented was taken from his dissertation conducted in my laboratory (see Boyd, 1978). In order to understand the rationale behind the theory to be proposed, it is necessary to return to a discussion of the triadic design. As noted earlier, the “yoked” group defines the procedural manipulation necessary for producing the learned helplessness effect and meets Seligman and Maier’s criterion for the operational specificity of the concept of controllability. However, operational considerations alone are not necessarily
164
DONALD
J. LEVIS
adequate determinants of the appropriateness of control groups. Even Seligman (1969) acknowledged this point when he correctly referred to the importance of considering the behavioral effects produced by a control manipulation. According to the expectancy model of Seligman and Maier, it is not suspected that response selectiveness will change over trials during uncontrollable preexposure training. That is to say, each potential response will occur with a probability equal to that observed during initial trials. However, Platt (1973) has suggested that contact with reinforcement criteria changes with repeated trials in the sense that a larger proportion of behavioral events are drawn from the reinforced class. Therefore, in order to control for potential changes in reinforcement contact it becomes necessary to present outcome events via the yoking procedure. The critical point is that a discrepancy may develop between the actual pattern of outcome events which the organism receives and the theoretical pattern of outcome events as operationally specified by the responsereinforced contingency space. As the controllable preexposed subject becomes more efficient in performing the criterion response, the yoked counterpart range of response events becomes restricted artificially by the demands of the experimental situation. This range restriction for the yoked subject necessarily increases the probability of repetitive behavior events and subsequent response-outcome dependence. Earlier reported research using infrahuman subjects by N. R. F. Maier and his colleagues (Maier, 1949, 1956; Maier, Glaser, & Klee, 1940; Maier & Klee, 1943) suggested that the observed behavioral effects produced by insoluble or uncontrollable task presentations often contributed to those potential biases outlined above. Approximately 75% of the subjects tested in the above experiments reportedly developed stereotyped or fixated response patterns independent of response-outcome events. More recent work has also reported the development of stereotyped patterns of responding over trials. Such fixated behavior has been observed across a number of stimulus situations, reward situations, and idiosyncratic response systems in infrahuman subjects (MacKennon, 1968; Rashotte & Amsel, 1968; Ross, 1%4; Wilcoxon, 1952), as well as in humans (Deur & Parke, 1968; Linden, 1974; Marquart, 1948; Marquart & Arnold, 1952; Vogel-Sprott & Thurstone, 1968). The importance of such considerations lies in the potential relationship of such findings to response-outcome events during uncontrollable presentations of reinforcement. As previously noted, testing the effects of the learned helplessness procedure occurs following the transfer from uncontrollable preexposure to the controllable test situation. Thus, the yoked (helpless) subjects are being transferred from a situation in which response selectiveness theoretically is minimal to one where it is high, with a concomitant change in
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
165
response-reinforcement contact. Given the potential for a systematic patterning of behavioral events during the uncontrollable phase, observed performance decrements during testing may reflect these patterns as opposed to expectancies of uncontrollability. This same possibility was also noted by McReynolds and represents the foundation upon which he bases his reponse-shift analysis. Furthermore, such an interpretation is comparable to that described by Amsel (1972) in his mediation theory of persistence. (For a more extensive discussion of problems associated with the use of the yoked control procedure see Boyd, 1978, and Levis, 1976). By extending Amsel’s theory (1972) of persistence to the learned helplessness area, many of the concerns previously raised about other models are met. Encompassing frustration theory within a more general theory of persistence, Amsel(1972) outlined his position in the following statements: . . . persistence is held to result from the counterconditioning to ongoing behavior of stimuli. . . . According to this more general view, persistence develops in responding whenever an organism learns to approach, or to maintain a response, or to maintain a bodily attitude or set, in the face of any kind of stimulus which arouses a competing-disruptive response. . . . A counterconditioning view of persistence, as we employ the term, implies that a connection of some kind is formed in acquisition between an initially disruptive emotional event and some ongoing behavior. If this mediational control is powerful the counterconditioned response might be evoked not only in the situation in which the connection was formed . . . but in any situation in which the mediating event comes to play. (PP. 411, 417)
A schematic representation of Amsel’s model is presented in Table 1 (see Amsel, 1972, p. 410). According to this schema, when a stimulus change (Sx) is superimposed upon the original stimulus situation (So), an interfering response (RX) is elicited. As Sx counterconditions to the original ongoing response (Ro), Ro becomes more dominant and in the process, the So-R0 association has become more resistant to disruption by stimuli of the class Sx. As Amsel noted, some form of persistence develops whenever an organism’s behavior habituates to the disruptive stimulus (Sx), thereby allowing the counterconditioning of Sx to Ro. Amsel particularly stressed the importance of mediational control, relative to external stimulus control, in the emergence of the persistent effect. According to this position, the mechanism by which this maintenance of early response forms (Ro) is obtained is through mediated or secondary stimulus generalization. The learned helplessness model of Seligman and Maier assumes that response selectiveness will not change over trials during preexposure. However, to the extent that response-outcome events evolve into a dependent or ordered relationship during preexposure, one might
166
DONALD
J. LEVIS
TABLE Stage 1
1
General theory of persistence so
Ro
3
hypothesize from the Amsel model that later performance deficits following transfer to controllable test conditions would reflect a persistence of these originally learned response classes. Not only can the Amsel theory account for the empirical finding of the helplessness effect but it offers the advantage of stressing the importance of mediational control in the emergence of the persistence effect, as opposed to external stimulus control suggested by the McReynolds model. By postulating that persistence or the learned helplessness effect is tied to a disruptive emotional event (frustration, fear, hostility), the theory becomes capable of making a number of differential predictions when compared to the nonmotivational theories of Seligman and Maier, and of McReynolds. Furthermore, a motivational construct unlike the expectancy construct has the additional advantage of providing for an independent and observable measure of the mediational event (emotional responding) without having to rely solely upon measuring the outcome, dependent response (a decrement in performance). As is the case with the two-process theoretical explanation of infrahuman helplessness effects (Levis, 1979, direct measurement of the human response topography during helplessness training, should permit, according to persistence theory, precise prediction as to whether or not a response decrement will manifest itself during the test period. In support of persistent theory, a consistent finding in the learned helplessness literature has been the report of increased hostility and frustration toward the experimental situation following inescapable (uncontrollable) pretreatment exposures (see Hiroto & Seligman, 1975; Miller & Seligman, 1975). Furthermore, Roth and Bootzin (1974) used a
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
167
frustration hypothesis to account for the facilitation effect obtained in their learned helplessness group. Despite these findings, Hiroto and Seligman (1975) denied a frustration interpretation of their findings. Although inescapable subjects reported increased frustration, these authors suggested that the observed behavioral deficits are not readily interpretable within a behavioral-energizing framework of frustration effects. It is apparent from Amsel’s formulation, however, that the behavioral deficits obtained during testing do not necessarily negate a frustration-regression hypothesis as outlined here. Persistence certainly may become expressed through passive response classes as well as more active response classes (see Levis, 1976). Jones, Nation, and Massad (1977) also have found indirect support for the potential role of persistence in the learned helplessness phenomenon. These authors examined variations of the “immunization” procedure described by Seligman and Maier (1967). During immunization, exposure to controllable response-outcome events prior to uncontrollable or learned helplessness manipulations has resulted in organisms becoming less susceptible to or immunized against the learned helplessness phenomenon. Jones et al. (1977) found that subjects given a partial (50%) schedule of success prior to uncontrollable presentations performed significantly superior to helplessness control and 0% success groups. A 100% success group failed to produce the immunization or resistance to helplessness effect. Despite potentially serious deviations from the triadic design, the Jones et al. (1977) study provides a degree of confirmation for Amsel’s theory of persistence. One might hypothesize that the greater persistence observed on the part of the partially rewarded subjects was due to the fact that frustration produced by nonreward became counterconditioned to the goal-approach response. The 100% reward group, which has not received nonreward prior to uncontrollable presentations, failed to show a persistence effect perhaps due to an absence of frustration-related stimuli being counterconditioned to approach. Boyd (1978), in a recently completed study examined the degree of correspondence between the learned helplessness phenomenon in human and operative patterns of response-outcome events. He also examined the learned helplessness phenomenon under differential degrees of change between response-outcome events from pretreatment to testing situations. Systematic response-outcome dependencies were observed during the uncontrollable preexposure period. Furthermore, the relative degree of learning during the transfer test situation appeared to be related directly to the degree of change between response events and reinforcement contact from preexposure to testing situations. Both of these results are consistent with the counterconditioning model of persistence (as well as
168
DONALD
J. LEVIS
the schedule-shift hypothesis) and opposed to predictions made from an expectancy framework. Clearly, more systematic work is needed before the merits of any of the models discussed can be determined on empirical grounds. A motivational interpretation, however, does lead to a number of differential predictions which should provide a return to data rather than rhetoric. Since Seligman and Maier’s dismissal of a motivational component is not, as yet, based on any systematic analysis, the motivational issue is still unresolved. Their contention is also at odds with many clinical analyses of the depressive state. In fact, it is this reviewer’s belief that clinical depression can best be viewed as passive avoidance behavior and explained by extending fear, frustration, and conflict theory (see Boyd & Levis, in press; Levis & Boyd, Note 1; Stampfl & Levis, 1969). But the latter topic is the subject of yet another debate and the waters already appear muddied enough in discussion of the current issues. REFERENCES Amsel, A. Behavioral habituation, counter-conditioning, and a general theory of persistence. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), CIassical condifioning II. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972. Boyd, T. L. Learned helplessness: A critical investigation of the response-outcome contingency space. Dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1978. Boyd, T. L., & Levis, D. J. Functional depression. In R. Daitzman (Ed.), Clinical behavior therapy and behavior modification. New York: Garland, in press. Duer, J. L., & Parke, R. D. Resistance to extinction and continuous punishment in humans as a function of partial reward and partial punishment. Psychonomic Science, 1%8,13, 91-92. Hiroto, D. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 311-327. Jones, S. L., Nation, J. R., & Massad, P. Immunization against learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977, 86, 75-83. Levis, D. J. Learned helplessness: A reply and an alternative S-R interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976, 105, 47-65. Linden, D. R. Transfer of approach responding between punishment, frustrative nonreward, and the combination of punishment and non-reward. Learning and Motivation, 1974, 5, 498-510. MacKinnon, J. R. Competing responses in a differential magnitude of reward discrimination. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 13, 333. Maier, N. R. F. Frustration: The study of behavior without a goal. New York: McGrawHill, 1949. Maier, N. R. F. Frustration theory: Restatement and extension. Psychological Review, 1956, 63, 370-388. Maier, N. R. F., Glaser, N. M., & Klee, J. B. Studies of abnormal behavior in the rat III. The development of behavior fixations through frustration. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1940, 26, 521-546. Maier, N. R. F., & Klee, J. B. Studies in abnormal behavior in the rat III. The pattern of punishment and its relation to abnormal fixation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1943, 32, 377-398.
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
169
Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976, 105, 3-46. Marquart, D. I. The pattern of punishment and its relation to abnormal fixation in adult human subjects. Journal of General Psychology, 1948, 39, 107-144. Marquart, D. I., & Arnold, L. P. A study in the frustration of human adults. Journal of General
Psychology,
1952, 47, 43-63.
McReynolds, W. T. Learned helplessness as a schedule-shift effect. Journal ofResearch Personality, 1980, 14, 139-157. Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and learned helplessness in man. Journal Abnormal
Psychology,
in of
1975, 84, 228-238.
Platt, J. R. Percentile reinforcement: Paradigms for experimental analysis of response shaping. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Vol. 7. Rashotte, M. E., & Amsel, A. Transfer of slow-response rituals to the extinction of a continuously rewarded response. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968, 20, 321-328. Ross, R. R. Positive and negative partial reinforcement effects carried through continuous reinforcement, changed motivation, and changed response. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1964, 68, 492-502.
Roth, S., & Bootzin, R. R. Effects of experimentally induced expectancies of external control: An investigation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 253-264. Seligman, M. E. P. Control group and conditioning: A comment on operationism. Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 484-491. Seligman, M. E. P. Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975. Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 74, 1-9. Stamp& T. G., & Levis, D. J. Learning theory: An aid to dynamic therapeutic practice. In L. D. Eron and R. Callahan (Eds.), Relationship of theory to practice in psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine, 1%9. Vogel-Sprott, M., & Thurstone, E. Resistance to punishment and subsequent extinction of a response as a function of its reward history. Psychological Reports, 1968,22,631-637. Wilcoxon, H. C. “Abnormal fixation” and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1952, 44, 324-333.
REFERENCE NOTE 1. Levis, D. J., & Boyd, J. L. Functional avoidance? Submitted for publication.
depression: Learned helplessness or learned
OF RESEARCH
14, 158- 169(1980)
IN PERSONALITY
The Learned Helplessness Effect: An Expectancy, Discrimination Deficit, or MotivationalInduced Persistence? J. LEVIS
DONALD State
University
of New
York
at Binghamton
It would be difficult in recent years to find another psychological topic which has stimulated more research activity, theoretical interest, arguments, and general confusion than that generated by the concept of learned helplessness. The credit for this current state of affairs is shared by M. E. P. Seligman and S. F. Maier (Seligman, 1975; Maier & Seligman, 1976). These investigators not only suggested studying a neglected research paradigm but offered a controversial theory that has reawakened a dormant historical debate between S-R and cognitive psychologists. The broad interest in the learned helplessness area is also related to its suggestive relevance for understanding infrahuman, human, and most importantly, clinical data. W. T. McReynolds (1980) in the preceding article has added additional fuel to the controversy through his critical metaphoric reasoning and by his advancement of an alternative S-R theoretical position. In analyzing these two different theoretical approaches, it is desirable to provide a critique that will produce a positive effect on the field by clarifying issues of contention and pinpointing weaknesses in need of correction. This assignment elicits some trepidation since this reviewer cannot resist the opportunity to suggest yet another alternative theory. Whether this effort will result in muddying the waters or eliminating the pollutants is a judgment which must be left to the reader. THE LEARNED HELPLESSNESS EFFECT
In providing a critique of this area it may prove useful to rereview the theoretical models under discussion and to establish again precisely what Requests for reprints should be sent to: Donald J. Levis, Department of Psychology, State University of New York, Binghamton NY 13901.
158 0092-6566/80/020158-12$02.00/O Copyright All tights
@ 1980 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.
LEARNED
159
HELPLESSNESS
is meant by the learned helplessness effect. Addressing the latter task first, Maier and Seligman (1976) have defined the effect procedurally via their conceptualization of instrumental learning as representing environmental contingencies along a two-dimensional space (see McReynolds, 1980, Figure 1, p. 142). According to their conceptualization, a response R stands in a relation of control to a reinforcer RF if and only if p(RFIR) # p(RF/@. That is to say, a response will procedurally change what the subject receives. However, a response R stands in relation of noncontrol to a reinforcer RF if and only ifp(RF/R) = p)(RF/ii). In other words, a response is independent of reinforcement and will not change procedurally what the subject receives. The learned helplessness effect is produced in the latter case in which the conditional probability of an outcome, given a specific response, does not differ from the conditional probability of reinforcement in the absence of that response. The resulting behavioral effect following exposure to such a procedure is a predicted decrement in acquisition of an instrumental behavior. In determining whether the learned helplessness effect results from experiencing uncontrollable outcomes as opposed to merely experiencing the outcome itself, Maier and Seligman (1976) rely on the use of the “triadic” design. The first group receives as its pretreatment manipulation an experimentally manipulated contingency that can be altered directly by a given response. The second group, the learned helplessness condition, is exposed during pretreatment to exactly the same physical outcome as its counterpart in the first group via a “yoking” procedure which attempts to ensure the subject’s responses have no direct effect on procedurally modifying these outcomes. The third group of the triadic design receives no pretreatment manipulation. Following the above manipulations, all groups are tested on a new task where the procedural contingency used can be altered directly by a given response. During this test phase, the effects of the helplessness manipulation should be manifested in Group 2, the yoked group, by a recorded response decrement in acquisition of the new task. It should be noted that Seligman and Maier are primarily referring to the use of aversive reinforcement. LEARNED Expectancy
HELPLESSNESS
THEORIES
Theory
Seligman and Maier’s theory of learned helplessness can be conceptualized as involving three separate stages(Maier & Seligman, 1976). The first ingredient requires the organism to receive information that the probability of the outcome is independent of performing a given response class. The second stage occurs when the organism registers or processes cognitively the information about the contingency or lack of it outlined in the first stage. The cognitive transformation involved in the second stage
160
DONALD
J. LEVIS
can be subdivided into two processes: (a) the learning that a contingency exists concerning the independence of responding and outcome, and (b) the development of an expectation that responding and outcome will remain independent on future trials. The third stage involves the generalization or transferring to new learning situations the expectation that responding and outcome are independent. The theory also states that a motivational and emotional component are initially produced via exposure to the helplessness procedure (the first stage). Both of these components are viewed as being transient effects with the most striking deficit occurring with the motivational components. This reduction in the motivational state is believed to occur concomitant with the second stage of the theory. Thus, once learned helplessness is developed the theory can be classified as a nonmotivational, cognitive viewpoint. A critical review of expectancy theory has already been provided by this reviewer (Levis, 1976) and need not be repeated here in detail. Problems are believed to exist in defining the learned helplessness effect, in the use of the yoked procedure, and in operational specificity of the theoretical components of the model. The central problem with the theory, however, resides in its reliance upon an expectancy construct. Theoretical purists are not necessarily, on a priori grounds, opposed to the incorporation of cognitive constructs. The fact that an organism responds to stimuli requires a mechanism for internal registering of the external event (e.g., discrimination). The problem is that cognitive theories have a history of incorporating hypothetical constructs that are illusionary in nature in that they can only be judged as operative after the fact by measuring the outcome or dependent variable. More precisely how does the scientist determine independent of outcome when or whether a given procedural manipulation has been registered cognitively? Once registered, what are the rules and measurement criteria for determining whether or not an “expectation” will generalize on future trials or effect current behavior? What are the parameters responsible for facilitating this generalization process, and what are the rules which determine its boundary conditions? What exactly is meant by an expectation, how can it be identified, and more to the point, how can this construct be operationally linked to antecedent conditions? Answers will not be forthcoming to the above questions as long as conditions for producing the expectancy are solely defined by a general procedure manipulation and as long as the determination of whether an expectancy occurred or not is defined solely by the empirical effect. Without specifying a separate and independent measuring index of the construct, one could just as readily postulate that the helplessness effect is due to a suppression of the will or a hindrance in development of the ego.
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
161
Furthermore, the procedural manipulation for producing the learned helplessness effect is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for determining whether an expectancy will effect behavior. If the effect occurs, the expectancy was acted upon, if the effect doesn’t occur the expectancy was not transferred to action. The theorist can’t lose. Unless, the expectancy construct is tied to an observable stimulus or response class, the establishment of functional relationships among variables will be difficult if not impossible to achieve. Schedule-Shift Theory of Discrimination
As might be expected from the foregoing, this reviewer is in general agreement with McReynolds’ (1980) critical analysis of Seligman and Maier’s “expectancy” account of the learned helplessness effect. McReynolds makes many excellent points, the most important being his analysis that the helplessness paradigm simply reflects a particular case of a schedule-shift effect. This conceptual analysis by McReynolds places the helplessness paradigm within a larger family of data involving similar manipulations studied by experimental psychologists. McReynolds’ theoretical contribution is to return helplessness theory to an S-R framework which provides a better model for answering some of the questions raised in opposition to expectancy theory. He offers an alternative explanation involving a schedule-shift discrimination theory. This explanation points to a body of literature involving partial reinforcement manipulations which have demonstrated that acquisition and extinction under such a schedule is slowed or retarded relative to an organism receiving continuous reinforcement. Discrimination theory suggests that the noted deficit in responding is a function of the organism’s inability to detect or discriminate changes in reward/relief scheduling. In applying this interpretation to the learned helpless paradigm, McReynolds (1980) states: . . . an organism subject to continuous free or no relief is slower to begin responding when contingent relief is abruptly instituted compared to an organism operating under two conditions of contingent relief and an untrained organism because the former must first discriminate the changes in relief scheduling before it can begin responding appropriately to that change whereas the latter two conditions require no such discrimination. (p. 152)
According to McReynolds, the main advantage of his position over that proposed by Seligman and Maier is that discrimination theory is less complex and presumptive, resulting in a more parsimonious interpretation. As McReynolds noted, the data are consistent with the prediction from schedule-shift discrimination theory that any procedure, experimental or methodological, that reduces the probability that an organism will
162
DONALD
J. LEVIS
make the response designated for later reinforcement will reduce the likelihood that a change horn response-independent to responsedependent conditions will be detected. According to McReynolds, schedule-shift, discrimination theory, unfortunately, does not result in any significant differential predictions when contrasted with expectancy theory. He sees the major difference between positions as being discrimination theory’s failure to make any concrete statements concerning the putative effects of positive outcomes such as free reward (which this reviewer is not sure is the case). In some way discrimination theory also falls into the same circular trap previously outlined for expectancy theory. Discrimination as an empirical statement simply refers to the observation that differential responding has been recorded to a given stimulus situation. When the term is used as an explanatory concept only the illusion of parsimony is achieved. The theorist is still faced with the task of specifying the necessary antecedent conditions required to insure that the discrimination is registered and acted upon without relying upon an analysis of the dependent measure. However, this circularity can be attenuated somewhat by carefully specifying at an empirical level the stimulus and response requirement necessary for forming the required discrimination. In order to make predictions from discrimination theory, more precise statement must be made about the stimulus situation manipulated as well as statements concerning the rules which restrict the range of generalization and restrain the organism from making the same response to all physically similar stimuli. Thus, to qualify as a theory, a discrimination analysis should make certain statements concerning the precise effects of reward and nonreward on excitatory and inhibitory tendencies to respond, on the method in which these opposing tendencies interact, and how the resolution of the resulting competing tendencies is determined. Although McReynolds has not formally addressed these issues, existing models within the literature may well provide the necessary answers. This task needs to be done if the term “theory” is to be used in a formal sense rather than simply referring to an inductive analysis. An Overview
In their current stage of development, a comparison of the expectancy and schedule-shift discrimination theories unfortunately does not help resolve the learned helplessness controversy. At present, expectancy theory is more formally developed but it is also more complex and perhaps less testable. Discrimination theory is in need of further development but in the last analysis should lead to a better operational analysis and more parsimonious structure. Both can be used to explain infrahuman and human data but neither appears to provide any meaning-
LEARNED
163
HELPLESSNESS
ful predictive difference. Thus, those of us who are more comfortable with S-R terminology will prefer McReynolds’ analysis and those more comfortable with cognitive theory will identify with Seligman and Maier’s viewpoint. Clearly what is needed is a theory to help resolve the controversy by making differential predictions. In an earlier paper (Levis, 1976), this reviewer provided an analysis of the helplessness literature using infrahuman subjects and offered an alternative S-R, motivational theory, referred to as the two-process reinforcement theory of escape learning. The model outlined not only explains the “critical” studies described by Maier and Seligman (1976) as being unanswerable from an S-R position but also made a number of differential predictions. In fact, by directly measuring the activity level of the motoric behavior of each animal following the helplessness training phase, one should be able to predict from the model which animals will or will not display the helplessness effect during the test phase. Although the implications of this theory are still in need of direct testing, the contrasting predictions required to resolve critical issues are available. In the same article, this reviewer suggested that an S-R interpretation of the human data required an alternative motivational theory. It was further stated that an extension of Amsel’s frustration theory to the human helplessness literature may be a worthwhile endeavor. Clearly, there are many procedural differences between helplessness studies conducted with infrahuman and human study. Besides the use of the triadic design and the noted decrement in acquisition during the test phase, little else is similar. As McReynolds (1980) concluded all learned helplessness phenomena do not appear to be of the same ilk and accordingly, a single theory will not encompass them all. A MOTIVATIONAL-INDUCED
THEORY
OF LEARNED
PERSISTENCE
Since it became apparent that an extension of Amsel’s (1972) Frustration analysis may provide a useful explanatory and predictive model of learned helplessness effects conducted with humans, Thomas L. Boyd and I have been actively working on developing this possibility. Boyd deserves considerable credit for working out the details of this extension and much of the analysis to be presented was taken from his dissertation conducted in my laboratory (see Boyd, 1978). In order to understand the rationale behind the theory to be proposed, it is necessary to return to a discussion of the triadic design. As noted earlier, the “yoked” group defines the procedural manipulation necessary for producing the learned helplessness effect and meets Seligman and Maier’s criterion for the operational specificity of the concept of controllability. However, operational considerations alone are not necessarily
164
DONALD
J. LEVIS
adequate determinants of the appropriateness of control groups. Even Seligman (1969) acknowledged this point when he correctly referred to the importance of considering the behavioral effects produced by a control manipulation. According to the expectancy model of Seligman and Maier, it is not suspected that response selectiveness will change over trials during uncontrollable preexposure training. That is to say, each potential response will occur with a probability equal to that observed during initial trials. However, Platt (1973) has suggested that contact with reinforcement criteria changes with repeated trials in the sense that a larger proportion of behavioral events are drawn from the reinforced class. Therefore, in order to control for potential changes in reinforcement contact it becomes necessary to present outcome events via the yoking procedure. The critical point is that a discrepancy may develop between the actual pattern of outcome events which the organism receives and the theoretical pattern of outcome events as operationally specified by the responsereinforced contingency space. As the controllable preexposed subject becomes more efficient in performing the criterion response, the yoked counterpart range of response events becomes restricted artificially by the demands of the experimental situation. This range restriction for the yoked subject necessarily increases the probability of repetitive behavior events and subsequent response-outcome dependence. Earlier reported research using infrahuman subjects by N. R. F. Maier and his colleagues (Maier, 1949, 1956; Maier, Glaser, & Klee, 1940; Maier & Klee, 1943) suggested that the observed behavioral effects produced by insoluble or uncontrollable task presentations often contributed to those potential biases outlined above. Approximately 75% of the subjects tested in the above experiments reportedly developed stereotyped or fixated response patterns independent of response-outcome events. More recent work has also reported the development of stereotyped patterns of responding over trials. Such fixated behavior has been observed across a number of stimulus situations, reward situations, and idiosyncratic response systems in infrahuman subjects (MacKennon, 1968; Rashotte & Amsel, 1968; Ross, 1%4; Wilcoxon, 1952), as well as in humans (Deur & Parke, 1968; Linden, 1974; Marquart, 1948; Marquart & Arnold, 1952; Vogel-Sprott & Thurstone, 1968). The importance of such considerations lies in the potential relationship of such findings to response-outcome events during uncontrollable presentations of reinforcement. As previously noted, testing the effects of the learned helplessness procedure occurs following the transfer from uncontrollable preexposure to the controllable test situation. Thus, the yoked (helpless) subjects are being transferred from a situation in which response selectiveness theoretically is minimal to one where it is high, with a concomitant change in
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
165
response-reinforcement contact. Given the potential for a systematic patterning of behavioral events during the uncontrollable phase, observed performance decrements during testing may reflect these patterns as opposed to expectancies of uncontrollability. This same possibility was also noted by McReynolds and represents the foundation upon which he bases his reponse-shift analysis. Furthermore, such an interpretation is comparable to that described by Amsel (1972) in his mediation theory of persistence. (For a more extensive discussion of problems associated with the use of the yoked control procedure see Boyd, 1978, and Levis, 1976). By extending Amsel’s theory (1972) of persistence to the learned helplessness area, many of the concerns previously raised about other models are met. Encompassing frustration theory within a more general theory of persistence, Amsel(1972) outlined his position in the following statements: . . . persistence is held to result from the counterconditioning to ongoing behavior of stimuli. . . . According to this more general view, persistence develops in responding whenever an organism learns to approach, or to maintain a response, or to maintain a bodily attitude or set, in the face of any kind of stimulus which arouses a competing-disruptive response. . . . A counterconditioning view of persistence, as we employ the term, implies that a connection of some kind is formed in acquisition between an initially disruptive emotional event and some ongoing behavior. If this mediational control is powerful the counterconditioned response might be evoked not only in the situation in which the connection was formed . . . but in any situation in which the mediating event comes to play. (PP. 411, 417)
A schematic representation of Amsel’s model is presented in Table 1 (see Amsel, 1972, p. 410). According to this schema, when a stimulus change (Sx) is superimposed upon the original stimulus situation (So), an interfering response (RX) is elicited. As Sx counterconditions to the original ongoing response (Ro), Ro becomes more dominant and in the process, the So-R0 association has become more resistant to disruption by stimuli of the class Sx. As Amsel noted, some form of persistence develops whenever an organism’s behavior habituates to the disruptive stimulus (Sx), thereby allowing the counterconditioning of Sx to Ro. Amsel particularly stressed the importance of mediational control, relative to external stimulus control, in the emergence of the persistent effect. According to this position, the mechanism by which this maintenance of early response forms (Ro) is obtained is through mediated or secondary stimulus generalization. The learned helplessness model of Seligman and Maier assumes that response selectiveness will not change over trials during preexposure. However, to the extent that response-outcome events evolve into a dependent or ordered relationship during preexposure, one might
166
DONALD
J. LEVIS
TABLE Stage 1
1
General theory of persistence so
Ro
3
hypothesize from the Amsel model that later performance deficits following transfer to controllable test conditions would reflect a persistence of these originally learned response classes. Not only can the Amsel theory account for the empirical finding of the helplessness effect but it offers the advantage of stressing the importance of mediational control in the emergence of the persistence effect, as opposed to external stimulus control suggested by the McReynolds model. By postulating that persistence or the learned helplessness effect is tied to a disruptive emotional event (frustration, fear, hostility), the theory becomes capable of making a number of differential predictions when compared to the nonmotivational theories of Seligman and Maier, and of McReynolds. Furthermore, a motivational construct unlike the expectancy construct has the additional advantage of providing for an independent and observable measure of the mediational event (emotional responding) without having to rely solely upon measuring the outcome, dependent response (a decrement in performance). As is the case with the two-process theoretical explanation of infrahuman helplessness effects (Levis, 1979, direct measurement of the human response topography during helplessness training, should permit, according to persistence theory, precise prediction as to whether or not a response decrement will manifest itself during the test period. In support of persistent theory, a consistent finding in the learned helplessness literature has been the report of increased hostility and frustration toward the experimental situation following inescapable (uncontrollable) pretreatment exposures (see Hiroto & Seligman, 1975; Miller & Seligman, 1975). Furthermore, Roth and Bootzin (1974) used a
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
167
frustration hypothesis to account for the facilitation effect obtained in their learned helplessness group. Despite these findings, Hiroto and Seligman (1975) denied a frustration interpretation of their findings. Although inescapable subjects reported increased frustration, these authors suggested that the observed behavioral deficits are not readily interpretable within a behavioral-energizing framework of frustration effects. It is apparent from Amsel’s formulation, however, that the behavioral deficits obtained during testing do not necessarily negate a frustration-regression hypothesis as outlined here. Persistence certainly may become expressed through passive response classes as well as more active response classes (see Levis, 1976). Jones, Nation, and Massad (1977) also have found indirect support for the potential role of persistence in the learned helplessness phenomenon. These authors examined variations of the “immunization” procedure described by Seligman and Maier (1967). During immunization, exposure to controllable response-outcome events prior to uncontrollable or learned helplessness manipulations has resulted in organisms becoming less susceptible to or immunized against the learned helplessness phenomenon. Jones et al. (1977) found that subjects given a partial (50%) schedule of success prior to uncontrollable presentations performed significantly superior to helplessness control and 0% success groups. A 100% success group failed to produce the immunization or resistance to helplessness effect. Despite potentially serious deviations from the triadic design, the Jones et al. (1977) study provides a degree of confirmation for Amsel’s theory of persistence. One might hypothesize that the greater persistence observed on the part of the partially rewarded subjects was due to the fact that frustration produced by nonreward became counterconditioned to the goal-approach response. The 100% reward group, which has not received nonreward prior to uncontrollable presentations, failed to show a persistence effect perhaps due to an absence of frustration-related stimuli being counterconditioned to approach. Boyd (1978), in a recently completed study examined the degree of correspondence between the learned helplessness phenomenon in human and operative patterns of response-outcome events. He also examined the learned helplessness phenomenon under differential degrees of change between response-outcome events from pretreatment to testing situations. Systematic response-outcome dependencies were observed during the uncontrollable preexposure period. Furthermore, the relative degree of learning during the transfer test situation appeared to be related directly to the degree of change between response events and reinforcement contact from preexposure to testing situations. Both of these results are consistent with the counterconditioning model of persistence (as well as
168
DONALD
J. LEVIS
the schedule-shift hypothesis) and opposed to predictions made from an expectancy framework. Clearly, more systematic work is needed before the merits of any of the models discussed can be determined on empirical grounds. A motivational interpretation, however, does lead to a number of differential predictions which should provide a return to data rather than rhetoric. Since Seligman and Maier’s dismissal of a motivational component is not, as yet, based on any systematic analysis, the motivational issue is still unresolved. Their contention is also at odds with many clinical analyses of the depressive state. In fact, it is this reviewer’s belief that clinical depression can best be viewed as passive avoidance behavior and explained by extending fear, frustration, and conflict theory (see Boyd & Levis, in press; Levis & Boyd, Note 1; Stampfl & Levis, 1969). But the latter topic is the subject of yet another debate and the waters already appear muddied enough in discussion of the current issues. REFERENCES Amsel, A. Behavioral habituation, counter-conditioning, and a general theory of persistence. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), CIassical condifioning II. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972. Boyd, T. L. Learned helplessness: A critical investigation of the response-outcome contingency space. Dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1978. Boyd, T. L., & Levis, D. J. Functional depression. In R. Daitzman (Ed.), Clinical behavior therapy and behavior modification. New York: Garland, in press. Duer, J. L., & Parke, R. D. Resistance to extinction and continuous punishment in humans as a function of partial reward and partial punishment. Psychonomic Science, 1%8,13, 91-92. Hiroto, D. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 311-327. Jones, S. L., Nation, J. R., & Massad, P. Immunization against learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977, 86, 75-83. Levis, D. J. Learned helplessness: A reply and an alternative S-R interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976, 105, 47-65. Linden, D. R. Transfer of approach responding between punishment, frustrative nonreward, and the combination of punishment and non-reward. Learning and Motivation, 1974, 5, 498-510. MacKinnon, J. R. Competing responses in a differential magnitude of reward discrimination. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 13, 333. Maier, N. R. F. Frustration: The study of behavior without a goal. New York: McGrawHill, 1949. Maier, N. R. F. Frustration theory: Restatement and extension. Psychological Review, 1956, 63, 370-388. Maier, N. R. F., Glaser, N. M., & Klee, J. B. Studies of abnormal behavior in the rat III. The development of behavior fixations through frustration. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1940, 26, 521-546. Maier, N. R. F., & Klee, J. B. Studies in abnormal behavior in the rat III. The pattern of punishment and its relation to abnormal fixation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1943, 32, 377-398.
LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS
169
Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976, 105, 3-46. Marquart, D. I. The pattern of punishment and its relation to abnormal fixation in adult human subjects. Journal of General Psychology, 1948, 39, 107-144. Marquart, D. I., & Arnold, L. P. A study in the frustration of human adults. Journal of General
Psychology,
1952, 47, 43-63.
McReynolds, W. T. Learned helplessness as a schedule-shift effect. Journal ofResearch Personality, 1980, 14, 139-157. Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and learned helplessness in man. Journal Abnormal
Psychology,
in of
1975, 84, 228-238.
Platt, J. R. Percentile reinforcement: Paradigms for experimental analysis of response shaping. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Vol. 7. Rashotte, M. E., & Amsel, A. Transfer of slow-response rituals to the extinction of a continuously rewarded response. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968, 20, 321-328. Ross, R. R. Positive and negative partial reinforcement effects carried through continuous reinforcement, changed motivation, and changed response. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1964, 68, 492-502.
Roth, S., & Bootzin, R. R. Effects of experimentally induced expectancies of external control: An investigation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 253-264. Seligman, M. E. P. Control group and conditioning: A comment on operationism. Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 484-491. Seligman, M. E. P. Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975. Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 74, 1-9. Stamp& T. G., & Levis, D. J. Learning theory: An aid to dynamic therapeutic practice. In L. D. Eron and R. Callahan (Eds.), Relationship of theory to practice in psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine, 1%9. Vogel-Sprott, M., & Thurstone, E. Resistance to punishment and subsequent extinction of a response as a function of its reward history. Psychological Reports, 1968,22,631-637. Wilcoxon, H. C. “Abnormal fixation” and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1952, 44, 324-333.
REFERENCE NOTE 1. Levis, D. J., & Boyd, J. L. Functional avoidance? Submitted for publication.
depression: Learned helplessness or learned