Learned Helplessness, Locus of Control, and Pandemics
First of all, let's get this out of the way: Learned Helplessness is a myth. Stephen Maier and Martin Seligman, the original researchers who came up with the idea that people "learn" to be helpless actually had it backwards. Helplessness isn't "learned" in our brains. Helplessness in an extremely stressful situation is the natural default state. The "learned" behavior is actually success, or more specifically, control.
Stephen Maier and Martin Seligman were graduate students when they performed some experiments in the 1960's that led to the apparent discovery of so-called "learned helplessness." Their outcomes seemed to indicate that their subjects (dogs) would "learn" to behave in a helpless manner after being exposed to an electric shock when the shock was administered in an "inescapable" setting, namely in a small chamber where the dogs were yoked. Conversely, the dogs who were given the shocks in an "escapable" chamber would learn how to escape, and would then continue to try to escape in subsequent experiments. The first group, the "inescapable" group, wouldn't even bother to try to escape the shock in follow-up situations, even when escape would have been easy for them.
This seemed to indicate that the first group "learned" to be helpless. But in fact, what actually happened was that the second group had "learned" how to be successful. The learning conditions were just right for these subjects to be able to overcome their default.
Maier and Seligman began to recognize some flaws in their methodology within a decade or so after the initial experiments. Beginning in the 1970's they found that human subjects who were exposed to a loud unpleasant noise under similar circumstances--escapable or inescapable--did not always behave exactly as predicted. More tellingly, in later experiments the human subjects often gave conflicting accounts of why they did or did not continue to try to escape from the unpleasant noise. Additionally, the researchers found that people who were highly depressed prior to participating in the experiment sometimes did not try to escape even when they were given the "escapable" situation.
Even prior to the experiments with human beings, it was determined that the "learned helplessness" group in the dog experiments may have actually learned not to be helpless, per se, but to simply hold still until the shock was turned off. Yet, the group that had learned how to easily escape failed to ever learn how to just "hold still" when they were subsequently placed into an inescapable situation. Those dogs would continue to run and try to escape from the chamber, and would never associate merely holding still with the shock eventually being turned off--even when the researchers ended the shock sooner if the animal held still.
It was only in 2016, 50 years after the fact, that Maier and Seligman began to understand why they saw these conflicting results. Advances in neurotechnology enabled them to observe what was going on in the brain when a subject was in an inescapable situation versus an escapable situation. According to their findings, the "default" of the brain is to assume that we cannot control a stressful situation. When a subject is put in control of an extremely stressful situation, the brain reacts by producing chemicals that can actually inhibit stress responses. This is an atypical situation for the brain, however--under normal circumstances, stress causes stress responses. The presence of control has the power to change the brain's natural chemical response to duress.
Consider the concept of "Locus of Control," which is a person's individual belief about how much can be controlled in one's life, as opposed to how much is due to luck, destiny, or other unseen forces that people cannot really predict or change.
Much research has demonstrated that people whose locus of control is very "internal," which refers to a strong belief that they have the ability to shape their own circumstances, is linked to higher success and happiness in life. People with a very "external" locus of control believe that there isn't much they can personally do to change their lives or their outcomes. It seems natural that such people would be more prone to depression than people whose locus of control is more internal. But, considering Maier and Seligman's findings, one has to wonder: does success in life create a more internal locus of control, or do some people just function that way naturally?
The reality is that there is probably always a little nature and a little nurture in just about any given situation, but Maier and Seligman's research seems to strongly indicate that an internal locus of control is probably due at least in part to learned circumstances; that is to say, the person was able to learn control and success at some early point in their lives, which overrode aspects of the natural stress responses. This supports most educator's beliefs about the necessity of trying to create ideal learning conditions for all students. Stress, therefore, can be a tremendous inhibitor for successful outcomes when students are trying to learn how to overcome a challenging problem.
Is there a "bad side" to internal locus of control? Consider what was illustrated both by some of Maier and Seligman's findings about learned success/default helplessness, and by observing what happens when a person with an extremely internal locus of control encounters a situation that actually is uncontrollable. For example, a global pandemic.
Such a person will continue to struggle and struggle and do everything in their own personal power to try to control the situation. In the case of the Coronavirus pandemic, in some ways this is a good thing. It has been theorized that people with a more internal locus of control are more likely to wear masks, practice social distancing, and be sure to frequently wash their hands. People with a more external locus of control will be more likely to chalk the whole thing up to "luck," or even simply deny that it is happening at all. In some cases these people will refuse to take any responsibility for their own behavior, because they have never entirely acknowledged that their behavior has much impact on the world around them. External locus of control has been associated with belief in conspiracy theories, which indicates that such people are likely to regard the powers-that-be as an unstoppable machine, rather than a system that can be changed with individual involvement and effort.
But, even though people with a more internal locus of control tend to be happier and more likely to make efforts to change their own circumstances, there is a negative side to an extremely internal locus of control, at least in an extreme situation like a global pandemic. For such folks who have lost their jobs or their businesses, whose kids are struggling with online school, whose relationships are suffering, or who even may have lost loved ones to the pandemic, the feelings of being "out of control" might be almost too painful to bear.
In general, it is healthier for a person's locus of control to be a mix of internal and external. People whose locus of control is too internal are the very people who will struggle to accept it when circumstances are truly out of their hands. Like the dogs who kept running and running against the electric shock in the inescapable situation, some people have to learn how to simply hold still until the shock is turned off. People who falsely believe they can control an uncontrollable situation are the very people who might need to learn that sometimes, the only thing you can do is accept your circumstances until they can get better on their own.
Stephen Maier and Martin Seligman were graduate students when they performed some experiments in the 1960's that led to the apparent discovery of so-called "learned helplessness." Their outcomes seemed to indicate that their subjects (dogs) would "learn" to behave in a helpless manner after being exposed to an electric shock when the shock was administered in an "inescapable" setting, namely in a small chamber where the dogs were yoked. Conversely, the dogs who were given the shocks in an "escapable" chamber would learn how to escape, and would then continue to try to escape in subsequent experiments. The first group, the "inescapable" group, wouldn't even bother to try to escape the shock in follow-up situations, even when escape would have been easy for them.
This seemed to indicate that the first group "learned" to be helpless. But in fact, what actually happened was that the second group had "learned" how to be successful. The learning conditions were just right for these subjects to be able to overcome their default.
Maier and Seligman began to recognize some flaws in their methodology within a decade or so after the initial experiments. Beginning in the 1970's they found that human subjects who were exposed to a loud unpleasant noise under similar circumstances--escapable or inescapable--did not always behave exactly as predicted. More tellingly, in later experiments the human subjects often gave conflicting accounts of why they did or did not continue to try to escape from the unpleasant noise. Additionally, the researchers found that people who were highly depressed prior to participating in the experiment sometimes did not try to escape even when they were given the "escapable" situation.
Even prior to the experiments with human beings, it was determined that the "learned helplessness" group in the dog experiments may have actually learned not to be helpless, per se, but to simply hold still until the shock was turned off. Yet, the group that had learned how to easily escape failed to ever learn how to just "hold still" when they were subsequently placed into an inescapable situation. Those dogs would continue to run and try to escape from the chamber, and would never associate merely holding still with the shock eventually being turned off--even when the researchers ended the shock sooner if the animal held still.
It was only in 2016, 50 years after the fact, that Maier and Seligman began to understand why they saw these conflicting results. Advances in neurotechnology enabled them to observe what was going on in the brain when a subject was in an inescapable situation versus an escapable situation. According to their findings, the "default" of the brain is to assume that we cannot control a stressful situation. When a subject is put in control of an extremely stressful situation, the brain reacts by producing chemicals that can actually inhibit stress responses. This is an atypical situation for the brain, however--under normal circumstances, stress causes stress responses. The presence of control has the power to change the brain's natural chemical response to duress.
Consider the concept of "Locus of Control," which is a person's individual belief about how much can be controlled in one's life, as opposed to how much is due to luck, destiny, or other unseen forces that people cannot really predict or change.
Much research has demonstrated that people whose locus of control is very "internal," which refers to a strong belief that they have the ability to shape their own circumstances, is linked to higher success and happiness in life. People with a very "external" locus of control believe that there isn't much they can personally do to change their lives or their outcomes. It seems natural that such people would be more prone to depression than people whose locus of control is more internal. But, considering Maier and Seligman's findings, one has to wonder: does success in life create a more internal locus of control, or do some people just function that way naturally?
The reality is that there is probably always a little nature and a little nurture in just about any given situation, but Maier and Seligman's research seems to strongly indicate that an internal locus of control is probably due at least in part to learned circumstances; that is to say, the person was able to learn control and success at some early point in their lives, which overrode aspects of the natural stress responses. This supports most educator's beliefs about the necessity of trying to create ideal learning conditions for all students. Stress, therefore, can be a tremendous inhibitor for successful outcomes when students are trying to learn how to overcome a challenging problem.
Is there a "bad side" to internal locus of control? Consider what was illustrated both by some of Maier and Seligman's findings about learned success/default helplessness, and by observing what happens when a person with an extremely internal locus of control encounters a situation that actually is uncontrollable. For example, a global pandemic.
Such a person will continue to struggle and struggle and do everything in their own personal power to try to control the situation. In the case of the Coronavirus pandemic, in some ways this is a good thing. It has been theorized that people with a more internal locus of control are more likely to wear masks, practice social distancing, and be sure to frequently wash their hands. People with a more external locus of control will be more likely to chalk the whole thing up to "luck," or even simply deny that it is happening at all. In some cases these people will refuse to take any responsibility for their own behavior, because they have never entirely acknowledged that their behavior has much impact on the world around them. External locus of control has been associated with belief in conspiracy theories, which indicates that such people are likely to regard the powers-that-be as an unstoppable machine, rather than a system that can be changed with individual involvement and effort.
But, even though people with a more internal locus of control tend to be happier and more likely to make efforts to change their own circumstances, there is a negative side to an extremely internal locus of control, at least in an extreme situation like a global pandemic. For such folks who have lost their jobs or their businesses, whose kids are struggling with online school, whose relationships are suffering, or who even may have lost loved ones to the pandemic, the feelings of being "out of control" might be almost too painful to bear.
In general, it is healthier for a person's locus of control to be a mix of internal and external. People whose locus of control is too internal are the very people who will struggle to accept it when circumstances are truly out of their hands. Like the dogs who kept running and running against the electric shock in the inescapable situation, some people have to learn how to simply hold still until the shock is turned off. People who falsely believe they can control an uncontrollable situation are the very people who might need to learn that sometimes, the only thing you can do is accept your circumstances until they can get better on their own.
Comments
Post a Comment