Journal of Abnormal Psychology [618536]

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 old
hypothesis, when applied to learned helplessness in humans, has two major
problems: (a) It does not distinguish between cases in which outcomes are
uncontrollable for all people and cases in which they are uncontrollable only –
for some people (univervsal vs. personal helplessness), and (b) it does not
explain when helplessness is general and when specific, or when chronic and
when acute. A reformulation based on a revision of attribution theory is pro-
posed 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.
Over the past 10 years a large number of
experiments have shown that a variety of orga-
nisms exposed to uncontrollable events often
exhibit subsequent disruption of behavior (see
Maier & Seligman, 1976, for a review of the
infrahuman 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 ac-
quisition of a shuttle escape response (Over-
mier & Seligman, 1967; Seligman & Maier,
This work was supported by U.S. Public Health
Service Grant MH-19604, National Science Founda-
tion Grant SOC-74 12063, and a Guggenheim fel-
lowship to Martin Seligman. We thank Lauren Al-
loy, Judy Garber, Suzanne Miller, Frank Irwin, S. J.
Rachman, and Paul Eelen for their critical com-
ments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Ivan Miller (Note 1) has proposed an almost
identical reformulation. We believe this work to
have 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, University
of Pennsylvania, 3815 Walnut Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19174.1967). Paralleling the experimental findings
with dogs, the debilitating consequences of
uncontrollable events have been demonstrated
in cats (Masserman, 1971; Seward & Hum-
phrey, 1967; Thomas & Dewald, 1977), in
fish (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 & Selig-
man, 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 representative
and provides a human analogue to the animal
studies. College student: [anonimizat]
signed to one of three groups. In the con-
trollable noise group, subjects received loud
noise that they could terminate by pushing
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 the
uncontrollable noise group received noise that
terminated independently of subjects' respond-
ing. Finally, a third group received no noise.
In the second phase of the experiment all
groups were tested on a hand shuttle box. In
the shuttle box, noise termination was con-
trollable 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 the
test phase were strikingly similar to those ob-
tained with animals. The group receiving prior
controllable noise as well as the group receiv-
ing no noise readily learned to shuttle, but the
typical subject in the group receiving prior
uncontrollable noise failed to escape and
listened passively to the noise.
Although a number of alternative hypothe-
ses (see Maier & Seligman, 1976, for a re-
view) have been proposed to account for the
debilitating effects of experience with uncon-
trollability, only the learned helplessness hy-
pothesis (Maier & Seligman, 1976; Maier,
Seligman, & Solomon, 1969; Seligman, 1975;
Seligman et al., 1971) provides a unified the-
oretical framework integrating the animal and
human data. The cornerstone of the hypothe-
sis is that learning that outcomes are uncon-
trollable results in three deficits: motivational,
cognitive and emotional. The hypothesis is
"cognitive" in that it postulates that mere ex-
posure to uncontrollability is not sufficient to
render an organism helpless; rather, the orga-
nism must come to expect that outcomes are
uncontrollable in order to exhibit helplessness.
In brief, the motivational deficit consists of
retarded initiation of voluntary responses and
is seen as a consequence of the expectation
that outcomes are uncontrollable. If the orga-
nism expects that its responses will not affect
some outcome, then the likelihood of emitting
such responses decreases. Second, the learned
helplessness hypothesis argues that learning
that an outcome is uncontrollable results in a
cognitive deficit since such learning makes it
difficult to later learn that responses produce
that outcome. Finally, the learned helpless-
ness hypothesis claims that depressed affect is
a consequence of learning that outcomes are
uncontrollable.Historically, the learned helplessness hy-
pothesis was formulated before helplessness
experiments were performed with human sub-
jects. In the main, early studies of human
helplessness attempted to reproduce the ani-
mal findings in humans and were rather less
concerned with theory building. Recently,
however, investigators of human helplessness
(e.g., Blaney, 1977; Golin & Terrell, 1977;
Wortman & Brehm, 1975; Roth & Kilpatrick-
Tabak, Note 2) have become increasingly dis-
enchanted with the adequacy of theoretical
constructs originating in animal helplessness
for understanding helplessness in humans.
And so have we. We now present an attribu-
tional framework that resolves several the-
oretical controversies about the effects of un-
controllability in humans. We do not know
whether these considerations apply to infra-
humans. In brief, we argue that when a per-
son finds that he is helpless, he asks why he is
helpless. The causal attribution he makes then
determines the generality and chronicity of
his helplessness deficits as well as his later
self-esteem. In developing the attributional
framework, we find it necessary to refine at-
tribution theory (cf. Heider, 1958; Weiner,
1972, 1974). Finally, we discuss the implica-
tions 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 hu-
man helplessness. Consider a subject in Hi-
roto's experiment (1974) who is assigned to
the group that received uncontrollable noise.
The experimenter tells the subject there is
something he can do to turn off the noise.
Since the noise is actually uncontrollable, the
subject is unable to find a way to turn off the
noise. After repeated unsuccessful attempts,
the subject may come to believe the problem
is unsolvable; that is, neither he nor any other
subject can control noise termination. Alterna-
tively, the subject may believe that the prob-

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION 51
lem is solvable but that he lacks the ability
to solve it; that is, although he can't control
noise termination, other subjects could suc-
cessfully control the noise. The old helpless-
ness hypothesis does not distinguish these two
states, 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 helpless-
ness might well consider the conceptual distinction
between efficacy and outcome expectations. People
can give up trying because they lack a sense of ef-
ficacy in achieving the required behavior, or they
may be assured of their capabilities but give up try-
ing because they expect their behavior to have no
effect on an unresponsive environment or to be con-
sistently punished. These two separable expectancy
sources of futility have quite different antecedents
and remedial implications. To alter efficacy-based
futility requires development of competencies and
expectations of personal effectiveness. By contrast, to
change outcome-based futility necessitates changes in
prevailing environmental contingencies that restore
the instrumental value of the competencies that peo-
ple already possess, (pp. 204-205)
A final way of illustrating this inadequacy
concerns the relation between helplessness and
external locus of control. Early perspectives of
learned helplessness (Hiroto, 1974; Miller &
Seligman, 1973; Seligman, Maier, & Geer,
1968) emphasized an apparent similarity be-
tween the helplessness concept of learning
that outcomes are uncontrollable and Rotter's
(1966) concept of external control. Rotter ar-
gued that people's beliefs about causality can
be arrayed along the dimension of locus of
control, with "internals" tending to believe
outcomes are caused by their own responding
and "externals" tending to believe outcomes
are not caused by their own responding but
by luck, chance, or fate. Support for this pro-
posed conceptual similarity of externals and
helpless individuals was provided by studies
of verbalized expectancies for success in tasks
of skill (Klein & Seligman, 1976; Miller &
Seligman, 1975). Helpless subjects gave smallj
expectancy changes, which suggests a belief1
in external control, whereas subjects not
made helpless gave large expectancy changes,
which suggests a belief in internal control.
These findings indicated that helpless sub-jects perceived tasks of skill as if they were r
tasks of chance. A puzzling finding, however,
was consistently obtained in these studies. On
postexperimental questionnaires, helpless and
nonhelpless subjects rated skill as playing the
same large role in a person's performance on
the skill task. Both helpless and nonhelpless
subjects said they viewed the skill task as a
skill task. Thus, the relation between the con-
cepts of external control and uncontrollability
may be more complex than implied by the old
hypothesis.
Taken together, these examples point to
one conceptual problem concerning the no-
tions of uncontrollability and helplessness. Re-
call the distinction made by the old helpless-
ness hypothesis between controllable and
uncontrollable 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 probability
of an outcome is the same whether or not a
given response occurs, then the outcome is in-
dependent of that response. When this is
true of all voluntary responses, the outcome is
said to be uncontrollable for the individual
(Seligman, 1975; Seligman, Maier, & Solo-
mon, 1971). Conversely, if the probability of
the outcome when some response is made is
different from the probability of the outcome
when the response is not made, then the out-
come is dependent on that response: The out-
come is controllable. The early definition,
then, makes no distinction between cases in
which 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 we
outline a framework that resolves this inade-
quacy, and we discuss the implications of this
framework.
Resolution of Inadequacy 1
Suppose a child contracts leukemia and the
father bends all his resources to save the
child's life. Nothing he does, however, im-
proves the child's health. Eventually he comes
to believe there is nothing he can do. Nor is
there anything anyone else can do since leu-

52 L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE
Objective noncontingency —» Perception of
present and past noncontingency —> Attribu-
tion 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 de-
pressed affect. This example fits the specifica-
tions of the old learned helplessness hypothe-
sis. The parent believed the course of the
child's disease was independent of all of his
responses as well as the responses of other
people. We term this situation universal help-
lessness.
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 un-
controllability according to the old model,
since the person believed there existed re-
sponses that would contingently produce pass-
ing grades although he did not possess them.
Regardless of any voluntary response the per-
son made, however, the probability of his ob-
taining good grades was not altered. We term
this situation personal helplessness.
Before discussing the distinction between
universal and personal helplessness, it is use-
ful to spell out the flow of events leading to
symptoms 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 the
student continued to do poorly no matter how
hard he tried. The person then made an at-
tribution for the perceived noncontingency
between his acts and the outcome; the father
came to believe leukemia was incurable and
the student came to believe he was stupid. In
each case, the attribution led to an expec-
tancy of noncontingency between future acts
of the individual and the outcome. Finally,
the symptoms of helplessness were a conse-
quence of the person's expectancy that hisfuture responses would be futile in obtaining
the outcome. The usual sequence of events
leading from objective noncontingency to the
helplessness is diagrammed in Figure 1.
Both the old and reformulated hypotheses
hold the expectation of noncontingency to be
the crucial determinant of the symptoms of
learned helplessness. Objective noncontingency
is predicted to lead to symptoms of helpless-
ness 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 that
events are noncontingent (past or present ori-
ented) was transformed into an expectation
that events will be noncontingent (future
oriented). Our reformulation regards the at-
tribution the individual makes for noncontin-
gency between his acts and outcomes in the
here and now as a determinant of his subse-
quent expectations for future noncontingency.
These expectations, in turn, determine the
generality, chronicity, and type of his help-
lessness symptoms. In the context of this gen-
eral account of the role of attribution in the
production of symptoms, the distinction be-
tween universal and personal helplessness can
now be clarified.
Table 1 explicates the distinction between
universal helplessness and personal helpless-
ness and ultimately serves to define our usage
of the attributional dimension of internality.
We take the self-other dichotomy as the cri-
terion of internality. When people believe
that outcomes are more likely or less likely
to happen to themselves than to relevant
others, they attribute these outcomes to in-
ternal factors. Alternatively, persons make ex-
ternal attribution for outcomes that they be-
lieve are as likely to happen to themselves as
to relevant others.
In the table, the x-axis represents the per-
son's expectations about the relation between
the desired outcome and the responses in his
repertoire.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 to
him and that the controlling response is or is not
available to others. These two dichotomies allow for
four possible belief states. Strictly speaking, how-

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION S3
Table 1
Personal Helplessness and Universal Helplessness
OtherSelf
The person expects the
outcome is contingent
on a response in his
repertoire.The person expects the
outcome is not contingent
on any response in his
repertoire.
The person expects the
outcome is contingent
on a response in the
repertoire of a relevant
other.
The person expects the
outcome is not contingent
on a response in the
repertoire of any relevant
other.personal helplessness
3
(internal attribution)
universal helplessness
4
(external attribution)
either to be contingent on some response in
his repertoire or not to be contingent on any
response in his repertoire. The y-axis repre-
sents his expectations about the relation be-
tween the desired outcome and the responses
in the repertoires of relevant others. The per-
son expects the outcome to be either con-
tingent on at least one response in at least one
relevant other's repertoire or not contingent on
any response in any relevant other's reper-
toire. Cell 4 represents the universal helpless-
ness 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 than
would a person in Cell 1.
In Table 1, the y-axis represents the per-
son's expectations about whether someone
else, a relevant other, had the controlling re-
sponse in his repertoire. The following ex-
ever, the x-axis is a continuum. At the far right, the
person expects there is a zero probability that the
desired 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 out-
come is contingent on a response in his repertoire.
Similar considerations apply to the y-axis as a con-
tinuum.ample makes it clear why we use a "relevant
other" rather than a "random other" or "any
other": It is of no solace to a floundering
graduate student in mathematics that "ran-
dom others" are unable to do topological
transformations. Crucial to the student's self-
evaluation is his belief that his peers, "rele-
vant 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 mathematical
problems that only professional mathemati-
cians can solve, although he may have low
self-esteem if his peers can solve them. There-
fore, the y-axis is best viewed as representing
the person's expectations about the relation
between the desired outcome and the re-
sponses in the repertoires of relevant others.2
2 Our formulation of "internal" and "external"
attributions resembles other attributional frame-
works. Heider (19S8), who is generally considered
the founder of attribution theory, made a basic dis-
tinction between "factors within the person" and
"factors within the environment" as perceived de-
terminants of outcomes. Similarly, in the locus of
control literature, Rotter (1966) distinguished be-
tween outcomes that subjects perceive as causally
related to their own responses and personal char-
acteristics and outcomes that subjects perceive as
caused by external forces such as fate. Unlike these
previous formulations that ask whether a factor
resides "within the skin" or "outside the skin" to
determine whether it is internal or external, we de-
fine the self-other dichotomy as the criterion of

54 L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE
Implications
The distinction between universal and per-
sonal helplessness resolves the set of inade-
quacies with which we began the article, Sit-
uations in which subjects believe they cannot
solve solvable problems are instances of per-
sonal helplessness according to the reformu-
lated hypothesis. Alternatively, situations in
which subjects believe that neither they nor
relevant others can solve the problem are in-
stances of universal helplessness. Similarly,
Bandura's (1977) conceptual distinction be-
tween efficacy and outcome expectancies re-
lates to the reformulation in the following
way: Personal helplessness entails a low ef-
ficacy expectation coupled with a high out-
come expectation (the response producing the
outcome is unavailable to the person), whereas
universal helplessness entails a low outcome
expectation (no response produces the out-
come). Finally, the reformulation regards "ex-
ternal locus of control" and "helplessness" as
orthogonal. One can be either internally or
externally helpless. Universally helpless in-
dividuals make external attributions for fail-
ures, 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 simi-
larities. For example, Heider (1958) argued that in
making a causal attribution, individuals hold a con-
dition responsible for an outcome if that condition is
present when the outcome is present and absent when
the outcome is absent. Likewise, Kelley (1967) sug-
gested that the procedure individuals use in deter-
mining the cause of events is similar to an analysis
of variance procedure employed by scientists. The
factor that consistently covaries with an outcome is
considered to be its cause.
Let us examine the leukemic child and the school
failure examples from the perspective of Kelley and
Heider. The responses of no person are consistently
associated with improvement of the leukemic child's
disease. If the father performed Kelley or Heider's
causal 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., stu-
pidity) 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 the
relevant skill. These subjects view them-
selves as personally rather than universally
helpless.
The distinction between universal helpless-
ness and personal helplessness also clarifies
the relation of uncontrollability to failure. In
the literature these two terms have often been
used synonymously. Tennen (Note 3), argu-
ing from an attributional stance, suggested
that the terms are redundant and that we
abandon the concept of uncontrollability for
the simpler concept of failure. We believe
this suggestion is misguided both from the
point 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 uncon-
trollability. 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 sug-
gested that good things received independently
of responding should lead to helplessness defi-
cits. Recent evidence bears this out: Uncon-
trollable positive events produce the motiva-
tional and cognitive deficits in animals (Good-
kin, 1976; Welker, 1976) and in humans
(Griffiths, 1977; Eisenberger, Mauriello, Carl-
son, 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, Roth-
bart, and Phillips (1976) produced helpless-
ness effects in the absence of perceived failure.
In the future, such studies should measure
perception of noncontingency as well as per-
formance, since Alloy and Abramson (Note
7) found that noncontingency is more dif-
ficult to perceive when one is winning than
when one is losing. So the notion of uncon-
trollability means more than just failure, and
it makes predictions concerning both failure
and noncontingent success.

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION 55
In ordinary language, failure means more
than merely the occurrence of a bad outcome.
People say they have failed when they have
tried unsuccessfully to reach a goal and at-
tribute 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 point
of view, means the subset of personal help-
lessness involving unsuccessful trying.
The final ramification of the distinction be-
tween universal and personal helplessness is
that it deduces a fourth deficit of human help-
lessness—low self-esteem. A major determi-
nant of attitudes toward the self is com-
parison with others (Clark & Clark, 1939;
Festinger, 1954; Morse & Gergen, 1970;
Rosenberg, 1965). Our analysis suggests that
individuals who believe that desired outcomes
are not contingent on acts in their repertoires
but are contingent on acts in the repertoires
of relevant others, will show lower self-esteem
than individuals who believe that desired out-
comes are neither contingent on acts in their
repertoires nor contingent on acts in the rep-
ertoires of relevant others. That is, an unin-
telligent student who fails an exam his peers
pass will have lower self-esteem than a stu-
dent who fails an exam that all of his peers
fail as well.
The dichotomy between universal and per-
sonal helplessness determines cases of help-
lessness (and depression, see below) with
and without low self-esteem. But it is neutral
with regard to the cognitive and motivational
deficits in helplessness. It is important to em-
phasize that the cognitive and motivational
deficits occur in both personal and universal
helplessness. Abramson (1977) has demon-
strated this empirically while showing that
lowered self-esteem occurs only in personal
helplessness. According to both the old and
the new hypotheses, the expectation that out-
comes are noncontingently related to one's
own responses is a sufficient condition for
motivational and cognitive deficits.We now turn to the second set of inade-
quacies. The old hypothesis was vague about
when helplessness would be general across
situations 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 other
inadequacy of the old helplessness hypothesis.
Consider debriefing in a typical human help-
lessness study: The subject is presented with
an unsolvable problem, tested on a second
solvable task, and finally debriefed. The sub-
ject is told that the first problem was ac-
tually unsolvable and therefore no one could
have solved it. Experimenters in human help-
lessness studies seem to believe that telling
a 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, pre-
dicts that such debriefing will remove the
cognitive and motivational deficits. What does
debriefing undo and why?
A second way of illustrating this inade-
quacy is the following: A number of investi-
gators (Hanusa & Schulz, 1977; Tennen &
Eller, 1977; Wortman & Brehm, 1975) have
emphasized those cases of learned helplessness
in which a person inappropriately generalizes
the expectation of noncontingency to a new,
controllable situation. It is important to point
out that the old hypothesis does not require
an inappropriate generalization for helpless-
ness. Helplessness exists when a person shows
motivational and cognitive deficits as a con-
sequence of an expectation of uncontrollabil-
ity. The veridicality of the belief and the
range of situations over which it occurs are
irrelevant to demonstrating helplessness. But
the old hypothesis does not specify where and
when a person who expects outcomes to be
uncontrollable will show deficits. In keeping
with the resolution of the first inadequacy, an

56 L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE
attributional framework is now presented to
resolve the second inadequacy by explaining
the generality and chronicity of deficits as-
sociated with helplessness.
A Resolution: The Attributional Dimensions
of Stability and Generality
Helplessness deficits are sometimes highly
general and sometimes quite specific. An ac-
countant, fired from his job, may function
poorly in a broad range of situations: he can-
not get started on his income tax, he fails to
look for a new job, he becomes impotent, he
neglects his children, and he avoids social
gatherings. In contrast, his helplessness may
be situation specific: He does not do his in-
come tax and fails to look for a new job, but
he remains an adequate lover, father, and
party-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 de-
pression, see below) also varies from individ-
ual to individual. Some helplessness deficits
may last only minutes and others may last
years. Helplessness is called chronic when it is
either long-lived or recurrent and transient
when short-lived and nonrecurrent.
The old hypothesis was vague about gen-
erality and chronicity. The helpless person had
learned 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 re-
sponses and outcomes about which original
learning had occurred. Helplessness was global
when it depressed responses highly dissimilar
to those about which original learning had oc-
curred or when it extended to stimuli highly
dissimilar to those about which original learn-
ing had occurred. No account was given about
why helplessness was sometimes specific and
sometimes global.
When helplessness dissipated in time, for-
getting produced by interference from prior
or 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 as-
sumed to have strong proactive or retroactive
interference; that which persisted was not.
The reformulated hypothesis makes a ma-
jor new set of predictions about this topic:
The helpless individual first finds out that cer-
tain 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 intensity
of the deficits. Some attributions have global,
others only specific, implications. Some at-
tributions have chronic, others transient, im-
plications. Consider an example: You submit
a paper to a journal and it is scathingly re-
jected 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 dis-
astrous implications for your future paper-
submitting 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, fu-
ture papers stand a better chance of being
accepted as long as you do not happen on the
same 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 fac-
tors.
Recent attribution theorists have refined
the possible attribution for outcomes by sug-
gesting that the dimension "stable-unstable"
is orthogonal to "internal-external" (Weiner,
1974; Weiner, Frieze Kukla, Reed, Rest, &
Rosenbaum, 1971). Stable factors are thought
of as long-lived or recurrent, whereas un-
stable factors are short-lived or intermittent.
When a bad outcome occurs, an individual
can attribute it to (a) lack of ability (an in-
ternal-stable factor), (b) lack of effort (an
internal-unstable factor), (c) the task's being
too difficult (an external-stable factor), or
(d) lack of luck (an external-unstable fac-
tor).

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION 57
Table 2
Formal Characteristics of Attribution and Some Examples
Internal External
Dimension Stable Unstable Stable Unstable
Global
Failing student Lack of intelligence Exhaustion ETS gives unfair tests. Today is Friday the 13th.
(Laziness) (Having a cold, which
makes me stupid)(People are usually
unlucky on the ORE.)
Rejected woman I'm unattractive to My conversation some-
men, times bores men.
Specific
Failing student Lack of mathematical Fed up with math
ability problems
(Math always bores (Having a cold, which
me.) ruins my arithmetic)
Rejected woman I'm unattractive to My conversation bores
him. him.Men are overly compet-
itive with intelligent
women.
ETS gives unfair math
tests.
(People are usually
unlucky on math tests.)
He's overly competi-
tive with women.(ETS gave experimental tests
this time which were too
hard for everyone.)
Men get into rejecting
moods.
The math test was from
No. 13.
(Everyone's copy of the
math test was blurred.)
He was in a rejecting mood.
Note. ETS = Educational Testing Service, the maker of graduate record examinations (GRE).
While we applaud this refinement, we be-
lieve that further refinement is necessary to
specify the attributions that are made when
an individual finds himself helpless. In par-
ticular, we suggest that there is a third di-
mension—"global-specific"—orthogonal to in-
ternality and stability, that characterizes the
attributions of people. Global factors affect
a wide variety of outcomes, but specific fac-
tors do not.3 A global attribution implies that
helplessness will occur across situations,
whereas a specific attribution implies helpless-
ness only in the original situation. This di-
mension (like those of stability and internal-
ity) is a continuum, not a dichotomy; for the
sake of simplicity, however, we treat it here
as a dichotomy.
Consider a student taking graduate record
examinations (GREs) measuring mathemati-
cal and verbal skills. He just took the math
test and believes he did very poorly. Within
the three dimensions, there are eight kinds of
attribution he can make about the cause of
his low score (Internal-External X Stable-Un-
stable 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 be-
lieves he will do on future math tests when he
retakes the GRE some months hence (chro-
nicity of the deficit over time in the same situ-ation). Table 2 describes the formal character-
istics of the attributions and exemplifies them.
Table 1 relates to Table 2 in the following
way: Table 2 uses the attributional dimen-
sions 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 attribu-
tions imply to the individual that when he
confronts new situations the outcome will
again be independent of his responses. So, if
he decides that his poor score was caused by
his lack of intelligence (internal, stable,
global) or his exhausted condition (internal,
3 In principle, there are a large number of di-
mensions on which attributions can be specified.
Weiner (Note 8) suggested that the criterion for a
dimension, as opposed to a mere property, of attri-
bution be that we can sensibly ask, Does it apply to
all the causes that we assign to behavior? So stable-
unstable is a dimension because we can sensibly ask,
Is ability a factor that persists stably over time? Is
patience 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 a
factor 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) or
that it is an unlucky day (external, unstable,
global), when he confronts the verbal test in
a few minutes, he will expect that here, as
well, outcomes will be independent of his re-
sponse, and the helplessness deficits will ensue.
If the individual makes any of the four spe-
cific attributions for a low math score, help-
lessness deficits will not necessarily appear
during the verbal test: i.e., lack of mathe-
matical 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 the
next math GRE when he retakes it at a later
time) will ensue if the attribution is to stable
factors: lack of intelligence, lack of mathe-
matical ability, ETS gives unfair tests, ETS
gives unfair math tests. Attribution to stable
factors leads to chronic deficits because they
imply to the individual that he will lack the
controlling 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 the
next math GRE. If he makes any of the in-
ternal attributions—lack of intelligence, lack
of math ability, exhaustion, or fed up with
math problems—the self-esteem deficits will
occur. In contrast, none of the external at-
tributions 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 attribu-
tion for failure will determine whether she
shows deficits in situations involving most
other men (global) and whether she shows
deficits in the future with this particular man
or with other men (chronic). She might se-
lect 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 re-
jecting moods (external, unstable, global). All
four of these attributions will produce help-
lessness deficits in new situations with most
other men. The four specific attributions will
produce deficits only with this particular man:
I'm unattractive to him (internal, stable,
specific); my conversation somtimes bores
him (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 defi-
cits either with that man (if specific) or with
most men (if global); the four unstable at-
tributions will produce transient deficits. The
four internal attributions will produce self-
esteem deficits; the four external attributions
will not.
Having stated what we believe are the de-
terminants of the chronicity and generality of
helplessness deficits, a word about intensity or
severity is in order. Severity is logically inde-
4 A critical remark is in order on the adequacy of
ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck as embody-
ing, respectively, internal-stable, internal-unstable,
external-stable, external-unstable attributions (Wei-
ner et al., 1971). While we find the orthogonality of
internality and stability dimensions useful and im-
portant, we do not believe that the ability-effort/
task difficulty-luck distinctions map into these di-
mensions. Table 2 presents (in parentheses) attri-
butions that systematically violate the mapping. An
internal-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 to
lack 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 (spe-
cific). An external-stable attribution need not be to
task difficulty; it can be to lack of luck: Some
people 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 experi-
mental tests this time that were difficult for every-
one (global); everyone's copy of the math test was
blurred (specific). So, ability and effort are logically
orthogonal to internal-stable and internal-unstable
attributions, and luck and task difficulty are or-
thogonal to external-stable and external-unstable
attributions.

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION 59
pendent of chronicity and generality; it re-
fers to how strong a given deficit is at any
one time in a particular situation. We believe
that the intensity of the motivational and
cognitive deficits increases with the strength
or certainty of the expectation of noncontin-
gency. We speculate that intensity of self-
esteem loss and affective changes (see Im-
plications of the Reformulated Model for the
Helplessness Model of Depression below) will
increase with both certainty and importance
of the event the person is helpless about. We
also speculate that if the attribution is global
or stable, the individual will expect to be
helpless in the distant future (both across
areas of his life and across time) as well as in
the immediate future. The future will look
black. This expectation will increase the in-
tensity of the self-esteem and affective defi-
cits. If the attribution is internal, this may
also tend to make these deficits more severe,
since internal attributions are often stable
and 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 re-
cur when the situation changes. An attribu-
tion to stable factors predicts that the expecta-
tion 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 ex-
pectation recurs across situations and with
elapsed time determines whether or not the
helplessness deficits recur in the new situation
or with elapsed time. Notice that the attribu-
tion merely predicts the recurrence of the ex-
pectations but the expectation determines the
occurrence of the helplessness deficits. New
evidence may intervene between the initial
selection of an attribution and the new and
subsequent situation and change the expecta-tion. So the person may find out by interven-
ing successes that he was not as stupid as he
thought, or he may gather evidence that
everyone obtained low scores on the math
GRE and so now ETS is under new manage-
ment. 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 (see
Weiner, 1972, for a related discussion of
achievement motivation).
Implications
The attributional account of the chronicity^
and generality of the symptoms of helpless-1
ness explains why debriefing ensures that defi-l
cits are not carried outside the laboratory. *
The debriefing presumably changes the at-
tribution from a global (and potential^
harmful outside the laboratory) and possibly
internal (e.g., I'm stupid) one to a more
specific and external one (e.g., psychologists
are nasty: They give unsolvable problems to
experimental subjects). Since the attribution
for helplessness is to a specific factor, the ex-
pectation of uncontrollability will not recur
outside the laboratory anymore than it would
have without the experimental evidence.
These attributional dimensions are also rele-
vant to explaining when inappropriate, broad
generalization of the expectation of noncon-
tingency will occur. Broad transfer of help-
lessness will be observed when subjects at-
tribute their helplessness in the training phase
to very global and stable factors. Alterna-
tively, attributing helplessness to very specific
and unstable factors predicts very little trans-
fer of helplessness.
A final question concerns the determinants
of what particular attribution people make
for 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 sys-
tematic biases and errors in the formation of
attributions. Later, we discuss an "attribu-
tional style" that may characterize depressed
people.

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 gen-
erate novel predictions that survive attempts
at experimental disconfirmation. As it is a
new hypothesis, no results from such at-
tempts are yet available. However, a mini-
mum requirement is that this hypothesis
should be consistent with the available ex-
perimental evidence. Although such consist-
ency can lend only limited support to the
hypothesis (as the available evidence has
been one factor shaping the hypothesis), in-
consistency 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 noise
or unsolvable discrimination problems fail to
escape 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 dis-
crimination problems, or no treatment does
not produce these deficits. Both the old and
the reformulated hypotheses explain these
deficits by stating that subjects expect that
outcomes and responses are independent in
the test situation. This expectation produces
the motivational deficit (failure to escape
noise and failure to solve anagrams) and the
cognitive deficit (failure to see patterns). The
reformulated hypothesis adds an explanation
of why the expectation for the inescapability
of the noise or the unsolvability of the dis-
crimination problems must have been global
enough to transfer across situations (e.g., I'm
unintelligent; problems in this laboratory areimpossible) and stable enough to survive the
brief 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 have
been relevant to this determination. Nonde-
pressed students who escape noise, solve prob-
lems, 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, sub-
jects have been given a panic button that
"will escape noise if pressed" but have been
successfully discouraged from pressing ("I'd
rather you didn't, but it's up to you"; (Glass
& Singer, 1972). These subjects do not be-
come helpless. Both the old and reformulated
hypotheses hold that these subjects do not
perceive noncontingency (in this latter case,
they perceive potential response-outcome con-
tingency; in the first case, they have no rele-
vant perception) and so do not form the
relevant 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 in-
vestigators may have tapped into the at-
tributional dimensions of generality and sta-
bility. For example, Roth and Kubal (1975)
tested helplessness across very different situa-
tions: Subjects signed up for two separate ex-
periments that happened to be on the same
day in the same building. They failed on the
task in Experiment 1 (pretraining) and then
wandered off to Experiment 2 (the test task).
When subjects were told in Experiment 1 that
they had failed a test that was a "really
good predictor of grades in college" (impor-
tant), they showed deficits on the cognitive
problem of Experiment 2. When told that Ex-
periment 1 was merely "an experiment in
learning" (unimportant), they did better on
Experiment 2. In the case of "good predictor
of grades," subjects probably made a more
global, internal, and possibly more stable at-

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION 61
tribution (e.g., I'm stupid enough to do badly
on this, therefore on college exams as well).
The expectation therefore recurred in the new
situation, producing deficits. In the unimpor-
tant condition, subjects probably made a more
specific and less stable attribution, so the ex-
pectation of failure was not present in Ex-
periment 2. (See Cole and Coyne, 1977, for
another way of inducing a specific, rather than
a global, attribution for failure.)
Similarly, Douglas and Anisman (1975)
found that failure on simple tasks produced
later cognitive deficits but that failure on com-
plex tasks did not. It seems reasonable that
failure on simple tasks should produce a more
global 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 reformula-
tion is that it better explains the effects of
therapy and immunization than does the old
hypothesis. The key here is the attributional
dimension of generality. Helplessness can be
reversed and prevented by experience with
success. Klein and Seligman (1976) gave non-
depressed people inescapable noise and then
did "therapy," using 4 or 12 cognitive prob-
lems, which the subjects solved. (Therapy
was also performed on depressed people given
no noise.) Therapy worked: The subjects
(both depressed and nondepressed) escaped
noise and showed normal expectancy changes
after success and failure. Following inescap-
able noise the subjects presumably made an
attribution to a relatively global factor (e.g.,
I'm incompetent, or laboratory tasks are un-
solvable), which was revised to a more spe-
cific one after success on the next task (e.g.,
I'm incompetent in only some laboratory situ-
ations, or, only some laboratory tasks are diffi-
cult). The new test task, therefore, did not
evoke the expectation of uncontrollability.
Teasdale (1978) found that real success ex-
periences 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 sug-
gests success does not have its effect by shift-ing attribution along the internal-external
dimension. Although the relevant data were
not collected, it is likely that real, but not
recalled, success modifies attribution along
the global-specific dimension. Immunization
(Thornton & Powell, 1974; Dyck & Breen,
Note 9) is explained similarly: Initial success
experience should make the attribution for
helplessness less global and therefore less
likely 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 (see
Wortman & Brehm, 1975; Roth & Kilpatrick-
Tabak, Note 2, for hypotheses), it seems rea-
sonable that compensatory attempts to reas-
sert control might follow helplessness experi-
ences, once the person leaves the situations in
which he believes himself helpless (see Solo-
mon & Corbit, 1973, for a relevant rebound
theory). Such compensatory rebound might
be expected to dissipate in time and be less
strong in situations very far removed from the
original helplessness training. When the "fa-
cilitation" effect of helplessness is brought
under replicable, experimental control, the
compensatory rebound hypothesis can be
tested. 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 for
the basic helplessness results better than does
the old hypothesis. The explanations given by
the reformulated hypothesis are necessarily
post hoc, however. Relevant measures of the
generality, stability, and internality of at-
tribution were not made. Helplessness studies •
can, in principle, test the hypothesis either by
measuring the attributions and correlating
them with the deficits that occur or by induc-
ing 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 as-
sociates (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 class-
room criticisms of girls) and perform badly
on a subsequent cognitive test. Lack of ability
is a global attribution (as well as internal
and stable) and implies failure expectation
for the new task. Fourth-grade boys, on the
other hand, attribute failure to lack of effort
or bad conduct (also consonant with the
teachers' natural classroom criticisms of boys)
and do well on the subsequent test. Lack of
effort is unstable and probably more specific
(but also internal). Boys, having failed and
attributed 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 hard
enough, they also do better than if they at-
tribute it to lack of ability (Dweck, 1975).
Effort is not only "unstable," but it is
readily controllable by the subject himself,
unlike being bored, for example, which is also
unstable, specific, and internal, or unlike lack
of ability. It should be noted that the dimen-
sion 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 as
such it is a candidate fora2X2X2x2
table of attributions. While we do not detail
such an analysis here, we note that the phe-
nomena of self-blame, self-criticism, and guilt
(a subclass of the self-esteem deficits) in
helplessness (and depression) follow from at-
tribution of failure to factors that are con-
trollable. Lack of effort as the cause of failure
probably produces more self-blame than does
boredom, although both are internal and un-
stable attributions. Similarly, a failure caused
by not speaking Spanish attributed to lack of
ability to speak Spanish, which might have
been corrected by taking a Berlitz course,
probably causes more self-blame than a less
correctable lack of ability, such as ineptitude
for foreign languages, even though both are
internal and stable.
According to the reformulation, perform-
ance deficits should occur in cases of bothuniversal and personal helplessness. In both
cases people expect that outcomes are inde-
pendent of their responses. In addition, at-
tribution of helplessness to specific or un-
stable factors should be less likely to lead to
performance deficits than attribution to stable
or global factors. To date, four studies have
manipulated attribution for helplessness in
adults. 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 an
anagrams task following experience with un-
solvable discrimination problems regardless of
whether they attributed their helplessness to
internal factors (personal helplessness) or ex-
ternal factors (universal helplessness).
Tennen and Eller (1977) attempted to ma-
nipulate attribution by giving subjects un-
solvable discrimination problems that were
labeled either progressively "easier" or pro-
gressively "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 dif-
ficulty (external, unstable, and more specific).
Subjects then went to what they believed was
a second, unrelated experiment (see Roth &
Kubal, 197S) and tried to solve anagrams. In
line with the reformulation, attribution to in-
ability (easy problems) produced deficits. At-
tribution to task difficulty (hard problems)
resulted in facilitation of anagram solving.
The most likely explanation for lack of per-
formance deficits in the task-difficulty group is
that their attributions for helplessness were
too specific to produce an expectation of non-
contingency in the test task.
Finally, two studies (Hanusa & Schulz,
1977; Wortman et al., 1976) found that rela-
tive to a group exposed to contingent events,
neither a group instructed to believe they
were personally helpless nor a group in-
structed to believe they were universally help-
less on a training task showed subsequent
performance deficits on a test task. While the
results appear contrary to the reformulation,
they are difficult to interpret. The problem is
that in both studies, the typical helplessness
group (a group exposed to noncontingent

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION 63
events in the training task but given no ex-
plicit 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 sensi-
tivity of tasks to helplessness in animals, see
Maier and Seligman, 1976.) It is interesting
that Wortman et al. (1976) found that per-
sonally helpless subjects showed more emo-
tional distress than universally helpless sub-
jects.
Overall, then, the few helplessness studies
directly assessing and manipulating attribu-
tion provide some support for the reformula-
tion. Because of the methodological problems
in some of these studies, future research that
manipulates attribution is necessary. Care
must be taken to ensure that one attributional
dimension is not confounded with another.
Past studies, for example, have confounded ex-
ternality with specificity and internality with
generality.
Helpless subjects show dampened expec-
tancy changes in skill tasks. In skill tasks,
expectancy for future success increases less
following success and/or decreases less fol-
lowing failure for helpless subjects than for
subjects not made helpless (Klein & Seligman,
1976; Miller & Seligman, 1976; Miller, Selig-
man, & Kurlander, 1975; see also Miller &
Seligman, 1973, and Abramson, Garber, Ed-
wards & Seligman, 1978, for parallel evidence
in depression). The old hypothesis interpreted
these results as a general tendency of help-
less subjects to perceive responding and out-
comes on skill tasks as independent, and it
was assumed that this index measured the
central helplessness deficit directly. In other
words, it had been suggested that such sub-
jects perceive skill tasks as if they were
chance tasks. The rationale for this interpreta-
tion was derived from the work of Rotter and
his colleagues (James, 1957; James & Rotter,
1958; Phares, 1957; Rotter, Liverant, &
Crowne, 1961). These investigators argued
that reinforcements on previous trials have a
greater effect on expectancies for future suc-
cess when the subject perceives reinforce-
ment as skill determined than when he per-
ceives it as chance determined. According to
this logic, subjects will show large expectancychanges when they believe outcomes are
chance determined.
Recent developments in attribution theory
suggest that expectancy changes are not a di-
rect index of people's expectations about re-
sponse-outcome contingencies. Weiner and his
colleagues (1971) argued that the attribu-
tional 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 expectancy
changes when they attribute outcomes to un-
stable factors and large expectancy changes
when they attribute outcomes to stable fac-
tors. The logic is that past outcomes are good
predictors of future outcomes only when they
are caused by stable factors.
In the absence of knowledge about individ-
ual 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-un-
stable. For example, suppose a person makes
an internal attribution to lack of ability for
his helplessness, i.e., he believes in response-
outcome independence for himself. When con-
fronted with the skill task, he may show very
large 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 in
helplessness studies, he may maintain his be-
lief that he lacks the stable factor of ability
but conclude that ability is not necessary for
success on the task. After all, he succeeded
sometimes in spite of his perceived lack of
ability. Under such conditions, the person
will believe outcomes are a matter of chance
(unstable factor) for himself but not for
others. Accordingly, he will give small expec-
tancy changes. Moreover, a nonhelpless per-
son (who perceives response-outcome depen-
dency) may believe unstable factors, such as
effort, cause his outcomes and show little ex-
pectancy change; alternatively, if he believes
a stable factor is responsible for response-
outcome dependence, he will show large shifts.
Rizley (1978) similarly argued that ex-
pectancy 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 expectancy
changes 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 inde-
pendence imply small expectancy changes, or
belief in dependence imply large changes. The
fact that depressives often show smaller ex-
pectancy 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 re-
sponse-outcome independence, the particular
attribution and its stability must also be
known. None of the studies to date that mea-
sured expectancy shifts also measured the
relevant attributions, so these studies do not
tell us unambiguously that helpless (or de-
pressed) 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 can-
not 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 attribu-
tional dimension of stability and not to ex-
pectations about response-outcome contin-
gencies. Recent failures to obtain small ex-
pectancy changes in depressed people (Mc-
Nitt & Thornton, 1978; Willis & Blaney,
1978) are disturbing empirically, but less so
theoretically, since both depressed and help-
less 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 pre-
vious statements of the learned helplessnessmodel of depression is that learning that out-
comes are uncontrollable results in the moti-
vational, cognitive, and emotional components
of depression (Seligman, 1975; Seligman et
al., 1976). The motivational deficit consists
of retarded initiation of voluntary responses,
and it is reflected in passivity, intellectual
slowness, and social impairment in naturally
occurring depression. According to the old
model, deficits in voluntary responding fol-
low directly from expectations of response-
outcome independence. The cognitive deficit
consists of difficulty in learning that responses
produce outcomes and is also seen as a conse-
quence of expecting response-outcome inde-
pendence. In the clinic, "negative cognitive
set" is displayed in depressives' beliefs that
their actions are doomed to failure. Finally,
the model asserts that depressed affect is a
consequence of learning that outcomes are un-
controllable. It is important to emphasize
that the model regards expectation of re-
sponse-outcome independence as a sufficient,
not a necessary, condition for depression.
Thus, physiological states, postpartum condi-
tions, hormonal states, loss of interest in re-
inforcers, chemical depletions, and so on may
produce depression in the absence of the ex-
pectation of uncontrollability. According to
the model, then, there exists a subset of de-
pression—helplessness depressions—that is
caused by expectation of response-outcome
independence and displays the symptoms of
passivity, negative cognitive set, and de-
pressed 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 are
many outcomes in life that are uncontrollable
but do not sadden us. Rather, only those un-
controllable outcomes in which the estimated
probability of the occurrence of a desired out-
come is low or the estimated probability of
the occurrence of an aversive outcome is high
are sufficient for depressed affect, (b) Low-
ered self-esteem, as a symptom of the syn-
drome of depression, is not explained, (c) The
tendency of depressed people to make in-
ternal attributions for failure is not explained,
(d) Variations in generality, chronicity, and

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION 65
intensity of depression are not explained. All
but the first of these shortcomings are di-
rectly remedied by the reformulation of hu-
man helplessness in an attributional frame-
work.
Inadequacy 1: Expectation of Uncontrolla-
bility Is Not Sufficient for Depressed Affect
We view depression, as a syndrome, to be
made up of four classes of deficits: (a) moti-
vational, (b) cognitive, (c) self-esteem, and
(d) affective (but see Blaney, 1977, for a
review that contends that only affective
changes are relevant to depression). Whereas
the first three deficits are the result of un-
controllability, we believe the affective
changes result from the expectation that bad
outcomes will occur, not from their expected
uncontrollability.
Everyday observation suggests that an ex-
pectation that good events will occur with a
high 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), for
previous inconsistent accounts). People do
not become sad when they receive $1,000 each
month from a trust fund, even though the
money comes regardless of what they do. In
this case, people may learn they have no
control over the money's arrival, become pas-
sive with respect to trying to stop the money
from arriving (motivational deficit), have
trouble relearning should the money actually
become response contingent (cognitive defi-
cit), but they do not show dysphoria. Thus,
only those cases in which the expectation of
response-outcome independence is about the
loss of a highly desired outcome 5 or about
the occurrence of a highly aversive outcome
are sufficient for the emotional component of
depression. It follows, then, that depressed
affect may occur in cases of either universal
or personal helplessness, since either can in-
volve expectations of uncontrollable, impor-
tant outcomes.
At least three factors determine the in-
tensity of the emotional component of depres-
sion. Intensity of affect (and self-esteem defi-
cits) increases with desirability of the unob-
tainable outcome or with the aversiveness ofthe unavoidable outcome, and with the
strength or certainty of the expectation of
uncontrollability. In addition, intensity of
depressed affect may depend on whether the
person views his helplessness as universal or
personal. Weiner (1974) suggested that fail-
ure attributed to internal factors, such as
lack of abiity, produces greater negative af-
fect than failure attributed to external fac-
tors, such as task difficulty. The intensity of
cognitive and motivational components of
depression, however, does not depend on
whether helplessness is universal or personal,
or, we speculate, on the importance of the
event.
Perhaps the expectation that one is receiv-
ing positive events noncontingently contri-
butes indirectly to vulnerability to depressed
affect. Suppose a person has repeatedly
learned that positive events arrive indepen-
dently of his actions. If the perception or ex-
pectation of response-outcome independence
in future situations involving loss is facili-
tated by such a set, then heightened vulnera-
bility 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 to
have a very low probability and to be uncontrolla-
ble. Yet, we do not have depressed affect upon real-
izing this. Some notion, like Klinger's (1Q7S) "cur-
rent 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. Inci-
dentally, the motivational and cognitive deficits do
not need current concerns, only the affective deficit.
We take this inadequacy to be general not only to
the theory stated here but to much of the entire
psychology of motivation, which focuses on behav-
ior, and we do not attempt to remedy it here. We
find Klinger's concept heuristic but in need of some-
what better definition. We, therefore, use the notion
of "loss of a highly desired outcome" rather than
"nonoccurrence." Loss implies that it will probably be
a current concern. Since this is only part of a suf-
ficiency condition, we do not deny that nonoccur-
rence 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 be-
sides which is lacking in mourning—an extra-
ordinary diminution in his self-regard, an
impoverishment of his ego on a grand scale"
(p. 246). A major shortcoming of the old
model 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 be-
lieve their helplessness is personal show lower
self-esteem than individuals who believe their
helplessness is universal. Suppose two indi-
viduals are depressed because they expect that
regardless of how hard they try they will re-
main unemployed. The depression of the per-
son 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 is
causing his failure to find work will not think
less of himself. Both depressions, however, will
show passivity, negative cognitive set, and
sadness, the other three depressive deficits,
since both individuals expect that the prob-
ability of the desired outcome is very low and
that it is not contingent on any responses in
their repertoire.
It is interesting that psychoanalytic writers
have argued that there are at least two types
of depression, which differ clinically as well as
theoretically (Bibring, 1953). Although both
types of depression share motivational, cogni-
tive, and affective characteristics, only the
second involves low self-regard. Further paral-
leling 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, and
low self-esteem and excessively high stan-
dards and morality.
Inadequacy 3: Depressives Believe They
Cause Their Own Failures
Recently, Blaney (1977) and Rizley (1978)
have construed the finding that depressives at-
tribute their failures to internal factors, such
as lack of ability, as disaffirming the learnedhelplessness model of depression. Similarly,
aware that depressives often blame them-
selves for bad outcomes, Abramson and
Sackeim (1977) asked how individuals can
possibly blame themselves for outcomes about
which they believe they can do nothing. Al-
though the reformulation does not articulate
the relation between blame or guilt and help-
lessness, it clearly removes any contradiction
between being a cause and being helpless. De-
pressed individuals who believe they are per-
sonally helpless make internal attributions for
failure, and depressed individuals who believe
they are universally helpless make external at-
tributions for failure. A personally helpless in-
dividual 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 attribu-
tions of depressives? Do they tend to at-
tribute failure to internal, global, and stable
factors, and success to external, specific, and
unstable factors?6
Hammen and Krantz (1976) looked at
cognitive distortion in depressed and nonde-
pressed women. When responding to a story
containing "being alone on a Friday night,"
depressed women selected more depressed-dis-
torted cognitions ("upsets me and makes me
start to imagine endless days and nights by
myself"), and nondepressed women selected
more nondepressed-nondistorted cognitions
("doesn't bother me because one Friday night
alone isn't that important; probably everyone
has spent nights alone"). Depressed people
seem to make more global and stable attribu-
tions for negative events. When depressed
women were exposed to failure on an inter-
personal judgment task, they lowered their
self-rating more than did nondepressed women.
aThe literature on the relation between internal
locus of control and depression might be expected to
yield direct information about internal attribution in
depression. It is, however, too conflicting at this
stage to be very useful. Externality, as measured by
the Rotter scale, correlates weakly (.2S-.30) with
depression (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 REFORMULATION 67
This indicates that the depressed women are
systematically generating mpre internal as
well as global and stable attributions for
failure.7
Rizley (1978) caused depressed and nonde-
pressed students to either succeed or fail on a
cognitive task and then asked them to make
attributions about the cause. Depressed stu-
dents attributed failures to incompetence (in-
ternal, global stable), whereas nondepressed
students attributed their failures to task dif-
ficulty (external, specific, stable). Similarly,
depressed students attributed success to the
ease of the task (external, specific, stable),
whereas nondepressed students attributed their
success to ability (internal, global, stable).
Although inconsistent with the old model,
Rizley's results are highly consistent with the
reformulation.
Klein et al. (1976) assessed the attribution
depressed and nondepressed college students
made for failure on discrimination problems.
Whereas depressed students tended to at-
tribute failure to internal factors, nonde-
pressed 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 de-
pressed and nondepressed subjects to make
predictions concerning their own future suc-
cess as well as the success of another person
in the skill/chance situation. The depressed
subjects showed small expectancy changes in
relation to their own skilled actions; however,
when they predicted the results of the skilled
actions of others, they showed large expec-
tancy changes, like those of nondepressives
rating themselves. These results suggest that
depressives believe they lack the ability for
the skill task but believe others possess the
ability, the internal attribution of personal
helplessness.
Taken together, the studies examining de-
pressives' attributions for success and failure
suggest that depressives often make internal,
global, and stable attributions for failure and
may make external, specific, and perhaps less
stable attributions for their success. Future
research that manipulates and measures at-
tributions and attributional styles in depres-sion and helplessness is necessary from the
standpoint of our reformulated hypothesis.
Inadequacy 4: Generality and Chronicity oj
Depression
The time course of depression varies greatly
from individual to individual. Some depres-
sions 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 some-
times highly general across situations and
sometimes quite specific. The reformulated
helplessness hypothesis suggests that the chro-
nicity and generality of deficits in helplessness
depressions follow from the stability and
globality of the attribution a depressed per-
son makes for his helplessness. The same logic
we used to explain the chronicity and gen-
erality of helplessness deficits above applies
here.
The reformulation also sheds light on the
continuity of miniature helplessness depres-
sions created in the laboratory and of real-life
depression. The attributions subjects make
for helplessness in the laboratory are pre-
sumably less global and less stable than at-
tributions made by depressed people for fail-
ure outside the laboratory. Thus, the labora-
tory-induced depressions are less chronic and
less 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 of
contingency between depressed and nondepressed
students. The subjects were exposed to different rela-
tions between button pushing and the onset of a
green light and were asked to judge the contingency
between the outcome and the response. Depressed
students judged both contingency and noncontin-
gency accurately. In contrast, nondepressed students
distorted: When the light was noncontingently re-
lated to responding but occurred with a high fre-
quency, they believed they had control. So there
was a net difference in perception of contingency by
depressed and nondepressed subjects, but the distor-
tion 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 de-
pressions.
Do depressive deficits occur in situations
that have nothing to do with the expectation
of 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 reformula-
tion might explain this: (a) He is still in the
presence 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, catechola-
mine changes) that must run their course. Re-
member that expectations of helplessness are
held to be sufficient, not necessary, conditions
of depression.
Finally, does the attributional reformula-
tion of helplessness make depression look too
"rational"? The chronicity, generality, and in-
tensity of depression follow inexorably, "ra-
tionally" from the attribution made and the
importance of the outcome. But there is room
elsewhere for the irrationality implicit in de-
pression as a form of psychopathology. The
particular attribution that depressed people
choose for failure is probably irrationally dis-
torted toward global, stable, and internal fac-
tors and, for success, possibly toward specific,
unstable, and external factors. It is also pos-
sible that the distortion resides not in attribu-
tional styles but in readiness to perceive help-
lessness, as Alloy and Abramson (Note 7)
have shown: Depressed people perceive non-
contingency more readily than do nonde-
pressed people.
In summary, here is an explicit statement
of the reformulated model of depression:
1. Depression consists of four classes of defi-
cits: motivational, cognitive, self-esteem, and
affective.
2. When highly desired outcomes are be-
lieved improbable or highly aversive outcomes
are believed probable, and the individual ex-
pects that no response in his repertoire will
change their likelihood, (helplessness) depres-
sion results.3. The generality of the depressive deficits
will depend on the globality of the attribution
for helplessness, the chronicity of the depres-
sion deficits will depend on the stability of the
attribution for helplessness, and whether self-
esteem is lowered will depend on the inter-
nality of the attribution for helplessness.
4. The intensity of the deficits depends on
the strength, or certainty, of the expectation
of uncontrollability and, in the case of the af-
fective and self-esteem deficits, on the im-
portance of the outcome.
We suggest that the attributional frame-
work proposed to resolve the problems of
human helplessness experiments also resolves
some salient inadequacies of the helplessness
model of depression.
Vulnerability, Therapy, and Prevention
Individual differences probably exist in at-
tributional style. Those people who typically
tend to attribute failure to global, stable, and
internal factors should be most prone to gen-
eral and chronic helplessness depressions with
low self-esteem. By the reformulated hypoth-
esis, such a style predisposes depression. Beck
(1967) argued similarly that the premorbid
depressive is an individual who makes logical
errors in interpreting reality. For example, the
depression-prone individual overgeneralizes; a
student regards his poor performance in a
single class on one particular day as final
proof of his stupidity. We believe that our
framework 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, per-
haps 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 that
boys and girls have been found to differ in at-
tributional styles, with girls attributing help-
lessness to lack of ability (global, stable) and
boys to lack of effort (specific, unstable;
Dweck, 1976).
The therapeutic implications of the refor-
mulated hypothesis can now be schematized.
Depression is most far-reaching when (a) the

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION 69
Table 3
Treatment, Strategies, and Tactics Implied by the Reformulated Hypothesis
A. Change the estimated probability of the relevant event's occurrence: Reduce estimated likelihood for
aversive outcomes and increase estimated likelihood for desired outcomes.
a. Environmental maniuplation by social agencies to remove aversive outcomes or provide desired out-
comes, for example, rehousing, job placement, financial assistance, provision of nursery care for
children.
b. Provision of better medical care to relieve pain, correct handicaps, for example, prescription of
analgesics, 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 as
aversive, for example, you are not the most unattractive person in the world. "Consider the counter-
evidence" (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 dis-
appointed 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, for
example, 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 of
other responses, for example, prompt general increase in activity; teach more appropriate goal-
setting 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 at-
tributions 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 are
incompetent."
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 are
not" (correct overgeneralization).
b. For success
1. 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 every-
one around you."

70 L. ABRAMSON, M. SELIGMAN, AND J. TEASDALE
estimated probability of a positive outcome is
low or the estimated probability of an aver-
sive outcome is high, (b) the outcome is highly
positive or aversive, (c) the outcome is ex-
pected to be uncontrollable, (d) the attribu-
tion for this uncontrollability is to a global,
stable, internal factor. Each of these four
aspects corresponds to four therapeutic strat-
egies.
1. Change the estimated probability of the
outcome. Change the environment by reducing
the likelihood of aversive outcomes and in-
creasing the likelihood of desired outcomes.
2. Make the highly preferred outcomes less
preferred by reducing the aversiveness of un-
relievable outcomes or the desirability of un-
obtainable outcomes.
3. Change the expectation from uncontrol-
lability to controllability when the outcomes
are attainable. When the responses are not
yet in the individual's repertoire but can be,
train the appropriate skills. When the re-
sponses are already in the individual's reper-
toire but cannot be made because of distorted
expectation of response-outcome indepen-
dence, modify the distorted expectation. When
the outcomes are unattainable, Strategy 3
does not apply.
4. Change unrealistic attributions for failure
toward external, unstable, specific factors, and
change unrealistic attributions for success to-
ward internal, stable, global factors. The
model predicts that depression will be most
far-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 be
noncontingently related to his responses. Get-
ting the patient to make an external, unstable,
and specific attribution for failure should re-
duce the depression in cases in which the
original attribution is unrealistic. The logic, of
course, 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 reformu-
lated model of depression, two studies haveexamined the effectiveness of therapies that
appear to modify the depressive's cognitive
style. One study found that forcing a depres-
sive 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 ef-
fective than behavior therapy, no treatment,
or an attention-placebo therapy in reducing
depressive symptomatology (Shaw, 1977). Fu-
ture research that directly tests the thera-
peutic implications of the reformulation is
necessary.
The reformulation has parallel preventive
implications. Populations at high risk for de-
pression—people who tend to make stable,
global, and internal attributions for failure—
may be identifiable before onset of depres-
sion. Preventive strategies that force the per-
son to criticize and perhaps change his at-
tributional style might be instituted. Other
factors that produce vulnerability are situa-
tions in which highly aversive outcomes are
highly probable and highly desirable outcomes
unlikely; here environmental change to less
pernicious circumstances would probably be
necessary for more optimistic expectations. A
third general factor producing vulnerability
to depression is a tendency to exaggerate the
aversiveness or desirability of outcomes. Re-
ducing individuals' "catastrophizing" about
uncontrollable outcomes might reduce the in-
tensity of future depressions. Finally, a set to
expect outcomes to be uncontrollable—learned
helplessness—makes individuals more prone to
depression. A life history that biases indi-
viduals to expect that they will be able to
control the sources of suffering and nurtur-
ance in their life should immunize against
depression.
Reference Notes
1. Miller, I. Learned helplessness in humans: A re-
view and attribution theory model. Unpublished
•manuscript, Brown University, 1978.
2. Roth, A., & Kilpatrick-Tabak, B. Developments
in the study of learned helplessness in humans:
A critical review. Unpublished manuscript, Duke
University, 1977.

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION 71
3. Tennen, H. A. Learned helplessness and the per-
ception of reinforcement in depression: A case of
investigator misattribution. Unpublished manu-
script, State University of New York at Albany,
1977.
4. Eisenberger, R., Mauriello, J., Carlson, J., Frank,
M., and Park, D. C. Learned helplessness and in-
dustriousness 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 nega-
tively punishing and potentially positively rein-
forcing stimuli non-contingent upon behavior.
Unpublished manuscript, 1976. (Available from
K. A. Hirsch, Galesburg Mental Health Center,
Galesburg, Illinois.)
6. Nugent, J. Variations in non-contingent experi-
ences and test tasks in the generation of learned
helplessness. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Massachusetts.
7. Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. Judgment of
contingency in depressed and nondepressed stu-
dents: A nondepressive distortion. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, 1977.
8. Weiner, B. Personal communication to M. E. P.
Seligman, 1977.
9. Dyck, D. G., & Breen, L. J. Learned helpless-
ness, immunization and task importance in hu-
mans. 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 feedback
in 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 dif-
ferences in learned helplessness: IV. An experi-
mental and naturalistic study of failure general-
ization and its mediators. Unpublished manu-
script, University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
paign, 1977.
12. Garber, J., & Hollon, S. Depression and the ex-
pectancy of success for self and for others. Un-
published manuscript, University of Minnesota,
1977.
13. Radloff, L. S. Sex differences in helplessness—
with implication for depression. Unpublished
manuscript, 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 oflearned helplessness and depression. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania,
1977.
Abramson, L. Y., Garber, J., Edwards, N. B., &
Seligman, M. E. P. Expectancy changes in depres-
sion and schizophrenia, Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 1978, 87, 102-109.
Abramson, L. Y., & Sackeim, H. A. A paradox in
depression: Uncontrollability and self-blame. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 838-8S1.
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory
of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 1977,
84, 191-215.
Beck, A. T. Depression: Clinkal, experimental and
theoretical aspects. New York: Hoeber, 1967.
Beck, A. T. Cognitive therapy and emotional dis-
orders. New York: International Universities
Press, 1976.
Benson, J. S., & Kennelly, K. J. Learned helplessness:
The result of uncontrollable reinforcements or un-
controllable aversive stimuli? Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 138-145.
Bibring, E. The mechanism of depression. In P.
Greenacre (Ed.), Affective disorders: Psychoana-
lytic contributions to their study. New York: In-
ternational 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. Ex-
periences of depression in normal young adults.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 383-
389.
Burgess, E. P. The modification of depressive be-
haviors. In R. D. Rubin & C. M. Franks (Eds.),
Advances in behavior therapy. New York: Aca-
demic Press, 1968.
Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. P. The development of
consciousness of self and the emergence of racial
identification in Negro preschool children. Journal
of Social Psychology, 1939,10, 591-599.
Cohen, S., Rothbart, M., & Phillips, S. Locus of
control and the generality of learned helplessness
in humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 1976, 34, 1049-1056.
Cole, C. S., & Coyne, J. C. Situational specificity of
laboratory-induced learned helplessness. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 1977, 86, 61S-623.
Douglas, D., & Anisman, H. Helplessness or expecta-
tion incongruency: Effects of aversive stimulation
on subsequent performance. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance, 1975,1, 411-417.
Dweck, C. S. The role of expectations and attribu-
tions 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 help-
lessness. In C. S. Dweck, K. T. Hill, W. H. Reed,
W. M. Steihman, & R. D. Parke. The impact of
social 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. Jour-
nal 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 pro-
cesses. Human Relations, 1954, 7, 117-140.
Fosco, F., & Geer, J. H. Effects of gaining control
over aversive stimuli after differing amounts of no
control. 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 pub-
lished, 1917.)
Frumkin, K., & Brookshire, K. H. Conditioned fear
training and later avoidance learning in goldfish.
Psychonomic Science, 1969, 16, 159-160.
Gatchel, R. J., & Proctor, J. D. Physiological cor-
relates 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 un-
controllable noise. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1971, 7, 244-257.
Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. Urban stress: Experi-
ments 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. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977, 86, 389-401.
Goodkin, F. Rats learn the .relationship between re-
sponding and environmental events: An expansion
of the learned helplessness hypothesis. Learning and
Motivation, 1976, 7, 382-393.
Griffiths, M. Effects of noncontingent success and
failure on mood and performance. Journal of Per-
sonality, 1977, 45, 442-457.
Hammen, C. L., & Krantz, S. Effect of success and
failure on depressive .cognitions. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, 1976, 85, 577-586.
Hanusa, B. H., & Schulz, R. Attributions! mediators
of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 602-611.
Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations.
New York: Wiley, 1958.
Hiroto, D. S. Locus of control and learned helpless-
ness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,
102, 187-193.
Hiroto, D. S. & Seligman, M. E. P. Generality of
learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 311-327.
James, W. H. Internal versus external control of re-
inforcement as a basic variable in learning theory.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State Uni-
versity, 1957.
James, W. H., & Rotter, J. B. Partial and one hun-
dred percent reinforcement under chance and skill
conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1958, S5, 397-403.Jenkins, H. M., & Ward, W. C. Judgment of con-
tingency between responses and outcomes. Psy-
chological Monographs, 1965, 79(1, Whole No.
594).
Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychol-
ogy. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation (Vol. 15). Lincoln: University of Ne-
braska Press, 1967.
Klein, D. C., Fencil-Morse, E., & Seligman, M. E.
P. Learned helplessness, depression, and the at-
tribution of failure. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 1976, 33, 508-516.
Klein, D. C., & Seligman, M. E. P. Reversal of per-
formance deficits in learned helplessness and de-
pression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976,
85, 11-26.
Klinger, E. Consequences of commitment to and dis-
engagement irom incentives. Psychological Review,
1975, 82, 1-25.
Krantz, D. S., Glass, D. C., & Snyder, M. L. Help-
lessness, stress level, and the coronary prone be-
havior 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 to
learn to escape in rats previously exposed to in-
escapable shock depends on nature of escape re-
sponse. Journal of Comparative and Physiological
Psychology, 1973, 85, 581-592.
Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helpless-
ness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: General, 1976,105, 3-46.
Maier, S. F., Seligman, M. E. P., & Solomon, R. L.
Pavlovian fear conditioning and learned helpless-
ness. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.),
Punishment. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1969.
Maier, S. F., & Testa, T. J. Failure to learn to
escape by rats previously exposed to inescapable
shock is partly produced by associative interfer-
ence. Journal of Comparative and Physiological
Psychology, 1975, 88, 554-564.
Masserman, J. H. The principle of uncertainty in
neurotigenesis. In H. D. Kimmel (Ed.), Experi-
mental psychopathology. New York: Academic
Press, 1971.
McNitt, P. C., & Thornton, D. W. Depression and
perceived reinforcement: A reconsideration. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 137-140.
Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and
the perception of reinforcement. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, 1973, 82, 62-73.
Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and
learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1975, 84, 228-238.
Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. Learned help-
lessness, depression, and the perception of rein-
forcement. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1976,
14, 7-17.

CRITIQUE AND REFORMULATION 73
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, self-
consistency, and the concept of self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 148-
156.
Overmier, J. B., & Seligman, M. E. P. Effects of in-
escapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoid-
ance learning. Journal of Comparative and Physio-
logical 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). Psy-
chonomic Science, 1970, 20, 295-296.
Phares, E. J. Expectancy change in chance and skill
situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, 1957,54,339-342.
Racinskas, J. R. Maladaptive consequences oj loss or
lack of control over aversive events. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Waterloo University, Ontario,
Canada, 1971.
Rizley, R. Depression and distortion in the attribu-
tion of causality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
1978, 87, 32-48.
Rodin, J. Density, perceived choice, and response to
controllable and uncontrollable outcomes. Journal
oj Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 12, 564-
578.
Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965.
Roth, S. The effects of experimentally induced ex-
pectancies oj control: Facilitation of controlling
behavior or learned helplessness? Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1973.
Roth, S., & Bootzin, R. R. Effects of experimentally
induced expectancies of external control: An in-
vestigation of learned helplessness. Journal oj Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 253-264.
Roth, S., & Kubal, L. Effects of noncontingent rein-
forcement on tasks of differing importance: Fa-
cilitation and learned helplessness. Journal oj Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 680-691.
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal
versus external control of reinforcement. Psycho-
logical Monographs, 1966, 80(1, Whole No. 609).
Rotter, J. B., Liverant, S., & Crowne, D. P. The
growth and extinction of expectancies in chance
controlled and skilled .tasks. Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 1961, 52, 161-177.
Rush, A. J., Beck, A. T., Kovacs, M., & Hollon, S.
Comparative efficacy of cognitive therapy and
pharmacotherapy in the treatment of depressed out-
patients. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1977, 1,
17-37.
Seligman, M. E. P. Learned helplessness. Annual Re-
view of Medicine, 1972, 23, 407-412.
Seligman, M. E. P. Helplessness: On depression, de-velopment, and death. San Francisco: Freeman,
1975.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Beagley, G. Learned helpless-
ness in the rat. Journal oj Comparative and Physi-
ological 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. Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. Failure .to escape
traumatic shock. Journal oj Experimental Psychol-
ogy, 1967, 74, 1-9.
Seligman, M. E. P., Maier, S. F., & Geer, J. The al-
leviation of learned helplessness in the dog. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1968, 73, 256-
262.
Seligman, M. E. P., Maier, S. F., & Solomon, R. L.
Unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events.
In F. R. Brush (Ed.) Aversive conditioning and
learning. New York: Academic Press, 1971.
Seligman, M. E. P., Rosellini, R. A., & Kozak, M.
Learned helplessness in the rat: Reversibility, time
course, and immunization. Journal oj Compara-
tive and Physiological Psychology, 1975, 88, 542-
547.
Seward, J. P., & Humphrey, G. L. Avoidance learn-
ing as a function of pretraining in the cat. Journal
of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,
1967, 63, 338-341.
Shaw, B. F. Comparison of cognitive therapy and
behavior 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, 158-
171.
Teasdale, J. D. Effects of real and recalled success on
learned helplessness and depression. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, 1978, 87, 155-164.
Tennen, H., & Eller, S. J. Attributional components
of learned helplessness and facilitation. Journal oj
Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 265-
271.
Thomas, E., & Dewald, L. Experimental neurosis:
Neuropsychological analysis. In J. D. Maser &
M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Psychopathology: Ex-
perimental models. San Francisco: Freeman, 1977.
Thornton, J. W., & Jacobs, P. D. Learned helpless-
ness in human subjects. Journal oj Experimental
Psychology, 1971, 87, 369-372.
Thornton, J, W., & Powell, G. D. Immunization and
alleviation 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 at-
tribution theory. Morristown, N.J.: General Learn-
ing 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 Learn-
ing Press, 1971.
Weiner, B., Heckhausen, H., Meyer, W., & Cook, R.
E. Causal ascriptions and achievement behavior:
A conceptual analysis of locus of control. Journal
of 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 experi-
ence with response-independent food. Learning
and Motivation, 1976, 7, 394-405.
Willis, M. H., & Blaney, P. H. Three tests of the
learned helplessness model of depression. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 131-136.Wortman, C. B., & Brehm, J. W. Responses to un-
controllable outcomes: An integration of reactance
theory 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 reac-
tions to uncontrollable outcomes. Journal of Ex-
perimental 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 Ameri-
can 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 anal-
yses such as ANOVA or chi-square are used, appropriate tables should accompany the
manuscript. These will not ordinarily be printed but are for the convenience of the editorial
consultants to help in evaluating the article. Therefore, when significant differences are
reported, the appropriate F, df, p, and other values should be inserted in the text.