PPsychology.com

Theories / How behavior is learned

Learned helplessness

Animals that could not escape a shock stopped trying, and went on not trying once escape was easy. The finding named one of the most studied patterns in psychology, and fifty years later the people who found it published a correction.

Published November 3, 2026. 4 sources at the foot of the page.

What it says

The original claim is simple. When what happens to an animal does not depend on what it does, it learns that. The learning then carries into a new situation where its actions would have worked.

The human version added a step. Lyn Abramson, Martin Seligman and John Teasdale argued in 1978 that what matters is not the bad event but how a person explains it. An explanation that is about yourself, that holds for always, and that covers everything has the strongest effect. That line of work grew into the study of explanatory style.

The 2016 reformulation reverses the mechanism. Steven Maier and Seligman, reading five decades of neuroscience, concluded that passivity under prolonged bad events is the default response rather than something learned. What is learned, when it is available, is control. The phrase stayed and the explanation under it changed.

The three versions

Reading them in order is the clearest way to see what the evidence did to the idea.

  1. 1967, the original

    Uncontrollable events teach an animal that nothing it does matters, and the lesson generalizes.

  2. 1978, the attribution version

    In people the effect runs through the explanation. Internal, stable and global explanations hit hardest.

  3. 2016, the reformulation

    Passivity is the default, and learning control is the thing that changes it. The original arrow was pointing the wrong way.

Where it came from

Seligman and Maier ran the first study in 1967. Dogs that had been given shocks they could not escape later failed to escape when escaping was possible. Dogs that had been able to escape learned the new task quickly.

Donald Hiroto and Seligman carried it to people in 1975 using loud noise and unsolvable problems rather than shock. The early papers proposed the pattern as a laboratory model for studying low mood, which is how the phrase entered general use.

What holds up, and what does not

The behavioral finding is robust and has been reproduced many times in animals. The explanatory style work has produced a large literature on how people account for setbacks, measured with questionnaires rather than shocks.

Two cautions. The effect in people is smaller than in the animal work and depends heavily on the task. The animal procedure that produced it would not be approved in that form today. The 2016 paper is also a warning about taking a famous name at face value. The mechanism in the textbooks was wrong for forty years, and the people who proposed it said so in print.

What it does not mean

This is a research finding about control, not a verdict on anybody. It does not describe a condition and it says nothing about what a reader should do. A person who has stopped trying at one thing has not been measured by it. Learn is a place to learn.

Check yourself

Three questions on what is above. Each answer says why.

  1. Pick the statement that describes the 2016 reformulation.

    1. Passivity is the default response, and control is what gets learned
    2. Helplessness is learned faster in people than in animals
    3. The original experiment could not be reproduced
    Show the answer

    Answer: A. Maier and Seligman concluded that the passivity comes first and learning control is the change, which turns the original mechanism around.

  2. On the 1978 attribution version, which explanation of a setback has the strongest effect?

    1. It was bad luck this once
    2. It is me, it always happens, and it affects everything
    3. The task was poorly designed
    Show the answer

    Answer: B. Internal, stable and global explanations were the three dimensions the 1978 paper named.

  3. In the 1967 study, what was the difference between the two groups of dogs?

    1. One group had been given shocks it could not escape, and the other could escape them
    2. One group was older than the other
    3. One group was given a reward for escaping
    Show the answer

    Answer: A. The variable was control, not the shock itself. The group that had been able to escape learned the new escape task quickly.

Sources

  1. Seligman, M. E. P., and Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1).
  2. Hiroto, D. S., and Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2).
  3. Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., and Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1).
  4. Maier, S. F., and Seligman, M. E. P. (2016). Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience. Psychological Review, 123(4).

Practice it on Learn

Learn teaches this finding in Four more studies that changed the field, the second unit of the Landmark studies track. The unit reads it beside the Little Albert experiment, Pavlov's dogs and the minimal group studies, each against its original paper.

Practice learned helplessnessSee what Learn is

Every lesson is free. Plus is optional. For adults 18 and over.

More theories