Learning To Be Depressed Seligman, M.E.P.,

1
Learning To Be DepressedSeligman, M.E.P.,
Maier, S.F. (1967)Failure to escape traumatic
shock.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74,
1-9
2
Learned Experience

• We expect that our actions will produce a
  particular consequence.
• Our expectations of these consequences cause us
  to behave in a specific way.
• We act based on the fact that we will bring about
  a certain result or consequence.
• Ex. If you are in an abusive relationship, you
  will take the action to remove yourself. You
  would expect to succeed in making the change.

3
Learned Experience (contd)

• We believe that we have power and control over
  our actions and expectations.
• This is only possible because in the past we have
  exerted some sort of effort, or control, and have
  been successful.
• If there is a lack of this control in our lives,
  we believe ourselves to be helpless to the
  situation.
• Ex. If youre dependent on the relationship and
  feel powerless, you would stay in pain.

4
Learned Experience (contd)

• Our perceptions of the power and control we have
  over our lives is imperative to psychological and
  physical health.
• If you had lost the power to make changes in your
  life, and were independent of your actions, you
  would feel hopeless. Eventually youd give up on
  trying to exert control. You would become
  depressed.

5
Learned Experience (contd)

• Martin Seligman, a behavioral psychologist,
  believes that our perception toward power and
  control are learned through our experiences.
• When a person fails at controlling life events,
  consistently, they may cease the attempt to
  exercise control.
• If this happens often enough the person will over
  generalize their lack of control, and cease the
  attempt, even when control may be possible.

6
Learned Experience (contd)

• This person becomes helpless and depressed.
• Therefore, Seligman termed this particular cause
  of depression, learned helplessness.
• Seligman and Maiers research is an original
  demonstration supporting his theory.

7
Theoretical Propositions

• Seligman had studied an earlier experiment that,
  when dogs were exposed to a shock that they could
  not escape from, they did not learn that when an
  escape was possible they had the power to take
  it.
• This is also referred to as escape-avoidance
  behavior.

8
Theoretical Propositions (contd)

• Seligman theorized that the dogs previous
  experience of being shocked, in which their
  actions were ineffective, effected their future
  power of being able to escape from such
  situations. Essentially, they had learned to be
  helpless.
• To test this theory, Seligman and Maier studied
  the effect of controllable versus uncontrollable
  shock on future ability to learn to avoid shock.

9
Method

• Medium sized dogs received electrical shocks (not
  meant to produce harm).
• Subjects were 24 mongrel dogs, weighing between
  25 and 29 pounds. They were divided into three
  groups, eight subjects in each group.
• 1) escape group
• 2) no-escape group
• 3) no-harness control group

10
Method (contd)

• Escape and no-escape group dogs were placed into
  individual harnesses, in a shuttle box. Although
  they were restrained, they were able to slightly
  move.
• A panel was placed on either side of the dogs
  head to keep it facing forward. The dog was able
  to push the panel by moving its head.
• When an electrical shock was delivered to the
  dog, it could stop the shock by pushing its head
  on the panel (escape group).

11
Method (contd)

• Shocks were delivered to the subjects at the same
  time (the subjects were paired, one from the
  escape group and one from the no-escape group).
  The no-escape group had no control over the
  shock.
• The escape group was able to terminate the shock
  upon pressing its head on the panel.
• Both groups received the same intensity of shock
  and for the same duration of time.

12
Method (contd)

• During this stage of the experiment the
  no-harness control group did not receive shocks.
• The escape and no-escape groups received 64
  shocks at 90 second intervals.
• The escape group learned to terminate the shock
  by pressing the side panels.
• Twenty-four hours later all the subjects were
  tested again in a similar shuttle box.
• This time, lights were used to determine when the
  shocks would be delivered.

13
Method (contd)

• After the lights went on, an electrical current
  would pass through the box in 10 seconds.
• There was an escape available for the subjects.
  They could simply jump over the box onto the
  other side to escape the shock.
• If the subject jumped within 10 seconds it would
  escape the shock, if not the shock would continue
  for 60 seconds.
• Each subject was given 10 trials in the shuttle
  box to escape the shock.

14
Method (contd)

• Seligman and Maier measured learning by two
  variables
• 1) how much time it took, on average, from
• the time the light came on, until the subject
• jumped over the box
• 2) percentage of subjects in each group that
• failed to learn they could escape the shocks

15
Method (contd)

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

16
Results

• When having been placed in the shuttle box for
  the first time
• - The escape group subjects panel pressing
  decreased over the 64 shocks.
• - The no-escape group subjects stopped pressing
  the panel after 30 trials.

17
Results (contd)

• Having waited 24 hours, and being placed in a
  shuttle box where all had an escape
• - The escape group learned that they could
  easily avoid the shock, after having pressed
  their heads against the panel. It took 27 seconds
  on average to escape.
• - The no-escape group learned that they were
  unable to easily avoid the shock having had no
  prior way to escape. It took 50 seconds on
  average to escape.

18
Results (contd)

• In nine out of the ten trials in the ability to
  escape, the subjects failing to learn to escape
  the shock by far was the no-escape group.
  Approximately 80 of the subjects failed to learn
  to escape. Whereas in the escape group, all had
  learned to escape.
• The no-escape group had learned to become
  helpless even when they had the power to escape.
  Six of these subjects failed entirely. In the
  delayed test 5 of the 6 failed to escape.

19
Discussion

• Seligman and Maier concluded that the escape
  group subjects learned in the harness phase that
  their behavior was related to the termination of
  he shock. Hence, they were motivated to escape
  the shock by jumping the barrier.
• For the no-escape group, the termination of the
  shock had nothing to do with their behavior, they
  then had no incentive to escape.

20
Subsequent Research

• In later research Seligman found that depression
  in humans occurs much in the same fashion. Humans
  lean from their past experiences whether or not
  their actions will be beneficial or useless.
• Learned helplessness in humans has much more
  serious consequences rather than depression.

21
Subsequent Research (contd)

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

22
Ethical Concerns

• A large part of this research experiment that
  must be taken into account are the ethical
  concerns. Is it ethical to endure shock on
  animals in order to learn more about human
  behavioral patterns?
• What about mice or rats used in laboratories? Are
  those circumstances as unethical as the use of
  dogs? What do you think?
• The important question is whether or not we may
  benefit from research such as this.

23
Conclusion

• This research began a theory that explains why
  some people become so helpless and depressed.
• He has refined his theory over the years and has
  established three conclusions occurring under
  particular conditions.

24
Conclusion (contd)

• Individuals are more likely to become depressed
  if theyve learned to attribute their lack of
  control to causes
• 1) permanent rather than temporary
• 2) related to personal factors
• 3) affecting many areas of their life
• These have contributed to therapists being better
  able to understand, and treat serious depression.

25
Further Questions

• Is it possible that learned helplessness is a
  main source of depression from this research?
• Are we able to prevent learned helplessness from
  occurring if we can manipulate our environment?

26
Follow-up StudyWitkowski, TomaszPerformance
Levels In Situations Of Helplessness Threat And
Group Affiliation Egoistic Mechanisms In
Helpless DeficitsJournal of Social Psychology
(Apr. 97), Vol. 137, Issue 2, 229
27
Aim

• Studies the egotism hypothesis for poor
  performance following insolvable problems. As
  well, contributing egotistic mechanisms to
  perform in a group and the helplessness threat
  condition was studied.
• NOTE Results to this experiment are contrary to
  the learned helplessness theory.

28
Aim (contd)

• Researchers have noticed that when participants
  undergo helplessness training, they performed
  better than the control group subjects, on the
  task being tested.
• In this research, subjects in the failure and
  group affiliation conditions performed better
  than the others.

29
Method

• Participants were 40 students from secondary
  schools in Poland (16 boys and 24 girls).
• These children had an average age of 17.2 years.
• Blind-procedure
• Two factors were manipulated problem solving and
  group affiliation.

30
Method (contd)

• The first task had math problems, they were
  either solvable or unsolvable (discrimination)
• Second tasks were done with and without group
  affiliation.
• Each variable had two levels. These levels were
  varied among subjects.

31
Method (contd)

• In the first phase the participants were randomly
  divided into groups. They were told to solve 4
  math exercises each. Twenty received 4 solvable
  problems and the other 20 received four
  unsolvable problems.
• In the second phase participants were randomly
  divided in 4 equal groups. In 2 groups the group
  affiliation variable was introduced. Both groups
  had different instructions.

32
Method (contd)

• The groups were told they were broken up in terms
  of their intelligence. They were told to solve
  exercises once again.
• In the groups without affiliation they were given
  the same procedure as the first phase (all
  participants solved the same exercises).

33
Method (contd)

• Following the tasks, all participants were asked
  to fill out a questionnaire. Participants were
  asked to evaluate their performance on the
  problems, and to indicate the extent to which
  success or failure on the unsolvable problems was
  not under the researchers control.
• Participants were also asked how well they
  performed, with a range of responses on a Likert
  Scale. They were also questioned about their
  accreditation.

34
Results

• Compared with success, failure in the first phase
  caused lower ratings of performance on the
  unsolvable problems.
• The subjects who had failed in the first phase
  solved tasks much more slowly than those who were
  successful.
• The affiliated and unaffiliated subjects
  performed only a little faster than those without
  affiliation.
• Unaffiliated subjects who had succeeded in the
  first phase had a faster performance time than
  affiliated participants who also succeeded in
  phase one.

35
Questionnaire Results

• Subjects without affiliation selected abilities
  and effort as the primary cause of their results.
  The unaffiliated group did not select abilities
  and effort as the cause of their results.
• After the helplessness training (discrimination
  problems), subjects without affiliation stopped
  trying to solve the problem. Successful
  participants without affiliation had the
  motivation to maintain their effort.
• DOESNT THIS SUPPORT THE LEARNED HELPLESSNESS
  THEORY?!!!!

36
Discussion

• Witkowski found that the study supports and
  confirms the egotism explanation.
• After their experience with unsolvable problems
  only the subjects without an affiliation
  performed poorly.
• Those affiliated attributed results to external
  variables, which in turn caused them to continue
  to solve the problems.