learned helplessness and expectancy factors: implications for research in learning disabilities

Learned Helplessness and Expectancy Factors: Implications for Research in LearningDisabilitiesAuthor(s): Adele ThomasSource: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Spring, 1979), pp. 208-221Published by: American Educational Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1169959 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 11:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Review of Educational Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.155 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:07:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1169959?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Review of Education Research Spring, 1979, Vol. 49, No. 2, Pp. 208-221

Learned Helplessness and Expectancy Factors: Implications for Research in Learning Disabilities

Adele Thomas Halton Board of Education

Oakville, Ontario

Our understanding of learning disabilities has been enriched in recent years by greater recognition of the problem and commitment to helping this group of

handicapped children (CELDIC Report, 1970; Myklebust & Boshes, 1969). There is

increasing awareness that the term "learning disabilities" is inadequate to describe various constellations of childhood perceptual and cognitive disorders (Cruickshank & Hallahan, 1975; Douglas, 1976). With current limited knowledge in this area, the

advantage of a global definition has been to insure flexibility while investigating this still largely unknown childhood behavioral syndrome. Therefore, rather than catalog the numerous definitional variations that have developed, the reader is referred to those sources which have discussed the practical necessities and limitations of current definitions of learning disabilities (Gaddes, 1976; Sabatino, 1976; Turton, 1975).

While it has been generally acknowledged that the term learning disabilities is too all-encompassing to be of research or treatment benefit, subtypes within this rubric, such as hyperactivity or attentional deficit, continue to note common observations of prolonged experience with failure (Whalen & Henker, 1976). As well, it has been observed that various learning disability syndromes which have been tentatively identified are usually accompanied by an emotional overlay of frustration and defeat (Minde, Lewin, Weiss, Lavigeur, Douglas, & Sykes, 1971). While this aspect of learning disabilities was recognized early as a significant debilitating factor in the treatment of these children, only recently have the effects of failure together with concomitant expectations and strategies of disabled learners benefited from systematic investigation. Thus, the focus of the present paper is two-fold: first to review some interrelated areas of research on experiences of extensive failure; second to discuss the implications of these investigations in terms of research strategies to be explored.

208



LEARNED HELPLESSNESS AND EXPECTANCY FACTORS

In the last several years, the effects of success and failure have been studied in great detail. Concepts such as poor self-esteem, poor motivation, and depression have been viewed as direct effects of the child's overall experience of success or failure in a variety of learning situations (Beck, 1971; Coopersmith, 1967; Phares, 1973). This line of inquiry has been further unified under the concept of learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975). At the same time, the influence of cognitive psychology has highlighted the importance of internal, intervening variables influencing learning (Mischel, 1973). A renewed interest has emerged in children's interpretations, inten- tions, and expectations as significant factors in learning. This latter inquiry has been additionally guided by the theoretical frameworks of attribution theory (Weiner, 1974, 1976) and cognitive-social learning (Bandura, 1977; Meichenbaum, 1976). Increasingly, research, whether laboratory or classroom experiments, has posed questions from an interactionist point of view in order to investigate the effects of internal perceptions and the external arrangement of events on learning outcomes. The next three sections will review studies which investigated these aspects of individual learning history or cognitive attributions and will attempt to evaluate such research within the context of implications for the study of learning disabilities.

Learned Helplessness The phenomenon of learned helplessness has been reviewed in some detail. The

theory as introduced by Seligman (1975) has been elaborated with research evidence by Seligman and his colleagues (Hiroto & Seligman, 1975; Maier & Seligman, 1976). Levis (1976) has offered an alternate explanation in terms of a strict S-R interpretation, while Wortman and Brehm (1975) have discussed learned helplessness in terms of reactance theory. Dweck and Goetz (1977) recently evaluated a learned helplessness and attribution research program which is noteworthy for its focus on children. The phenomenon of learned helplessness will be reviewed briefly in this section to introduce those aspects which have particular relevance for understanding the learning disabled child.

Learned helplessness refers to a phenomenon by which an individual learns, over a series of trials, that she/he has no control over the outcome of events. One sees no relation between effort and changes in surroundings or the attainment of a goal. Observation of this behavior began with animals, noting the debilitating effects of these experiences which result in passivity and severe reduction in persistence (Maier & Seligman, 1976). Later studies with college students also simulated these negative experiences by presenting young people with unsolvable problems or uncontrollable noxious noises (Hiroto & Seligman, 1975). After a series of such tasks and experiences, these students became lethargic; their usual efforts were drastically curtailed and self- attitudes about intellectual performance and competence became so negative that

general self-esteem suffered. Most significantly, students who were exposed to such doses of failure showed performance deficits on tasks which they were initially able to accomplish (Thornton & Jacobs, 1971). The parallels between this general descrip- tion of learned helplessness and the observations of special education teachers are

striking. Learning-disabled children have been portrayed as no longer able to believe that they can learn. Much initial teaching effort is directed toward motivating the disabled learner to expend sufficient effort to experience success (Haring, 1974).

Research with animals and adults has identified several crucial variables in the development of learned helplessness. While few investigations have focused on

209



ADELE THOMAS

children, those few did corroborate results achieved with adults (Dweck & Repucci, 1973). The usual paradigm involves a repeated measures design with yoked controls

(Seligman, 1975). In the training phase, failure on tasks such as concept identification or anagrams is preset so that individuals experience it on a noncontingent basis, thereby inducing learned helplessness. Failure on subsequent test tasks indicated that repeated exposure to situations in which one has no control leads to passivity and

performance deficit. In accounting for the cognitive and emotional deficits observed in such learning situations, Maier and Seligman (1976) noted that the delivery of trauma or shock are not sufficient in themselves to explain the poor test performance. Rather, learned helplessness occurs when an individual learns that "outcomes are uncontrollable by his responses and is seriously debilitated by this knowledge" (Maier & Seligman, 1976, p. 4). Control is understood in terms of the degree to which one's actions change or effect a desired outcome. When an individual's actions do not alter a situation, there appears to be no connection between outcome and action. The person perceives events as happening despite her/his efforts and beyond control such that she/he eventually ceases those efforts. Persistence at a task drops sharply, while emotional accompaniments such as passivity and anxiety may also be observed (Klein & Seligman, 1976; Roth & Bootzin, 1974; Thornton & Jacobs, 1971).

At the crux of the learned helplessness concept is the conclusion that it is not the loss of rewards as such but the loss of control over the situation that produces those rewards, which causes the passivity and decrease in persistence inherent in helplessness. Nevertheless, Benson and Kennelly (1976) have suggested that for learned helplessness to develop, experience with failure is necessary. When they gave students verbal problems, for which unrelated (noncontingent) positive feedback was given, learned helplessness was not observed. On the other hand, for students who received negative feedback ("incorrect"), unrelated to their actual performance, significant performance deficits were observed. The school behavior of learning-disabled children may aptly fit the learned helplessness model. Even after remedial efforts have been tried, learning-disabled children are typically low in persistence and effort, easily frustrated, anxious, unwilling to attempt tasks at appropriate ability levels (Bluestein, 1967; Sabatino, 1976).

Since Seligman (1975) has maintained that the noncontingency of reinforcement is the primary factor in the development of learned helplessness, the early work in this area focused on animal studies which stressed the arrangement of rewards and punishment. Nevertheless, subsequent research with adults led to inconsistencies, in that experience with noncontingent failure occasionally facilitated learning rather than helplessness (Jones, Nation, & Massad, 1977; Wortman & Brehm, 1975; Wort- man, Panciera, Shusterman, & Hibsher, 1976). A review of these discrepancies noted that human information processing was a neglected factor in the early research (Hanusa & Schulz, 1977). Of prime consideration is how individuals interpret their current situation in order to plan and account for future events. Consequently, current research within the learned helplessness model has looked at the contribution of individual cognitions to the development of helplessness.

Attributions and Expectations When one turns to research on attribution theory, three distinct research strategies

may be noted. One approach has used paper and pencil tasks or hypothetical

210




situations to identify types of causal judgments and those aspects of individual difference associated with such inferences. Another approach has assessed actual

performance outcome on achievement tasks in which expectations have been experimentally manipulated. A third approach has incorporated both ratings and behavior measures. Tables 1 and 2 summarize some design features of representative attribution studies discussed in this paper. In some research listed, learned helplessness was of primary interest while attributional level was varied through task instructions. Perusal of task descriptions and measures in Table 2 will assist in clarifying particular research approaches as well as in evaluating bases for research conclusions.

Using the rating approach, Rotter and some associates (Battle & Rotter, 1963; Rotter, 1972) explored parameters of internal-external (I-E) locus of control in the

assignment of responsibility for the outcome of events. Within the I-E framework Crandall, Katkovsky, and Crandall (1965) studied individual differences in children's attributions for specific academic situations, using the Intellectual Achievement

Responsibility Questionnaire (IAR). The IAR follows a forced-choice format across 34 items to present a variety of achievement tasks with scores reflecting high to low internal responsibility for success (I+) and for failure (I-). Internal responsibility for outcome refers to choices in which ability or effort account for outcome while external explanations include references to assistance from others or to chance. Internal responsibility for success and failure has been found to predict academic

performance and persistence at tasks across grades and age (McGhee & Crandall, 1968; Mischel, Zeiss, & Zeiss, 1974). Throughout the literature, sex differences in

response to success and failure have been noted. This issue is beyond the scope of the

present paper but critical reviews of this topic have been discussed (Dweck & Bush, 1976; Dweck & Gilliard, 1975; Dweck & Goetz, 1977).

Basically within the rating approach, Weiner and his colleagues (Frieze & Weiner, 1971; Weiner, 1974; Weiner & Kukla, 1970) have brought together conceptions from achievement motivation and locus of control in order to postulate a three-dimensional

taxonomy of causal attributions for success and failure. Thus, following a logical analysis (Weiner, 1974), a catalogue of attributions includes both internal explanations in terms of ability or effort and the external ascriptions of task difficulty, bias

(teacher, peer, etc.), and luck. Moreover, a second dimension of stability was introduced such that task difficulty and ability may be considered relatively stable while luck or effort (due to fatigue or mood) may be quite variable. A third dimension of intentionality may be understood in terms of a try factor (Weiner, 1974, p.50). Thus, effort is seen as an aspect of intention while luck and ability fall in the unintentional end of the spectrum.

The dimension of stability is relevant in evaluating some of the recent learned

helplessness literature. In some studies, ability instructions during training facilitated later performance while similar instructions about ability requirements led to generalized helplessness in other experiments (Hanusa & Schulz, 1977; Roth & Kubal, 1975; Roth & Bootzin, 1974). Hanusa & Schulz (1977) noted that while attributions about subject ability were manipulated in each case, it was difficult to insure that stable attributions were established. It was concluded that only when ability is considered an enduring (stable) internal characteristic will helplessness generalize across dissimilar tasks. In the case of learning-disabled children, interest in the

stability of attributions is basic to understanding processes by which such children

distinguish areas of competence or acquire a generalized helplessness.

211



TABLE 1

Subject Characteristics of Representative Attribution Studies

Study N Age and/ Sex Other Characteristics or Grade

Bugental et al. (1977) 36 7-12 yr. olds

Chapin & Dyck (1976) Crandall et al. (1965) Dweck (1975)

Dweck & Gilliard (1975) Dweck & Repucci

(1973) Frieze & Weiner (1971)

Hanusa & Schulz (1977) Karabenick & Heller

(1976) Mischel et al. (1974) Tennen & Eller (1977) Weiner & Kukla (1970)

Wortman et al. (1976)

30 923

12

60 40

34 (Exp. 1) 32 (Exp. 2) 70

128

211 49 20 (Exp. 1) 18 (Exp. 2) 47 (Exp. 3)

385 (Exp. 4) 42

gr. 5, 6, 7

gr. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 8-13 yr. olds

5th graders 5th graders

college college college gr. 1, 3, 5 college

3 yrs 2 mo-5 yrs 8 mo

college college high sch. student teachers

gr. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10

college

M 32 hyperactive in regular class; 4 in special class; 18 on medication; 18 nonmedicated, matched from teacher rating scale

M, F reading "below grade level" based on McCracken Reading Inventory M, F controls for race and SES M, F 12 identified as "helpless" by school staff (questionnaire); 12 selected by

teachers as persistent in failure. Comparisons on pre-post IAR, TASC, 5-item Effort/Ability Scale

M, F M, F

9 _

M, F M, F

M, F M, F M, F

M, F F

preschoolers

grouped lo/hi in achievement motive based on TAT, MARPS, CAS



TABLE 2 Task Characteristics of Representative Attribution Studies

Study Nature of the Task

Bugental et al.

Chapin & Dyck (1976)

Crandall et al. (1965)

Dweck (1975)

Dweck & Gilliard (1975)

Dweck & Repucci (1973)

Frieze & Weiner (1971)

Hanusa & Schulz (1977)

Karabenick (1976)

Mischel et a

Tennen S

(1977) Weiner &

(1970)

Wortman

(1976)

remedial tutoring twice wkly. x 2 mo; Self- talk training for concentration vs. reinforcement for attention

3-day training on sentences with variable no. of failure items

group and individual administration of IAR

25 training sessions on math problems; Attribution Retraining (AR) preset failure items which required explanation in terms of lack of effort. Success-only procedure (SO) items within subject ability

set of four puzzles, three of which unsolvable

work solvable & unsolvable block designs given by "failure" & "success" Es

a sketch of hypothetical performance; 27 to 32 attribution aspects to be rated

helpless training on concept formation task with noncontingent feedback

& Heller rate stories about children who vary in

ability and effort to solve a puzzle 1. (1974) 14-item forced-choice questionnaire

(SPIES) similar to IAR (scored for I) t Eler helpless training on concept formation task

with noncontingent reinforcement Kukla rating of 20 pupil profiles (Exp. 1, 2, 3)

varied in combination of ability, motivation, outcome; (Exp. 4) administration of IAR in groups

et al. 12 no perceived control (NPC) trials of Thurstone Concealed Figures; 12 parallel items to test NPC; "new" experiment-9 solvable puzzles

Other Design Features

medicated and nonmedicated controls for self-talk and reinforcement groups

five conditions of partial reinforcement, attribution retraining, success only

scored for success items (I+) and failure items (I-) as well as total I score

random assignment of 12 helpless Ss to AR, SO conditions

three expectancy schedules; (1) prior to each, (2) first, (3) last trial. Each S asked to estimate performance

helpless/persistent groups based on performance discrepancies with the two Es

variation in % of past success/failure, skill, effort, luck, self/other reference

four conditions of instruction based on

ability, effort, task difficulty, no information

stories grouped by pair comparison & se- rial integration techniques

validated with indices of working with/ w.o. reward, waiting with/w.o. reward

relationship of IAR to indices of achievement motivation

three NPC conditions in which S paired with confederate who succeeded, per- formed the same, or no. info; one PC condition with no added info

Dependent Measures

Connors Teacher Rating Scale (Hyperac- tivity); no. of errors on Porteus mazes; two-items personal causation scale

no. of sentences attempted

course grades, achievement test results

no. correct throughout training; pre-post LAR, TASC, Effort/Ability scores; rep- etition choice task

time to puzzle completion, expectancy rat-

ing of performance (1-10)

IAR, block design solution time

ratings on 3-point scale

latency scores, trials to completion of mazes

subject ratings of ability/effort required on 0-10-point scale

time on task, work completed

time, trials to solution of anagrams; 7-point self rating for anger, anxiety, sadness

IAR

no. of errors on parallel test items, no. of

puzzles correctly solved, attitude questionnaire

r(

clM



ADELE THOMAS

Within an attributional taxonomy, subsequent research has varied the informa- tional cues given to raters in order to investigate those general cognitive guidelines by which individuals explain particular achievements. Thus, when the outcome is success, the likelihood of ability and effort attributions increases as task difficulty increases. On the other hand, in a failure situation, as task difficulty is perceived to decrease, ability and effort attributions are more likely (Weiner & Kukla, 1970). There is a tendency for adults, in comparing contributions of effort and ability, to rate effort more positively than ability (Frieze & Weiner, 1971; Weiner & Kukla, 1970). Nevertheless, outcome itself is a major element in attribution assignment and achievement evaluation. The greater the success, the more positive is the evaluation of the achievement (Weiner & Kukla, 1970). The more consistent the prior history of success or failure, the greater is the tendency to explain those events in terms of

ability (Frieze & Weiner, 1971). Although much research has been based on adult

samples, recent developmental data (Karabenick & Heller, 1976; Shaklee, 1976) suggest that causal judgments involve logical, integrative skills which develop throughout childhood. Effort attributions become increasingly important with age, such that effort may be more highly valued than outcome itself in the 10-12 year age range (Weiner & Peter, 1973). Nevertheless, although some research efforts have been devoted to the attributional systems of children there has been little exploration of those exceptional children who are characterized by failure-dominated learning histories. As Table I indicates, while there have been a few experiments in learned

helplessness with children, no systematic exploration of the attributional systems of

learning-disabled children has been undertaken (Whalen & Henker, 1976). At this

point it is not known whether the attributions of learning disabled children follow the patterns indicated with adult samples or are distinctly influenced by their unique experiences with failure.

There is some controversy over the extent of congruity to be expected between statements of causal judgment and actual behavior. Dweck and Gilliard (1975) have cautioned that expressions of attribution or outcome expectation may change perceptions of failure and success. On a more speculative basis, Nisbett and Wilson (1977) have noted that explanations offered for behavior are prone to various information processing errors. What seems to a participant to be a plausible explanation of an event may be unrelated to actual outcome. Thus, a research approach which employs behavior-outcome measures may provide additional support for conclusions based on ratings or judgment alone. In the behavior-outcome research reviewed, it is usual to vary task instructions under noncontingent reinforcement in order to establish differential expectations. Then it is assumed the subject will monitor her/his performance in terms of ability or effort. As may be seen from Table 2, dependent behavior measures include task time or amount completed. The test tasks may or may not be distinct from training tasks. While test mazes and training on computerized concept formation problems (Hanusa & Schulz, 1977) represent two maximally distinct tasks, the Chapin & Dyck study (1976) used parallel sets of sentences on training and test tasks. This issue of training-test distinctiveness has implications for the study of attributional mediation in learned helplessness. Gener- alization of no-control to situations where one has control is an essential feature of helplessness (Seligman, 1975). In order to demonstrate these effects, it would be necessary to separate the two phases by changing experimenters, rooms, tasks, etc. Even when these requirements have been met, inconsistent results have been noted

214




(Hanusa & Schulz, 1977). It may be recalled that for generalization to occur, it is also

necessary to have subjects attribute failure at training to stable causes. It has been

suggested that the artificiality of experimental settings is such that subjects' (university students) prior learning histories and other expectations associated with laboratory experiments may make it impossible to develop internal attributions which are stable (Hanusa & Schulz, 1977). With this cautious perspective in mind some predictions regarding level of attribution, expectation, and behavior, which have received research support, may be summarized: 1. Individuals who attribute outcome to effort are likely to work harder or longer than those who attribute outcome to ability (Dweck, 1975; Mischel, et al., 1974). 2. To the extent that individuals attribute failure on a task to ability, they are likely to be less persistent as measured by length of time at a task and number of problems attempted (Dweck & Bush, 1976; Hiroto & Seligman, 1975; Roth & Bootzin, 1975; Weiner, 1974). 3. To the extent that attributional cues have been part of experimental instructions or suggestions, learned helplessness may or may not transfer to a new task (Hanusa & Schulz, 1977; Tennen & Eller, 1977; Wortman et al., 1976).

The second prediction requires qualification. The effort/ability attribution dichot- omy is complicated by recognition of the related dimension of internal-external (I-E) responsibility for outcome (Crandall et al., 1965; Phares, 1973). Helplessness research that included this I-E variable has suggested some corollaries to the second prediction: 2a. The less persistent children are at a task, the greater the tendency to take less

personal responsibility for both success and failure (Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Repucci, 1973). 2b. To the extent that they do take responsibility, the less persevering children tend to attribute outcomes to ability rather than effort (Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Repucci, 1973). 2c. Children assessed as helpless tend to place significantly less emphasis on amount of effort required for success (Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Repucci, 1973).

The third prediction refers to the messages subjects pick up explicitly through direct instructions or inadvertently through faulty design. Thus, the experimenter may note, "This task should be easy for you." If feedback has been prearranged so that failure rate is high, events have conspired against the subject to force him/her to make the attribution that his/her ability is at fault on a particular task. However, a series of tasks may be so arranged that a subject perceives each one as quite distinct; the experience of helplessness on one task does not generalize to other tasks (Tennen & Eller, 1977). Again, considering parallels to learning-disabled children, some children have been observed who, despite academic failure, retain a positive sense of

competence through successful experiences in other areas. It is possible that attributions about their ability become less stable as a result of such successes and this helps to innoculate them against the effects of school failure. Nevertheless, there has been no systematic investigation of the role of attribution among learning-disabled children to corroborate these suppositions.

There is evidence that small doses of helplessness may actually prepare the individual to better cope with future failure. This is the area in which investigators have focused on children. The next section will review this group of studies with two considerations in mind: the applicability of this research to learning disabled populations and the attempts at attribution assessment.

215



ADELE THOMAS

Counteracting Learned Helplessness

Research by Dweck (1975) stands out as the first attempt to relate previous helplessness and attribution research to children. Dweck sought to determine whether a treatment that altered attributions for failure would improve children's subsequent performance in the face of failure. Twelve children who were identified as "extremely helpless" by school personnel were compared to a control group on individually administered measures of anxiety and task persistence. As well, the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale (IAR) (Crandall et al., 1965) and a 5-item Effort versus Ability Failure Attribution scale were given. The helpless children were found to fit the previously cited attribution predictions (2a, 2b) when compared to controls. Next, the helpless children were given 25 individual training sessions, using grade- level math problems. Half the children received "attribution retraining" in which a few trials in each session were preset to be above the child's usual success level. On these trials the child's response was compared to an unattainable criterion, and failure was attributed by the experimenter to insufficient effort. Another treatment consisted of a "success only" procedure in which all math problems were set at or below the number the child was able to complete within the time limit. The notion behind the latter procedure was a simulation of programmed learning and behavior modification approaches. Results revealed that following training, "success only" children continued to evidence a deterioration in performance after failure, while "attribution retraining" children maintained or improved their performance. A

significant aspect of the study noted that failure, when carefully manipulated, can become a cue to escalate effort. On the other hand, continuous reinforcement and errorless learning rendered children less able to deal with subsequent errors.

This study offered data in support of a useful approach in the management and

teaching of children with learning disabilities. Nevertheless, the attribution training had no effect on more global measures of attribution, such as the IAR. No direct measures were taken to assess transfer of training to the classroom. It would be

appropriate to inquire how attribution retraining would fare in the natural group setting of the classroom, using teachers as trainers.

Dweck's paradigm was reworked by Chapin and Dyck (1976) in order to assess differences due to attribution training and partial reinforcement. It was presumed that the schedule of partial reinforcement alone contributed to the development of persistence. This study concisely specified variables in the arrangement of reinforcement that might account for the effects seen in the Dweck study. Control groups of primary school children who were reading below grade level were established in order to look at the effects of continuous reinforcement, attribution training, and three levels of partial reinforcement. Two partial reinforcement procedures were used in which the schedules did not differ in percentage of failure, rather, only in pattern of failure (three consecutive, difficult items versus one difficult item followed by one

easy item). Training consisted of three sessions in which children individually read aloud a series of sentences. On all but the continuous reinforcement group some words were included which were beyond graded word-reading level. Persistence was measured by the number of difficult sentences attempted. Results confirmed the

superiority of attribution training over continuous reinforcement. The distinction concerning the arrangement of failure items within a helplessness

training procedure is noteworthy. When the arrangement of sentences grouped

216




difficult items in multiples, reading persistence was facilitated even without the benefit of attribution training. When this arrangement was used in combination with attribution training, it was the single most potent treatment.

The Chapin and Dyck experiment was more limited than the Dweck investigation. There was no assessment of children's self-perceptions, nor did the authors attempt to duplicate the natural learning situation. Based on this and other similar studies of schedules of reinforcement (Altshuler & Kassinove, 1975; Jones et al., 1977), little is known about how children with learning difficulties perceive the circumstances

controlling failure or the changes in self-perception that occur when attribution

training takes place. A study whose main interest was the interaction of causal perceptions and type of

behavior intervention was conducted by Bugental, Whalen, and Henker (1977). The authors were interested in attributional systems of hyperactive children who received medication. Earlier Whalen and Henker (1976) had speculated on the development of attributions among such children, in which the use of medication might account for a shift in responsibility for outcomes to external sources. Bugental et al. (1977) predicted that children who view outcomes as due to external sources such as teachers, would benefit from treatment which reorders the external environment; children who take personal responsibility for events would profit from treatment which builds on those self-control skills. In this case, the learned helplessness literature did not provide a model for intervention. Instead, continuous reinforcement was compared to self-instruction, following Meichenbaum's model with impulsive children (Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971). The significance of this study was its

attempt to identify a group of hyperactive children and to project experimental training into a quasi-natural setting in the regular classroom.

Results confirmed that children who were not medicated or who had a high sense of personal con:rol benefited more from self-control training. The effects of social reinforcement training showed a nonsignificant trend toward greater effectiveness with medicated children and those with low perceived control.

It seems clear that while research interest is moving ahead to questions about the nature of effective intervention with learning disabled populations, efforts aimed

directly at clearly identified samples have been infrequent. Further, although the

importance of the perceptions of learning-disabled children has been generally acknowledged, there is virtually no information on cognitive variables such as attributions and expectations. In two of the studies cited (Bugental et al., 1977; Dweck, 1975), the authors developed ad hoc attribution measures. However, these measures did not tap the three dimensions of causal judgment (Weiner, 1974) and were tested on small samples of clinically different populations of learning disabled children. While quite provocative as a basis for additional research, the present status of attribution measurement limits speculation or conclusions in the area of learning disabilities.

Finally, the Bugental et al. (1977) study was the only attempt to duplicate natural conditions by bringing the experiment into the regular classroom. Most previous intervention studies have been unable to demonstrate generalization to classroom

learning or long-term treatment effects (Chapin & Dyck, 1976; Dweck, 1975; Mei- chenbaum & Goodman, 1971).

A recent 6-month follow up (Bugental, Collins, Collins, & Chaney, 1978) on 20 of the original sample was based on the same dependent measures used in the first

217



ADELE THOMAS

Bugental et al. (1977) study. It was found that children in self-control training continued to make higher personal causality attributions than those in social reinforcement training. The self-control group did not show predicted behavior change in the direction of less impulsivity, while the social reinforcement group did evidence

improvement based on teacher ratings. The authors discussed different social skills

peculiar to each of the training programs, which may have accounted for the

unexpected results. While such research is only suggestive in view of limited sample size, it offers direction for future management approach with particular types of

learning-disabled children.

Implications for Future Research

Following research strategies outlined by Karoly (1977) and Meichenbaum (1976), who have advocated a developmental, cognitive-functional approach in the study of

learning disabilities, a two-phased research program would be required to develop guidelines for maximally useful treatment approaches in the applied settings of home, school, and clinic. Based on the previous review, there is a paucity of information about cognitive variables associated with the typical failure setting in which learning- disabled children find themselves. This aspect would constitute the content area of the first phase of such a research program. The model for this phase has been

variously described as task analysis (Karoly, 1977; Meichenbaum, 1976) or intrain- dividual behavioral assessment (Bijou & Peterson, 1971). Specifically, the focus would be on the development of comprehensive attribution measures by synthesizing previous work (Bugental et al., 1977; Crandall, et al., 1965; Dweck, 1975; Weiner, 1974).

The second phase in such a research program would focus on the interaction model suggested by Bugental et al. (1977). The emphasis at this level would be intervention programs which specify instructional materials which carefully manip- ulate the arrangement of failure items. Additional variables to be investigated are the use of in situ observational measures to gauge generalization effects, the use of

parents and teachers as trainers, and the identification of distinct populations based on type of learning disability and prior history of failure. With research that

systematically incorporates these elements, comprehensive instructional programs and management systems for the learning-disabled child can be further developed.

References

Altshuler, R., & Kassinove, H. The effects of skill and chance instructional sets, schedule of reinforcement, and sex on children's temporal persistence. Child Development, 1975, 46, 258- 262.

Bandura, A. Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 191-215.

Battle, E. S., & Rotter, J. B. Children's feelings of personal control as related to social class and ethnic group. Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 482-490.

Beck, A. J. Cognition, affect, and psychopathology. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1971, 24, 495-514.

Benson, J. S., & Kennelly, K. J. Learned helplessness: The results of uncontrolled reinforcements or uncontrolled aversive stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 138- 145.

218




Bijou, S. W., & Peterson, R. F. Functional analysis in the assessment of children. In P.

McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment. (Vol. 2:) Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books, 1971, 63-78.

Bluestein, V. W. Factors related to and predictive of improvement in the schools. Psychology in the Schools, 1967, 4, 272-276.

Bugental, D., Collins, S., Collins, L., & Chaney, L. A. Attributional and behavioral changes following two behavior management interventions with hyperactive boys: A follow-up study. Child Development, 1978, 49, 247-250.

Bugental, D., Whalen, C. K., & Henker, B. Causal attributions of hyperactive children and motivational assumptions of two behavior change approaches: Evidence for an interactionist

position. Child Development, 1977, 48, 874-884. CELDIC Report. One million children: A national study of Canadian children with emotional and

learning disorders. Toronto: Leonard Crainford, 1970.

Chapin, M., & Dyck, G. Persistence in children's reading behavior as a function of N length and attribution retraining. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 511-515.

Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman, 1967. Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. Children's beliefs in their own control of

reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations. Child Development, 1965, 36, 91-109.

Cruickshank, W. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). Perceptual and learning disabilities in children: Research and theory (Vol. 2). New York: Syracuse University Press, 1975.

Douglas, V. I. Perceptual and cognitive factors as determinants of learning disabilities. In R. H.

Knights & D. J. Bakker (Eds.), The neuropsychology of learning disorders. Baltimore, Mary- land: University Park Press, 1976, 413-422.

Dweck, C. S. The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 1077-1084.

Dweck, C. S., & Bush, E. S. Sex differences in learned helplessness: Differential debilitation with peer and adult evaluators. Developmental Psychology, 1976, 12, 147-156.

Dweck, C. S., & Gilliard, D. Expectancy statements as determinants of reaction to failure: Sex differences in persistence and expectancy change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 1975, 32, 1077-1084.

Dweck, C. S., & Goetz, T. E. Attributions and learned helplessness. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, and R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977, 1-37.

Dweck, C. S., & Repucci, N. D. Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 109-116.

Frieze, I., & Weiner, B. Cue utilization and attributional judgments for success and failure. Journal of Personality, 1971, 39, 591-606.

Gaddes, W. H. Prevalence estimates and the need for definition of learning disabilities. In R. H. Knights & D. J. Bakker (Eds.), The neuropsychology of learning disorders. Baltimore,

Maryland: University Park Press, 1976, 3-24. Hanusa, B., & Schulz, R. Attributional mediators of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 602-611.

Haring, N. G. (Ed.). Behavior of exceptional children: Introduction to special education. Colum- bus, Ohio: Merrill, 1974.

Hiroto, D. S., & Seligman, M. E. Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 311-327.

Jones, S. L., Nation, J. R., & Massad, P. Immunization against learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977, 86, 75-83.

Karabenick, J. D., & Heller, K. A. A developmental study of effort and ability attributions.

Developmental Psychology, 1976, 12, 559-560.

Karoly, P. Behavioral self-management in children: Concepts, methods, issues, and directions. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification. (Vol. 5). New York: Academic Press, 1977, 1-64.

219



ADELE THOMAS

Klein, D. C., & Seligman, M. E. Reversals of performance deficits and perceptual deficits in learned helplessness and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 11-26.

Levis, D. J. Learned helplessness: A reply and an alternative S-R interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976, 105, 47-65.

Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1976, 105, 3-46.

McGhee, P. E., & Crandall, V. C. Beliefs in internal-external control of reinforcements and academic performance. Child Development, 1968, 39, 91-102.

Meichenbaum, D. Cognitive factors as determinants of learning disabilities: A cognitive- functional approach. In R. M. Knights & D. J. Bakker (Eds.), The neuropsychology of learning disorders. Baltimore, Maryland: University Park Press, 1976, 423-444.

Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. Training impulsive children to talk to themselves. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 77, 115-126. Minde, K., Lewin, D., Weiss, G., Lavigeur, H., Douglas, V., & Sykes, E. The hyperactive child

in elementary school: A 5 year controlled, followup. Exceptional Children, 1971, 38, 215-221. Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological

Review, 1973, 80, 252-283. Mischel, W., Zeiss, R., & Zeiss, A. Internal-external control and persistence: Validation and

implications of the Stanford Preschool Internal-External Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 265-278.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental

processes. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 231-259. Phares, E. J. Locus of control: A personality determinant of behavior. Morristown, N. J.: General

Learning Press, 1973. Roth, S., & Bootzin, R. R. Effects of experimentally induced expectancies of external control:

An investigation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 253-264.

Roth, S., & Kubal, L. The effects of non-contingent reinforcement on tasks of differing importance: Facilitation and learned helplessness effects. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 1975, 32, 680-691. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcements. In

J. B. Rotter, J. Chance, and E. J. Phares (Eds.), Applications of a social learning theory of personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1972, 260-295.

Sabatino, D. A. (Ed.). Learning disabilities handbook: A technical guide to program development. DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1976.

Seligman, M. E. Helplessness. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975. Shaklee, H. Development in inferences of ability and task difficulty. Child Development, 1976,

47, 1051-1057. Tennen, H., & Eller, S. J. Attributional components of learned helplessness and facilitation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 265-271. Thornton, J. W., & Jacobs, P. D. Learned helplessness in human subjects. Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology, 1971, 87, 367-372. Turton, L. J. Developmental and linguistic aspects of learning disabilities. In W. M. Cruick-

shank, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Perceptual and learning disabilities in children. (Vol. 1). New York: Syracuse University Press, 1975, 309-336.

Weiner, B. Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, N. J.: General Learning Press, 1974.

Weiner, B. An attributional approach for educational psychology. In L. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education, (Vol. 4). Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock, 1976, 179-209.

Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personalit, and Social Psychology, 1970, 15, 1-20.

220




Weiner, B., & Peter, N. A cognitive developmental analysis of achievement and moral

judgments. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 290-330. Whalen, C. K., & Henker, B. Psychostimulants and children: A review and analysis. Psycholog-

ical Bulletin, 1976, 83, 1113-1130. Wortman, C. B., & Brehm, J. W. Responses to uncontrollable 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., & Hibsher, J. Attributions of causality and

reactions to uncontrollable outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 12, 301-316.

AUTHOR

ADELE THOMAS Address: 66 Pacific Ave., #1612 Toronto, Ontario M6P 2P4, Canada

221



learned helplessness and expectancy factors: implications for research in learning disabilities

Documents