Journal oj Experimental Psychology

1971, Vol. 87, No. 3, 367-372

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN HUMAN SUBJECTS:

JERRY W. THORNTON2 AND PAUL D. JACOBS
University of Oklahoma
The present investigation attempted to test the learned helplessness hypothesis
with human 5s. Four groups differing in shock contingency were given a fixed
level of shock, while a second four groups were given a variable level of shock.
Thirty choice reaction time training trials were given in which one group could
avoid shock, a second and third group received inescapable shock yoked to the
escapable group (one with a training task to perform and one without), and the
fourth performed the task but with no shock. Ten test trials, in a completely
different task, followed in which all 5s could avoid shock. Results revealed in
all phases of the experiment that variable shock was superior to a fixed level as
a stress inducer. Learned helplessness was offered as an explanation to the
yoked group's lack of responses in test trials. Implications for investigation of
learned helplessness in humans and for the use of variable shock were discussed.

In recent review of the literature on un- Further investigations have shown that
controllable aversive events, Seligman, prior training with escapable shock serves
Maier, and Solomon (1969) maintain that to immunize 5 against any interference of
5s, in addition to learning that a particular subsequent helplessness trials (Overmier
response controls reinforcement, are cap- & Seligman, 1967) and that the helpless-
able of learning that they cannot control ness syndrome is most effectively alleviated
reinforcement, a phenomenon Overmier by a therapeutic procedure of forced re-
and Seligman (1967) have labeled sponding (Seligman, Maier, & Geer, 1968).
"learned helplessness." Since all investigations conforming to the
The primary concern of the present study helplessness paradigm have used animals as
involves a typical learned helplessness 5s, the present investigation attempted to
paradigm where 5 is first given training quantify and validate helplessness in hu-
trials of inescapable/unavoidable shock mans. One problem inherent in such an
followed by test trials in which escape/ endeavor is that of S stressor levels. The
avoidance is possible. There has been a acquisition phase of all tests of helplessness,
variety of experiments using this procedure, thus far, has involved near traumatic shock.
e.g., where the nature of the inescapable To increase shock in humans to a traumatic
shocks differ, differing situations in which level is far from practical, not to mention
the shocks are given, variable time between ethical considerations. The typical stress-
the inescapable shock and escape/avoid- set instructions involve subjective setting
ance' responses, and differing species (An- of the stress level according to 5"s percep-
derson, Cole, & McVaugh, 1968; Braud, tion of an unpleasant but not painful level.
Wepman, & Russo, 1969; Overmier & Thornton and Jacobs (1970) call to mind
Seligman, 1967 ; Pickney, 1967; Seligman & contradictory reports using the subjective
Maier, 1967). setting of shock levels. The selection
The phenomenon has been replicated and/or adjustment of stressor levels has
with a variety of frequencies, densities, perhaps some of the most consequential
durations, and temporal distributions of effects on research of human performance
inescapable shock; and despite the multi- under stress (Thornton & Jacobs, 1970).
plicity of experimental procedures, a con- Previous research (Thornton & Jacobs,
sistent picture of "helplessness" emerges. 1970) suggests that the subjective setting
1
This article was based on a doctoral dissertation of a shock level may have inherent prob-
at the University of Oklahoma by the first author. lems; e.g., after 5 denotes a fixed level of
2
Requests for reprints should be sent to Jerry W.
Thornton, now at Angelo State University, Depart- shock to be unpleasant but not painful, he
ment of Psychology, San Angelo, Texas 76901. is aware that the shock will never be of
367
368 JERRY W. THORNTON AND PAUL D. JACOBS
greater intensity. By so defining the situa-
tion, S gains predictability, thus reducing
his stressed state. D'Amato and Gumenik
(1960) and Pervin (1963) have noted that
not only does S favor predictability in his
environment, but that increased predict-
ability appears to reduce to some extent a
stressed state. Also, this procedure for
adjusting shock leaves E entirely dependent
on the willingness of 5 to "play the game,"
so to speak, in adjusting a truly unpleasant
level of shock.
The present investigation attempted to
eliminate these problems by using a vari-
able range of shock in anticipation of reduc-
ing 5 predictability over stressor amount,
thereby maintaining a facilitated stress
state.
It was hypothesized that groups adminis-
tered learned helplessness training would
perform significantly poorer (i.e., greater
latency) on test trials, due to facilitated
interference transfer, than groups adminis-
tered acquisition and test trials of escape/
avoidance or no shock. It was further
hypothesized that a stressed state would be
more resistant to extinction with a variable
level of shock than with a fixed level of
shock, with the former supporting helpless-
ness in humans due to the increased and
maintained stress level and the latter not
supporting the helplessness hypothesis due
to a dissipation of the stress state early in
acquisition.
METHOD
Subjects.—The 5s were 80 introductory psy-
chology volunteers who were randomly divided into
one of two instructional stress-set groups and then
blocked on four shock contingency groups on the
basis of Perceived Stress Index (PSI) base scores
(administered in the class before the study was de-
scribed or volunteers taken). The PSI (Jacobs &
Munz, 1968), a reliable and validated (Jacobs &
Thornton, 1970) check list instrument composed of
15 items derived by the Thurstone technique and re-
fined via Osgood's Semantic Differential, was used to
detect perceived stress states in each instructional
stress set.
Blocking consisted of assigning 5s to groups so
that each group was homogeneous in respect to per-
ceived stress.
Apparatus.—The apparatus consisted of two sepa-
rate and distinctively different units, each unit used
for a different phase of the experiment.
The training apparatus were located in three dis-1
tinctly separate rooms, each of which contained
identical choice reaction time units. Each unit con-
sisted of a display board on which was located, at the
top, a yellow warning light followed below by three
horizontal green stimulus lights. The 5's manipu-
landum was a panel containing three buttons, each
of which corresponded vertically to the stimulus
lights. A button in front of the stimulus buttons
served the purpose of insuring 5's hand would be in
a consistent place preceding a trial. One-half-in.
silver shock electrodes were located in two of the
three rooms containing the training apparatus, and
in a fourth. The fourth room contained only a chair
and shock electrodes.
Located in four distinctly separate rooms were the
test apparatus, each of which consisted of an 8-in.-sq.
box containing a light surrounded by seven white
buttons. Depression of both the first and fifth but-
tons in any fashion broke all circuits (i.e., light,
shock, and clock). Silver shock electrodes were
located in all four test rooms.
Shock, generated by a Grason-Stadler 350-v. con-
stant-current shock apparatus, was delivered in
training trials for 1-sec. duration, with avoidance
possible but not escape, and in test trials for 3 sec.
constant, with both escape and avoidance possible.
Reaction time was recorded by four Standard timers
(one-hundredth of a second).
Procedure.—Upon entering the laboratory, 5s
were assigned to rooms according to the PSI assign-
ment variable. The assignment variable, involving
eight groups, consisted of a factorial combination of
4 Shock Contingency Groups X 2 Stress-Set In-
structions. The 4 shock contingency groups in-
cluded: (a) experimental reaction time (ERT) 5s,
who could avoid shock during training trials; (b)
yoked reaction time (YRT) 5s, who received un-
avoidable yoked shock to ERT 5s while performing
the training task; (c) yoked (Y) 5s, who received
yoked unavoidable shock to ERT 5s, without a
training task to perform; and (d) control reaction
time (CRT) 5s, who performed the training task
without shock.
The two stress-set instructions included: (a) a
fixed (f) level of shock according to a subjective level
setting as unpleasant but not painful administered
to the four shock contingency groups, denoted here-
after as ERTf, YRT,, Y f , and CRT t ; and (b) a
variable (v) level of shock, varying from low to
moderate intensity (e.g., from .5, 1.0, 1.3, 2.0, and
2.5 ma.) administered to a second four shock con-
tingency groups, hereafter referred to as ERTV,
YRTV, Yv, and CRTV. The five intensities of the
variable shocks were assigned to each trial according
to a random number table assignment.
After electrodes were attached to the under side
of the arm 3 in. below the elbow, 5s were played a
tape recording of instructions.
First, general instructions to the training task
informed all 5s their task was to depress the correct
button corresponding to the onset of the stimulus
light. The second instruction informed ERTf and
ERTV 5s about the contingency between shock and
 LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN HUMAN SUBJECTS 369
slow or incorrect responding (e.g., 5s were shocked
for responses with a latency > .5 sec.) and YRTf 5.00 •
and YRTv 5s that they would receive inescapable
shock, unrelated to their task. The third instruc-
tions informed 5s about the shock they would be
receiving (i.e., fixed or variable level). The 5s in ¥.50 • CRT f
groups Yf and YT received only the shock instruc- >-
o
tions, then were asked to remain seated while being
administered several inescapable shocks.
If fixed levels of shock were employed, shock levels •< ¥ . 0 0 -
were adjusted for each 5. The variable shock, how-
ever, involved no such adjustment. The range of
the fixed shock was .8 to 3.5 ma., with the average I 3.50•• ERT
level of 2.23 ma. The range of the variable shock UJ
cc
was .8 to 2.5 ma., with an average level of 1.81 ma.
After all instructions were completed, a PSI was
administered before Trial 1, after Trial 15, and after 3.00
Trial 30 of the training task.
Following the third PSI, 5s were individually
moved to the test rooms, and after having the elec-
trodes attached, were informed that they would be 2.50
receiving several shocks in accordance with the
shock instructions during the following minutes. ERT YRT Y CRT
They were given no instructions concerning how to SHOCK CONTINGENCY GROUPS
perform the task other than there was a task to be
solved. CRTf 5s were allowed first to adjust their FIG. 1. A (instructional stress set) X B (shock
shock level before test trials began. contingency) interaction of the learned helplessness
Ten test trials followed which consisted of 2 sec. test trials.
of CS (light) alone, overlapping 3 sec. of US (con-
stant shock). Any response greater than 5 sec. was
recorded as 5 sec. A response latency less than 2 Test trials.~A 2 X 4 ANOVA, performed
sec. avoided shock for any of the four groups, while on the test trials, revealed a nonsignificant
any response greater than 2 or less than 5 sec. A (instructional stress set) main effect
resulted in shock for that partial duration. To avoid
expectancy responding, random schedules of stimu- (p > .25), but a significant B (shock con-
lus-light occurrences, time intervals between onset tingency) main effect, F (3, 72) = 19.33,
of warning and stimulus lights, and time intervals p < .01, and an A X B interaction, F (3,
between trials were used. " 72) = 2.78,£ < .05. Due to the significant
Before 5s were dismissed they were asked (a) how A X B interaction (see Fig. 1), a simple
they performed the task and (6) if they did not re- main effects analysis was conducted to
spond, why not?
separately assess the variance at each fac-
tor. The results revealed significance of A
RESULTS at bi (instructional stress set at escapable
Training trials.—Dunn's multiple-com- shock, p < .05) and B at a2 (shock con-
parison procedure revealed no differences in tingency at variable shock, p < .01). To
reaction time scores between ERTf, further assess the significance of the shock
YRTf, and CRT f ; whereas ERTV < YRTV contingency factor, a Scheff6 5 test was
= CRTV (p < .01). It appears as though conducted on each level of shock contin-
a variable level of shock significantly gency at each level of stress instruction.
facilitated ERTV .S's performance (in order The fixed-shock instruction analysis re-
to avoid shock) and significantly decreased vealed no significant group differences.
YRTV S's performance (due to interference The variable-shock instruction analysis
from unpredictable shock). The t ratios revealed
for a priori orthogonal comparisons revealed -?ERTV < .XYBTV = X?v = ACBTV(£ < -01),
much the same effect of the two instruc-
tional stress sets in that ERTf > ERTV, which was considered to be supportive of
• t (54) = 3.61, p < .01; YRTf < YRTV, the learned helplessness hypothesis. The
t (54) = 2.42, £ < .01, and CRTf = CRTV. t tests for a priori orthogonal comparisons
370 JERRY W. THORNTON AND PAUL D. JACOBS

5.00 5.00
f.75 V.75
V.50 V.50
V.25 o V.25
0
LU V.QQ-
LU
p— 3.75 < 3.75
_J
3.50 1 11
3.50

,N RESPONSt
LU
3.25 3.25
O
Q.
3.00 3.00
00
LU 2.75 2.75
Q£
2.50 2.50
^2L
2.25 LU 2.25
3 2.00 2.00
1.75 1.75
1.50 1.50
-—-»YRT
1.25 1.25-

•-—»CRT,,

I 2 3 V 5 6 7 8 9 I O I 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10
TRIALS TRIALS
FIG. 2. Graph of the 10 escape/avoidance test trials FIG. 3. Graph of the 10 escape/avoidance test trials
for the variable-shock contingency groups. for the fixed-shock contingency groups.

on latency measures yielded the following all of which reported significantly more
comparison : stress than

= 1.97, p < .05, ICET (P < .05).

>
while all other comparisons were non-
significant.
Figures 2 and 3 show the mean trial
responses over the 10 test trials for the four
shock contingency groups. Both figures
show the same group trends ; however, the
variable-shock group means were signifi-
cant, whereas the fixed-shock groups were
not.
PSI results.—A 2X4X3 mixed ANOVA
conducted on the PSI scores (a repeated
measure) revealed a significant A main
effect (p < .01) and perfectly confounded
with A, B, and C (PSI score) main effects
(p < .05) and (p < .01), respectively,
while no interactions approached signifi-
cance. A Scheffe's S test, conducted on the
B main effect to determine the relations
between shock contingency means, revealed
that
The t tests for dependent measures con-
ducted on the stress-set-confounded C main
effect revealed that PSIi indicated more
stress than PSIis, which equaled PSI3o
(p < .05).
An analysis of the shock intensity (in
milliamperes) administered per group in
training trials revealed that
ERTf = YRTf = Yf > ERTV
= YRTV = Yv (p < .01).
DISCUSSION
The test trial results of the variable-shock
5s appear to be supportive of a phenomenon at
least analogous to learned helplessness in
humans. Further, training trials, test trials,
and PSI results suggest that variable shock was
superior in inducing and maintaining a stressed
state. Although the statistical evidence is of
sufficient strength to support the learned help-
lessness hypothesis in humans, there are a few
discrepancies between this investigation and
those using animals.
 LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN HUMAN SUBJECTS
Probably the most noticeable discrepancy
concerns the fact that the CRT groups did not
differ from the YRT or Y groups with either
stress set during test trials. All previous tests
of helplessness with animals have reported the
ERT and CRT groups to be of near equality,
both having smaller latencies than the YRT
group. The present study with variable shock,
however, found the CRT test trials to be sig-
nificantly different from the ERT groups but
not the YRT or Y groups.
It is suggested that a possible explanation for
this discrepancy concerns the effects of instruc-
tional set. The CRT groups in training trials
were told only the nature of the task, while 5s
in groups ERT and YRT received additional
instructions concerning the relationship of the
task. In addition to instructional differences,
animal CRT 5s received no shock in training
trials, but traumatic shock in test trials led to
inevitable escape. If one were to use a trau-
matic level of shock with humans in the CRT
group, it is quite possible that their latencies
would shortly conform to those of the ERT
group. Thus, the restriction of shock to mild
levels in humans may repeatedly produce these
same findings, thus restricting a total replica-
tion of learned helplessness in humans. This
should not be taken, however, as failure to
validate helplessness in humans, since the more
crucial evidence is derived from the three
groups differing only in controllability, during
training, of the shock (i.e., ERT, YRT, and Y).
The present investigation represents a form
of transfer of instructions from one task to the
next. In reality, the whole basis of helpless-
ness is transfer of a learned state from one task
to a second. Whereas animals transferred a
self-learned helplessness state, humans trans-
ferred an instructionally set, internally veri-
fied, learned helplessness state. The point is
that they did transfer "helplessness" to a
second task which, in fact, offered control.
It should be pointed out that the two stress-
set groups performed under different shock
levels. The variable-shock group as a whole
avoided 82% of the training trial shocks,
whereas, the fixed group as a whole avoided
only 49% of the training trial shocks. This
gives reasoning behind why the variable-shock
groups (i.e., ERTV and YRTV) received only
about half as much shock as a group as did the
fixed-shock groups (i.e., ERTf and YRTf).
The trends, but lack of support of the help-
lessness hypothesis with fixed-shock levels and
the support for the hypothesis with variable-
shock levels may suggest an interesting and
371
yet untested effect of helplessness. That is,
learned helplessness may vary in degree
depending upon the amount of shock used in
training trials. Figures 2 and 3 reveal the simi-
larity of the two groups' performance. If one
accepts the idea that variable shock is more
stressful than a fixed level, and results support
this notion (i.e., ERTV < ERTf in training
trials), then the difference in Fig. 2 and 3
would suggest different degrees of learned
helplessness.
Some important relationships between Selig-
man's work with dogs and the present investi-
gation are notable. Seligman et al. (1969) re-
ported that in test trials, dogs who initially
received inescapable shock training made no
attempt later to escape or avoid. In the
present study, it was noted—by latency mea-
sures and postsession interviews—that with a
fixed level of shock, approximately 28% of all
YRTf, Y f , and CRTf 5s failed to make at least
one escape response during any of the 10 trials;
whereas, with a variable-shock level, approxi-
mately 65% of all YRTV, Yv, and CRTV 5s
failed to make at least one escape response.
This suggests that a variable level of shock
possibly acted to increase the interfering effect
of learned helplessness.
When asked why they did not respond,
approximately 60% of the 5s in all YRT and Y
groups reported that they felt they had no con-
trol over shock, so why try. These 5s reported
that they spend the majority of their time in
preparation for the upcoming shock. Approxi-
mately 35% reported that they, after pushing
one or two buttons, abandoned the idea of
escape. The other 5% gave no reason for
response failure. All 5s in both ERTf and
ERTV groups learned the task within four
trials; however, after the sixth trial only 10%
of ERTf 5s were avoiding, while 84% of ERTV
5s were avoiding. In postinterviews, when
ERTf and ERTV 5s were asked how they per-
formed the task, more that 70% reported they
felt that they had control over shock, and their
task was to find out how. Thus the perform-
ance of ERTf and ERTV 5s reflects behavior
similar to Seligman and Maier's (1967) dogs.
On several occasions, 5s would escape or
avoid shock on one or more trials, but on sub-
sequent trials would again take the full 3-sec.
shock. It appeared that these 5s did not asso-
ciate their responding with the reinforcement
(i.e., the helplessness state was maintained).
Seligman et al. (1969) described nearly identi-
cal findings with dogs.
372 JERRY W. THORNTON AND PAUL D. JACOBS
One of the primary implications of the pres-
ent study concerns Seligman's (1969) latest
work on schizophrenic "therapy," using know-
ledge of learned helplessness. Seligman hy-
pothesized that schizophrenics are a product
of the lack of control they have experienced
either traumatically or developmentally. Sup-
port for learned helplessness in humans would
seem to be a primary stepping stone for further
research on this idea.
The present study's heuristic value lies in
the fact that there are many parameters which
now must be investigated with human 5s, e.g.,
stressor generalization, immunization, allevia-
tion, etc.
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, D. C., COLE, J., & McVAUGH, W., Varia-
tions in unsignaled inescapable preshock as deter-
minants of responses to punishment. Journal of
Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968,
65(3, Pt. 2).
BRAUD, W., WEPMAN, B., & Russo, D. Task and
species generality of the "helplessness" phenome-
non. Psychonomic Sciences, 1969, 16, 154-155.
D'AMATO, M., & GUMENIK, W. Some effects of
immediate versus randomly delayed shock on an
instrumental response and cognitive processes.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960,
60, 64-67.
JACOBS, P. D., & MUNZ, D. C. An index for measur-
ing perceived stress in a college population. Jour-
nal of Psychology, 1968, 70, 9-15.
JACOBS, P. D., & THORNTON, J. W. Scale sensitivity
of the perceived stress index. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 1970, 30, 944.
MAIER, S. F., SELIGMAN, M. E. P., & SOLOMON, R. L.
Pavlovian fear conditioning and learned helpless-
ness. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.),
Punishment and aversive behavior. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.
OVERMIER, J. B., & SELIGMAN, M. E. P. Effects of
inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and
avoidance responding. Journal of Comparative
and Physiological Psychology, 1967, 63, 28-33.
PERVIN, L. A. The need to predict and control
under conditions of threat. Journal of Personality,
1963, 31, 570-585.
PICKNEY, G. Avoidance learning in fish as a func-
tion of prior fear conditioning. Psychological
Reports, 1967, 20, 71-74.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P. Can we immunize the weak?
Psychology Today, June 1969, 42-44.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P., & MAIER, S. F. Failure to
escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1967, 74, 1-9.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P., MAIER, S. F., & GEER, J. H.
Alleviation of learned helplessness in the dog.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 256-
262.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P., MAIER, S. F., & SOLOMON, R. L.
Unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events.
In F. R. Brush (Ed.), Aversive conditioning and
learning. Academic Press, 1969.
THORNTON, J. W., & JACOBS, P. D. Analysis of task
difficulty under varying conditions of induced
stress. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970, 31,
343-348.
(Received August 13, 1970)