Learned helplessness; What is it?

[Carol O]

Anyone?

[slc2]

It's a term that was developed in animal behavior, and relates to an experiment done with rats. In the experiment, two different groups of rats were put in a tank of water that contained no other objects, just water, and no way to climb out of the tank.

The length of time they swam was recorded. Rats that had previously been in the tank and were provided with a piece of wood to climb up onto, kept swimming for longer than the rats that did not have that training. The rats remember the raft being in the tank and search for it for quite some time.

Since the experiment, people in the semi-popular press as an explanation for depression, and the popular press have used the results to illustrate why abused spouses don't leave the abusive situation, why people didn't fight back during the holocaust, and, the term has been used to explain why horses trained in hyperflexion or 'rollkur' don't fight back. It is interpreted by anti rollkurists to mean that the horses have despaired and so submit to the cruelty of the technique rather than freak out and fight back.

Of course there are other possible interpretations - such as that from those who aren't anti rollkur (or not rabidly so), such as that the horses may also not be fighting back because they simply aren't that uncomfortable, but nevertheless.

[egontoast]

Try the search function.

[Reynard Ridge]

The day after your wedding, your brand spanking new husband throws his tidy whities on the floor of the bathroom. He leaves, post-shower whistling a happy tune. You , thinking that this is kind of icky, but you married, and thus are stuck with him, pick up the offending garment and toss in the laundry. Henceforth, for the next fifty years of your marriage, he never picks up his undies again. That is learned helplessness.

[MelantheLLC]

The other well-known "experiment" regarding this is where they put dogs in cages in which the floor gave them an electric shock. First round, the shocks only happened in half the cages and at predictable times, so the dogs quickly learned to just get up and move to the other side of the cage to avoid them.

Second round, the shocks came randomly, on random sides of the cages, so that the dogs could not do anything to predict them and thus avoid them.

After a while, the dogs gave up trying altogether and just lay down and let themselves be shocked. They would not move. Some even would not get up and leave the cage when the door was opened.

Learned helplessness--"no-way-out;" when you cannot predict or avoid a negative reinforcer, and so you just give up and take it.

One would like to teach some of it to the researcher who came up with this experiment.

[nhwr]

2 adolescent boys get on escalator in the local mall, in hot pursuit of the "it" girl of their school. Halfway up the track, the escalator breaks down. The boys check for video game controllers or joysticks. They come up empty handed. They examine their options and decide the best thing to do is call for help. Cries of "Help, help. The escalator is broken, We are trapped!" reverberate throughout the the mall :winkgrin:

[siegi b.]

As Egontoast said..... people who know that there have been numerous postings regarding the subject and yet refuse to use the search function provided by the BB. Learned helplessness!

I do like the tidy whitey example though... :-)

[BaroquePony]

siegi b.,

Actually, whenever I have used the search fiunction on the COTH BB I cannot seem to get it to work, so I have given up.

That is learned helplessness.

[freshman]

siegi b.,

Actually, whenever I have used the search fiunction on the COTH BB I cannot seem to get it to work, so I have given up.

That is learned helplessness.

Indeed.

[Fixerupper]

Here I am looking for a trainwreck...and I get comedy instead! Do you guys practice this routine?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[MelantheLLC]

As Egontoast said..... people who know that there have been numerous postings regarding the subject and yet refuse to use the search function provided by the BB. Learned helplessness!

Not everyone has been here for years reading all the threads, some of us have previous lives. It's not like the OP was asking about buying horses in Europe. :eek:

I assumed the OP was wondering about the mention of it in the Andrew McLean article. (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=157019)

[BaileyTW]

The day after your wedding, your brand spanking new husband throws his tidy whities on the floor of the bathroom. He leaves, post-shower whistling a happy tune. You , thinking that this is kind of icky, but you married, and thus are stuck with him, pick up the offending garment and toss in the laundry. Henceforth, for the next fifty years of your marriage, he never picks up his undies again. That is learned helplessness.


Haha!

I am seeing this BIG TIME at work. There is a foal in that ruptured tendons, and he had nurses at new bolton doting on him for his first few weeks. they picked him up, laid him down, fed him, etc, etc, and now he won't do ANYTHING! He can get up and down on his own fine, but he plays the poor weak foal, and you have to half sit him up before he decides you aren't in fact going to pick his big self up and he better get up. He refuses to put any effort into anything because it was all done for him before when he was younger.

[Sabine]

there is a lot of truth in this...we have all increasingly become more 'learned helpless.." because we have surrounded ourselves with all the tools to make life easier and in this country- having everything perfect, easy and available is almost a mantra.

coming from Germany- it wasn't like that for me growing up. I work hard to show my kids how to survive if stuff they are used to breaks and their world crumbles...

With horses- if you make them helpless- you have 'over'-broke them...you have taken their gift and destroyed it...the art is to keep their personality and their specialty and their expressivenes at the highest level- while making a 'partner' out of them....tough stuff when you think about it? How many of you have succeeded making a real partner out of your SO??

Loved the undie story...soo very true!!!

[Ambrey]

Haha!

I am seeing this BIG TIME at work. There is a foal in that ruptured tendons, and he had nurses at new bolton doting on him for his first few weeks. they picked him up, laid him down, fed him, etc, etc, and now he won't do ANYTHING! He can get up and down on his own fine, but he plays the poor weak foal, and you have to half sit him up before he decides you aren't in fact going to pick his big self up and he better get up. He refuses to put any effort into anything because it was all done for him before when he was younger.

This is more like how we use it in Educational Psychology. It has to do with reduced expectations, and children basically "learning" how not to help themselves (because things are always done for them, or they are expected to fail). That learning kind of pervades the child's behavior, and they stop trying to do for themselves.

Basically the learning theory manifestation of "people live down to expectations."

[Petstorejunkie]

*note to self*
Never pick up a man's undies unless you want to for the rest of eternity.

~afterall it was on the list of reasons i left my ex. who'd a thought i helped cause it. :confused: :lol:

[egontoast]

Learned laziness is not the same thing as learned helplessness.:lol:

It might be different if the newlywed was made to wear said tighty whites on her head while washing his car, fetching him beer,shining his shoes,etc etc to the point where she gave up, tuned out and had all the free will of a Stepford wife such that when he opened the door and said fly away, she could not do so.:no:

....but even then it's not the lazy SO who has the LH issue.:cool:

[slc2]

I think there's a big difference between learned helplessness and learning not to help.

Learned helplessness suggests a kind of pervasive despair, the jokes are funny, but it's not a 'well, someone else will pick up my trash for me, so i don't halfta'.

The way learned helplessness is applied to rollkur is that the animals give up trying to escape the tremendous pain and agony of the technique.

I think rollkur has become a kind of symbol of everything people think is wrong with competition - rather than a specific technique, it's become a symbol.

[Reynard Ridge]

*note to self*
Never pick up a man's undies unless you want to for the rest of eternity.

~afterall it was on the list of reasons i left my ex. who'd a thought i helped cause it. :confused: :lol:

Blame it on his mother. :yes:

[Carol O]

Okay, I did use the search function, oh ye of little faith, and found there was only one thread (yes, Egontoast, one only) which was several months old. I percieve the LH term to be recently coined, and currently without any consensus for application.

[egontoast]

Okay, I did use the search function, oh ye of little faith, and found there was only one thread (yes, Egontoast, one only) which was several months old

:confused:

All I said was "Try the search function" which was meant to be helpful because I could recall it being discussed before. Did I say there were a lot of threads? No.

You are reading a whole lot into that suggestion which was not there.

[Ajierene]

The concept of "learned helplessness" is
popular today in many circles, both clinical and
experimental. The concept was first used to
describe the failure of some laboratory animals
to escape or avoid shock, when given the
opportunity, after previous exposure to inescapable
shock (Overmier & Seligman, 1967;
Seligman & Maier, 1967). The term has since
been applied to the failure of human beings to
seek, utilize, or learn adaptive instrumental.
responses, as seen most dramatically in the
depressed person who seems to have given up
hope that effective voluntary control over important
environmental events is possible...

From: Fogle, D. (1978) LEARNED HELPLESSNESS AND LEARNED RESTLESSNESS. PSYCHOTHERAPY: THEORY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE. (15)1. 39-48

So the concept would be like the rollkur discussion. It has been said that horses that have been trained with rollkur are so afraid to raise their heads that they do not, while horses not trained with rollkur will occassionally raise their heads to help adjust their balance and cause themselves to get lower dressage scores than horses to afraid to raise their heads. I am not saying this is the case, just one of the arguments.

This would also be similar to the foal that did not think he could get to his feet on his own, or underachieving children that think they cannot pass and therefore do not try. This last example is discussed in the article as well.

Learned Helplessness is a form of Skinner's Behavioral Theory.

It was Seigi B. that put words into Egontast's original post:

As Egontoast said..... people who know that there have been numerous postings regarding the subject and yet refuse to use the search function provided by the BB. Learned helplessness!

I do like the tidy whitey example though... :-)

[wendy]

It has been said that horses that have been trained with rollkur are so afraid to raise their heads that they do not,
I'm not really sure this is "learned helplessness" nor are most of the examples offered in this thread. It's not about fear, or pain, or laziness, or expecting others to do it for you- it's a serious psychological state where the subject has "learned" that NOTHING he can do will stop or predict the pain/fear so he stops trying. If you wanted to subject your wife into a state of "learned helplessness" you would have to be very unpredictably abusive, not predictively leave the undies on the floor.

[Ajierene]

I'm not really sure this is "learned helplessness" nor are most of the examples offered in this thread. It's not about fear, or pain, or laziness, or expecting others to do it for you- it's a serious psychological state where the subject has "learned" that NOTHING he can do will stop or predict the pain/fear so he stops trying. If you wanted to subject your wife into a state of "learned helplessness" you would have to be very unpredictably abusive, not predictively leave the undies on the floor.

Actually, unpredictability has nothing to do with it. It is behavioral theory related and has everything to do with predicability. If you get burned every time you touch the stove, you are not going to touch it anymore. If you get burned half of the times you touch the stove, or randomly, you are more likely to touch it - because you have the possibility of not getting burned.

It is not about not being able to predict the behavior, it is about the constant pain/punishment associated with 'incorrect' behavior.

Skinner did a study with rats. One group always got the food when depressing a button and therefore depressed the button often. Another group never got food when depressing a button and stopped depressing the button. A third group got food sometimes (randomly) when the button was depressed and would still depress the button - because eventually food would come out.

Learned Helplessness, like any other learned behavior, takes constant repetition.

[MelantheLLC]

Actually, unpredictability has nothing to do with it. It is behavioral theory related and has everything to do with predicability.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say it has nothing to do with unpredictability.

A "random" reward schedule is not really random; it's a schedule that is designed to strongly reinforce the behavior. The subject will continue trying the behavior in order to get the reward even as the positive reinforcement becomes less frequent or predictable in each given trial. But eventually a limit is reached and the subject will not use the energy to make an attempt because the positive reinforcements are so infrequent. Baby chicks stop pecking when the kernels of corn are so few and far between that they would expend more energy trying to get them than they would obtain from what they get.

The reverse, a negative reinforcer that is so random that there is no way for the subject to learn how to avoid it eventually causes the same result--the subject quits expending the energy to even try.

So the randomness affects the ability to learn; nothing the subject does makes any difference. Therefore unpredictable negative consequences can produce the same learned helplessness as repetitive and predictable punishment.

Painful "aids" that are applied in such a random way that the horse can't figure out what to do to make them stop, no matter what he tries, can result in LH--is not deadness to the leg an example?

[Ajierene]

I see what you are saying, though I don't quite agree with randomness being the same as 'nothing a subject does makes any difference'. It does make a difference in that every once in a while a positive outcome results. There is true randomness, or almost true randomness - people argue that while someone may be trying to make something random, they are incapable of true randomness, it all follows a pattern (topic for another day). Some people will 'schedule' a lessening of positive reinforcement; such as starting off with a treat every time the dog sits, then every other time, then every third, then every fourth and so on, until there is not treat reinforcement; but not everyone does this.

The example of the chicks is not random - there is a set line that the chick does not cross. When it gets to say 5 kernels in 10 sf, the chick stops pecking. It will always be 5 kernels in 10 sf, the chick will not stop pecking at 5 one day, then 8 another day, then 2 another day. It is set. It is not the same as learned helplessness, though - because the chick will peck again when the kernels become more frequent, either due to moving to a new location or more kernels being tossed down.

I would have to look it up again, but I believe Skinner did an experiment where the rat was sometimes shocked by the button, sometimes nothing and sometimes food and the result was he kept pressing the button because there would be a good outcome eventually. I will have to look it up again, though.

I am not sure how deadened sides equates to randomness. It was always my experience that deadened sides were a result of people constantly kicking until the horse learned to ignore it, not kicking randomly. I do not equate deadened sides to learned helplessness - the horse is doing what it wants and ignoring the aids, not avoiding doing something that would otherwise be healthy/positive because of fear of punishment.

The examples in the article, and the examples I have always studied, have an 'always' effect. The dog always has an escape to the shock or never has an escape to the shock. The child never passes a test, etc.

[nhwr]

If you get burned half of the times you touch the stove, or randomly, you are more likely to touch it - because you have the possibility of not getting burned.

It is not about not being able to predict the behavior, it is about the constant pain/punishment associated with 'incorrect' behavior.

Skinner did a study with rats. One group always got the food when depressing a button and therefore depressed the button often. Another group never got food when depressing a button and stopped depressing the button. A third group got food sometimes (randomly) when the button was depressed and would still depress the button - because eventually food would come out.Your interpretation of Skinner's experiments is not quite right. Partial (intermittent) reinforcement is generally thought to be the most powerful type of reinforcement. Even though it usually takes longer for a test subject to acquire knowledge using intermittent reinforcement, the results are generalized with more success and have greater resistance to extinction ie they are more lasting. Most practitioners of behavior modification use intermittent reinforcement.

[MelantheLLC]

Interesting discussion.

I'm focusing on the learning aspect. Any thinking creature is only capable of comprehending so much, but we are all looking all the time for the patterns by which to adjust our behavior for the best outcome according to our particular needs. If we cannot see the pattern, because it does not occur in a predictable enough way, and yet "bad" or "good" things keep happening, then we can't learn how to adjust our behavior to the pattern.

So we just endure. In the dog experiment I mentioned, initially there was a pattern to the shocks delivered, and the dogs learned to predict it and move before they occured. But when the shocks became unpredictable in time and place, then the dogs couldn't learn anything to protect themselves, and yet they did learn that the shocks would come.

I think this is equally as "devastating" as predictable punishment. It's certainly the source of a great deal of superstitious behavior in humans and other animals--the attempt to discern a pattern in order to protect ourselves from bad consequences. When there literally IS no pattern, and yet the bad consequences come and we accept we can't stop them and we can't find the pattern--well, most humans just can't even go there. Some respond with despair, some with religion--but unpredictability itself is a very strong negative reinforcer because no learning can take place.

As to a horse dead to the leg, I personally think that a horse that has no idea what the leg means because it has been unable to discern a pattern is equally as dead as one that is subject to constant leg pressure.

In fact, I have no doubt my horse would agree, and tell me to quiet my leg so he can figure out what the heck I mean! ;)

[Eclectic Horseman]

Your interpretation of Skinner's experiments is not quite right. Partial (intermittent) reinforcement is generally thought to be the most powerful type of reinforcement. Even though it usually takes longer for a test subject to acquire knowledge using intermittent reinforcement, the results are generalized with more success and have greater resistance to extinction ie they are more lasting. Most practitioners of behavior modification use intermittent reinforcement.

You are correct. In posts #23 and 325 Ajierene was basically describing "operant conditioning" which is a scientifically proven method of effective training techniques.

The "learned helplessness" terminology describes a situation where the animal learns that he has no power to influence his abusive environment in any way no matter what he does, he ceases to make any effort to influence his abusive environment, and he becomes depressed--in some cases to a point where he ceases to take care of his own physical needs.

"Learned Helplessness" is not really training because the result of it is that the animal ceases to try to do anything. It is the result of lacking any control over a negative stimulus.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Your interpretation of Skinner's experiments is not quite right. Partial (intermittent) reinforcement is generally thought to be the most powerful type of reinforcement. Even though it usually takes longer for a test subject to acquire knowledge using intermittent reinforcement, the results are generalized with more success and have greater resistance to extinction ie they are more lasting. Most practitioners of behavior modification use intermittent reinforcement.


Intermittent POSITVE reinforcement is as if not more effective than postivie reinforcement every single time the correct behavior is produced. :yes:

The same is not true for intermittent negative reinforcement. Nor is it true for intermittent punishment. :no:

[Eclectic Horseman]

To the OP--

This is a good basic article to understand "learned helplessness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

You are correct. In posts #23 and 325 Ajierene was basically describing "operant conditioning" which is a scientifically proven method of effective training techniques.

The "learned helplessness" terminology describes a situation where the animal learns that he has no power to influence his abusive environment in any way no matter what he does, he ceases to make any effort to influence his abusive environment, and he becomes depressed--in some cases to a point where he ceases to take care of his own physical needs.

"Learned Helplessness" is not really training because the result of it is that the animal ceases to try to do anything. It is the result of lacking any control over a negative stimulus.

This is more how I understand the concept, coming from the field of neuroscience.

[Ajierene]

I'm focusing on the learning aspect. Any thinking creature is only capable of comprehending so much, but we are all looking all the time for the patterns by which to adjust our behavior for the best outcome according to our particular needs. If we cannot see the pattern, because it does not occur in a predictable enough way, and yet "bad" or "good" things keep happening, then we can't learn how to adjust our behavior to the pattern.

We might need to further define 'thinking creature'. Cats are MUCH harder to train with operant conditioning than rats. Is that because rats are more or less intelligent? Do they think to much or to little? Or we can just keep it more hypothetical and stuff...

So we just endure. In the dog experiment I mentioned, initially there was a pattern to the shocks delivered, and the dogs learned to predict it and move before they occured. But when the shocks became unpredictable in time and place, then the dogs couldn't learn anything to protect themselves, and yet they did learn that the shocks would come.

I found the experiment you were discussing. From the book, The Story of Psychology, by Morton Hunt, page 337.

The original experiment involved a Pavlovian-esque experiment with a tone and a shock. The tone went off whenever the dog was shocked. Eventually the tone went off when dogs were not shocked, the dogs still whimpered as if they were being shocked.

Martin Seligman had a thought, and the experiment was changed. Some dogs were given the shock (from the floor of the cage, same as before) and an escape route (jumping over a fence into a safe zone). Others were harnessed so they could not escape. The third group was not shocked. A light went on, then 10 seconds later, the dogs in group one and two were shocked. Then the dogs were left untethered and all three groups were shocked. The first group and third group learned to jump over the fence to avoid the shock - the first group was quicker to jump the fence at first, but both groups eventually jumped over the fence. The second group, that had been tethered, did not attempt to jump the fence at all, the just laid down and whimpered. Intermittent shocking was not discussed. If you know where I can find it, please let me know so I can research it.

It further explains that this theory did not adapt well to human behavior. Learned Helplessness and depression is more complex.

As to a horse dead to the leg, I personally think that a horse that has no idea what the leg means because it has been unable to discern a pattern is equally as dead as one that is subject to constant leg pressure.

In fact, I have no doubt my horse would agree, and tell me to quiet my leg so he can figure out what the heck I mean! ;)


I see where you are going with this, though I am I agree that it is Learned Helplessness - more like giving up because of confusion. If the confusion is alleviated, then doesn't the horse respond well to leg? My experience with horses dead to the leg are school horses that learn to ignore the leg, and do an easy jog instead of a real trot because the kids cannot kick hard enough. Maybe you are thinking of something slightly different?

ANd nhwr - what Eclectic Horseman said. That is the point I was attempting to make.

[MelantheLLC]

Well, not to get into a debate on terminology, but I think you guys are parsing things too far to define operant conditioning as only a training method. It's become a training method because it utilizes existing learning and behavior patterns in response to stimulus that were observed by Skinner and Thorndike.

Whether learned helplessness is not really a training method or not seems kinda like splitting hairs. Training is learning. Learning results in a chosen (vs instinctive) response to the stimulus. The response may be to give up and quit fighting, but it is still learning because the behavior consistently changed in response to what happened.

[MelantheLLC]

We might need to further define 'thinking creature'.

Hmm. How's this? A creature capable of learning, vs one that can (as far as we can tell) only operate on instinct that is not modified by a changing environment.

Intermittent shocking was not discussed. If you know where I can find it, please let me know so I can research it..

I read about the intermittent shock experiment years ago, the cages were electrified by halves (maybe quarters?) and what stuck in my head was that some of the dogs would not even get up and leave the cage when the door was opened. It seems like such a vivid image of learned helplessness that I remembered it. So perhaps it's not the same one you mentioned--or maybe it's a further refinement of this lovely work of shocking dogs :(, but I can't give you a specific reference offhand.

I brought up the positive side of the equation (the power of training with an intermittent reward schedule) to suggest that a similarly unpredictable "schedule" of negative consequences could have an equally powerful aversive effect. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. But even the word "aversive" implies that the subject has some way to avoid the negative consequence. When they don't have that option, ie can't learn the pattern even though there is in fact a place they could go in the cage where they wouldn't be shocked for any given shock, then they just have no option open to them. So they just endure. School ponies just trot on. ;)

I don't doubt in the least that you are correct, constant negative results from any action creates helplessness. I'm just suggesting that unpredictable negative results that the subject can't escape will also do so.

[Ajierene]

I see what you are saying Melenthe, and I think these are some of the problems with the concept of Learned Helplessness. Directly after the experiment, the experimenters were rebuffed because other psychologists did not believe that this type of behavior could equate to human psyche. Then there is the issue of genetics/personality.

My mare had a bad childhood - she is a very determined and independent mare that refused to come to anyone when she didn't want to and taking all the other horses away did not make her anxious to do what you wanted (be caught) and get back to the herd.

I have seen other horses that just give up and are so nervous and constantly trying to anticipate what you are asking so that you won't hurt them.

You are looking at the same species and same situations, but two very different results. It is difficult to say that the second horse is 'textbook Learned Helplessness' when the first horse had the opposite reaction to the same situation.

And yes, the cages were electrified in halves, allowing the dogs to escape to the safe half. What you mentioned would be 'textbook Learned Helplessness', but taking it out of the laboratory and defining it in the real world seems to be the tough one.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Well, not to get into a debate on terminology, but I think you guys are parsing things too far to define operant conditioning as only a training method. It's become a training method because it utilizes existing learning and behavior patterns in response to stimulus that were observed by Skinner and Thorndike.

Whether learned helplessness is not really a training method or not seems kinda like splitting hairs. Training is learning. Learning results in a chosen (vs instinctive) response to the stimulus. The response may be to give up and quit fighting, but it is still learning because the behavior consistently changed in response to what happened.

"Learned helplessness" would only be training to the extent that you wanted to train the animal to become depressed and to do nothing. That is not usually the result that animal trainers are going for. :lol:

The Wikipedia article that I linked discusses the Seligman & Maiher experiments and provides citations to authoritative sources.

Your example about riding and use or overuse of the leg is a discussion of negative reinforcement. It has nothing to do with "learned helplessness." When negative reinforcement is given, the animal can produce the desired behavior to stop the negative stimulus. (In case of the leg aid, the horse can go faster or more forward to stop the leg aid.)

The whole point of "learned helplessness" is that the subject can do NOTHING to effect the negative stimulus, so he stops trying and exhibits symptoms of depression.

Very, very different concepts.

[MelantheLLC]

yeah yeah yeah Eclectic.

If you read carefully, which I have a feeling you won't, you might see that I'm talking about learning as related to the concept of "learned helplessness." Perhaps you don't agree that learning comes from various sorts of reinforcements, both positive and negative. Perhaps you feel that "learned helplessness" has nothing to do with learning, according to the way you read the "authoritative sources," in which case of course you are precisely correct and always will be.

Thanks, Ajer, for an actual discussion about various angles of the concept.

Regarding your example of different horses--I'm having a similar experience with my dogs. I taught my older dog 8 years ago with the clicker. It worked well and the main issues came from my timing, of which she was very tolerant when I made mistakes. She could still learn even though I was erratic because she could figure out the basic pattern. When I'd start to shape a behavior, she'd work to find the new pattern that got her reinforced.

My new puppy (coming 6 mos now) OTOH, learned to sit for the click almost instantly. But when I tried to shape a straight sit, before the sloppy one got confirmed, he completely fell apart. He actually turned away and walked off, away from me and the clicker and the treats. I was doing nothing but NOT giving a click/treat for a few times in a row when he sat--but this was enough to make him completely withdraw.

It's my belief that he understood that I would click when he did the "right" thing, but he couldn't figure out what the right thing was. This was such a negative experience for him that he had to withdraw. (BTW, I'm not defining this as Learned Helplessness, so the pedants can lay off.)

My explanation of this is that it's my fault as a trainer that I couldn't shape the behavior in small enough increments with well-timed reinforcement so that he could understand, but from his point of view, I was just being unpredictable. And for a sensitive little guy like him, this was just so frustrating that he couldn't take it. So I do think unpredictability can be a negative learning experience, but I agree that the level of tolerance for unpredictability varies a lot among individuals.

[MelantheLLC]

The whole point of "learned helplessness" is that the subject can do NOTHING to effect the negative stimulus, so he stops trying and exhibits symptoms of depression.

Very, very different concepts.

Actually maybe I would be clearer if I said that the subject LEARNS that they can do nothing, and so they give up. But the learning is part of the process, and the subject starts out trying to affect the negative stimulus, and finally learns that nothing works. You are looking only at the end game in this arc of learning; I'm talking about the process to get there, of which unpredictable stimuli can be a part.

[Ajierene]

Regarding your example of different horses--I'm having a similar experience with my dogs. I taught my older dog 8 years ago with the clicker. It worked well and the main issues came from my timing, of which she was very tolerant when I made mistakes. She could still learn even though I was erratic because she could figure out the basic pattern. When I'd start to shape a behavior, she'd work to find the new pattern that got her reinforced.

I think my dog has 'Learned Manipulation'. When she first went to my friend's house, where she had to stay for a year, for various reasons including my house hunting, I thought she would be better trained. Their dogs are very well trained to the point where they ring a chain of bells (couple of bells on leather, reminds me of sleigh bells) when they want to go out. They noted that my dog refused to do anything unless a treat was present. When a treat was present and say they were asking their dog to sit, she would watch the other dog to see what elicited the treat and copy. They also said she seemed to know when they did and did not have treats.

Now she is pretty good, but if I don't spend enough time asking her to 'come', 'sit', 'stay' with treats available, she decides that listening isn't that important. I know I have been slacking on the treat business when she doesn't come running when I call her in from the backyard.

So, possibly the opposite of Learned Helplessness.

In reference to your 6 month old puppy, I can see where increased clicker issues could cause learned helplessness, if say you used it for making him do tricks before going out or eating (example: my dog has to sit, stay and wait for me to 'release' before she can eat). If you did this and he was always 'wrong' (as in you never understood the error of your training and constantly punished him), he might start cowering in the corner and whimpering when the clicker went off and was scared to go anywhere or do anything and just freak out and lay prone the minute he heard the clicker and did not try to run out the open door (fear of the evil clicker...)- that would be Learned Helplessness.

So Learned Helplessness may also be defined as excessive improper training to the point where the animal or child just does not know what to do to elicit the correct, positive response. This kind of improper training, I would imagine would take a whole lot longer to result in learned helplessness than direct training, such as the shock experiment.

[KayBee]

With the dog experiments, the goal wasn't "how can I teach a dog to move from one side of the cage to the other on command" or "how can I teach a dog to leap over a fence."

The question was "what coping strategies will dogs/rats develop to avoid negative stimulus?" and then "what will dogs/rats do if those coping strategies are no longer available to them and/or what will they do if they cannot predict what triggers the negative simulus?"

It was a study designed to put animals under stress and see how they react, purely from a psychological POV. It wasn't a "training method" per se, but it has influenced understanding of how training can work (or not work).

"Learned helplessness" is a "learned behavior" but it is not "training/learning" in the sense that the dog was able to accomplish, via positive or negative reinforcement, a training goal (fetch a ball, sit up, don't bark), because the goal was never "teach dog to curl up in a ball and not try to move/escape cage." It was a "what would happen if..." question and the only goal was that of the observers -- to see what would happen and construct psychological theories based on those observations.

Really bad training can have the side effect of learned helplessness, however, if an animal is unable to discern how to avoid negative reinforcement as the trainer tries to accomplish a goal, or if the goal itself puts too much physical stress on the animal.

[philosoraptor]

I have a slightly different interpretation. There are some good links already posted to get you started. I wanted to clarify that learned helplessness is not a training method unto itself. It's not the same as operant conditioning (for example, the mention of variable reinforcement schedules). A good analogy in people might be: battered wives who keep going home to the abusive spouse to be beat again.

Learned helplessness in horses is the most extreme of "breaking a horse's spirit". He gives up. He knows he's about to be hit hard but why bother trying to avoid it. Other common ways to describe it might be saying "he's got a dead eye" or "he's shut down completely". The horse may give up resisting but he's also given up caring. Occasionally one of these horses wakes up and explodes from emotional overload, and then people act shocked that a "good obedient" horse suddenly became "dangerous". Or the horse suppresses normal emotions (i.e. self preservation) but that suppressed bad energy has to go somewhere, so now the horse develops new behavioral problems. Or the horse is shut down to normal levels of motivating pressure, so pressure or correction-based training becomes difficult. Parelli never said there would be some horses The 7 Games wouldn't work on! (said jokingly, but sadly the truth)

It's related to depression but IMHO there's more to it than that. It's not a chemical imbalance-type depression. It's not so much feeling sad as it is giving up. It doesn't go away just because the bad person who caused the pain the animal goes away, either. It's now generalized to the animal's worldview: nothing the animal does makes any difference, so why even bother.

The worrysome part is that it's still happening. In horse training some trainers are so focused on obedience over all else. These trainers feel the horse must submit to anything the trainer demands, no matter what it is, at all costs. Horse owners shoud be aware that just because someone is a professional trainer, the trainer may not necessarily have the horses' best interests at heart.

Some researchers suspect there is a commonality between learned helplessness and PTSD, but more research needs to be done. I have to wonder if the spirited horses who are "fixed" by being "laid down" against their will might also fall into one or both categories? Start with a a prey animal whose primary defense is to run, surround him by predator-type beings (people), and then take away his defense by forcing him to the ground & holding him there until he stops struggling. Is this "training"? What are we really teaching?

Within the context of dressage I feel that pushing a horse to this state has no place in the discipline. Dressage calls for willing submission. Rider and horse work as a seamless team; it's not rider and robot.

[Carol O]

"The worrysome part is that it's still happening. In horse training some trainers are so focused on obedience over all else. These trainers feel the horse must submit to anything the trainer demands, no matter what it is, at all costs. Horse owners shoud be aware that just because someone is a professional trainer, the trainer may not necessarily have the horses' best interests at heart."

In this example the horse is submitting, and therefore, doing something to make the stimulus stop. I am not sure form what I am reading that this qualifies as LH.

And, yes, I also think this has been a good topic. Thanks for the stimulating discussion. I am so glad it did not stop when using the search option was suggested!

[Ajierene]

I have a slightly different interpretation. There are some good links already posted to get you started. I wanted to clarify that learned helplessness is not a training method unto itself. It's not the same as operant conditioning (for example, the mention of variable reinforcement schedules). A good analogy in people might be: battered wives who keep
going home to the abusive spouse to be beat again.

From what I see, this is where the divergence is. Many psychologists disagree on whether or not to consider battered spouse syndrome to be part of learned helplessness - many feel that it is more complex than that.

The problem with associating learned helplessness with improper training is that there is a reward or lack of punishment process. As I stated earlier, it could be developed into learned helplessness, but hitting a horse because you perceive that it is bad, is not in itself learned helplessness.

Take the dog experiments in account - the animal was not being punished with the shocks, the ones that learned helplessness had no escape (or thought they had no escape), but it was not a punishment/reward type of training. In the horse world, I liken it more to rollkur - where the horse is required to hold it's head in a certain way no matter what. There is no give, no reward for being good. Similarly, it can be likened to putting a horse in side reins on the lunge line (I am thinking the more extreme of not using side reins with elastic and cranking them down fairly tight). There is no reward punishment for headset, the horse simply cannot get away.

In training, it is much more difficult to specifically define, though - because with the horse on the lungeline there is a reward punishment for walk/trot/canter gaits, but not for the headset.


Some researchers suspect there is a commonality between learned helplessness and PTSD, but more research needs to be done.

Do you have references for this? I would like to look into it further.

For the record, I will never understand what is go great about laying a horse down. That guy from Russia that thinks all bits are the work of the devil, lays the horse down, rolls him over and puts the horse's front legs around his neck like the horse is giving him a hug. What does that have to do with how well trained and comfortable with the human a horse is? It is NOTHING that they do in the wild around those they are comfortable with - therefore, I only see it as a circus trick.

[Carol O]

Whew....

[goeslikestink]

um-- i only know what i have to deal with when a horse comes in with mental abuse

the horse i lost ella -- when i 1st got her she was so forlorn to a point of giving up
i took her in becuase her eyes said what she was feeling she was so neavous, didnt trust anyone, took me a good year to gain trust with her but i let her be a horse and let the other horses help me win her over so used there powers of communication and there herd intelligence she turned out to be the most loving horse anyone could wish for......

fogi was another when he was 2yrs his was more pysical abuse to a point he also had given up and he again the spirit was broken and the trust go being only to and driven in a huge london trolly which is a dray for much bigger neds like cobs or shires, and not for a little man of 12.2 and 2yrs old he to was skinny and had huge harness burns ans welp marks

but then thats just 2 i have had different sernerio's but pricncipals the same

learned helplessness is to the point of destruction --to harm, to lose self well being in a loss of despare where by you go on auto pilot and just do cause you cant change it

those types of horses that suffer that kind of thing dont get better in a week a month or a day it can take years to rebuild the trust within them,

and can later on be an illlness that we cant explain by that beucse in most we dont know the horses past we can only go on snippets of information and what we do to the horse now as the before we can only be as honest as the perosn is in front of us or judge as to whats happened by hearsay as sometimes we have no proof only whats left ie the hrose and his condition- ie body and mind

when a horses mind has gone so deep as so tramatised -- it takes all your good horsemenship skills to win the horse back, and to re trian his mind thats its a good idea to xyz

horses to win any horse over you have to understand how there mind works
in general we all follow a set type of guide line for each displine as to how to keep the horse how to feed the horse and how to look after and care for the horse so we as people can have the best opportunity in that disipline as each is different- but as there always a but


but the learned helplessness-- rescue centers are ahead on any one person that horsey
as they see it every day --
form the do gooders tha know nothing on how to keep a neddy to the ones that have i got a horse type and havent got a clue to the abusers that do give 2 bucks for what they have
or people that over kill with coo coos and sweeties and nampby pamby also do mental abuse to the horse as they teaching it behave badly then when they cant cope they selll as a pita horse what ever theres tons of mental things people do to a horse

or as Mays says------ seen it all - sheer desperation -- becuase

whatever the human does to a horse good or bad then that horse has learnt it from the human --