A learned attitude of passivity in face of a problem situation and awaiting help indiscriminately from someone or somewhere. The theoretical foundations of learned helplessness began with a serendipitous finding reported by Martin Seligman and associates in 1967 that emerged from an experiment endeavoring to subject dogs to classical conditioning that was completely at odds with mainstream learning theory at the time. In order to avoid inescapable electrical shocks, signaled by a warning signal, the dogs had to jump over a low barrier. Instead of avoiding further aversive shocks, they became apathetic and listless and failed to learn the avoidance response. In contrast, a control group of dogs not subjected to unavoidable shocks learned the response quickly and easily. Even when opportunities to escape were made available to the dogs in the experimental group. they still responded with behavior indicative of learned helplessness. Similar outcomes obtained with other animals (e.g., rats), and used to account for the behavior of circus animals as outlined in the case of elephants by Gavin de Becker in his book The gift of fear, survival signals that protect us from violence (1997). Applying the theory to humans, who would be subjected to loud noises rather than electrical shocks, required some modification through the aegis of attribution theory, and in particular that formulated by Bernard Weiner (see Weiner, 1985). Accordingly, attributional style can account for individual differences in how people respond to adverse events, some who does so with evidence of learned helplessness. The core of Weiner’s theory amounts to three 2-sided types of belief about causal agents: stable or unstable cause (e.g., events do not change over time, thus it is not worth the effort trying to change them in your favor), dispositional (internal) or situational (external) cause (e.g., event was due to a lack of requisite ability and so is beyond personal control), and global or specific cause (belief that events are due to such a large range of factors than we are more or less powerless to affect beneficial change). With the link of attribution theory to that pertaining to learned helplessness, the latter became better tailored for accounting for a variety of responses to adverse experiences. Another of the many potential sources for the manifestation of learned helplessness can also be from the experience of observing another person attempting to cope with uncontrollable events, something referred to as ‘vicarious modeling or learning’. Yet another can be found in an academic setting, something that been demonstrated in every day teaching contexts. Child abuse is a further case in point (e.g., parents so stressed by an infant’s inconsolable crying that feel that are incapable of dealing with other than through physical abuse or neglect. With regard to children, it was not long before the extended theory of learned helplessness was seen as having benefits in counteracting the responses of children to scholastic failure that some sensed as being out of their control to rectify. On this basis, starting in 1973, Carol Dweck and colleagues were able to develop a highly successful program of research drawing on the theory, their initial attempts resulting in a two-part typology or pattern of individual differences in responding to such demotivating adverse events; learned helpless and mastery oriented children. Despite its undoubted success in addressing many educational and social problems, as well as individual inadequate coping strategies, the theory of learned helplessness has not been without criticism. For example, its application to addressing clinical depression has been viewed as oversimplified view of the illness in that it fails to take account of the complex cognitive processes and mechanisms involved in its etiology, manifestation and severity.
See Attributional style, Avoidance learning, Classical conditioning, Coping, Escape learning, Mastery, Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)