Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation.
Abstract
The learned helplessness hypothesis is criticized and reformulated. The old hypothesis, when applied to learned helplessness in humans, has two major problems: (a) It does not distinguish between cases in which outcomes are uncontrollable for all people and cases in which they are uncontrollable only for some people (univervsal vs. personal helplessness), and (b) it does not explain when helplessness is general and when specific, or when chronic and when acute. A reformulation based on a revision of attribution theory is proposed to resolve these inadequacies. According to the reformulation, once people perceive noncontingency, they attribute their helplessness to a cause. This cause can be stable or unstable, global or specific, and internal or external. The attribution chosen influences whether expectation of future helplessness will be chronic or acute, broad or narrow, and whether helplessness will lower self-esteem or not. The implications of this reformulation of human helplessness for the learned helplessness model of depression are outlined.
Cite this
Lyn Y. Abramson, Martin E. P. Seligman, John D. Teasdale (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation.. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843x.87.1.49
@article{y1978learned,
title = {Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation.},
author = {Abramson, Lyn Y. and Seligman, Martin E. P. and Teasdale, John D.},
year = {1978},
journal = {Journal of Abnormal Psychology},
doi = {10.1037//0021-843x.87.1.49}
}Citations in this library
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7,117 citations exist upstream.