I was reading Michael Domjan’s (2003) textbook about a week ago and came across something very interesting in its sociological implications. Most of the research in this book deal specifically with a lot of animal studies that show basic, modular units of behavior (that ostensibly echoes and informs us about human behavior), because the focus of the book is, as its title suggests, learning and memory.

In the fifth chapter, which deals with instrumental conditioning¹, there is a discussion dealing with what has come to be called the learned-helplessness effect: when animals (dogs [Overmier & Seligman, 1967; Seligman & Maier, 1967] and rats [Maier, Jackson, & Tomie, 1987], for instance) are exposed to uncontrollable (that is, inescapable) shock, it is profoundly difficult for these animals to subsequently learn to escape from shocks. Essentially, the animal learns from the first trials very well that it will never be able to escape from shock.

Experimental Background

Let me try to explain the structure of the basic experiment so as to facilitate a better understanding of what we’re dealing with here. Take three groups of animals–let’s say rats. One group (call them E, for Escape) will be exposed to shock that they can terminate by performing some action like bar-pressing or wheel-turning. Another group will be yoked to group E–we’ll call these Y–and nothing that these animals do will turn off the shocks. The third group will be the control, called R for Restricted: they will be in the cages for the same amount of time as the other animals but won’t be exposed to shock at all.²

What ends up happening in the second phase–when they’re retested–is that the animals in group Y aren’t able to get it through their heads that they can do anything to escape, even if the option is now available. They don’t try; it’s as if they realize/think that it’s completely useless. They have, in effect, learned that they are helpless.

Implications

If rat behavior is analogous to human behavior in this regard, as Mikulincer (1994) found, what can we infer from this about children who learn that no matter what they do, they will be punished because Mom or Dad is angry? What can this tell us about women who grew up with alcoholic or abusive fathers that are now in personally detrimental relationships and believe that they cannot escape or that there is nothing better for them?

It has long been my contention that people that are teachable and adaptive lead better lives. By rooting out the causes of maladaptive or rigidly-patterned (unteachable³) behavior, we can overwrite the foundational code from which all our actions flow in a way that improves our quality of life.

Without expounding the details, I have experienced a very long situation in which I felt trapped because I had “learned” that I must be content with this lower level of living. God had better for me, and I wasn’t letting Him bless me because I clung so tightly to this old belief; specifically, that romantic love was at best a poisonous fiction and that life-relationships were something to be endured. I was wrong there, and I’ve been wrong in other areas. In what areas are you allowing your past experiences “teach” you a false despair? There is always hope.

Footnotes & References

1. instrumental conditioning: a kind of operant conditioning–that is, learning via procedures executed by an individual on the environment–in which a reinforcer is paired with a response in a number of separate trials; note specifically that the reinforcer follows the response.

2. This is called the “triadic design” because it uses three groups of animals.

3. If we cannot learn, or will not let ourselves learn, different philosophies and understandings of how we should live, we are limiting ourselves needlessly, becoming slaves to the Zeitgeist. The bottom line is, you don’t have to let the culture of the age, your parents, your past, or your genotype dictate who you are–and you don’t have to feel threatened by change. Often the causes of maladaptive or rigid/unteachable behaviors spring from fears of change and of the novel.

References:

Maier, S. F., Jackson, R. L., & Tomie, A. (1987). Potentiation, overshadowing, and prior exposure to inescapable shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 13, 260-270.

Mikulincer, M. (1994). Human learned helplessness. New York: Plenum.

Overmier, J. B., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1967). Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance learning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 63, 23-33.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 1-9.

I was reading Michael Domjan’s (2003) textbook about a week ago and came across something very interesting in its sociological implications. Most of the research in this book deal specifically with a lot of animal studies that show basic, modular units of behavior (that ostensibly echoes and informs us about human behavior), because the focus of the book is, as its title suggests, learning and memory.

In the fifth chapter, which deals with instrumental conditioning¹, there is a discussion dealing with what has come to be called the learned-helplessness effect: when animals (dogs [Overmier & Seligman, 1967; Seligman & Maier, 1967] and rats [Maier, Jackson, & Tomie, 1987], for instance) are exposed to uncontrollable (that is, inescapable) shock, it is profoundly difficult for these animals to subsequently learn to escape from shocks. Essentially, the animal learns from the first trials very well that it will never be able to escape from shock.

Experimental Background

Let me try to explain the structure of the basic experiment so as to facilitate a better understanding of what we’re dealing with here. Take three groups of animals–let’s say rats. One group (call them E, for Escape) will be exposed to shock that they can terminate by performing some action like bar-pressing or wheel-turning. Another group will be yoked to group E–we’ll call these Y–and nothing that these animals do will turn off the shocks. The third group will be the control, called R for Restricted: they will be in the cages for the same amount of time as the other animals but won’t be exposed to shock at all.²

What ends up happening in the second phase–when they’re retested–is that the animals in group Y aren’t able to get it through their heads that they can do anything to escape, even if the option is now available. They don’t try; it’s as if they realize/think that it’s completely useless. They have, in effect, learned that they are helpless.

Implications

If rat behavior is analogous to human behavior in this regard, as Mikulincer (1994) found, what can we infer from this about children who learn that no matter what they do, they will be punished because Mom or Dad is angry? What can this tell us about women who grew up with alcoholic or abusive fathers that are now in personally detrimental relationships and believe that they cannot escape or that there is nothing better for them?

It has long been my contention that people that are teachable and adaptive lead better lives. By rooting out the causes of maladaptive or rigidly-patterned (unteachable³) behavior, we can overwrite the foundational code from which all our actions flow in a way that improves our quality of life.

Without expounding the details, I have experienced a very long situation in which I felt trapped because I had “learned” that I must be content with this lower level of living. God had better for me, and I wasn’t letting Him bless me because I clung so tightly to this old belief; specifically, that romantic love was at best a poisonous fiction and that life-relationships were something to be endured. I was wrong there, and I’ve been wrong in other areas. In what areas are you allowing your past experiences “teach” you a false despair? There is always hope.

Footnotes & References

1. instrumental conditioning: a kind of operant conditioning–that is, learning via procedures executed by an individual on the environment–in which a reinforcer is paired with a response in a number of separate trials; note specifically that the reinforcer follows the response.

2. This is called the “triadic design” because it uses three groups of animals.

3. If we cannot learn, or will not let ourselves learn, different philosophies and understandings of how we should live, we are limiting ourselves needlessly, becoming slaves to the Zeitgeist. The bottom line is, you don’t have to let the culture of the age, your parents, your past, or your genotype dictate who you are–and you don’t have to feel threatened by change. Often the causes of maladaptive or rigid/unteachable behaviors spring from fears of change and of the novel.

References:

Maier, S. F., Jackson, R. L., & Tomie, A. (1987). Potentiation, overshadowing, and prior exposure to inescapable shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 13, 260-270.

Mikulincer, M. (1994). Human learned helplessness. New York: Plenum.

Overmier, J. B., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1967). Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance learning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 63, 23-33.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 1-9.