[Effects of different explanations for performance on a learned helplessness task in undergraduates]

Two groups of undergraduates were asked to solve anagrams and arithmetic problems. All the anagrams were solvable but part of the arithmetic problems was insolvable. After the preliminary task, one of the two explanations was given; internal attribution participants (Internal group, N = 22) were told that their failure was due to their problem-solving ability, while external attribution participants (External group, N = 21) were told that they failed because some of the problems had no solution. After the explanations, the groups worked on another set of solvable problems. The test task performance of internal group was significantly lower than that of External group (p = .05), and it was significantly lower than the group's preliminary task (p < .01). No deterioration effect was found for External group. These results supported the implications of the reformulated learned helplessness theory by Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale (1978). In addition, relationships between performance and participants' attitude such as attributional style and optimism were examined with measurement before and after the task, but no significant correlation was found.