Journal of Abnormal Psychology
1978, Vol. 87, No. 1, 49-74

Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique and Reformulation
Lyn Y. Abramson and Martin E. P. Seligman
University of Pennsylvania

John D. Teasdale
Oxford University, England
The learned helplessness hypothesis is criticized and reformulated. The oldhypothesis, when applied to learned helplessness in humans, has two major
problems: (a) It does not distinguish between cases in which outcomes areuncontrollable 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 andwhen 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.

1967). Paralleling the experimental findings
with dogs, the debilitating consequences of
uncontrollable events have been demonstrated
in cats (Masserman, 1971; Seward & Humphrey, 1967; Thomas & Dewald, 1977), infish (Frumkin & Brookshire, 1969; Padilla,
1973; Padilla, Padilla, Ketterer, & Giacolone,1970), and in rats (Maier, Albin, & Testa,
1973; Maier & Testa, 197S; Seligman &Beagley, 1975; Seligman, Rosellini, & Kozak,
197S). Finally, the effects of uncontrollable
events have been examined in humans (Fosco& Geer, 1971; Gatchel & Proctor, 1976; Glass& Singer, 1972; Hiroto, 1974; Hiroto & Seligman, 1975; Klein, Fencil-Morse, & Seligman,
1976; Klein & Seligman, 1976; Krantz, Glass,& Snyder, 1974; Miller & Seligman, 1975;
Racinskas, 1971; Rodin, 1976; Roth, 1973;
Roth & Bootzin, 1974; Roth & Kubal, 1975;
Thornton & Jacobs, 1971; among others).
Hiroto's experiment (1974) is representativeand provides a human analogue to the animalstudies. College student volunteers were assigned to one of three groups. In the controllable noise group, subjects received loudnoise that they could terminate by pushingOver the past 10 years a large number ofexperiments have shown that a variety of organisms exposed to uncontrollable events often
exhibit subsequent disruption of behavior (seeMaier & Seligman, 1976, for a review of theinfrahuman literature). For example, whereas
naive dogs efficiently learn to escape shock by
jumping over a barrier in a shuttle box, dogs
that first received shocks they could neither
avoid nor escape show marked deficits in acquisition of a shuttle escape response (Overmier & Seligman, 1967; Seligman & Maier,This work was supported by U.S. Public HealthService Grant MH-19604, National Science Foundation Grant SOC-74 12063, and a Guggenheim fellowship to Martin Seligman. We thank Lauren Alloy, Judy Garber, Suzanne Miller, Frank Irwin, S. J.
Rachman, and Paul Eelen for their critical comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Ivan Miller (Note 1) has proposed an almost
identical reformulation. We believe this work tohave been done independently of ours, and it should
be so treated.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Martin E.
P. Seligman, Department of Psychology, Universityof Pennsylvania, 3815 Walnut Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19174.

Copyright 1978 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

49

50

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

a button four times. Subjects assigned to theuncontrollable noise group received noise thatterminated independently of subjects' responding. Finally, a third group received no noise.
In the second phase of the experiment allgroups were tested on a hand shuttle box. In
the shuttle box, noise termination was controllable for all subjects; to turn off the noise,
subjects merely had to move a lever from one
side of the box to the other. The results of thetest phase were strikingly similar to those obtained with animals. The group receiving priorcontrollable noise as well as the group receiving no noise readily learned to shuttle, but the
typical subject in the group receiving prioruncontrollable noise failed to escape andlistened passively to the noise.
Although a number of alternative hypotheses (see Maier & Seligman, 1976, for a review) have been proposed to account for the
debilitating effects of experience with uncontrollability, only the learned helplessness hypothesis (Maier & Seligman, 1976; Maier,
Seligman, & Solomon, 1969; Seligman, 1975;
Seligman et al., 1971) provides a unified theoretical framework integrating the animal andhuman data. The cornerstone of the hypothesis is that learning that outcomes are uncontrollable results in three deficits: motivational,
cognitive and emotional. The hypothesis is"cognitive" in that it postulates that mere exposure to uncontrollability is not sufficient torender an organism helpless; rather, the organism must come to expect that outcomes areuncontrollable in order to exhibit helplessness.
In brief, the motivational deficit consists ofretarded initiation of voluntary responses andis seen as a consequence of the expectationthat outcomes are uncontrollable. If the organism expects that its responses will not affectsome outcome, then the likelihood of emitting
such responses decreases. Second, the learned
helplessness hypothesis argues that learningthat an outcome is uncontrollable results in a
cognitive deficit since such learning makes it
difficult to later learn that responses producethat outcome. Finally, the learned helplessness hypothesis claims that depressed affect isa consequence of learning that outcomes areuncontrollable.

Historically, the learned helplessness hypothesis was formulated before helplessness
experiments were performed with human subjects. In the main, early studies of human
helplessness attempted to reproduce the animal findings in humans and were rather lessconcerned with theory building. Recently,
however, investigators of human helplessness(e.g., Blaney, 1977; Golin & Terrell, 1977;
Wortman & Brehm, 1975; Roth & KilpatrickTabak, Note 2) have become increasingly disenchanted with the adequacy of theoreticalconstructs originating in animal helplessness
for understanding helplessness in humans.
And so have we. We now present an attributional framework that resolves several theoretical controversies about the effects of uncontrollability in humans. We do not knowwhether these considerations apply to infrahumans. In brief, we argue that when a person finds that he is helpless, he asks why he is
helpless. The causal attribution he makes thendetermines the generality and chronicity ofhis helplessness deficits as well as his later
self-esteem. In developing the attributionalframework, we find it necessary to refine attribution theory (cf. Heider, 1958; Weiner,
1972, 1974). Finally, we discuss the implications of the reformulation for the helplessness
model of depression (Seligman, 1972, 1975;
Seligman, Klein, & Miller, 1976).
Personal Helplessness Versus Universal
Helplessness
Inadequacy 1 of the Old Theory
Several examples highlight a conceptual
problem encountered by the existing learned
helplessness hypothesis when applied to human helplessness. Consider a subject in Hiroto's experiment (1974) who is assigned to
the group that received uncontrollable noise.
The experimenter tells the subject there issomething he can do to turn off the noise.
Since the noise is actually uncontrollable, thesubject is unable to find a way to turn off thenoise. After repeated unsuccessful attempts,
the subject may come to believe the problem
is unsolvable; that is, neither he nor any othersubject can control noise termination. Alternatively, the subject may believe that the prob-

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION

lem is solvable but that he lacks the ability
to solve it; that is, although he can't control
noise termination, other subjects could successfully control the noise. The old helplessness hypothesis does not distinguish these twostates, either of which could be engendered by
the procedure of presenting uncontrollable
outcomes.
In a recent publication, Bandura (1977)
discussed a similar distinction:
Theorizing and experimentation on learned helplessness might well consider the conceptual distinction
between efficacy and outcome expectations. People
can give up trying because they lack a sense of efficacy in achieving the required behavior, or they
may be assured of their capabilities but give up trying because they expect their behavior to have noeffect on an unresponsive environment or to be consistently punished. These two separable expectancy
sources of futility have quite different antecedents
and remedial implications. To alter efficacy-based
futility requires development of competencies andexpectations of personal effectiveness. By contrast, tochange outcome-based futility necessitates changes inprevailing environmental contingencies that restore
the instrumental value of the competencies that people already possess, (pp. 204-205)

A final way of illustrating this inadequacy
concerns the relation between helplessness andexternal locus of control. Early perspectives oflearned helplessness (Hiroto, 1974; Miller &Seligman, 1973; Seligman, Maier, & Geer,
1968) emphasized an apparent similarity between the helplessness concept of learningthat outcomes are uncontrollable and Rotter's(1966) concept of external control. Rotter argued that people's beliefs about causality canbe arrayed along the dimension of locus ofcontrol, with "internals" tending to believe
outcomes are caused by their own respondingand "externals" tending to believe outcomesare not caused by their own responding but
by luck, chance, or fate. Support for this proposed conceptual similarity of externals andhelpless individuals was provided by studies
of verbalized expectancies for success in tasksof skill (Klein & Seligman, 1976; Miller &Seligman, 1975). Helpless subjects gave smallj
expectancy changes, which suggests a belief1
in external control, whereas subjects notmade helpless gave large expectancy changes,
which suggests a belief in internal control.
These findings indicated that helpless sub-51

jects perceived tasks of skill as if they were rtasks of chance. A puzzling finding, however,was consistently obtained in these studies. On
postexperimental questionnaires, helpless andnonhelpless subjects rated skill as playing thesame large role in a person's performance on
the skill task. Both helpless and nonhelplesssubjects said they viewed the skill task as askill task. Thus, the relation between the concepts of external control and uncontrollability
may be more complex than implied by the oldhypothesis.
Taken together, these examples point to
one conceptual problem concerning the notions of uncontrollability and helplessness. Recall the distinction made by the old helplessness hypothesis between controllable anduncontrollable outcomes. An outcome is said
to be uncontrollable for an individual when
the occurrence of the outcome is not related
to his responding. That is, if the probabilityof an outcome is the same whether or not agiven response occurs, then the outcome is independent of that response. When this istrue of all voluntary responses, the outcome issaid to be uncontrollable for the individual(Seligman, 1975; Seligman, Maier, & Solomon, 1971). Conversely, if the probability ofthe outcome when some response is made isdifferent from the probability of the outcome
when the response is not made, then the outcome is dependent on that response: The outcome is controllable. The early definition,
then, makes no distinction between cases inwhich an individual lacks requisite controlling
responses that are available to other people
and cases in which the individual as well as
all other individuals do not possess controlling
responses. These three examples all illustrate
the same inadequacy. In the next section weoutline a framework that resolves this inadequacy, and we discuss the implications of thisframework.
Resolution of Inadequacy 1
Suppose a child contracts leukemia and thefather bends all his resources to save thechild's life. Nothing he does, however, improves the child's health. Eventually he comesto believe there is nothing he can do. Nor isthere anything anyone else can do since leu-

52

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

Objective noncontingency —» Perception ofpresent and past noncontingency —> Attribution for present or past noncontingency ~*Expectation of future noncontingency —>Symptoms of helplessness.
Figure 1. Flow of events leading to symptoms of
helplessness.

kemia is incurable. He subsequently gives up
trying to save the child's life and exhibits
signs of behavioral helplessness as well as depressed affect. This example fits the specifications of the old learned helplessness hypothesis. The parent believed the course of thechild's disease was independent of all of his
responses as well as the responses of otherpeople. We term this situation universal helplessness.
Suppose a person tries very hard in school.
He studies endlessly, takes remedial courses,
hires tutors. But he fails anyway. The person
comes to believe he is stupid and gives up
trying to pass. This is not a clear case of uncontrollability according to the old model,
since the person believed there existed responses that would contingently produce passing grades although he did not possess them.
Regardless of any voluntary response the person made, however, the probability of his obtaining good grades was not altered. We term
this situation personal helplessness.
Before discussing the distinction between
universal and personal helplessness, it is useful to spell out the flow of events leading tosymptoms of helplessness in both examples.
First, the person perceived that all of his acts
were noncontingently related to the desired
outcome; regardless of what the father did,the child's illness did not improve, and thestudent continued to do poorly no matter how
hard he tried. The person then made an attribution for the perceived noncontingency
between his acts and the outcome; the father
came to believe leukemia was incurable andthe student came to believe he was stupid. In
each case, the attribution led to an expectancy of noncontingency between future actsof the individual and the outcome. Finally,
the symptoms of helplessness were a consequence of the person's expectancy that his

future responses would be futile in obtaining
the outcome. The usual sequence of events
leading from objective noncontingency to thehelplessness is diagrammed in Figure 1.
Both the old and reformulated hypotheses
hold the expectation of noncontingency to be
the crucial determinant of the symptoms oflearned helplessness. Objective noncontingency
is predicted to lead to symptoms of helplessness only if the expectation of noncontingency
is present (Seligman, 1975, pp. 47-48). The
old model, however, was vague in specifying
the conditions under which a perception thatevents are noncontingent (past or present oriented) was transformed into an expectationthat events will be noncontingent (futureoriented). Our reformulation regards the attribution the individual makes for noncontingency between his acts and outcomes in thehere and now as a determinant of his subsequent expectations for future noncontingency.
These expectations, in turn, determine thegenerality, chronicity, and type of his helplessness symptoms. In the context of this general account of the role of attribution in the
production of symptoms, the distinction between universal and personal helplessness can
now be clarified.
Table 1 explicates the distinction between
universal helplessness and personal helplessness and ultimately serves to define our usageof the attributional dimension of internality.
We take the self-other dichotomy as the criterion of internality. When people believethat outcomes are more likely or less likely
to happen to themselves than to relevant
others, they attribute these outcomes to internal factors. Alternatively, persons make external attribution for outcomes that they believe are as likely to happen to themselves as
to relevant others.
In the table, the x-axis represents the person's expectations about the relation between
the desired outcome and the responses in hisrepertoire.1 The person expects the outcome
1
For the purpose of exposition, dichotomies
rather than continua are used. The person expects
that the controlling response is or is not available tohim and that the controlling response is or is notavailable to others. These two dichotomies allow for
four possible belief states. Strictly speaking, how-

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATIONS3

Table 1
Personal Helplessness and Universal Helplessness
Self

Other

The person expects theoutcome is contingent
on a response in hisrepertoire.

The person expects theoutcome is contingent
on a response in therepertoire of a relevant
other.
The person expects theoutcome is not contingent
on a response in therepertoire of any relevant
other.

either to be contingent on some response in
his repertoire or not to be contingent on any
response in his repertoire. The y-axis represents his expectations about the relation between the desired outcome and the responses
in the repertoires of relevant others. The person expects the outcome to be either contingent on at least one response in at least one
relevant other's repertoire or not contingent on
any response in any relevant other's repertoire. Cell 4 represents the universal helplessness case and includes the leukemia example,
and Cell 3 represents the personal helplessness
case and includes the school failure example.
Because the person does not believe he is
helpless in Cells 1 and 2, these cells are not
relevant here and are not discussed. It should
be pointed out, however, that a person in Cell
2 would be more likely to make an internal
attribution for his perceived control thanwould a person in Cell 1.
In Table 1, the y-axis represents the person's expectations about whether someone
else, a relevant other, had the controlling response in his repertoire. The following exever, the x-axis is a continuum. At the far right, theperson expects there is a zero probability that thedesired outcome is contingent on any response in
his repertoire. Conversely, on the far left he expects
there is a probability of one that the desired outcome is contingent on a response in his repertoire.
Similar considerations apply to the y-axis as a continuum.

The person expects theoutcome is not contingent
on any response in hisrepertoire.
personal helplessness
3(internal attribution)
universal helplessness
4(external attribution)

ample makes it clear why we use a "relevant
other" rather than a "random other" or "anyother": It is of no solace to a floundering
graduate student in mathematics that "random others" are unable to do topologicaltransformations. Crucial to the student's selfevaluation is his belief that his peers, "relevant others," have a high probability of
being able to do topological transformations.
Nor is it self-esteem damaging for a grade
school student to fail to solve mathematicalproblems that only professional mathematicians can solve, although he may have low
self-esteem if his peers can solve them. Therefore, the y-axis is best viewed as representing
the person's expectations about the relation
between the desired outcome and the responses in the repertoires of relevant others.2
2
Our formulation of "internal" and "external"
attributions resembles other attributional frameworks. Heider (19S8), who is generally considered
the founder of attribution theory, made a basic distinction between "factors within the person" and"factors within the environment" as perceived determinants of outcomes. Similarly, in the locus ofcontrol literature, Rotter (1966) distinguished between outcomes that subjects perceive as causally
related to their own responses and personal characteristics and outcomes that subjects perceive as
caused by external forces such as fate. Unlike theseprevious formulations that ask whether a factor
resides "within the skin" or "outside the skin" todetermine whether it is internal or external, we define the self-other dichotomy as the criterion of

54

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

Implications
The distinction between universal and personal helplessness resolves the set of inadequacies with which we began the article, Situations in which subjects believe they cannot
solve solvable problems are instances of personal helplessness according to the reformulated hypothesis. Alternatively, situations inwhich subjects believe that neither they nor
relevant others can solve the problem are instances of universal helplessness. Similarly,
Bandura's (1977) conceptual distinction between efficacy and outcome expectancies relates to the reformulation in the following
way: Personal helplessness entails a low efficacy expectation coupled with a high outcome expectation (the response producing theoutcome is unavailable to the person), whereas
universal helplessness entails a low outcome
expectation (no response produces the outcome). Finally, the reformulation regards "external locus of control" and "helplessness" asorthogonal. One can be either internally or
externally helpless. Universally helpless individuals make external attributions for failures, whereas personally helpless individuals
make internal attributions. The experimental
finding that helpless individuals view skill
internality. Although these two formulations may
appear to be at odds, analysis reveals strong similarities. For example, Heider (1958) argued that inmaking a causal attribution, individuals hold a condition responsible for an outcome if that condition ispresent when the outcome is present and absent when
the outcome is absent. Likewise, Kelley (1967) suggested that the procedure individuals use in determining the cause of events is similar to an analysis
of variance procedure employed by scientists. The
factor that consistently covaries with an outcome isconsidered to be its cause.
Let us examine the leukemic child and the school
failure examples from the perspective of Kelley andHeider. The responses of no person are consistently
associated with improvement of the leukemic child's
disease. If the father performed Kelley or Heider'scausal analysis, he would conclude that his failure
was due to some external factor (e.g., leukemia is
incurable). Alternatively, in the school example,
failing is consistently associated with the student
and not associated with his peers. Here, the student
would conclude that some internal factor (e.g., stupidity) was the cause of his failure. Thus, Heider and
Kelley also rely on social comparison as a major
determinant of internality.

tasks as skill tasks, not as chance, is no longer
puzzling. The task is one of skill (relevant
others can solve it), but they do not have therelevant skill. These subjects view themselves as personally rather than universally
helpless.
The distinction between universal helplessness and personal helplessness also clarifies
the relation of uncontrollability to failure. In
the literature these two terms have often beenused synonymously. Tennen (Note 3), arguing from an attributional stance, suggested
that the terms are redundant and that weabandon the concept of uncontrollability forthe simpler concept of failure. We believe
this suggestion is misguided both from thepoint of view of attribution theory and from
common usage of the term failure.
In current attribution theories (e.g., Weiner,1972) success and failure refer to outcomes.
Success refers to obtaining a desired outcome
and failure to not obtaining a desired outcome.
According to this framework, then, the term
failure does not embrace all cases of uncontrollability. Thus, from a strict attributional
point of view, failure and uncontrollability
are not synonymous: Failure is a subset
of uncontrollability involving bad outcomes.
Early theoretical accounts of helplessness suggested that good things received independentlyof responding should lead to helplessness deficits. Recent evidence bears this out: Uncontrollable positive events produce the motivational and cognitive deficits in animals (Goodkin, 1976; Welker, 1976) and in humans(Griffiths, 1977; Eisenberger, Mauriello, Carlson, Frank, & Park, Note 4; Hirsch, Note 5;
Nugent, Note 6; but see Benson & Kennelly,
1976, for contrary evidence) but probably do
not produce sad affect. Similarly Cohen, Rothbart, and Phillips (1976) produced helplessness effects in the absence of perceived failure.
In the future, such studies should measure
perception of noncontingency as well as performance, since Alloy and Abramson (Note7) found that noncontingency is more difficult to perceive when one is winning thanwhen one is losing. So the notion of uncontrollability means more than just failure, andit makes predictions concerning both failureand noncontingent success.

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION

In ordinary language, failure means morethan merely the occurrence of a bad outcome.
People say they have failed when they have
tried unsuccessfully to reach a goal and attribute this to some internal factor. Obtaining
poor grades in school is considered failure,but being caught in a flash flood is generally
considered misfortune. The concepts of trying
and personal helplessness are both necessary
to analyze failure in the ordinary language
sense. According to the reformulated model,
then, failure, seen from the individual's pointof view, means the subset of personal helplessness involving unsuccessful trying.
The final ramification of the distinction between universal and personal helplessness isthat it deduces a fourth deficit of human helplessness—low self-esteem. A major determinant of attitudes toward the self is comparison with others (Clark & Clark, 1939;
Festinger, 1954; Morse & Gergen, 1970;
Rosenberg, 1965). Our analysis suggests that
individuals who believe that desired outcomesare not contingent on acts in their repertoires
but are contingent on acts in the repertoiresof relevant others, will show lower self-esteem
than individuals who believe that desired outcomes are neither contingent on acts in theirrepertoires nor contingent on acts in the repertoires of relevant others. That is, an unintelligent student who fails an exam his peers
pass will have lower self-esteem than a student who fails an exam that all of his peers
fail as well.
The dichotomy between universal and personal helplessness determines cases of helplessness (and depression, see below) withand without low self-esteem. But it is neutral
with regard to the cognitive and motivational
deficits in helplessness. It is important to emphasize that the cognitive and motivational
deficits occur in both personal and universal
helplessness. Abramson (1977) has demonstrated this empirically while showing thatlowered self-esteem occurs only in personal
helplessness. According to both the old andthe new hypotheses, the expectation that outcomes are noncontingently related to one's
own responses is a sufficient condition for
motivational and cognitive deficits.

55

We now turn to the second set of inadequacies. The old hypothesis was vague about
when helplessness would be general acrosssituations and when specific, and when it
would be chronic and when acute. We now
formulate this inadequacy and develop an
attributional framework that resolves it.
Generality and Chronicity of Helplessness
Inadequacy 2 of the Old Theory
A second set of examples point to the otherinadequacy of the old helplessness hypothesis.
Consider debriefing in a typical human helplessness study: The subject is presented withan unsolvable problem, tested on a second
solvable task, and finally debriefed. The subject is told that the first problem was actually unsolvable and therefore no one could
have solved it. Experimenters in human helplessness studies seem to believe that tellinga subject that no one could solve the problem
will cause helplessness deficits to go away.
The prior discussion suggests that convincing
a subject that his helplessness is universal
rather than personal will remove self-esteem
deficits suffered in the experiment. Neither
the old nor the new hypothesis, however, predicts that such debriefing will remove thecognitive and motivational deficits. What does
debriefing undo and why?
A second way of illustrating this inadequacy is the following: A number of investigators (Hanusa & Schulz, 1977; Tennen &Eller, 1977; Wortman & Brehm, 1975) haveemphasized those cases of learned helplessness
in which a person inappropriately generalizes
the expectation of noncontingency to a new,controllable situation. It is important to pointout that the old hypothesis does not require
an inappropriate generalization for helplessness. Helplessness exists when a person shows
motivational and cognitive deficits as a consequence of an expectation of uncontrollability. The veridicality of the belief and therange of situations over which it occurs areirrelevant to demonstrating helplessness. But
the old hypothesis does not specify where andwhen a person who expects outcomes to beuncontrollable will show deficits. In keepingwith the resolution of the first inadequacy, an

56

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

attributional framework is now presented toresolve the second inadequacy by explaining
the generality and chronicity of deficits associated with helplessness.
A Resolution: The Attributional Dimensionsof Stability and Generality
Helplessness deficits are sometimes highly
general and sometimes quite specific. An accountant, fired from his job, may function
poorly in a broad range of situations: he cannot get started on his income tax, he fails tolook for a new job, he becomes impotent, heneglects his children, and he avoids social
gatherings. In contrast, his helplessness may
be situation specific: He does not do his income tax and fails to look for a new job, but
he remains an adequate lover, father, andparty-goer, When helplessness deficits occur
in a broad range of situations, we call them
global; when the deficits occur in a narrow
range of situations, we call them specific.
The time course of helplessness (and depression, see below) also varies from individual to individual. Some helplessness deficits
may last only minutes and others may lastyears. Helplessness is called chronic when it iseither long-lived or recurrent and transientwhen short-lived and nonrecurrent.
The old hypothesis was vague about generality and chronicity. The helpless person hadlearned in a particular situation that certain
responses and outcomes were independent.
The deficits resulting could crop up in new
situations if either the responses called for or
the outcomes desired were similar to the responses and outcomes about which original
learning had occurred. Helplessness was global
when it depressed responses highly dissimilar
to those about which original learning had occurred or when it extended to stimuli highly
dissimilar to those about which original learning had occurred. No account was given about
why helplessness was sometimes specific andsometimes global.
When helplessness dissipated in time, forgetting produced by interference from prioror later learning was invoked (e.g., Seligman,
1975, pp. 67-68). Forgetting of helplessness
could be caused either by earlier mastery
learning or by subsequent mastery learning.

Again, the explanation was largely post hoc.
Helplessness that dissipated rapidly was assumed to have strong proactive or retroactive
interference; that which persisted was not.
The reformulated hypothesis makes a major new set of predictions about this topic:
The helpless individual first finds out that certain outcomes and responses are independent,
then he makes an attribution about the cause.
This attribution affects his expectations about
future response-outcome relations and thereby
determines, as we shall see, the chronicity,
generality, and to some degree, the intensityof the deficits. Some attributions have global,
others only specific, implications. Some attributions have chronic, others transient, implications. Consider an example: You submit
a paper to a journal and it is scathingly rejected by a consulting editor. Consider two
possible attributions you might make: "I am
stupid" and "The consulting editor is stupid."
The first, "I am stupid," has much more disastrous implications for your future papersubmitting than the second. If "I am stupid"
is true, future papers are likely to be rejected
as well. If "The editor is stupid" is true, future papers stand a better chance of being
accepted as long as you do not happen on thesame consulting editor. Since "I" is something
I have to carry around with me, attributing
the cause of helplessness internally often but
not always (see below) implies a grimmer
future than attributing the cause externally,
since external circumstances are usually but
not always in greater flux than internal factors.
Recent attribution theorists have refined
the possible attribution for outcomes by suggesting that the dimension "stable-unstable"
is orthogonal to "internal-external" (Weiner,
1974; Weiner, Frieze Kukla, Reed, Rest, &Rosenbaum, 1971). Stable factors are thoughtof as long-lived or recurrent, whereas unstable factors are short-lived or intermittent.
When a bad outcome occurs, an individual
can attribute it to (a) lack of ability (an internal-stable factor), (b) lack of effort (aninternal-unstable factor), (c) the task's being
too difficult (an external-stable factor), or(d) lack of luck (an external-unstable factor).

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION

57

Table 2Formal Characteristics of Attribution and Some Examples
Internal

External

Dimension

StableGlobalFailing student

Lack of intelligence

Exhaustion

ETS gives unfair tests. Today is Friday the 13th.

(Laziness)(Having a cold, whichmakes me stupid)(People are usually
unlucky on the ORE.)

I'm unattractive tomen,

My conversation sometimes bores men.

Men are overly compet- Men get into rejecting
itive with intelligent
moods.
women.

Rejected woman
Specific
Failing student

Rejected woman

StableUnstable

Unstable(ETS gave experimental tests
this time which were too
hard for everyone.)Lack of mathematical Fed up with mathabilityproblems

ETS gives unfair math The math test was fromtests.
No. 13.

(Math always boresme.)(Having a cold, whichruins my arithmetic)(People are usually(Everyone's copy of theunlucky on math tests.) math test was blurred.)

I'm unattractive tohim.

My conversation bores
him.

He's overly competitive with women.

He was in a rejecting mood.

Note. ETS = Educational Testing Service, the maker of graduate record examinations (GRE).

While we applaud this refinement, we believe that further refinement is necessary to
specify the attributions that are made when
an individual finds himself helpless. In particular, we suggest that there is a third dimension—"global-specific"—orthogonal to internality and stability, that characterizes theattributions of people. Global factors affecta wide variety of outcomes, but specific factors do not.3 A global attribution implies that
helplessness will occur across situations,whereas a specific attribution implies helplessness only in the original situation. This dimension (like those of stability and internality) is a continuum, not a dichotomy; for thesake of simplicity, however, we treat it here
as a dichotomy.
Consider a student taking graduate record
examinations (GREs) measuring mathematical and verbal skills. He just took the mathtest and believes he did very poorly. Within
the three dimensions, there are eight kinds ofattribution he can make about the cause of
his low score (Internal-External X Stable-Unstable X Global-Specific). These attributions
have strikingly different implications for how
he believes he will perform in the next hour on
the verbal test (generality of the helplessness
deficit across situations) and for how he believes he will do on future math tests when heretakes the GRE some months hence (chronicity of the deficit over time in the same situ-

ation). Table 2 describes the formal characteristics of the attributions and exemplifies them.
Table 1 relates to Table 2 in the following
way: Table 2 uses the attributional dimensions of stability and generality to further
subdivide the cases of personal helplessness(Cell 3—internal attribution) and universal
helplessness (Cell 4—external attribution) in
Table 1.
According to the reformulated hypothesis,
if the individual makes any of the four global
attributions for a low math score, the deficits
observed will be far-reaching: Global attributions imply to the individual that when heconfronts new situations the outcome willagain be independent of his responses. So, if
he decides that his poor score was caused byhis lack of intelligence (internal, stable,
global) or his exhausted condition (internal,
3
In principle, there are a large number of dimensions on which attributions can be specified.
Weiner (Note 8) suggested that the criterion for adimension, as opposed to a mere property, of attribution be that we can sensibly ask, Does it apply to
all the causes that we assign to behavior? So stableunstable is a dimension because we can sensibly ask,
Is ability a factor that persists stably over time? Ispatience a factor that persists stably?, and so on.
Similarly, global-specific qualifies as a dimension
since we can ask sensibly, Is ability a factor that
affects many situations or only few? Is patience afactor that affects many situations?, and so on.

58

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

unstable, global) or that the Educational
Testing Service (ETS; the creator of GREs)
gives unfair tests (external, stable, global) orthat it is an unlucky day (external, unstable,
global), when he confronts the verbal test ina few minutes, he will expect that here, as
well, outcomes will be independent of his response, and the helplessness deficits will ensue.
If the individual makes any of the four specific attributions for a low math score, helplessness deficits will not necessarily appear
during the verbal test: i.e., lack of mathematical ability (internal, stable, specific) or
being fed up with math problems (internal,
unstable, specific) or that ETS asks unfair
math questions (external, stable, specific) or
being unlucky on that particular math test
(external, unstable, specific).
In a parallel manner, chronicity of the
deficits follows from the stability dimension.
Chronic deficits (he will be helpless on thenext math GRE when he retakes it at a latertime) will ensue if the attribution is to stablefactors: lack of intelligence, lack of mathematical ability, ETS gives unfair tests, ETS
gives unfair math tests. Attribution to stablefactors leads to chronic deficits because they
imply to the individual that he will lack thecontrolling response in the future as well as
now. If the attribution is to an unstable factor—exhaustion, fed up with the math problems,
unlucky day, or unlucky on the math tests—
he will not necessarily be helpless on thenext math GRE. If he makes any of the internal attributions—lack of intelligence, lackof math ability, exhaustion, or fed up withmath problems—the self-esteem deficits will
occur. In contrast, none of the external attributions will produce self-esteem deficits.4
Because so much real-life helplessness stems
from social inadequacy and rejection, Table
2 illustrates a social example. Here a woman
is rejected by a man she loves. Her attribution for failure will determine whether sheshows deficits in situations involving mostother men (global) and whether she shows
deficits in the future with this particular man
or with other men (chronic). She might select any of four types of global attributions:
I'm unattractive to men (internal, stable,
global); my conversation sometimes boresmen (internal, unstable, global); men are
overly competitive with intelligent women(external, stable, global); men get into rejecting moods (external, unstable, global). Allfour of these attributions will produce helplessness deficits in new situations with mostother men. The four specific attributions willproduce deficits only with this particular man:I'm unattractive to him (internal, stable,
specific); my conversation somtimes boreshim (internal, unstable, specific); he is overly
competitive with intelligent women (external,
stable, specific); he was in a rejecting mood(external, unstable, specific). Any of the four
stable attributions will produce chronic deficits either with that man (if specific) or withmost men (if global); the four unstable attributions will produce transient deficits. The
four internal attributions will produce selfesteem deficits; the four external attributions
will not.
Having stated what we believe are the determinants of the chronicity and generality ofhelplessness deficits, a word about intensity or
severity is in order. Severity is logically inde4
A critical remark is in order on the adequacy ofability, effort, task difficulty, and luck as embodying, respectively, internal-stable, internal-unstable,
external-stable, external-unstable attributions (Weiner et al., 1971). While we find the orthogonality ofinternality and stability dimensions useful and important, we do not believe that the ability-effort/task difficulty-luck distinctions map into these dimensions. Table 2 presents (in parentheses) attributions that systematically violate the mapping. Aninternal-stable attribution for helplessness need not
be to lack of ability; it can be to lack of effort:
laziness (global), math always bores me (specific).
An internal-unstable attribution need not be tolack of effort, it can be to (temporary) inabilities:
I have a cold, which makes me stupid (global); I
have a cold, which ruins my arithmetic ability (specific). An external-stable attribution need not be totask difficulty; it can be to lack of luck: Somepeople are always unlucky on tests (global); people
are always unlucky on math tests (specific). An
external-unstable attribution need not be to bad
luck; it can be to task difficulty: ETS gave experimental tests this time that were difficult for everyone (global); everyone's copy of the math test was
blurred (specific). So, ability and effort are logicallyorthogonal to internal-stable and internal-unstable
attributions, and luck and task difficulty are orthogonal to external-stable and external-unstable
attributions.

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION

pendent of chronicity and generality; it refers to how strong a given deficit is at any
one time in a particular situation. We believethat the intensity of the motivational andcognitive deficits increases with the strength
or certainty of the expectation of noncontingency. We speculate that intensity of selfesteem loss and affective changes (see Implications of the Reformulated Model for the
Helplessness Model of Depression below) will
increase with both certainty and importanceof the event the person is helpless about. We
also speculate that if the attribution is global
or stable, the individual will expect to behelpless in the distant future (both acrossareas of his life and across time) as well as in
the immediate future. The future will look
black. This expectation will increase the intensity of the self-esteem and affective deficits. If the attribution is internal, this may
also tend to make these deficits more severe,
since internal attributions are often stableand global.
Attribution and Expectancy
In general, the properties of the attribution
predict in what new situations and across what
span of time the expectation of helplessness
will be likely to recur. An attribution to
global factors predicts that the expectation
will recur even when the situation changes,
whereas an attribution to specific factors
predicts that the expectation need not recur when the situation changes. An attribution to stable factors predicts that the expectation will recur even after a lapse of time,
whereas an attribution to unstable factors
predicts that the expectation need not recur
after a lapse of time. Whether or not the expectation recurs across situations and withelapsed time determines whether or not the
helplessness deficits recur in the new situation
or with elapsed time. Notice that the attribution merely predicts the recurrence of the expectations but the expectation determines theoccurrence of the helplessness deficits. New
evidence may intervene between the initial
selection of an attribution and the new andsubsequent situation and change the expecta-

59

tion. So the person may find out by intervening successes that he was not as stupid as hethought, or he may gather evidence thateveryone obtained low scores on the mathGRE and so now ETS is under new management. In such cases, the expectation need not
be present across situations and time. On
the other hand, if the expectation is present,
then helplessness deficits must occur (seeWeiner, 1972, for a related discussion ofachievement motivation).
Implications
The attributional account of the chronicity^and generality of the symptoms of helpless-1
ness explains why debriefing ensures that defi-lcits are not carried outside the laboratory. *The debriefing presumably changes the attribution from a global (and potential^
harmful outside the laboratory) and possiblyinternal (e.g., I'm stupid) one to a more
specific and external one (e.g., psychologists
are nasty: They give unsolvable problems toexperimental subjects). Since the attribution
for helplessness is to a specific factor, the expectation of uncontrollability will not recur
outside the laboratory anymore than it would
have without the experimental evidence.
These attributional dimensions are also relevant to explaining when inappropriate, broad
generalization of the expectation of noncontingency will occur. Broad transfer of helplessness will be observed when subjects attribute their helplessness in the training phaseto very global and stable factors. Alternatively, attributing helplessness to very specificand unstable factors predicts very little transfer of helplessness.
A final question concerns the determinantsof what particular attribution people makefor their helplessness. Attribution theorists(e.g., Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967; Weiner,
1974) have discussed situational factors that
influence the sort of attribution people make.
In addition, Heider and Kelley pointed to systematic biases and errors in the formation of
attributions. Later, we discuss an "attributional style" that may characterize depressedpeople.

60

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

Validity of the Reformulated Model
The validity of the new hypothesis must
ultimately be assessed by its ability to generate novel predictions that survive attempts
at experimental disconfirmation. As it is a
new hypothesis, no results from such attempts are yet available. However, a minimum requirement is that this hypothesis
should be consistent with the available experimental evidence. Although such consistency can lend only limited support to the
hypothesis (as the available evidence has
been one factor shaping the hypothesis), inconsistency might seriously embarrass the
hypothesis.
Is the Reformulated Hypothesis Consistent
with the Experimental Evidence on Learned
Helplessness in Humans?
Three basic classes of evidence are covered:(a) deficits produced by learned helplessness,(b) attributional evidence, and (c) skill/chance evidence.
Deficits produced by learned helplessness.
Nondepressed students given inescapable noiseor unsolvable discrimination problems fail toescape noise (Glass, Reim, & Singer, 1971;
Hiroto & Seligman, 1975; Klein & Seligman,
1976; Miller & Seligman, 1976), fail to solve
anagrams (Benson & Kennelly, 1976; Gatchel& Proctor, 1976; Hiroto & Seligman, 1975;
Klein et al., 1976), and fail to see patterns
in anagrams (Hiroto & Seligman, 1975; Klein
et al., 1976). Escapable noise, solvable discrimination problems, or no treatment does
not produce these deficits. Both the old andthe reformulated hypotheses explain these
deficits by stating that subjects expect thatoutcomes and responses are independent in
the test situation. This expectation produces
the motivational deficit (failure to escapenoise and failure to solve anagrams) and thecognitive deficit (failure to see patterns). The
reformulated hypothesis adds an explanationof why the expectation for the inescapabilityof the noise or the unsolvability of the discrimination problems must have been global
enough to transfer across situations (e.g., I'm
unintelligent; problems in this laboratory are

impossible) and stable enough to survive thebrief time interval between tests. The data
are ambiguous about whether the global,
stable attribution is internal (e.g., I'm stupid)
or external (e.g., laboratory problems are
impossible); self-esteem changes would havebeen relevant to this determination. Nondepressed students who escape noise, solve problems, or receive nothing as pretreatment do
not perceive response-outcome independence
and do not, of course, make any attribution
about such independence.
For a control procedure, subjects have been
told to listen to noise (which is inescapable)
but not to try to do anything about it(Hiroto & Seligman, 1975); similarly, subjects have been given a panic button that"will escape noise if pressed" but have beensuccessfully discouraged from pressing ("I'drather you didn't, but it's up to you"; (Glass& Singer, 1972). These subjects do not become helpless. Both the old and reformulated
hypotheses hold that these subjects do not
perceive noncontingency (in this latter case,they perceive potential response-outcome contingency; in the first case, they have no relevant perception) and so do not form therelevant expectations and attributions.
A number of studies on human helplessness
have obtained findings that are difficult to
explain with the old helplessness hypothesis.
Examination of these studies suggests that investigators may have tapped into the attributional dimensions of generality and stability. For example, Roth and Kubal (1975)
tested helplessness across very different situations: Subjects signed up for two separate experiments that happened to be on the same
day in the same building. They failed on thetask in Experiment 1 (pretraining) and thenwandered off to Experiment 2 (the test task).
When subjects were told in Experiment 1 thatthey had failed a test that was a "really
good predictor of grades in college" (important), they showed deficits on the cognitive
problem of Experiment 2. When told that Experiment 1 was merely "an experiment inlearning" (unimportant), they did better onExperiment 2. In the case of "good predictorof grades," subjects probably made a moreglobal, internal, and possibly more stable at-

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION

tribution (e.g., I'm stupid enough to do badly
on this, therefore on college exams as well).
The expectation therefore recurred in the newsituation, producing deficits. In the unimportant condition, subjects probably made a more
specific and less stable attribution, so the expectation of failure was not present in Experiment 2. (See Cole and Coyne, 1977, foranother way of inducing a specific, rather thana global, attribution for failure.)
Similarly, Douglas and Anisman (1975)
found that failure on simple tasks produced
later cognitive deficits but that failure on complex tasks did not. It seems reasonable that
failure on simple tasks should produce a moreglobal and internal attribution (e.g., I'm
stupid) whereas failure on the complex tasks
could be attributed to external and more
specific factors (e.g., these problems are too
difficult).
An important advantage of the reformulation is that it better explains the effects oftherapy and immunization than does the oldhypothesis. The key here is the attributional
dimension of generality. Helplessness can bereversed and prevented by experience withsuccess. Klein and Seligman (1976) gave nondepressed people inescapable noise and thendid "therapy," using 4 or 12 cognitive problems, which the subjects solved. (Therapy
was also performed on depressed people givenno noise.) Therapy worked: The subjects(both depressed and nondepressed) escaped
noise and showed normal expectancy changes
after success and failure. Following inescapable noise the subjects presumably made an
attribution to a relatively global factor (e.g.,
I'm incompetent, or laboratory tasks are unsolvable), which was revised to a more specific one after success on the next task (e.g.,
I'm incompetent in only some laboratory situations, or, only some laboratory tasks are difficult). The new test task, therefore, did not
evoke the expectation of uncontrollability.
Teasdale (1978) found that real success experiences and recalling similar past successes
were equally effective in shifting attribution
for initial failure from internal to external
factors. Only real success, however, reversed
helplessness performance deficits. This suggests success does not have its effect by shift-61

ing attribution along the internal-external
dimension. Although the relevant data were
not collected, it is likely that real, but notrecalled, success modifies attribution along
the global-specific dimension. Immunization(Thornton & Powell, 1974; Dyck & Breen,
Note 9) is explained similarly: Initial successexperience should make the attribution for
helplessness less global and therefore lesslikely to recur in the new test situation.
A number of human helplessness studies
have actually shown facilitation in subjects
exposed to uncontrollable events (Hanusa &Schulz, 1977; Roth & Kubal, 1975; Tennen& Eller, 1977; Wortman et al., 1976). While
such facilitation is not well understood (seeWortman & Brehm, 1975; Roth & KilpatrickTabak, Note 2, for hypotheses), it seems reasonable that compensatory attempts to reassert control might follow helplessness experiences, once the person leaves the situations inwhich he believes himself helpless (see Solomon & Corbit, 1973, for a relevant reboundtheory). Such compensatory rebound might
be expected to dissipate in time and be lessstrong in situations very far removed from theoriginal helplessness training. When the "facilitation" effect of helplessness is brought
under replicable, experimental control, thecompensatory rebound hypothesis can betested. People may also show facilitation of
performance in uncontrollable situations when
they cannot find a controlling response but
have not yet concluded that they are helpless.
The reformulated hypothesis accounts forthe basic helplessness results better than does
the old hypothesis. The explanations given by
the reformulated hypothesis are necessarily
post hoc, however. Relevant measures of thegenerality, stability, and internality of attribution were not made. Helplessness studies •can, in principle, test the hypothesis either bymeasuring the attributions and correlatingthem with the deficits that occur or by inducing the attributions and predicting deficits.
We now turn to the few studies of helplessness
that have induced or measured attribution.
Attributional evidence. Dweck and her associates (Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci,
1973; Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, & Enna,
Note 10; Dweck, Goetz, & Strauss, Note 11)

62

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

have demonstrated the differential effects of
attribution for failure to lack of ability versus
lack of effort. When fourth-grade girls fail,they attribute their failure to lack of ability(consonant with their teachers' natural classroom criticisms of girls) and perform badly
on a subsequent cognitive test. Lack of ability
is a global attribution (as well as internaland stable) and implies failure expectation
for the new task. Fourth-grade boys, on theother hand, attribute failure to lack of effort
or bad conduct (also consonant with theteachers' natural classroom criticisms of boys)
and do well on the subsequent test. Lack ofeffort is unstable and probably more specific(but also internal). Boys, having failed andattributed failure to lack of effort, put out
more effort on the test task and do adequately.
Similarly, when students are told to attribute
failure on math problems to not trying hardenough, they also do better than if they attribute it to lack of ability (Dweck, 1975).
Effort is not only "unstable," but it isreadily controllable by the subject himself,
unlike being bored, for example, which is also
unstable, specific, and internal, or unlike lackof ability. It should be noted that the dimension of controllability is logically orthogonal
to the Internal X Global X Stable dimensions(although it is empirically more frequent in
the internal and unstable attribution), and assuch it is a candidate f o r a 2 X 2 X 2 x 2table of attributions. While we do not detailsuch an analysis here, we note that the phenomena of self-blame, self-criticism, and guilt(a subclass of the self-esteem deficits) in
helplessness (and depression) follow from attribution of failure to factors that are controllable. Lack of effort as the cause of failure
probably produces more self-blame than doesboredom, although both are internal and unstable attributions. Similarly, a failure caused
by not speaking Spanish attributed to lack ofability to speak Spanish, which might havebeen corrected by taking a Berlitz course,
probably causes more self-blame than a lesscorrectable lack of ability, such as ineptitude
for foreign languages, even though both areinternal and stable.
According to the reformulation, performance deficits should occur in cases of both

universal and personal helplessness. In bothcases people expect that outcomes are independent of their responses. In addition, attribution of helplessness to specific or unstable factors should be less likely to lead toperformance deficits than attribution to stableor global factors. To date, four studies havemanipulated attribution for helplessness inadults. In line with the reformulation, Klein
et al. (1976) found that relative to groups
receiving solvable problems or no problems at
all, nondepressed students did poorly on ananagrams task following experience with unsolvable discrimination problems regardless ofwhether they attributed their helplessness tointernal factors (personal helplessness) or external factors (universal helplessness).
Tennen and Eller (1977) attempted to manipulate attribution by giving subjects unsolvable discrimination problems that werelabeled either progressively "easier" or progressively "harder." The authors reasoned
that failure on easy problems should produce
attribution to lack of ability (internal, stable,
and more global) whereas failure on hard
problems should allow attribution to task difficulty (external, unstable, and more specific).
Subjects then went to what they believed wasa second, unrelated experiment (see Roth &Kubal, 197S) and tried to solve anagrams. Inline with the reformulation, attribution to inability (easy problems) produced deficits. Attribution to task difficulty (hard problems)
resulted in facilitation of anagram solving.
The most likely explanation for lack of performance deficits in the task-difficulty group isthat their attributions for helplessness were
too specific to produce an expectation of noncontingency in the test task.
Finally, two studies (Hanusa & Schulz,
1977; Wortman et al., 1976) found that relative to a group exposed to contingent events,
neither a group instructed to believe they
were personally helpless nor a group instructed to believe they were universally helpless on a training task showed subsequent
performance deficits on a test task. While theresults appear contrary to the reformulation,
they are difficult to interpret. The problem isthat in both studies, the typical helplessness
group (a group exposed to noncontingent

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION

events in the training task but given no explicit attribution) did not show performance
deficits on the test task. Thus, the test task
may not have been sensitive to helplessness
deficits. (For a discussion of the relative sensitivity of tasks to helplessness in animals, seeMaier and Seligman, 1976.) It is interestingthat Wortman et al. (1976) found that personally helpless subjects showed more emotional distress than universally helpless subjects.
Overall, then, the few helplessness studies
directly assessing and manipulating attribution provide some support for the reformulation. Because of the methodological problems
in some of these studies, future research thatmanipulates attribution is necessary. Caremust be taken to ensure that one attributional
dimension is not confounded with another.
Past studies, for example, have confounded externality with specificity and internality withgenerality.
Helpless subjects show dampened expectancy changes in skill tasks. In skill tasks,
expectancy for future success increases lessfollowing success and/or decreases less following failure for helpless subjects than for
subjects not made helpless (Klein & Seligman,
1976; Miller & Seligman, 1976; Miller, Seligman, & Kurlander, 1975; see also Miller &Seligman, 1973, and Abramson, Garber, Edwards & Seligman, 1978, for parallel evidence
in depression). The old hypothesis interpreted
these results as a general tendency of helpless subjects to perceive responding and outcomes on skill tasks as independent, and it
was assumed that this index measured thecentral helplessness deficit directly. In otherwords, it had been suggested that such subjects perceive skill tasks as if they werechance tasks. The rationale for this interpretation was derived from the work of Rotter andhis colleagues (James, 1957; James & Rotter,
1958; Phares, 1957; Rotter, Liverant, &Crowne, 1961). These investigators argued
that reinforcements on previous trials have agreater effect on expectancies for future success when the subject perceives reinforcement as skill determined than when he perceives it as chance determined. According tothis logic, subjects will show large expectancy

63changes when they believe outcomes arechance determined.
Recent developments in attribution theory
suggest that expectancy changes are not a direct index of people's expectations about response-outcome contingencies. Weiner and hiscolleagues (1971) argued that the attributional dimension of stability rather than locus
of control is the primary determinant of
expectancy changes. According to Weiner(Weiner, 1974; Weiner, Heckhausen, Meyer,& Cook, 1972) people give small expectancychanges when they attribute outcomes to unstable factors and large expectancy changes
when they attribute outcomes to stable factors. The logic is that past outcomes are goodpredictors of future outcomes only when they
are caused by stable factors.
In the absence of knowledge about individual attributions, the reformulated helplessness
hypothesis cannot make clear-cut predictions
about expectancy changes and helplessness,since belief in response-outcome dependence
or independence is orthogonal to stable-unstable. For example, suppose a person makes
an internal attribution to lack of ability forhis helplessness, i.e., he believes in responseoutcome independence for himself. When confronted with the skill task, he may show verylarge expectancy changes after failure since
he believes he lacks the stable factor of ability
for the task. Alternatively, when confronted
with the 50% success rate typically used inhelplessness studies, he may maintain his belief that he lacks the stable factor of ability
but conclude that ability is not necessary forsuccess on the task. After all, he succeeded
sometimes in spite of his perceived lack ofability. Under such conditions, the person
will believe outcomes are a matter of chance(unstable factor) for himself but not forothers. Accordingly, he will give small expectancy changes. Moreover, a nonhelpless person (who perceives response-outcome dependency) may believe unstable factors, such aseffort, cause his outcomes and show little expectancy change; alternatively, if he believesa stable factor is responsible for responseoutcome dependence, he will show large shifts.
Rizley (1978) similarly argued that expectancy changes on chance and skill tasks do

64

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

not directly test the learned helplessness
model of depression. We agree. As argued in
the previous paragraph, small expectancychanges need not imply belief in independence
between responses and outcomes, and large
expectancy changes need not imply belief in
dependence between responses and outcomes.
Nor does belief in response-outcome independence imply small expectancy changes, or
belief in dependence imply large changes. The
fact that depressives often show smaller expectancy changes than nondepressed people(Abramson et al., 1978; Klein & Seligman,
1976; Miller & Seligman, 1973, 1976; Miller
et al., 1975) is intriguing but provides only
limited support for the learned helplessness
model. In order for expectancy changes to be
used as a way of inferring perception of response-outcome independence, the particularattribution and its stability must also be
known. None of the studies to date that measured expectancy shifts also measured therelevant attributions, so these studies do nottell us unambiguously that helpless (or depressed) people perceive response-outcome
independence. They support the model only
in as far as these two groups show the same
pattern of shifts, but the pattern itself cannot be predicted in the absence of knowledge
about the accompanying attribution.
To conclude this section, examination of
expectancy changes on chance and skill tasks
is not a direct way of testing helplessness,since such changes are sensitive to the attributional dimension of stability and not to expectations about response-outcome contingencies. Recent failures to obtain small expectancy changes in depressed people (McNitt & Thornton, 1978; Willis & Blaney,1978) are disturbing empirically, but less sotheoretically, since both depressed and helpless subjects show the same pattern, albeit a
different pattern from the one usually found.
Implications of the Reformulated Model for
the Helplessness Model of Depression
This reformulation of human helplessness
has direct implications for the helplessness
model of depression. The cornerstone of previous statements of the learned helplessness

model of depression is that learning that outcomes are uncontrollable results in the motivational, cognitive, and emotional components
of depression (Seligman, 1975; Seligman etal., 1976). The motivational deficit consistsof retarded initiation of voluntary responses,
and it is reflected in passivity, intellectual
slowness, and social impairment in naturally
occurring depression. According to the oldmodel, deficits in voluntary responding follow directly from expectations of responseoutcome independence. The cognitive deficit
consists of difficulty in learning that responses
produce outcomes and is also seen as a consequence of expecting response-outcome independence. In the clinic, "negative cognitiveset" is displayed in depressives' beliefs that
their actions are doomed to failure. Finally,
the model asserts that depressed affect is aconsequence of learning that outcomes are uncontrollable. It is important to emphasizethat the model regards expectation of response-outcome independence as a sufficient,
not a necessary, condition for depression.
Thus, physiological states, postpartum conditions, hormonal states, loss of interest in reinforcers, chemical depletions, and so on may
produce depression in the absence of the expectation of uncontrollability. According to
the model, then, there exists a subset of depression—helplessness depressions—that iscaused by expectation of response-outcome
independence and displays the symptoms ofpassivity, negative cognitive set, and depressed affect.
We believe that the original formulation of
the learned helplessness model of depression
is inadequate on four different grounds: (a)Expectation of uncontrollability per se is not
sufficient for depressed affect since there aremany outcomes in life that are uncontrollable
but do not sadden us. Rather, only those uncontrollable outcomes in which the estimatedprobability of the occurrence of a desired outcome is low or the estimated probability ofthe occurrence of an aversive outcome is highare sufficient for depressed affect, (b) Lowered self-esteem, as a symptom of the syndrome of depression, is not explained, (c) The
tendency of depressed people to make internal attributions for failure is not explained,(d) Variations in generality, chronicity, andCRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION

intensity of depression are not explained. All
but the first of these shortcomings are directly remedied by the reformulation of human helplessness in an attributional framework.
Inadequacy 1: Expectation of Uncontrollability Is Not Sufficient for Depressed AffectWe view depression, as a syndrome, to bemade up of four classes of deficits: (a) motivational, (b) cognitive, (c) self-esteem, and(d) affective (but see Blaney, 1977, for areview that contends that only affective
changes are relevant to depression). Whereas
the first three deficits are the result of uncontrollability, we believe the affective
changes result from the expectation that bad
outcomes will occur, not from their expecteduncontrollability.
Everyday observation suggests that an expectation that good events will occur with ahigh frequency but independently of one's
responses is not a sufficient condition for
depressed affect (see Seligman, 1975 (p. 98),
versus Maier & Seligman, 1976 (p. 17), forprevious inconsistent accounts). People do
not become sad when they receive $1,000 eachmonth from a trust fund, even though themoney comes regardless of what they do. In
this case, people may learn they have nocontrol over the money's arrival, become passive with respect to trying to stop the moneyfrom arriving (motivational deficit), havetrouble relearning should the money actually
become response contingent (cognitive deficit), but they do not show dysphoria. Thus,
only those cases in which the expectation of
response-outcome independence is about theloss of a highly desired outcome 5 or about
the occurrence of a highly aversive outcome
are sufficient for the emotional component ofdepression. It follows, then, that depressed
affect may occur in cases of either universal
or personal helplessness, since either can involve expectations of uncontrollable, important outcomes.
At least three factors determine the intensity of the emotional component of depression. Intensity of affect (and self-esteem deficits) increases with desirability of the unobtainable outcome or with the aversiveness of65

the unavoidable outcome, and with thestrength or certainty of the expectation of
uncontrollability. In addition, intensity ofdepressed affect may depend on whether the
person views his helplessness as universal or
personal. Weiner (1974) suggested that failure attributed to internal factors, such aslack of abiity, produces greater negative affect than failure attributed to external factors, such as task difficulty. The intensity ofcognitive and motivational components ofdepression, however, does not depend onwhether helplessness is universal or personal,
or, we speculate, on the importance of theevent.
Perhaps the expectation that one is receiving positive events noncontingently contributes indirectly to vulnerability to depressed
affect. Suppose a person has repeatedly
learned that positive events arrive independently of his actions. If the perception or expectation of response-outcome independencein future situations involving loss is facilitated by such a set, then heightened vulnerability to depression will occur.
Inadequacy 2: Lowered Self-esteem as a
Symptom of Depression
A number of theoretical perspectives (Beck,
1967, 1976; Bibring, 1953; Freud, 1917/
5
One problem remains. It is a "highly desired"outcome for us that the editor of this journal give
us each one million dollars, and we believe this tohave a very low probability and to be uncontrollable. Yet, we do not have depressed affect upon realizing this. Some notion, like Klinger's (1Q7S) "current concerns," is needed to supplement our account.
We feel depressed about the nonoccurrence of highly
desired outcomes that we are helpless to obtain only
when they are "on our mind," "in the realm of
possibility," "troubling us now," and so on. Incidentally, the motivational and cognitive deficits do
not need current concerns, only the affective deficit.
We take this inadequacy to be general not only tothe theory stated here but to much of the entire
psychology of motivation, which focuses on behavior, and we do not attempt to remedy it here. We
find Klinger's concept heuristic but in need of somewhat better definition. We, therefore, use the notionof "loss of a highly desired outcome" rather than"nonoccurrence." Loss implies that it will probably bea current concern. Since this is only part of a sufficiency condition, we do not deny that nonoccurrence can also produce depressed affect.

66

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

1957) regard low self-esteem as a hallmark
symptom of depression. Freud has written,"The melancholic displays something else besides which is lacking in mourning—an extraordinary diminution in his self-regard, an
impoverishment of his ego on a grand scale"(p. 246). A major shortcoming of the oldmodel of depression is that it does not explain
the depressive's low opinion of himself. Our
analysis of universal and personal helplessness
suggests that depressed individuals who believe their helplessness is personal show lower
self-esteem than individuals who believe their
helplessness is universal. Suppose two individuals are depressed because they expect thatregardless of how hard they try they will remain unemployed. The depression of the person who believes that his own incompetence
is causing his failure to find work will feel low
self-regard and worthlessness. The person who
believes that nationwide economic crisis iscausing his failure to find work will not thinkless of himself. Both depressions, however, willshow passivity, negative cognitive set, andsadness, the other three depressive deficits,
since both individuals expect that the probability of the desired outcome is very low andthat it is not contingent on any responses intheir repertoire.
It is interesting that psychoanalytic writers
have argued that there are at least two typesof depression, which differ clinically as well as
theoretically (Bibring, 1953). Although bothtypes of depression share motivational, cognitive, and affective characteristics, only thesecond involves low self-regard. Further paralleling our account of two types of depression
is recent empirical work (Blatt, D'Afflitti, &Quinlan, 1976) suggesting that depression can
be characterized in terms of two dimensions:dependency and feelings of deprivation, andlow self-esteem and excessively high standards and morality.
Inadequacy 3: Depressives Believe They
Cause Their Own Failures
Recently, Blaney (1977) and Rizley (1978)
have construed the finding that depressives attribute their failures to internal factors, suchas lack of ability, as disaffirming the learned

helplessness model of depression. Similarly,
aware that depressives often blame themselves for bad outcomes, Abramson and
Sackeim (1977) asked how individuals canpossibly blame themselves for outcomes about
which they believe they can do nothing. Although the reformulation does not articulate
the relation between blame or guilt and helplessness, it clearly removes any contradiction
between being a cause and being helpless. Depressed individuals who believe they are personally helpless make internal attributions for
failure, and depressed individuals who believe
they are universally helpless make external attributions for failure. A personally helpless individual believes that the cause of the failure
is internal (e.g., I'm stupid) but that he is
helpless (No response I could make would
help me pass the exam).
What are the naturally occurring attributions of depressives? Do they tend to attribute failure to internal, global, and stablefactors, and success to external, specific, andunstable factors?6
Hammen and Krantz (1976) looked atcognitive distortion in depressed and nondepressed women. When responding to a story
containing "being alone on a Friday night,"
depressed women selected more depressed-distorted cognitions ("upsets me and makes me
start to imagine endless days and nights bymyself"), and nondepressed women selected
more nondepressed-nondistorted cognitions("doesn't bother me because one Friday nightalone isn't that important; probably everyone
has spent nights alone"). Depressed people
seem to make more global and stable attributions for negative events. When depressed
women were exposed to failure on an interpersonal judgment task, they lowered theirself-rating more than did nondepressed women.
aThe literature on the relation between internal
locus of control and depression might be expected toyield direct information about internal attribution in
depression. It is, however, too conflicting at thisstage to be very useful. Externality, as measured by
the Rotter scale, correlates weakly (.2S-.30) withdepression (Abramowitz, 1969; Miller & Seligman,1973), but the external items are also rated more
dysphoric and the correlation may be an artifact(Lamont, 1972).

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATIONThis indicates that the depressed women aresystematically generating mpre internal aswell as global and stable attributions for
failure.7
Rizley (1978) caused depressed and nondepressed students to either succeed or fail on a
cognitive task and then asked them to makeattributions about the cause. Depressed students attributed failures to incompetence (internal, global stable), whereas nondepressed
students attributed their failures to task difficulty (external, specific, stable). Similarly,
depressed students attributed success to theease of the task (external, specific, stable),
whereas nondepressed students attributed theirsuccess to ability (internal, global, stable).
Although inconsistent with the old model,
Rizley's results are highly consistent with thereformulation.
Klein et al. (1976) assessed the attribution
depressed and nondepressed college students
made for failure on discrimination problems.
Whereas depressed students tended to attribute failure to internal factors, nondepressed students tended to attribute failure
to external factors. These findings parallel
those of Rizley on attribution in achievement
settings.
Garber and Hollon (Note 12) asked depressed and nondepressed subjects to makepredictions concerning their own future success as well as the success of another personin the skill/chance situation. The depressedsubjects showed small expectancy changes inrelation to their own skilled actions; however,when they predicted the results of the skilled
actions of others, they showed large expectancy changes, like those of nondepressives
rating themselves. These results suggest that
depressives believe they lack the ability forthe skill task but believe others possess theability, the internal attribution of personal
helplessness.
Taken together, the studies examining depressives' attributions for success and failuresuggest that depressives often make internal,
global, and stable attributions for failure andmay make external, specific, and perhaps lessstable attributions for their success. Future
research that manipulates and measures attributions and attributional styles in depres-67

sion and helplessness is necessary from thestandpoint of our reformulated hypothesis.
Inadequacy 4: Generality and Chronicity oj
Depression
The time course of depression varies greatly
from individual to individual. Some depressions last for hours and others last for years.
"Normal" mourning lasts for days or weeks;many severe depressions last for months or
years. Similarly, depressive deficits are sometimes highly general across situations andsometimes quite specific. The reformulated
helplessness hypothesis suggests that the chronicity and generality of deficits in helplessness
depressions follow from the stability andglobality of the attribution a depressed person makes for his helplessness. The same logic
we used to explain the chronicity and generality of helplessness deficits above applies
here.
The reformulation also sheds light on thecontinuity of miniature helplessness depressions created in the laboratory and of real-life
depression. The attributions subjects makefor helplessness in the laboratory are presumably less global and less stable than attributions made by depressed people for failure outside the laboratory. Thus, the laboratory-induced depressions are less chronic andless global and are capable of being reversed
by debriefing, but, we hypothesize, they are
not different in kind from naturally occurring
helplessness depressions. They differ only
7

Alloy and Abramson (Note 7) also examined
distortion, not in attributions but in perception ofcontingency between depressed and nondepressed
students. The subjects were exposed to different relations between button pushing and the onset of agreen light and were asked to judge the contingency
between the outcome and the response. Depressed
students judged both contingency and noncontingency accurately. In contrast, nondepressed students
distorted: When the light was noncontingently related to responding but occurred with a high frequency, they believed they had control. So there
was a net difference in perception of contingency bydepressed and nondepressed subjects, but the distortion occurred in the nondepressed, who picked up
noncontingency less readily (see also Jenkins & Ward,1965).

68

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

quantitatively, not qualitatively, that is, they
are mere "analogs" to real helplessness depressions.
Do depressive deficits occur in situations
that have nothing to do with the expectationof noncontingency? After failing a math GRE,the student goes home, burns his dinner, cries,
has depressive dreams, and feels suicidal. If
this is so, there are two ways our reformulation might explain this: (a) He is still in thepresence of the relevant cues and expectations,for even at home the expectation that he will
not get into graduate school is on his mind,and (b) the expectation, present earlier but
absent now, has set off endogenous processes(e.g., loss of interest in the world, catecholamine changes) that must run their course. Remember that expectations of helplessness areheld to be sufficient, not necessary, conditionsof depression.
Finally, does the attributional reformulation of helplessness make depression look too"rational"? The chronicity, generality, and intensity of depression follow inexorably, "rationally" from the attribution made and theimportance of the outcome. But there is room
elsewhere for the irrationality implicit in depression as a form of psychopathology. The
particular attribution that depressed peoplechoose for failure is probably irrationally distorted toward global, stable, and internal factors and, for success, possibly toward specific,
unstable, and external factors. It is also possible that the distortion resides not in attributional styles but in readiness to perceive helplessness, as Alloy and Abramson (Note 7)
have shown: Depressed people perceive noncontingency more readily than do nondepressed people.
In summary, here is an explicit statementof the reformulated model of depression:
1. Depression consists of four classes of deficits: motivational, cognitive, self-esteem, andaffective.
2. When highly desired outcomes are believed improbable or highly aversive outcomesare believed probable, and the individual expects that no response in his repertoire willchange their likelihood, (helplessness) depression results.

3. The generality of the depressive deficits
will depend on the globality of the attribution
for helplessness, the chronicity of the depression deficits will depend on the stability of theattribution for helplessness, and whether selfesteem is lowered will depend on the internality of the attribution for helplessness.
4. The intensity of the deficits depends on
the strength, or certainty, of the expectationof uncontrollability and, in the case of the affective and self-esteem deficits, on the importance of the outcome.
We suggest that the attributional framework proposed to resolve the problems ofhuman helplessness experiments also resolves
some salient inadequacies of the helplessness
model of depression.
Vulnerability, Therapy, and Prevention
Individual differences probably exist in attributional style. Those people who typicallytend to attribute failure to global, stable, andinternal factors should be most prone to general and chronic helplessness depressions withlow self-esteem. By the reformulated hypothesis, such a style predisposes depression. Beck
(1967) argued similarly that the premorbid
depressive is an individual who makes logicalerrors in interpreting reality. For example, thedepression-prone individual overgeneralizes; astudent regards his poor performance in asingle class on one particular day as final
proof of his stupidity. We believe that ourframework provides a systematic framework
for approaching such overgeneralization: It is
an attribution to a global, stable, and internal
factor. Our model predicts that attributional
style will produce depression proneness, perhaps the depressive personality. In light of
the finding that women are from 2 to 10
times more likely than men to have depression(Radloff, Note 13), it may be important thatboys and girls have been found to differ in attributional styles, with girls attributing helplessness to lack of ability (global, stable) andboys to lack of effort (specific, unstable;
Dweck, 1976).
The therapeutic implications of the reformulated hypothesis can now be schematized.
Depression is most far-reaching when (a) theCRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION

69

Table 3Treatment, Strategies, and Tactics Implied by the Reformulated Hypothesis
A. Change the estimated probability of the relevant event's occurrence: Reduce estimated likelihood foraversive outcomes and increase estimated likelihood for desired outcomes.
a. Environmental maniuplation by social agencies to remove aversive outcomes or provide desired outcomes, for example, rehousing, job placement, financial assistance, provision of nursery care forchildren.
b. Provision of better medical care to relieve pain, correct handicaps, for example, prescription ofanalgesics, provision of artificial limbs and other prostheses.
B. Make the highly preferred outcomes less preferred.
a. Reduce the aversiveness of highly aversive outcomes.
1. Provide more realistic goals and norms, for example, failing to be top of your class is not the end of
the world—you can still be a competent teacher and lead a satisfying life.
2. Attentional training and/or reinterpretation to modify the significance of outcomes perceived asaversive, for example, you are not the most unattractive person in the world. "Consider the counterevidence" (Beck, 1976; Ellis, 1962).
3. Assist acceptance and resignation.
b. Reduce the desirability of highly desired outcomes.
1. Assist the attainment of alternative available desired outcomes, for example, encourage the disappointed lover to find another boy or girl friend.
2. Assist reevaluation of unattainable goals.
3. Assist renunciation and relinquishment of unattainable goals.
C. Change the expectation from uncontrollability to controllability.
a. When responses are not yet within the person's repertoire but can be, train the necessary skills, forexample, social skills, child management skills, skills of resolving marital differences, problem-solving
skills, and depression-management skills.
b. When responses are within the person's repertoire, modify the distorted expectation that the responses
will fail.
1. Prompt performance of relevant, successful responses, for example, graded task assignment(Burgess, 1968).
2. Generalized changes in response-outcome expectation resulting from successful performance ofother responses, for example, prompt general increase in activity; teach more appropriate goalsetting and self-reinforcement; help to find employment.
3. Change attributions for failure from inadequate ability to inadequate effort (Dweck, 1975), causing
more successful responding.
4. Imaginal and miniaturized rehearsal of successful response-outcome sequences: Assertive training,decision-making training, and role playing.
D. Change unrealistic attributions for failure toward external, unstable, specific; change unrealistic attributions for success toward internal, stable, global.
a. For failure
1. External: for example, "The system minimized the opportunities of women. It is not that you areincompetent."
2. Unstable: for example, "The system is changing. Opportunities that you can snatch are opening
at a great rate."
3. Specific: for example, "Marketing jobs are still relatively closed to women, but publishing jobs arenot" (correct overgeneralization).
b. For success1. Internal: for example, "He loves you because you are nurturant not because he is insecure."
2. Stable: for example, "Your nurturance is an enduring trait."
3. Global: for example, "Your nurturance pervades much of what you do and is appreciated by everyone around you."

70

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

estimated probability of a positive outcome is
low or the estimated probability of an aversive outcome is high, (b) the outcome is highly
positive or aversive, (c) the outcome is expected to be uncontrollable, (d) the attribution for this uncontrollability is to a global,
stable, internal factor. Each of these four
aspects corresponds to four therapeutic strategies.
1. Change the estimated probability of theoutcome. Change the environment by reducing
the likelihood of aversive outcomes and increasing the likelihood of desired outcomes.
2. Make the highly preferred outcomes lesspreferred by reducing the aversiveness of unrelievable outcomes or the desirability of unobtainable outcomes.
3. Change the expectation from uncontrollability to controllability when the outcomesare attainable. When the responses are notyet in the individual's repertoire but can be,
train the appropriate skills. When the responses are already in the individual's repertoire but cannot be made because of distorted
expectation of response-outcome independence, modify the distorted expectation. Whenthe outcomes are unattainable, Strategy 3
does not apply.
4. Change unrealistic attributions for failure
toward external, unstable, specific factors, andchange unrealistic attributions for success toward internal, stable, global factors. The
model predicts that depression will be mostfar-reaching and produce the most symptoms
when a failure is attributed to stable, global,
and internal factors, since the patient now
expects that many future outcomes will benoncontingently related to his responses. Getting the patient to make an external, unstable,
and specific attribution for failure should reduce the depression in cases in which theoriginal attribution is unrealistic. The logic, ofcourse, is that an external attribution for
failure raises self-esteem, an unstable one cuts
the deficits short, and a specific one makes the
deficits less general.
Table 3 schematizes these four treatment
strategies.
Although not specifically designed to test
the therapeutic implications of the reformulated model of depression, two studies haveexamined the effectiveness of therapies thatappear to modify the depressive's cognitive
style. One study found that forcing a depressive to modify his cognitive style was more
effective in alleviating depressive symptoms
than was antidepressant medication (Rush,
Beck, Kovacs, & Hollon, 1977). A second
study found cognitive modification more effective than behavior therapy, no treatment,or an attention-placebo therapy in reducing
depressive symptomatology (Shaw, 1977). Future research that directly tests the therapeutic implications of the reformulation isnecessary.
The reformulation has parallel preventive
implications. Populations at high risk for depression—people who tend to make stable,
global, and internal attributions for failure—
may be identifiable before onset of depression. Preventive strategies that force the person to criticize and perhaps change his attributional style might be instituted. Other
factors that produce vulnerability are situations in which highly aversive outcomes arehighly probable and highly desirable outcomes
unlikely; here environmental change to lesspernicious circumstances would probably benecessary for more optimistic expectations. A
third general factor producing vulnerability
to depression is a tendency to exaggerate theaversiveness or desirability of outcomes. Reducing individuals' "catastrophizing" about
uncontrollable outcomes might reduce the intensity of future depressions. Finally, a set to
expect outcomes to be uncontrollable—learned
helplessness—makes individuals more prone todepression. A life history that biases individuals to expect that they will be able tocontrol the sources of suffering and nurturance in their life should immunize against
depression.
Reference Notes
1. Miller, I. Learned helplessness in humans: A review and attribution theory model. Unpublished•manuscript, Brown University, 1978.
2. Roth, A., & Kilpatrick-Tabak, B. Developmentsin the study of learned helplessness in humans:
A critical review. Unpublished manuscript, Duke
University, 1977.

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION
3. Tennen, H. A. Learned helplessness and the perception of reinforcement in depression: A case ofinvestigator misattribution. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Albany,
1977.
4. Eisenberger, R., Mauriello, J., Carlson, J., Frank,M., and Park, D. C. Learned helplessness and industriousness produced by positive reinforcement.
Unpublished manuscript, State University of New
York at Albany, 1976.
5. Hirsch, Kenneth A. An extension of the learned
helplessness phenomenon to potentially negatively punishing and potentially positively reinforcing stimuli non-contingent upon behavior.
Unpublished manuscript, 1976. (Available fromK. A. Hirsch, Galesburg Mental Health Center,
Galesburg, Illinois.)
6. Nugent, J. Variations in non-contingent experiences and test tasks in the generation of learned
helplessness. Unpublished manuscript, Universityof Massachusetts.
7. Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. Judgment ofcontingency in depressed and nondepressed students: A nondepressive distortion. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Pennsylvania, 1977.
8. Weiner, B. Personal communication to M. E. P.
Seligman, 1977.
9. Dyck, D. G., & Breen, L. J. Learned helplessness, immunization and task importance in humans. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Manitoba, 1976.
10. Dweck, C. S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., &Enna, B. Sex differences in learned helplessness:(II) The contingencies of evaluative feedbackin the classroom and (III) An experimental
analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1976.
11. Dweck, C. S., Goetz, T., & Strauss, N. Sex differences in learned helplessness: IV. An experimental and naturalistic study of failure generalization and its mediators. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1977.
12. Garber, J., & Hollon, S. Depression and the expectancy of success for self and for others. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota,
1977.
13. Radloff, L. S. Sex differences in helplessness—with implication for depression. Unpublishedmanuscript, Center for Epidemiologic Studies,
National Institute of Mental Health, 1976.

References
Abramowitz, S. I. Locus of control and self-reported
depression among college students. Psychological
Reports, 1969, 25, 149-150.
Abramson, L. Universal versus personal helplessness:
An experimental test of the reformulated theory of71

learned helplessness and depression. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania,
1977.
Abramson, L. Y., Garber, J., Edwards, N. B., &Seligman, M. E. P. Expectancy changes in depression and schizophrenia, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 102-109.
Abramson, L. Y., & Sackeim, H. A. A paradox indepression: Uncontrollability and self-blame. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 838-8S1.
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theoryof behavioral change. Psychological Review, 1977,
84, 191-215.
Beck, A. T. Depression: Clinkal, experimental andtheoretical aspects. New York: Hoeber, 1967.
Beck, A. T. Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York: International Universities
Press, 1976.
Benson, J. S., & Kennelly, K. J. Learned helplessness:
The result of uncontrollable reinforcements or uncontrollable aversive stimuli? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 138-145.
Bibring, E. The mechanism of depression. In P.
Greenacre (Ed.), Affective disorders: Psychoanalytic contributions to their study. New York: International Universities Press, 1953.
Blaney, P. H. Contemporary theories of depression:
Critique and comparison. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1977, 86, 203-223.
Blatt, S. J., D'Afflitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. Experiences of depression in normal young adults.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 383389.
Burgess, E. P. The modification of depressive behaviors. In R. D. Rubin & C. M. Franks (Eds.),
Advances in behavior therapy. New York: Academic Press, 1968.
Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. P. The development ofconsciousness of self and the emergence of racial
identification in Negro preschool children. Journalof Social Psychology, 1939,10, 591-599.
Cohen, S., Rothbart, M., & Phillips, S. Locus ofcontrol and the generality of learned helplessness
in humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 1049-1056.
Cole, C. S., & Coyne, J. C. Situational specificity oflaboratory-induced learned helplessness. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 1977, 86, 61S-623.
Douglas, D., & Anisman, H. Helplessness or expectation incongruency: Effects of aversive stimulation
on subsequent performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975,1, 411-417.
Dweck, C. S. The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1975, 31, 674-685.
Dweck, C. S. Children's interpretation of evaluative
feedback: The effect of social cues on learned helplessness. In C. S. Dweck, K. T. Hill, W. H. Reed,
W. M. Steihman, & R. D. Parke. The impact ofsocial cues on children's behavior. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 1976, 22, 83-123.

72

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. Learned helplessness
and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25,
109-116.
Ellis, A. Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New
York: Lyle Stuart, 1962.
Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 1954, 7, 117-140.
Fosco, F., & Geer, J. H. Effects of gaining control
over aversive stimuli after differing amounts of nocontrol. Psychological Reports, 1971, 29, 1153-1154.
Freud, S. Mourning and melancholia. In J. Strachey(Ed. and trans.), Standard edition of the complete
psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14).
London: Hogarth Press, 1957. (Originally published, 1917.)
Frumkin, K., & Brookshire, K. H. Conditioned feartraining and later avoidance learning in goldfish.
Psychonomic Science, 1969, 16, 159-160.
Gatchel, R. J., & Proctor, J. D. Physiological correlates of learned helplessness in man. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 27-34.
Glass, D. C., Reim, B., & Singer, J. R. Behavioral
consequences of adaptation to controllable and uncontrollable noise. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1971, 7, 244-257.
Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. Urban stress: Experiments on noise and social stressors. New York:
Academic Press, 1972.
Golin, S., & Terrell, F. Motivational and associative
aspects of mild depression in skill and chance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977, 86, 389-401.
Goodkin, F. Rats learn the .relationship between responding and environmental events: An expansionof the learned helplessness hypothesis. Learning andMotivation, 1976, 7, 382-393.
Griffiths, M. Effects of noncontingent success andfailure on mood and performance. Journal of Personality, 1977, 45, 442-457.
Hammen, C. L., & Krantz, S. Effect of success andfailure on depressive .cognitions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 577-586.
Hanusa, B. H., & Schulz, R. Attributions! mediatorsof learned helplessness. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 1977, 35, 602-611.
Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations.
New York: Wiley, 1958.
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 oflearned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 311-327.
James, W. H. Internal versus external control of reinforcement as a basic variable in learning theory.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1957.
James, W. H., & Rotter, J. B. Partial and one hundred percent reinforcement under chance and skill
conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1958, S5, 397-403.

Jenkins, H. M., & Ward, W. C. Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs, 1965, 79(1, Whole No.
594).
Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation (Vol. 15). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967.
Klein, D. C., Fencil-Morse, E., & Seligman, M. E.
P. Learned helplessness, depression, and the attribution of failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 508-516.
Klein, D. C., & Seligman, M. E. P. Reversal of performance deficits in learned helplessness and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976,
85, 11-26.
Klinger, E. Consequences of commitment to and disengagement irom incentives. Psychological Review,
1975, 82, 1-25.
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.
Lament, J. Depression, locus of control, and mood
response set. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1972,
28, 342-345.
Maier, S. F., Albin, R. W., & Testa, T. J. Failure tolearn to escape in rats previously exposed to inescapable shock depends on nature of escape response. Journal of Comparative and PhysiologicalPsychology, 1973, 85, 581-592.
Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976,105, 3-46.
Maier, S. F., Seligman, M. E. P., & Solomon, R. L.
Pavlovian fear conditioning and learned helplessness. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.),
Punishment. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1969.
Maier, S. F., & Testa, T. J. Failure to learn toescape by rats previously exposed to inescapableshock is partly produced by associative interference. Journal of Comparative and PhysiologicalPsychology, 1975, 88, 554-564.
Masserman, J. H. The principle of uncertainty inneurotigenesis. In H. D. Kimmel (Ed.), Experimental psychopathology. New York: Academic
Press, 1971.
McNitt, P. C., & Thornton, D. W. Depression andperceived reinforcement: A reconsideration. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 137-140.
Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. Depression andthe perception of reinforcement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 82, 62-73.
Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. Depression andlearned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1975, 84, 228-238.
Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness, depression, and the perception of reinforcement. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1976,
14, 7-17.

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION
Miller, W. R., Seligman, M. E. P., & Kurlander, H.
M. Learned helplessness, depression, and anxiety.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1975, 161,
347-357.
Morse, S., & Gergen, K. J. Social comparison, selfconsistency, and the concept of self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 148156.
Overmier, J. B., & Seligman, M. E. P. Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance learning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1967, 63, 28-33.
Padilla, A. M. Effects of prior and interpolated shock
exposures on subsequent avoidance learning by
goldfish. Psychological Reports, 1973, 32, 451^56.
Padilla, A. M., Padilla, C., Ketterer, T., Si Giacolone,
D. Inescapable shocks and subsequent avoidance
conditioning in goldfish (Carrasius auratus). Psychonomic Science, 1970, 20, 295-296.
Phares, E. J. Expectancy change in chance and skill
situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957,54,339-342.
Racinskas, J. R. Maladaptive consequences oj loss orlack of control over aversive events. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Waterloo University, Ontario,
Canada, 1971.
Rizley, R. Depression and distortion in the attribution of causality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
1978, 87, 32-48.
Rodin, J. Density, perceived choice, and response tocontrollable and uncontrollable outcomes. Journal
oj Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 12, 564578.
Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965.
Roth, S. The effects of experimentally induced expectancies oj control: Facilitation of controlling
behavior or learned helplessness? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1973.
Roth, S., & Bootzin, R. R. Effects of experimentallyinduced expectancies of external control: An investigation of learned helplessness. Journal oj Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 253-264.
Roth, S., & Kubal, L. Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on tasks of differing importance: Facilitation and learned helplessness. Journal oj Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 680-691.
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internalversus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(1, Whole No. 609).
Rotter, J. B., Liverant, S., & Crowne, D. P. The
growth and extinction of expectancies in chancecontrolled and skilled .tasks. Journal of Psychology, 1961, 52, 161-177.
Rush, A. J., Beck, A. T., Kovacs, M., & Hollon, S.
Comparative efficacy of cognitive therapy andpharmacotherapy in the treatment of depressed outpatients. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1977, 1,
17-37.
Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine, 1972, 23, 407-412.
Seligman, M. E. P. Helplessness: On depression, de-73velopment, and death. San Francisco: Freeman,
1975.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Beagley, G. Learned helplessness in the rat. Journal oj Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1975, 88, 534-541.
Seligman, M. E. P., Klein, D. C., & Miller, W. R.
Depression. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.) Handbook oj
behavior modification and behavior therapy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. Failure .to escapetraumatic shock. Journal oj Experimental Psychology, 1967, 74, 1-9.
Seligman, M. E. P., Maier, S. F., & Geer, J. The alleviation of learned helplessness in the dog. Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1968, 73, 256262.
Seligman, M. E. P., Maier, S. F., & Solomon, R. L.
Unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events.
In F. R. Brush (Ed.) Aversive conditioning andlearning. New York: Academic Press, 1971.
Seligman, M. E. P., Rosellini, R. A., & Kozak, M.
Learned helplessness in the rat: Reversibility, timecourse, and immunization. Journal oj Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1975, 88, 542547.
Seward, J. P., & Humphrey, G. L. Avoidance learning as a function of pretraining in the cat. Journalof Comparative and Physiological Psychology,
1967, 63, 338-341.
Shaw, B. F. Comparison of cognitive therapy andbehavior therapy in the treatment of depression.
Journal oj Consulting and 'Clinical Psychology,
1977, 45, 543-551.
Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. An opponent-process
theory of motivation: II. Cigarette addiction.
Journal oj Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 81, 158171.
Teasdale, J. D. Effects of real and recalled success onlearned helplessness and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 155-164.
Tennen, H., & Eller, S. J. Attributional componentsof learned helplessness and facilitation. Journal oj
Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 265271.
Thomas, E., & Dewald, L. Experimental neurosis:
Neuropsychological analysis. In J. D. Maser &M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Psychopathology: Experimental models. San Francisco: Freeman, 1977.
Thornton, J. W., & Jacobs, P. D. Learned helplessness in human subjects. Journal oj Experimental
Psychology, 1971, 87, 369-372.
Thornton, J, W., & Powell, G. D. Immunization andalleviation of learned helplessness in man. American
Journal oj Psychology, 1974, 87, 351-367.
Weiner, B. Theories oj motivation: From mechanism
to cognition. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972.
Weiner, B. (Ed.). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1974.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S.,& Rosenbaurn, R. M. Perceiving the causes oj sue-

74

L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE

cess and failure. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1971.
Weiner, B., Heckhausen, H., Meyer, W., & Cook, R.
E. Causal ascriptions and achievement behavior:
A conceptual analysis of locus of control. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 21,239-248.
Welker, R. L. Acquisition of a free operant appetitive
response in pigeons as a function of prior experience with response-independent food. Learning
and Motivation, 1976, 7, 394-405.
Willis, M. H., & Blaney, P. H. Three tests of thelearned helplessness model of depression. Journalof Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 131-136.

Wortman, C. B., & Brehm, J. W. Responses to uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of reactancetheory 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 causality and reactions to uncontrollable outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976,12, 301-316.
Received August IS, 1977
Revision received October 27, 1977 •Instructions to Authors
Authors should prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2nd ed.). Instructions on tables, figures, references, metrics,
and typing (all copy must be double-spaced) appear in the Manual. Also, all manuscripts
must include an abstract of 100-175 words typed on a separate sheet of paper. Authors
should submit manuscripts in triplicate and should keep a copy to guard against loss.
Authors submitting a manuscript previously considered for publication in another APA
journal should inform the Editor, who will then seek to obtain independent reviews, thus
avoiding the possibility of repeated reviewing by the same consultant. When statistical analyses such as ANOVA or chi-square are used, appropriate tables should accompany themanuscript. These will not ordinarily be printed but are for the convenience of the editorialconsultants to help in evaluating the article. Therefore, when significant differences arereported, the appropriate F, df, p, and other values should be inserted in the text.