A revised model of learned

helplessness in humans^
Susan Roth, Duke University

ABSTRACT
The present paper presents a revised model of learned helplessness in
humans. The conditions under which performance deficits (helplessness)
or enhanced performance (facilitation) will result from exposure to objec-
tive noncontingency are defined by a number of variables that have been
shown to have an impact on human helplessness. The reformulated model
specifies the operation of moderating variables as they affect a number of
relationships: that between objective noncontingency and the perception
of noncontingency; that between the perception of noncontingency and
the future expectancy of response-reinforcement independence; and fi-
nally that between the expectancy of response-reinforcement indepen-
dence and the behavioral deficits associated with learned helplessness. It
is argued that exposure to noncontingency ean affect both the value of
future reward and the perceived probability of obtaining it. Performance
deficits or enhanced performance will result from the perception of non-
contingency depending on the nature of this double-edged effect of ex-
posure to noncontingent delivery of reward.

Researchers of learned helplessness with human subjects have

not yet been able to clearly specify the conditions under which
performance deficits (helplessness) or enhanced performance (fa-
cilitation) will result from exposure to objective noncontingency.
In the proposed reformulated model of learned helplessness to be
presented, such conditions are defined by a number of variables
that have been shown to have an impact on human helplessness.
As a way of locating these variables in the literature, a brief review
of human learned-helplessness studies through 1977 will first be
presented.
Recently, several other authors (Abramson, Seligman, & Teas-
dale, 1978; Miller & Norman, 1979) have presented reformulations
of the original animal model articulated by Seligman (see, e.g.,
Seligman, 1975). The proliferation of such reformulations refiects
1. The author would like to express her appreciation to John Coie, Philip Cos-
tanzo, and Martin Seligman for commenting on earlier drafts of this manuscript, and
to Blair Kilpatrick-Tabak for many stimulating discussions about learned helpless-
ness. Requests for reprints should be sent to Susan Roth, Department of Psychology,
Duke University, Durham, N.C. 27706.
Journal of Personality 48:1, March 1980
Copyright 1980 by Duke University Press
104 Roth

agreement regarding the inadequacy of the original model as a

model of human helplessness. The merits of the model presented
here as compared with other recent reformulations will be dis-
cussed following its presentation.
LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN HUMANS
Learned helplessness refers to an interference in learning re-
sulting from an experience with noncontingent reward, and to the
underlying process hypothesized to be responsible for this inter-
ference: the learning of response-reinforcement independence and
its generalization. The term learned helplessness was first used to
describe the impaired performance of dogs in an instrumental train-
ing situation produced by prior exposure to uncontrollable aversive
stimulation. In fact, the early work with dogs provided an experi-
mental and theoretical model upon which much subsequent work
in the area was based. According to the original formulation, ex-
posure to objective noncontingency leads to a subsequent impair-
ment in learning as a result of a learned expectation of response-
reinforcement independence.
Following the animal model, several investigators have attempt-
ed to induce helplessness through exposure to uncontrollable aver-
sive stimuli while other investigators have substituted insoluble
problems or noncontingent feedback on problem-solving tasks for
uncontrollable aversive stimuli. Typically, subjects are exposed to
a manipulation in the pretreatment or "helplessness training"
phase and are then placed in a test situation designed to measure
performance deficits. Their performance is compared to that of con-
trol group subjects.
In the first few years of the study of human helplessness, some
researchers claim to have produced the helplessness effect: inter-
ference with learning as a result of an experience with noncontin-
gent reward (e.g., Dweck & Repucci, 1973; Eosco & Ceer, 1971;
Hiroto, 1974; Krantz, Glass, & Snyder, 1974; Reim, in Glass & Sing-
er, 1972, pp. 109-120; Thornton & Jacobs, 1971), although several
of these studies have beer, criticized for serious methodological
fiaws (see Wortman & Brehm, 1975). Other researchers, however,
claim to have found with conceptually identical manipulations
something quite the opposite of helpless behavior: Subjects ex-
posed to an experience with noncontingent reinforcement seemed
to behave less passively and perform better than control subjects
on the experimental tasks designed to test for helplessness effects
(e.g.. Roth & Bootzin, 1974; Thornton & Jacobs, 1972; Krantz &
Glass, Note 1). Continued study of both the helplessness effect and
its opposite "facilitation" effect (e.g., Benson & Kennelly, 1976;
 Learned helplessness in humans 105

Cohen, Rothbart, & Phillips, 1976; Cole & Coyne, 1977; Douglas
& Anisman, 1975; Gatchel & Proctor, 1976; Gatchel, Paulus, &
Maples, 1975; Griffith, 1977; Hanusa & Schulz, 1977; Hiroto &
Seligman, 1975; Jones, Nation, & Massad, 1977; Klein, Fencil-
Morse & Seligman, 1976; Roth & Kubal, 1975; Tennen & Eller,
1977; Wortman et al., 1976) did not lead to any greater predict-
ability.
While the simple functional relationship between exposure to
uncontrollable outcomes and helpless behavior in humans was con-
sistently obtained in studies using the experimental conditions first
employed by Hiroto and Seligman in 1975, variations in these pro-
cedures yielded somewhat unpredictable results. Nevertheless,
two important developments are represented in this research. Eirst,
on a general level it became clear that an examination of human
helplessness required a consideration of not only objective non-
contingency (as specified by the animal model), but also required
a consideration of the manner in which objective noncontingency
is experienced by human subjects. Second, although it is still not
possible to specify the conditions under which helplessness and
facilitation effects can be found, there are a number of moderator
variables influencing the reaction to exposure to noncontingent re-
ward which are clearly identifiable in this literature. These are: (1)
the prior expectancy of a subject regarding his or her capability of
controlling outcomes either generally or in a particular situation;
(2) the amount of exposure to noncontingent reward; (3) the im-
portance of outcomes to a subject in the pretreatment phase; (4)
the nature of attributions of causality for loss of control during pre-
treatment made by the subject; (5) the valence of the uncontrollable
outcome, that is, whether the induction of helplessness involves
exposure to noncontingent positively reinforcing stimuli versus
exposure to aversive stimuli or apparent lack of success in problem
solving; (6) the threat value of loss of control for the subject; and
(7) the similarity of various aspects of the training and test situa-
tions. A brief summary of studies assessing the impact of these
variables will now be presented.
The prior expectancy variable has been studied in two ways: by
measuring it directly with a locus of control scale and by manipu-
lating prior exposure to contingent reinforcement. While the data
are not altogether consistent, several studies seem to indicate that
prior expectancy affects the impact of an experience with lack of
control in humans. Eor example, Dweck and Repucci (1973), Hiroto
(1974), and Cohen, Rothbart, and Phillips (1976) all found external
locus of control subjects to be more susceptible to the helplessness
effect. In addition, subjects have been successfully immunized
106 Roth

against the deleterious effects of certain helplessness manipula-

tions by prior exposure. Douglas and Anisman (1975) found that
prior success on a task similar to the assessment task was effective
in mitigating helplessness effects. When the task was dissimilar,
however, prior success failed to immunize subjects against subse-
quent helplessness manipulations (Douglas & Anisman, 1975). In
a related study, Jones, Nation, and Massad (1977) exposed one
group of subjects to contingent reinforcement on four tasks similar
to the training task and exposed another group of subjects to con-
tingent reinforcement on two of these and noncontingent reinforce-
ment on the other two. Successful immunization occurred only in
the latter condition.
Study of the amount of exposure variable in humans has yielded
consistent results. Krantz, Glass, and Snyder (1974) and Hiroto and
Seligman (1975) found that increasing the number of impossible
tasks to which subjects were exposed in training increased the like-
lihood of performance deficits. In addition. Roth and Kubal (1975)
investigated the amount of exposure variable along with another
variable that was hypothesized to affect the reaction to a helpless-
ness induction: the importance of outcomes in the pretreatment
phase. The number and importance of the task(s) on which subjects
were given noncontingent feedback were varied. Both helpless-
ness and facilitation effects were produced, with an increase in
importance and amount of task exposure increasing the likelihood
of helplessness effects.
Of the remaining variables, attributions of causality for loss of
control have been most widely studied, but the experimental find-
ings are unfortunately inconsistent. When subjects have been led
to believe that they have failed to control reinforcement due to task
difficulty, facilitation (Tennen & Eller, 1977), helplessness (Klein
et al., 1976), and no effects (Douglas & Anisman, 1975; Hanusa &
Schulz, 1977; Wortman et al., 1976) have all been obtained. Con-
tradictory effects have also been found when subjects have been
led to believe that they were responsible for their failure to control
reinforcement. In one of the two studies where subjects were led
to believe that their performance was worse than that of other sub-
jects, helplessness effects were found (Klein et al., 1976), while in
the other, facilitation effects were obtained (Wortman et al., 1976).
Helplessness effects were found in two studies where the training
tasks were designed to be perceived as easy by the subjects (Doug-
las & Anisman, 1975; Tennen & Eller, 1977). One study (Hanusa
& Schulz, 1977) found facilitation effects when subjects were led
to believe they had failed because of a lack of ability, and no effects
when subjects were led to believe they failed because of a lack of
Learned helplessness In humans 107

effort. Finally, in the one study where attributions were not ex-
perimentally manipulated, it was found that (a) subjects who were
most likely to give up in the face of failure took less responsibility
for the success and failure they met with, and (b) to the extent that
subjects did take responsibility, they tended to attribute the out-
comes of their behavior to ability rather than effort (Dweck & Re-
pucci, 1973).
Two studies have been conducted in which the effects of uncon-
troUability of positively reinforcing stimuli have been systemati-
cally considered. In both of these studies subjects were led to.be-
lieve that they had solved concept-formation problems on which
they had been working. Subjects received trial-by-trial noncontin-
gent feedback to their responses. In one study (Benson &c Kennelly,
1976) subjects were always told that their responses were correct,
and these subjects' performance on subsequent test problems was
no different than that of control subjects. In the other study (Grif-
fith, 1977) subjects were told that their responses were correct or
incorrect according to a predetermined schedule of answers. In this
study subjects behaved helplessly in the test situation.
Regarding the threat value of loss of control, Krantz, Glass, and
Snyder (1974) examined an individual difference variable which
they thought would discriminate among people with respect to the
degree of threat they would experience in response to noncontin-
gent reward. The descriptive element of so called Type As suggests
someone who is continually trying to avoid loss of control over his/
her environment. Type Bs are those who exhibit the Type A pattern
to a lesser extent. Under moderate levels of stress (noise), only
Type Bs become helpless. Under high levels of stress, only Type
As become helpless. Krantz and Glass (note 1) interpret the greater
susceptibility of As to helplessness under high stress to greater
initial effort on their part to escape from an inescapable noise
stressor of high intensity. They found in two subsequent studies
that Type As exposed to random feedback on problem-solving tasks
did better than Type A controls on subsequent test tasks. They
hypothesized that had As experienced a longer series of failures,
helplessness would have been the likely result, rather than facili-
tation.
Finally, two studies have been concerned with the generalizabil-
ity of the helplessness effect. In a study by Cole and Coyne (1977),
subjects exhibited helplessness when the training and test situation
were presented as one experiment and administered by one ex-
perimenter, but did not when the two phases were presented as
different experiments and administered by different experiment-
ers. Finally, Cohen, Rothbart, and Phillips (1976) found helpless-
108 Roth

ness effects for both internal and external locus of control subjects
with a test task involving a problem-solving strategy (as the training
task had), whereas helplessness effects were found for only exter-
nal subjects on non-problem-solving tasks.
The effects of the moderator variables discussed above undoubt-
edly depend both on the way they are operationalized and on how
they interact with one another. They have not, unfortunately, been
studied in a very systematic way. The reformulated helplessness
model to be presented incorporates the above variables and pro-
vides researchers with testable hypotheses regarding the operation
of such moderating variables intervening between exposure to non-
contingency and the deficits associated with learned helplessness.
A PROPOSED MODEL OF LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS IN HUMANS
The original learned helplessness model articulated a simple
functional relationship:
Objective Noncontingency- Deficits Associated with
Learned Helplessness
This relationship was hypothesized to be a result of a learned ex-
pectation of response-reinforcement independence. An organism
exposed to objective noncontingency presumably perceived the
noncontingency and came to expect it in the future. A model which
considers the manner in which objective noncontingency is expe-
rienced by subjects must thus specify the operation of moderating
variables as they affect a number of relationships: that between
objective noncontingency and the perception of noncontingency;
that between the perception of noncontingency and the future ex-
pectancy of response-reinforcement independence; and finally that
between the expectancy of response-reinforcement independence
and the behavioral deficits associated with learned helplessness.
This conceptualization is consistent with the recent theoretical
analysis of the human helplessness response by Abramson et al.
(1978), where the process of reaction to loss of control is repre-
sented as following a sequence from objective noncontingency to
the perception of noncontingency to the future expectancy of non-
contingency to the deficits associated with learned helplessness.
Figure 1 illustrates the framework for the human learned help-
lessness model to be presented in this section. This framework
specifies those general conditions that moderate a subject's move-
ment from exposure to objective noncontingency to learned help-
lessness deficits. It also depicts the consequences of these condi-
tions not being met. First this framework will be explicated.
Learned helplessness in humans 109

Objective Noncontingency

Could Not Have Could Have Controlled

Controlled Outcomes or Did Control Outcomes

Perception of Response Motivation Motivation

Reinforcement Independence High Low

Situation Similarity Situation Similqrity Enhanced "Helpless"

X Attribution Generality X Attribution Generality Performance Behavior
High Low

Future Expectancy of Response Motivation Motivation

Reinforcement Independence High Lew

1
Volue of Successful Value of Successful Enhanced Helpless
Performance Low Performance High BBrformance Behavior

Deficits Associated Enhanced

with Learned Performance
Helplessness (or No Effect)

Figure 1. Framework for learned helplessness model.

Following this, the general moderating conditions will be dis-

cussed in terms of more specific factors of which they are a func-
tion. Finally, the consequences of the moderating conditions not
being met will be discussed in greater detail.
A Description of the Framework
As can be seen in Figure 1, the circumstance of objective non-
contingency will lead to the perception of noncontingency only
under certain conditions. As Wortman and Brehm (1975) have
pointed out, individual judgments of perceived control may not be
connected simply to objective control. In fact Wortman and Brehm
have noted that subjects have an apparent insensitivity to the dis-
tinction between contingent and noncontingent arrangements. In
order for subjects to perceive response-reinforcement indepen-
dence, they would need to be induced to believe that they did not
or could not have controlled outcomes during the training phase.
If they believe incorrectly that they did control reinforcement dur-
ing training, or if they believe that they could have controlled
outcomes had they behaved differently (e.g., effort attribution for
110 Roth
failure), the conditions necessary for the perception of response-
reinforcement independence will not have been met. When this
latter circumstance prevails, the subject will exhibit enhanced per-
formance when motivation is high (e.g., when task success is im-
portant) and will exhibit helpless-like behavior when motivation
is low (e.g., when fatigue, boredom, or negativity occurs).
The movement from the perception of noncontingency to the
future expectancy of response-reinforcement independence is a
joint function of the similarity of the training and test situations
and the generality of the subject's causal attributions for lack of
control in the training phase. The notion of the generality of attri-
butions is similar to the "global-specific" dimension of attributions
proposed by Abramson et al. (1978). For example, if subjects be-
lieve that they have failed to control outcomes in training because
they are generally dumb or because experimenters always deceive
subjects, then they have made fairly general attributions. If the
similarity-generality product is high, perception of noncontingency
will lead to expectancy for subsequent noncontingency. Generali-
zation of the noncontingency perception is more likely to occur
under conditions of high test-training similarity and high attribu-
tion generality. If the similarity-generality product is low, the sub-
ject will exhibit enhanced performance when motivation is high
and helpless-like behavior when motivation is low.
The movement from the expectancy of response-reinforcement
independence to the motivational deficits associated with learned
helplessness is a function of the value of successful task perfor-
mance in the test phase. When the value of successful test perfor-
mance is low, the expectancy of response-reinforcement indepen-
dence will lead to deficits. When the value of successful test
performance is high, either enhanced performance or no experi-
mental effects will result.
Given this basic framework, it is necessary to specify the factors
that are likely to influence the general moderating conditions iden-
tified above: (1) a subject's belief about whether he/she did or could
have controlled outcomes; (2) the perceived similarity of training
and test situations; (3) the generality of attributions of causality;
and (4) the value of successful test performance. These factors rep-
resent existing empirical evidence in the area and are based in part
on the inferred experience of subjects in response to the various
experimental procedures that have been employed in human help-
lessness studies. For those interested readers. Appendix 1 is pre-
sented below in order to illustrate certain critical aspects of the
helplessness training and test situations employed in a large sam-
ple of these studies. The reader can make reference to this appen-
Learned helplessness in humans 111
dix for concrete illustrations of the various infiuential factors de-
scribed below.
Influential Factors in the Movement from Objective
Noncontingency to Learned Helplessness Deficits
Table 1 lists the factors that influence a subject's movement from
objective noncontingency to learned helplessness deficits. This
movement is represented in three stages alluded to in the model
presented in Figure 1: (1) objective noncontingency-^ perception
of noncontingency; (2) perception of noncontingency future ex-
pectancy of noncontingency; (3) expectancy of noncontingency *
learned helplessness. At each stage, the factors influencing the like-
lihood of the stated relationship occurring will be discussed.
The relationship between objective noncontingency and the per-
ception of noncontingency. There are four factors which facilitate
a subject's movement from exposure to objective noncontingency
to the perception of noncontingency and three factors which inhibit
such movement. See Table 1. If subjects are given a direct com-
munication from the experimenter about the noncontingent nature
of reinforcement (e.g., Thornton &c Jacobs, 1971), they will not be-
lieve either that they did or could have successfully controlled
outcomes during training. If subjects receive clear feedback about
failure either as a result of a direct communication from the exper-
imenter (e.g., Hiroto & Seligman, 1975) or as a result of the nature
of the experimental task (e.g., Reim, in Glass & Singer, 1972), they
will not believe that they successfully controlled outcomes during
training. They still may believe, however, that they could have
successfully controlled outcomes with a greater expenditure of ef-
fort. The greater the opportunity to try various ways of controlling
outcomes and the greater the motivation to exert effort to do so, the
less likely it is that subjects will believe that they could have
controlled outcomes in training. The opportunity for a subject to
try various ways of controlling outcomes (and to realize these ef-
forts do not work) will be greater the more problems of the same
kind and/or the more trials of the same problem he/she is exposed
to. The motivation to exert effort to control outcomes will be greater
the more important the outcomes in question. Thus, for example,
one might expend more effort on a task which supposedly assessed
an important academic skill (e.g.. Roth & Kubal, 1975) or which
affected amount of exposure to aversive stimulation (e.g., Wortman
et al., 1976) than on a less meaningful task (e.g., Douglas & Anis-
man, 1975).
Just how much effort expenditure is necessary for a subject to be
convinced that he/she could not have controlled outcomes in train-
112 Roth

x:
(O
c
g

0)

to
O2
CO
C Q-
CJ.C
D
oo

o
ID
O
c
ID
3

c
ID c
o CO
>.(U U
o : = CO o
^ <=
Q. c 0) g
X
lU (0
o
r 5 c
Q.
0) c oc S "S'.EgS X cn
o O
Q.
a Q. CO (0
E '_ ,._ 3 0)
I]} E E Zl
U cn'tn 00 (0 w H-* 'S: >K "T"
a (/} i^rf CO Co . i -
0) 0.
43 cn
O
t3
ID

a
o P ^ ^ o
c
o
O o- o o
g 2: 0= Q. " IU

43
11 *? O
oSE
>,-?; ID
"5
C = * O
' ^ "75 . c CO
I
c CO _
a; <n
3
il ID =
t E ||8 Ifrl.i' c
(O
O c O O Q.
o
O Oo

O
u
o
Learned helplessness in humans 113
ing will depend on a number of factors. First, the higher the sub-
ject's initial expectancy for success or control, the greater the nec-
essary effort expenditure. Second, the more psychologically
threatening the failure or loss of control, the greater the necessary
effort expenditure. Failure or loss of control can be more or less
threatening on the basis of either subject or task characteristics.
Type As, for example, are presumably more threatened by loss of
control than Type Bs (Krantz, Glass, & Snyder, 1974). Likewise,
failure on a task assessing an important skill would be more psy-
chologically threatening than failure on one less meaningful. Fi-
nally, the more apparently complex the training problem(s), the
greater the number of solution strategies possible and therefore the
greater the effort expenditure necessary for subjects to be con-
vinced that they could not have controlled outcomes.
The relationship between the perception of noncontingency and
the future expectancy of response-reinforcement independence. As
indicated in Table 1, there are four facilitating factors and one in-
hibiting factor in the movement from the perception of noncontin-
gency to the future expectancy of response-reinforcement indepen-
dence. The perceived similarity of the training and test situations
will be greater the greater the similarity of the tasks and the task
outcomes in the two situations, and the greater the similarity of
contexts in which the two phases occur. Thus, the two phases can
be conducted in the context of either the same or two different
experiments and can be conducted by the same or two different
experimenters. The Appendix lists the similarity of the training and
test situations of the various helplessness studies on the above di-
mensions. Roth and Bootzin (1974) and Fosco and Geer (1971), for
example, represent the two extremes of perceived similarity of
training and test situations.
The generality of attributions of causality for response-reinforce-
ment independence in training is infiuenced by the prior expec-
tancy of the subject regarding the possibility of controlling out-
comes either generally or in situations similar to the one with
which he/she is confronted. The lower the subject's expectancy for
control, the more likely it is that failure will be seen as an instance
of a more general problem.
The nature of the training task can also affect the generality of
attributions. Failure on some tasks will appear to implicate more
general skills than failure on others, assuming that the subject at-
tributes causality to some personal attribute. For example, if a sub-
ject attributes failure to a lack of ability on a task that supposedly
measures an important academic skill (e.g., Hanusa & Schulz,
114 Roth

1977), as opposed to attributing failure to a lack of ability on a task

for which importance is not specified (e.g., Klein et al., 1976), the
attribution in the former case is likely to be more general.
The relationship between the expectancy of response-reinforce-
ment independence and deficits associated with learned helpless-
ness. As can be seen in Table 1, when the value of successful task
performance is high, either because of the a priori importance of
performing well or because of the training-induced importance of
performing well, the relationship between the future expectancy
and consequent performance deficits will be weakened. The a
priori importance of performing well will depend on the charac-
teristics of the test task. Tasks that apparently assess important
skills (e.g., Thornton & Jacobs, 1972), that involve the avoidance
of aversive stimulation (Hiroto, 1974), or that involve the receipt
of extrinsic rewards (e.g., Dweck & Repucci, 1973) are likely to
make successful test performance appear more valuable than tasks
that do not have these characteristics.
The induced value of successful test performance for experimen-
tal subjects will be greater the greater the desire to reestablish
control as a result of the training experience. The desire to rees-
tablish control will be greater the more threatening the failure or
loss of control. Thus, for example, the desire to reestablish control
would be greater with Type A (as opposed to Type B) subjects,
with training tasks assessing important skills, and with ability at-
tributions of causality being made for failure.
The preceeding discussion depicted the factors influencing a
subject's movement from objective noncontingency to learned
helplessness deficits. To complete the presentation of the proposed
human learned helplessness model, factors affecting the likelihood
of occurrence of enhanced performance and "helpless" behavior
need to be specified. The reader can again make reference to Ap-
pendix 1 for concrete illustrations of these factors.
Factors Affecting the Likelihood of Enhanced
Performance and "Helpless" Behavior
The likelihood of enhanced performance resulting either from
the experience with objective noncontingency or from the percep-
tion o{ response-reinforcement independence in training will be
greater the greater the training-induced value of successful test
performance. When this value is high, resultant motivation to per-
form well will also be high. If a subject perceives response-rein-
forcement independence in training, the induced value of success-
ful test performance will be greater the more threatening the failure
or loss of control. Likewise, if a subject believes he/she failed in
training due to a lack of effort, the value of successful test perfor-
Learned helplessness in humans 115
mance will be greater the more threatening the failure (e.g., failure
will be more threatening with tasks assessing important skills). If
subjects believed they did control outcomes in training, then en-
hanced performance is not likely to result.
The likelihood of "helpless" behavior resulting either from the
experience with objective noncontingency or from the perception
of response-reinforcement independence in training will be greater
the greater the degree of boredom, fatigue, or negativity induced
by training. These effects should lower the subject's motivation to
perform well on subsequent tasks. For example, tasks which in-
volve noncontingent success feedback (e.g., Benson & Kennelly,
1976) or which are probably clearly unsolvable and involve un-
important outcomes (e.g., Douglas & Anisman, 1975) may be par-
ticularly boring. Tasks on which subjects are likely to exert a lot of
effort (e.g., Reim, in Glass & Singer, 1972) may be particularly
fatiguing. Finally, if subjects feel tricked because they feel they
were falsely led to believe they could exercise control (e.g., Hiroto,
1974), or if they feel they have been treated unfairly by being given
what they perceive to be unsolvable problems (e.g., Fosco & Geer,
1971) or ones that require too much effort, negativity might be
aroused.
As can be seen in Figure 1, a high value of successful test
performance can even have the effect of enhancing performance
subsequent to the establishment of a future expectancy of response-
reinforcement independence. This circumstance will only be evi-
dent, however, when the subject's high evaluation of successful
performance is an induced consequence of the exposure to the
noncontingency manipulation.
SUMMARY AND GONCLUSIONS
It is the basic premise of the learned helplessness model pro-
posed here that people will be more likely to act on their environ-
ment the higher the value of potential reward and the higher the
perceived probability of obtaining it. The value of future reward
will be greater the more psychologically threatening the failure or
loss of control experienced during noncontingent reward. The per-
ceived probability of future reward can be affected only if there is
a perception of noncontingency. The perceived probability of fu-
ture reward will be lower the more similar the subsequent situation
and the more general the attributions of causality made in response
to the perceived noncontingency. Performance deficits or en-
hanced performance will result from the perception of noncontin-
gency depending on the nature of this double-edged effect of ex-
posure to noncontingent delivery of reward. Generally speaking,
it is the specification of this dual effect of noncontingency-exposure
116 Roth

and the consequent consideration of both helplessness and facili-

tation effects that renders the current reformulation as compared
with other recent reformulations (Abramson et al. 1978; Miller &
Norman, 1979) unique in its contribution. While other attempts
have been made at incorporating the facilitation effect into a help-
lessness Iramework (Roth & Bootzin, 1974; Wortman & Brehm,
1975), they have not, unfortunately, been sufficiently comprehen-
sive in their treatment of a number of important moderator vari-
ables.
The current model is also unique in its consideration of influ-
ential factors at each of three stages of a subject's movement from
objective noncontingency to learned helplessness deficits: (1) ob-
jective noncontingency -^ perception of noncontingency; (2) per-
ception of noncontingency -* future expectancy of noncontingen-
cy; (3) expectancy of noncontingency -* learned helplessness. In
both the Abramson et al. and Miller and Norman reformulations,
the focus is on the characteristics of causal attributions (made in
response to perceived noncontingency) which determine the ex-
pectancy of response-reinforcement independence (which in turn
influences the likelihood of helplessness deficits). Miller and Nor-
man, and to some extent Abramson et al., also discuss situational
and individual difference variables that affect what kinds of causal
attributions are made in response to experiencing noncontingent
reward. It is noteworthy that each of the three models acknowl-
edges the importance of attributional variables in understanding
learned helplessness, although the attributional variables are not
treated identically by any two of the models.
It is clear from the preceding discussion that the experience of
perceived noncontingency can differ under different circumstances
and for different people. While a number of so-called "experien-
tial" factors may affect the extent of generalization and/or likeli-
hood of motivational effects resulting from the perception of non-
contingency, it is also possible for people to expect that behavior
will be ineffective and to act helplessly as a result of a variety of
different experiences. Thus, a person who perceives some unim-
portant outcome to be uncontrollable and who attributes the cause
to some external force may act helplessly with regard to a similar
outcome in the future. Another person who believes with great
certainty that some important outcome is uncontrollable and who
attributes the cause to some personal shortcoming may also act
helplessly with regard to a similar outcome in the future. The ob-
servation of deficits associated with learned helplessness can not
be taken as evidence that any one subjective experience is opera-
tive.
Learned helplessness in humans ''"'^
In empirical investigations of learned helplessness with human
subjects, it is necessary to discriminate among these different kinds
of learned helplessness. The learned helplessness construct has
been applied to the study of a wide range of "real-life" phenomena
such as depression (see for example, the Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 1978, 87[1]), the aging process (e.g., Langer & Rodin,
1976; Schulz, 1976), heart disease (e.g., Krantz, Glass, & Snyder,
1974), environmental stress (e.g.. Glass & Singer, 1972; Rodin,
1976), and emotional development and education (e,g., Dweck,
1975; Seligman, 1975). It has been suggested that the learned help-
lessness construct can in fact explain certain deficits or instances
of maladaptive behavior associated with them. The preceding anal-
ysis suggests that the only circumstance that would justify extrap-
olating from the behavior of human laboratory subjects to the be-
havior of persons demonstrating severe psychological deficits is the
one in which it could reasonably be argued that there were similar
phenomenal experiences surrounding the behavior in both cases.
Thus, it is important to discriminate among the various ways in
which laboratory subjects might experience noncontingency, and
it is critical to establish an understanding of the phenomenal ex-
periences related to more severe instances of helplessness in the
real world. Regarding the latter, the present model proposes the
necessary conditions for identifying an instance of maladaptive be-
havior as helplessness and suggests a number of factors that one
would investigate to come to an understanding of the phenomenal
experience surrounding such behavior.
REFERENCE NOTES
1. Krantz, D. S., & Glass, D. C. Environmental control and pattern A behavior.
Unpublished manuscript, the University of Texas at Austin, 1974.
REFERENCES
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. Learned helplessness in
humans; Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978,
87, 49-75.
Benson, J. S., & Kennelly, K. ]. Learned helplessness: The result of uncontrollable
reinforcements or uncontrollable aversive stimuli? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 138-145.
Cohen, S., Rothbart, M., & Phillips, S. Locus of control and the generality of learned
helplessness in humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1976,
34, 1049-1057.
Cole, C. S., & Coyne, J. C. Situational specificity of laboratory-induced learned
helplessness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977, 86, 615-624.
Douglas, D., & Anisman, H. Helplessness or expectation incongruency: Effects of
aversive stimulation on subsequent performance. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975, 1, 411417.
Dweck, C. S. The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned
helplessness. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 3 1 , 674-685.
Dweck, C. S., & Repucci, N. D. Learned helplessness and reinforcement respon-
 118 Roth
sibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psuchology, 1973 25
109-116. ' '
Fosco, E., & Geer, J. Effects of gaining control over aversive stimuli after differing
amounts of no control. Psychological Reports, 1971, 29, 1153-1154.
Gatchel, R. J., & Proctor, J. D. Physiological correlates of learned helplessness in
man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 27-34.
Gatchel, R. J., Paulus, P. R., & Maples, C. W. Learned helplessness and self-re-
ported affect. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1975, 84, 732-734.
Glass, D. C , & Singer, J. E. Urban stress: Experiments on noise and social stres-
sors. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Griffith, M. Effects of noncontingent success and failure on mood and performance.
Journal of Personality, 1977, 45, 442-458.
Hanusa, B. H., & Schulz, R. Attributional mediators of learned helplessness. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 602-611.
Hiroto, D. S. Locus of control and learned helplessness. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1974, 102, 187-193,
Hiroto, D. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. Generality of learned helplessness in man.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 3 1 , 311-327.
Jones, S. L., Nation, J. R. & Massad, P. Immunization against learned helplessness
in man. Joumal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977, 86, 75-84.
Klein, D., Fencil-Morse, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. Depression, learned helpless-
ness, and the attribution of failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 1976, 33, 508-516.
Krantz, D. S., Glass, D. C , & Snyder, M. L. Helplessness, stress level, and the
coronary prone behavior pattern. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
1974, 10, 284-300.
Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsi-
bility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 191-199.
Miller, 1. W., & Norman, W. H. Learned helplessness in humans: A review and
attribution-theory model. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86, 93-119.
Rodin, J. Density, perceived choice and response to controllable and uncontrollable
outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 12. 564-579.
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.
Roth, S., & Kubal, L. The effects of noncontingent reinforcement on tasks of dif-
fering importance: Facilitation and learned helplessness effects. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 680-691.
Schulz, R. Effects of control and predictability on the physical and psychological
well-being of the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 1976, 33, 563-574.
Seligman, M. E. P. Helplessness. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975.
Tennen, H., & Eller, S. J. Attributional components of learned helplessness and
facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 265-271.
Thornton, J. W., & Jacobs, P. D. Learned helplessness in human subjects. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 87, 369-372.
Thornton, J. W., & Jacobs, P. D. The facilitating effects of prior inescapable/una-
voidable stress on intellectual performance. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 26,
185-187.
Wortman, C. B., & Brehm, J. W. Responses to uncontrollable outcomes: An inte-
gration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 8. New York: Academic
Press, 1975.
Wortman, C. B., Panciera, L., Shusterman, L., & Hibscher, J. Attributions of cau-
sality and reactions to uncontrollable outcomes. Joumal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1976, 12, 301-316.
Manuscript received November 9, 1978; revised September 27, 1979.
Learned helplessness in humans 119

QJ QJ
(D U >
a. g
LO S-.
ro
c:
O O QJ O
1 M- S_ (J

QJ O O I
CL-M (13 I

X3 +
E C - ^ <T3
<u o o <
P > 3
OJ O
> -I

5?
to LO c ro ..c
LO 3 r LO ro E ' QJ (U -M
QJ QJ
QJ c n t_
> c: cn
r- O
3 S-
- O Q-

QJ QJ C - ^ I/)
s- > i- ro
ai -I- c o -M
3 OJ O 3
U <- QJ
LO +-> O LO CO dJ - M >> E CU
M ro - c -t-J s^ ro QJ
-I s-
QJ -r- O 1 <[- -i-J - I
cu "O 3 +J ^>^
.- 3 QJ
r- I 3 -M cn S 5^3 -r- -o o a.
+-* o JD ro 3 O +- C - 1 - X
CO s o-j ro -M QJ

CO dJ
O QJ
CD
LL,
120 Roth

QJ O > I 4-'

E ro -M -o
S- I C JD
O OJ O 3
4 - S- O LO

QJ ro
fl3 LO
00 ro

S_ 0)

a. c
X 0)

t/1 a j -p o
l/l XI
QJ a CU ro
C/l E
CO QJ fO LO

QJ QJ - r -

JD r
3 3 O
O QJ
CU t o u
CD "O S- c a 4 - O CD
< CU 3 ro
3 I (D t/1 E
a) -r- o
s- ro e o c CL o o
QJ 4 - X 4-> 4-
QJ S-
3 c n ro I
CD l/l 1/)0) Q *+- X3
t o CU > CD E t o 3 -M S- 3 LO
1 - S_ CU QJ
U -M LO 3 < f 3
ro QJ QJ > , > QJ
x: - o r-
S- f JU M E CD N -(-> Q- to M
QJ -r- O N O E C M
> ro s- 3 c ro + c 3 C -r- - I - 3
fxi *+- a.. Q. <; LO - CL
=C 3 t/i 3 Q-

-D
c: c Q.
r- ro * o - o
S- OJ
E LO cnc\i (
CU 1 -r- cn o
Learned helplessness in humans 121

QJ l/l CU ro
QJ u XI to
O o u S- OJ QJ CU ro 3 o 4- E
3
CJ
tn CTlXi
o
l/l - p
QJ
QJ
S-
d. Q.
X
-p JZ r O O
a.
s- c to o CU ro - -i<:
XI ro s- c -P
--
QJ
> QJ 1 QJ % QJ QJ o +J QJ 'B ro c QJ D>4- o o ro
> JD u 3 QJ x: cn E 3 < E
ro E ro JD JD CU X3 x: E JD
E ro o 3 O 3 3
o XI 3
CO s_ o LO aJ - ^ S- U E 1 4 -
^ ( J ro O o. LO 4- c O S- >^ 3 O QJ ro -r- -I Q-
to p C/l P O o t/1 Q) J D S- t o cu cn c -p E -P e
o
Q..
E
CD
u 3 XJ 3 S- QJ c CO CD ro E o Q. dJ
o JD
cn QJ QJ - p
3
QJ -a
c/) t o QJ
CU ( s- x : QJ o CD I
t-.
>>"O Q. CJ > U XI
QJ - p E LO O LO t o X I QJ S- QJ E i - QJ
S_ ro E QJ i- ro QJ 3 o x : QJe QJ ro
r
QJ
S- QJ QJ X3
O E 5- EZ
C
O S-
O
CL O -p cu - p X J CO 3 t/1 1 E QJ 31 -I- = Q. ro CJ o .
"*"'

-o
j ^ QJ JD
-P QJ QJ - P u QJ
LO
t- E
QJ cn S-
o
ro
.E
o c QJ QJ
c cn -M X3 QJ LO CL >
-P ro E D QJ to
LO - p "O I O N to s- cn
TD s- E S- aj QJ 3 OJ CU <D -p
o O 3
QJ
t/1
S-
S- a .
XJ - P CO
E
'o
-4-J ro o -o o
c: X J ro 3 c/l
o .^

QJ QJ E <v
o CD O CU OJ
x: u
-p S-
o O -P
S- S- ro S- LO
QJo
S- QJ QJ
C -p x:
E XI -p
s- o X ) to
o 3 X 3 CD o. QJ QJ CD
3 QJ O
o 4- 3 [Q X S- QJ S- o
CJ CU S- o LO QJ 3 QJ
CU - P E QJ to Q. X) to to , ro -p QJ
QJ -p E CU o
LJ -C 3 LJ i~-
o
-p 3
O
QJ
p P -p S- CD -P P
CU o 3 -p l/l QJ cn S- o a QJ S - +J
jr -P
X
Q. CD QJ
CL

O 4- o Qi 3
.E
O X l x : P
QJ CD
cn
s-
-p
QJ
-P QJ LJ
JD 3 E XJ a Q X3 S- CO O
o
3 o -P c: X 3 QJ QJ QJ 'o
P
o O t>^ LJ CO E
c ro X ro o
CO 3 to ro -p CU 00 Q. CL c
"^ 3 s- 3 ro <: s Qj 3 (J

-o
E t/1 E
ro ro -P QJ
L) L) S-
-i^ CJ QJ X3
u 3 ro QJ
CD s-
3 CD
rI LO U
122 Roth
ca LO < ;
* -p
CD QJ t/) LO CD LO LJ CD t o
OJ CJ > -p -P O- -P QJ CL -P
CL E o _QJ
u
ro - P s-
p ro - p
t/1 E JD 4 - S- Xi S-
CD o QJ o 3 O O =J CD O 3 O O
4- u LO
O 4- to E 4-

CD - ^
E to
CO -P

I- S_
S- CJ
QJ CD - P
E CL E

XJ E X3 a
O o
QJ
o -P QJ
o> -p
ro I ro ro
Q- E Q. E
E ro o 3 3
E -P E LO 3
E
LO 3
-P -P
ro -' X to ro X t o
cn CD
t o CU
o o CD
QJ XJ E l/l C
cn QJ XUI
t o QJ E 1
c/) E O -Pt/1 E O -P
CD a S- CL-P S- S~ C L - P S-
to ro C/l 3 QJ ro LO 3 QJ
l/l CD CU QJ . C QJ Qj JZ
S- LO ro I S^ to ro

CU X 3 -P
o
QJ X ] - p E E
l/l
ro c t o S- O
QJ 3 ro o ro QJ 13 o QJ CD
O -p E JZ O P E XI
-P U QJ 3 P
u ro - p QJ QJ ro QJ
to ro ro - p ro J Z > >
X3 E QJ QJ -p E 3 to O QJ
CU 3 S- QJ QJ 3 o JD E
O x: E QJ o x: cn E 4 - ro
P p lO x: -p -p QJ O
QJ QJ - P -P CD L/l l/l CO QJ
QJ cn x: t o QJ D l E CL t o . ro
E O- - p S- S- QJ 13 cn
QJ QJ o QJ 3 QJ QJ o X) >
3 -E E ro 3 x: -P .E Q) S- CD x:
O o 4- P QJ cn-p
to QJ +-J LO LO QJ J D LO + J QJ ro ro
-P E S- E -P O S- ro x: QJ QJ
-p E D 3 E CD L) O E O QJ s- QJ > -p
o
t o JD O QJ CO - ^ ro
Q> ro O QJ s- > QJ x: -4-J
s_ LJ CJ ro E
QJ E LO QJ X J CO c ro O LJ
O- O 3 O o 4 - x: 3 ro O o 4 -
LO 2 XJ - p O m X3 o o 4-

s
sx
Learned helplessness in humans 123

QJ t/1 NJ
H- t/1 --
4- CU E^--
CU CD (J 3 E
x: s JD J::I U E O
C QJ O 3 O O 3 O -r- 3 E -r-
UJ Q,4- to E 4- to

to ( D^
LO E -P
QJ ro > E
cn J- - D CD
E CL cn E E
I- E O QJ
> E -r- CL U > +-> - ^
I O S- t/1 S- I t/1 LO
O - P <- QJ O o I ro
to -P 3 S- 4 -

B E
QJ
JD J-:
O LO -I o to "
s- ro E ro o E S- ro ro S- ro ro
Q P S t, Ci_ -P O-

LO QJ
-P o
O X "U
o QJ - P QJ (13 - p 3 QJ CU QJ > i
O l/l O QJ ro .e -p 3 O > QJ
-P fO S- J D JD cn XJ 3 Xl QJ ->- x : -Q CU ' - -
o
4- to
QJ
l/l
-P
c
-t-J
ro
E
XI o
QJ X I
QJ
XJ
XJ +J
QJ
O
3
s_
i
to 0
4-
E
QJ - P
3
CO
> OJ -P
O CJ
JD QJ -C
^ ro s- u
.
3 > QJ
to O CJ
JD CD .
QJ

U E o E cu CD
l/l LO 4-
Q.
U r-
ro ro 0 O -r- i- O
ro O -E CL CL Q- E Lo >^x: 1
JD Q . ro S- h- QJ o. Q- CD CD,ro. 3 cx ro I x: to
X J t/1 u L) f t i 3 0 to 3 2
QJ QJ in 4- E 3 -P t/ o x : ro E I ro o x3 ro E .
QJ S- o % E
ro ' 3 g S- (U -r- -r- r - CL S- QJ .-
4- XJ
to
CL
X QJ LO l/l
ro QJ -1- cn-p +j 3 "- r^
-P
E QJ - | j ro - I - cn
E
ro +QJ. QJ
E
QJ x: E
- p QJ
-P
LJ
E X E 0 s- QJ c E E LO
QJ - P QJ t/1 QJ 3 E
QJ QJ E CU o to x: ro S- 0 CD i - .- -r- QJ 3 E CU
cn - p
E
<J
C QJ
JD QJ p i-n 4- CL -M ro S- O E ,-r- U
-J
O
S-
ro O XI S- E > ^ 0 t o CL LO CJ -r ro u
o x: 3 QJ O QJ ro E ro 3 -P S- 3
L) Q. cn O t/1 d. D 5 0 '=C 3 -P -P -P LO
LO LO
124 Roth

QJ QJ to
QJ O > 4-J
CL E o LJ
ro s- QJ
I-J E ro
l/l JD'
QJ o CU o 3

o LJ
LO E
o O l/l
E LJ E
4-J QJ

XI
ro
l/l O
g
i (O a
O i
a. -p 4- o.
4-) X)
O-i
to CU O
4-J L) -P

.Q CD r LO LO

LO o E CD O to E
JD O t/1
4- LO E 4- 4-J 4- ro 4-1 fO
ro E
>- ro o 4-J
O
to
ro XQJi O
O
o
O- l/l XI XJ I
I- C
OJ JD CL ro ro TX 3I L/l ro CL CJ
3 E XJ CT) Q. fD I CU I
r- QJ
U X) to E
X3 ro ro fO
o O O o 4-J CD
3 O t o -1

ro cn
Qj CU Qj S-
g 4-J
<u
QJ
4-J
-p
E 4- CL.
t o CD
QJ
S_
0
L
XJ +J t/1 - ^
OJ CD to
cn X J QJ U CU QJ
01 -P QJ LO
-K) 4-J ro 4-J
ro
S- QJ CD
QJ c
fD CD CJ to E S- 3
ro ^ t/1 o
S- QJ CU ro <-
U IZ - I - CL QJ S- 2 4-J QJ ro C O CD QJ S^ 2 E
QJ CD S- QJ E 4-5 S- JZ JD O L) 2 LO -C 4-J LO CD
r-j C n 4 - J LJ 4-> QJ XI O. ./ -P >^-^ XI
O lO QJ ro R O u CD l/l CU " O I/) O C/l QJ !/> "3
c ro x : x: E QJ QJ QJ E ro c ro J:: ro u
2 4- 5- 4 - s - - I - ro
cc 3 +^ +^ 13

XI

c
x: ro in
O 3 O^
Learned helplessness in humans 125

X3 E
O to
O ro
QJ > 4-J 4-J

CL E roro cn
= roo 3 c:
E 4-> E
to 3 '~ >
: ^
ro X l/l
o to lO LO lO
Q CT) CD J D QJ E E
c t/1 QJ > E LO QJ > E fO
C E ro
S- CD S-
E E O 4- to CI CT
S- o
CL4J S- CL 4-J S- XI ro J D ro
ro t/1 3 ro LO 3 QJ o E O c:
QJ QJ JZ > QJ QJ x: ro
_J t o ro _J t - LO ro D-

x: 4-J t/1 CU 4- o CD ro
CD CD > 1 QJ J - S- X 3 i
cr> x: E i Dl 4-J QJ X 3
XJ E CL 4-J t E r
ers

t) 3 OJ ro
I ( C QJ
'_^ ^, ^ - 4-> -t ! >-,4- "D 4 - ro> , CJ
4-J 4-J o O > , QJ ) E < E QJ QJ O QJ LO
aj 4-> ro E O 4 . ^ _C 4-J f t/1 QJ
x:
QJ 4-J 4-> 2 O L O CL 4-J E CO
S- o 3 E '+- ) E ! ro
QJ l / lJD O o E E ) O t O X i -P > -p
3 CJ O CL O - - . s- OJ roQJ
LO
c C/l en 4 - XJ'V Q- : cn - p x: E
t/1 O o o M ro XJ - , QJ LO 4-J
4-> X3 4-J ro o
LJ
2 4J
ro2 - QJ
iw
CD E CD .
O. E w - . - s
s_ QJ
QJ 1 - 4-> 3
S-
4-J
QJ CU " O ro3 QJ J D > QJ > - - E r - P d. O
Xirou>-QdJ-Pr>
-n
4-J QJ 4 -
Q)T-ECDO>roo O t/) CJ
C D S- O _ l S-.r-jz S- E rD X E O
4 4-J L) ' Q . c n 4-> C L 2 QJ O 4-
<c
126 Roth

S^ QJ QJ t/)
QJ LJ > I 4-J
CL E - ^ O U
ro 4-J S- CU
4J E >
JD
CD O QJ O 3
I 4 O

QJ - i ^
E l/l
ro ro

(U I CD
E -P E

S- QJ
Qj CD 4-J
E CL C
ro X QJ
o O E

4-J CU
c a
CD l/l

E t/l
to CD
t/1 I
QJ Cu
LO I
to CD

sz P 4-J CJ
o T3 4-J QJ
o 1- 4- LO cn CJ X 4-J t/1 E
<J
c CD OJ ro ro CJ
c: O t/1
o QJ ro LO LO
o
o S- 4-J
ro S- J Z XI QJ c to

o 4-J
cu 4-J i/l 3 4->
u o 4-J D.
4- l/l
ro 3 E LO O CJ CL CJ X
X) QJ E E QJ JD 1) l/l QJ QJ CD
QJ to O CJ 4- ro J D JD QJ JZ
U E E <D 03 O 3 S-. C
ro O 4-J J Z JD LO to o QJ
QJ X l o. ro
LJ XJ
1 X J
QJ
g CL
3
ro ro XJ
LJ
LO
E lL/ lJ CL ro LO
CD CD QJ QJ O -o QJ QJ CO
cn x :
QJ O 4- s- QJ 4-J JZ 4-1

4- XJ cn4-J 4-J
ro CD
to ro OJ 3 CU U X J
ro 4 - J QJ S- QJ x: U QJ
(J c
CD QJ
CL E
QJ
QJ CJ
x:
QJ
CU S- 4-J
ro
-Q CU
ro 3 Jro
D
g
CL
1-5 CJl 4-J L J JD 4-J 4-J CU
JD E E CJ O CL O CO
ro QJ CU Q J
3 O s- X ro c ro J Z QJ CD QJ QJ
OO 4-> X l CJ CL 4- <
3 4-J -Q 3 4- ro
Learned helplessness in humans 127

S- LO l/l

to CU _
4-J4-J LJ I 4-> l/l ro
I X O O CJ 4-J E
L) QJ i ~ S- CU CJ S-
r- 4-J -r-l CU QJ
I E -n - n 4-
4 4->
4
QJ OO ro O O 3 44 - EE
4 E UU
Q 4- Q
QJJ - ^

QJ , ^
QJ E t o
CU
JD
3 N
QJ
O 3
t o J D CL
SZ ZJ
cn
o E
to
U
ro
ro
ro 4-J 1

CU QJ
E >.^ 4-5 QJ 4-J QJ QJ
S- QJ QJ CL to Q. x:
ro 3 x: t o QJ ro LO CU 4-J
E O 4-J 4-* U QJ 3 4-J CJ CU
O S- *4 l/l
cn U X JD QJ O X J D SZ
LJ 4-J
CJ E QJ QJ QJ
4-J
CD QJ LJ
c O to c O CO O QJ fD O U 4-J Q 4-J

o S- ro
4-J
S-
E 4-J o 4-J
ro S- J D QJ 4 - J E O J D CD 4 - J
E o 4-J CU CO 3 ro 2 3
to fD
4- LO 3 t / i O -a E 4- to O XJ U
XI
OJ
LJ
QJ
CO
E
o
c XJ
QJ
QJ E
to o
E
U
i ro
JD QJ
s- o
o
JD QJ E
4 - ro o
LJ E E QJ ro o 4- o t|_
ro O 4 - J r fD O 4-J JZ J D t o QJ S- ro
QJ J D CL ro
a X J t/1
QJ CL ro s- h- o g CL ro S- QJ
c/l CU
d . ro
t/1

QJ QJ o X J LO o QJ Q . 3 CL 3 LO
g CU S- 5 QJ CU QJ
t . CU o
t/1 O X)
QJ i- E
O XJ
QJ
ro QJ
S-
L/l r 4 4- "O cn 4 - J ro cn4-J QJ
c/l to 4-J (O ro QJ QJ . E t o ro CU QJ 2
ro 4-J
-I-J 4-J
ro 4-J CD QJ x : x : 4 - J 4-J QJ t~ JZ
U CL LJ E CL U XJ
QJ QJ QJ c QJ i- 4 - J CJ QJ 4-J " O
QJ CD CD ' ' QJ 4-J QJ QJ x: 4-J C1I
cn4-J t J
JD E E E E QJ O a. o ro ro
3 O
-Q to JD o t/1ro ro r -
CJ 3 O _ J S- X ro E ro - E x : 3 E ro c- t ~ ro
CO 4-J JD C/) JD CJ - CL QJ
4-J
4- 2 4 - J 4 - 1 3 C/l 3 4-J 4 - J 4 -

E XI I c -.- QJ cn
Q ' I L> to -r- VO
QJ c : s - . r--
I CU O CU CTi
128 Roth

s- Q; a; </)
CU <J > 1 4-J
O - E >- O CJ
ro J S
CJ
LO t ; I E X I
QJ O QJ O 3
I 4 - S- CJ to
o

QJ >
E O
ro JD

LO LO
ro QJ
ro CU
QJ CU -4 QJ QJ
E Q- i E JOD E JoD
ro ro
ro ro

to to
ro QJ
ro QJ
QJ QJ
E O E o
ro X QJ ro J D fD JD
c/l QJ E CO ro CO ro

LO a i M - sz
QJ E LO
QJ X J CoJ
fvj t/1 l/>
JD NJ 4-J LO ro ro
3 3 O CD- 4-1 4-J
CL CO ro QJ
O E O CJ o CD
to cn E ro O 3
t o QJ o -p o
t/1 1 t/1 QJ JD JD
QJ Q QJ ro ro
l/l
l/l CD ro LO ro t o
oo fD L/5 iT3

CU

4-J O 4-J QJ
CL CL
LO CU o to t/1 CD ro i -
4-J LJ 4-J o ro E 4-1 O QJ 2 CJ
CD O > ) QJ LJ X 4- _ E GJ QJ U X XI JZ
QJ QJ X J 4-J J - QJ QJ QJ 4-J
CD QJ QJ X I '-)
o LJ O
E O 4-> QJ JD CJ CL E 3 o QJ JD QJ 4-J E
O S- LO F - 3 ro X I CL S- 3 ro 4O-
l/l O QJ 1_ x: QJ t/) O XJ
JD 4-J E 3 QJ
4 - ro QJ fD QJ ro
3 r 3 O t/1 1 QJ
-E t / l l/l -E
-P
XJ O
CU
ro
E O E CJl CL ro t o 4-J CL fD QJ
i ( t o O > 3 4-J 4-J O a 4-J 3 CL
4-J S- U - O XJ u ro 3 QJ Jro ro O XJ 2 LO
CD CJ .E Z 4- QJ S_ ro
4-J t o J D 4-J cn 4-J
i>l QJ ro JD ro 3 X I QJ ro QJ
QJ QJ CO
4-J J Z s- QJ 3 CU 2 l/l ro QJ J Z
-SZ E 4-J
U 4-J >i- i_ 4-J ro QJ to C x: QJ 4-J ro U
.E P QJ CD S- 2 ro JZ - p CO QJ

O ro E _E QJ t/i rtJ ro QJ J D
3 x: > ro ro o E ro x: CJ ro 4-J LO x: o ro J4-J
Z - E JZ 3
2 4-J J D E O 4-J LO 3 4-J 4-J t o

4-J CJ t/1 t/1 <X)

%. E 3 XJ JD r--.
o fO x : E <- cn
13 D- CO ro n ; I
Learned helplessness in humans 129

QJ
>
+^ QJ
d) l/l 0.-1 O)
S- >
e to
+-J
<u I
U QJ QJ
i-

O S-
!- -U . .
r^ "to O X JD S
-M QJ QJ
O o QJ QJ O i/l
S- S- U QJ -
o a> o to
3 to -J O
QJ .1^ t/) O -r- 4- +-> JD QJ CL
> (J C -I- E O C C
r- fO O +J -r- . O I O C
QJ -Q Q.. fO i - f Q. U fO O
3 C -r- O --
O O i- 4-> +J
s^ QJ s - o -
CD to C
(O Q) U TD i . OJ -r-
fO 4-J QJ E S- OJ -C 3 S- <U O to E
I - CL C QJ f QJ i_ 4-> ^>^ (U > 4- C -1-
x : <- o s-
-M QJ -it; a. u
Ojo- O U U W t/l
C QJ f d (U !
130 Roth

S- QJ QJ to
QJ U > I +-'
Q- C -r- O U
13 f J S QJ

QJ QJ + J
E Q. E

I t/i
O QJ
c/l N

4J
QJ o lO
-D fO 4-J 4-J

QJ QJ QJ 1
ro x:
QJ to a. QJ ro
-a to to Q} 3 S- to Q
QJ Q) U QJ -a ro QJ o
l/l in V l X Q . l/l
o OJ t o
o
QJ QJ to
ro
ro E
o
QJ Q . QJ
s-
O fO
s- (T3 ( J
4 - QJ
r-j O (13 QJ 3 U o o r-5 QJ QJ
o M
ro to 3
QJ x:
h-
QJ u QJ XI
3
O
QJ X )
x:
o a. c
X to O -o o l/l QJ
o QJ QJ QJ X I to T3 QJ -a XI 3 to c
QJ to o x: ro 3 4- QJ O ro o
(J C (J o to ro X I O 3
o QJ ro QJ
fO 3
c: t~ O
QJ X I
U
Q.
l/l
ro cx
3
ro 4- 3
ro xQJ:
Q..
3
o QJ S-
(13 QJ S- o
E ro E 4-* Q.XI
i
'

QJ Ol
QJ S - o r ^ ""^
ro QJ r- o o u %~ l/l , _ M-
4- QJ X3 CD -> 4- ro OJ QJ
to 1 i- o S- ro QJ QJ 4 ~ E +^x: ro
t - t- tC

u CL 5 O- Q. QJ S- 4-) X J c: Q . 3 - s - QJ Q) O
QJ QJ s- QJ XI E o 3 O s-
- M CJ x; -o 4-J 4-J 4-) 4-
c QJ O to
ro l/l 4-" LJ IO O OJ QJ QJ U
o x: o
o +-J c 3 x: x: ro 3 (J O QJ x : x : ro
-M X I u 1 ro
Learned helplessness in humans 131

u
c
"O ro
QJ S
u i-
E O
ro 4-
JZ S_
E QJ

4-J QJ 4-> to
C L - i - QJ S- u
to QJ I 3 ! l/lQJ
4-* L) QJ " O GJ E O U Q - QJ
u X XI x: to fD E O 4- t/1 LJ X X
QJ QJ to 4-J QJ 3 ro 4-J o U 4-J E QJ QJ ^
x: O O O ro O
XI QJ 4-J 3 E u OJ o o -E XI QJ E t o
3 > O CD t/1 ro E E O 4-J 4-5 4-J t o 3 Q)
l/l O X3 QJ XJ E Q] to ra E to O
XJ QJ S- >i QJ 3 t/1 o QJ E E QJ QJ
4 - ro r- 3 4-> o x4-J: E ro QJ to O LJ 4- cn x :
C - -r- -(-J to 3 U E QJ ro X I O
to QJ T - I QJ QJ 4-J (O O l/l QJ
Q- ro i - ro ! QJ CD S-
E d- 4-J
t/1 Qi
S-
aJ X I
LJ o in
S.ro s-
L)
o S-.
QJ a
CL
3
ro S-
3 QJ 4 - X I E QJ ro
QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ to QJ X) 3 JZ
3 .E E x: S- OJ 4- o
S- <U
(tJ 4-> O O ( 4-J 4-
o +->
4- XJ O14J
(B QJ C/l 4-) S- t/) to t o 4-) ro QJ lO
U QJ ^ E 4-J 4-* 1-}
ro QJ QJ . E LJ
QJ S- 4-> QJ O LJ o QJ U u E CL E (J OJ S- 4 - ' (D QJ
QJ to o ro QJ QJ s- QJ , r QJ
O to (O U XI to
LJ ro 4 -
O E
U XJ
E QJ O Q . r - :5
o to
4-> X J
ro
E ro x :
=C 3 4-> ro r
3 ro O O E 3 >K O 5- X
c (O .E QJ Q . 2
a: 3 4-

ro -
QJ
QJ E r
132 Roth

QJ O QJ O 3
) 4 - S- D to

QJ

I - S-
S- QJ
QJ QJ 4-1

E Q- C

X) E
>- O I- O
O "- O -r-
aj > 4-> > 4-J
I ro fO
CL E
E fO o ::^
r- E 4-> E
to 3 -I
-- 4-J
ro ^ - X to
cn QJ XI QJ
E ^>^ QJ > to QJ >
I- E r -r-
C O 4-J to O 4-J to
S- Q. 4-J S- a,4-j s-
fO to 3 QJ
QJ QJ X: >
1 s- to ro

+-) QJ ro
O- > QJ . E
CO QJ E E 3 4-5

4-> O QJ O
-4-1/1 -^ LJ X LJ QJ
J -!<: E o QJ QJ QJ QJ U 3
o
O t/1 O OJ 'O
i~5 U - E ro
-4-J ro - I - S- X I r XI QJ ro 1 r
- D to
3 4-J 4-J QJ T3 I > X J fO
-t/1 ro 3 <u ro to O QJ
I QJ QJ QJ QJ
o ro c
QJ
CO
E E
O - I - >,4"
QJ
XJ 4- ro QJ E l / l 4 - t o
> J C -r- e (U <U 4- <V
CO 4-J > 4-* x :
3 O 4-1 . - ^ 4J ^
ISI u 3 CL (U S- h - - ' - '-
CL ro 4-J QJ
3 E E
ali

QJ 3 l/l E L) u ro O XJ QJ O X3
CJ) J QJ C lO -r- t^- S- QJ S- s- QJ
J S- O .- cn
4- XJ - CL >, QJ
a. X
I to K QJ to S-
ro
QJ . E
-E
4-J 4-J E OJ
J rC 4-J QJ E QJ -E E ro
- ., Q_ E QJ 4-^ QJ O >- E
J S- QJ - > E - O S- 4-> QJ >,
D4-J LJ > X J (U4->X1 E 3 (O > QJ
: c QJ o > -E(O S-o O O C -I- .E
- >i O _J S- .- l -E
4-J a.

ro S-
QJ 4- to
3 3 ro O 4->
c XJ to o a
to o to OJ
QJ to r^ 1 4 J QJ 3 4->
XD
O ro fO CTi OJ X O o 3
o to
Learned helplessness in humans 133

ro
JZ XJ
Q QJ
dJ QJ LJ 3 E to to
4-J I/)
(J QJ
QJ l / l
i~5 CO

QJ to
T 3 QJ
I- i-

O 3
I- XJ o E

S-
QJ QJ to
.E E 3 t/l

to X J
o o QJ
dJ 4-J O l
E ro E ro
to CD JZ O 3
O 4-J S-
-g 4-J 3 QJ
x: E t o CD 4-J
3 4-J 4 - ro
CL (A
c
3 4-) QJ dJ
O O
l/l to E QJ
ro ro CD o o 4-J
QJ E
in CO ::
LJ l/l
S- fO E 4-J

l/l to 4-J QJ
ro o
4-J 4 - Ol
fO ro E QJ O 4-J
4-J QJ S- X3
E QJ E .E
o O QJ - 1 - t o 4-J
3 3 E S- ro E
4-J ro oj Q) L. O QJ
QJ QJ to E a. l/l to
QJ QJ X E
E O E O QJ QJ ro QJ
ro xa ro XI x : 3 to
c / l 03 ro 4-J 4-3
= o QJ , QJ
.E to - E
_^ XJ QJ E 4-J QJ 4-J
4-J E CO QJ E to LJ -r- O ci. . E 4-3
o O 4-J QJ CL
o 4-J ro E E 3 4-J E
to QJ LJ LJ x: O to QJ 3 LJ S- LJ -Q -F- fO QJ QJ

u >C XJ 3 ro
f
Qj
t/l O
"O T3 ro
QJ E S-
g
cn
QJ CL LJ X U X3 3 >
QJ dJ QJ O E JD 4-J OJ QJ QJ E I D g m J c: QJ QJ XJ
4- 3 ro 3s- S- O QJ " O o E "O s- E E
X I QJ E l/l CD X I QJ QJ I- ro 3 (O ro O
3 QJ E
t o o LJ O S-
X J QJ
QJ
S-
4o- CO o
XJ
LJ
QJ
E LJ LJ
cn _
4-J
4 - ro (/I ro u Q) LJ 4-J
ro E u T3
QJ E E E
O LJ to ro ro X i QJ QJ O
LJ
LJ
3 Xro
J s-
o to E QJ
>
E QJ
ro QJ cn _ J QJ o. O S-
d. ro XJ o CL ro QJ E X t4- ' fO E fO S-
-Q QJ QJ QJ 3 E 4- i- XJ QJ O O
o ro QJ E J Z J Z Ql o XQJ 3 QJ O to CTt " O t o ^_)
S- QJ QJ 3 4- QJ E .E s_ E O dJ
CD4-J 4-J 4 - -E O l 4-J E O 4-) Q - QJ 3
ro Q) I/) 4 J 4-J ro QJ QJ u O > QJ 4-J t/1
QJ E 1 QJ J Z CD E JZ
QJ i - E X3 LJ o QJ E o O O CD 4-> XI QJ
J Z 4-5 QJ QJ OJ l/l -E E 3
CD QJ X I 4-J -M 4-J 4-) QJ - P > -O
o f l QJ E . E o CL o t o ro E X )
ro ro r O CD 4-* I fO O -r-
E ro J Z 4-J 4-J S- O X O 1 E ro O E E c: QJ . E 03 S-
<C O O- to QJ 3 ( J ro O 3 4-> 4- Q

(O I
s- o
4-J E-.

.- !-> a; -r-

=1