Responses to Uncontrollable Outcomes: An Integration of Reactance Theory and the Learned Helplessness Model

Wortman, Camille B.; Brehm, Jack W.

doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60253-1

Cited by 585 publications

(481 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

426

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Speculatively, poor comprehension of the negative implications of an event could induce people who are experiencing hypomanic symptoms to view negative events as a challenge rather than a defeat. A long line of research suggests that challenges are likely to elicit increased effort and activity for most people (Wortman & Brehm, 1975). Hypothetically, increased effort could promote overstimulation and intensified manic symptoms.…”

Section: Do Negative Life Events Predict Increases In Manic Symptomsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life events in bipolar disorder: Towards more specific models

Johnson

2005

Clinical Psychology Review

182

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the evidence concerning life events as a predictor of symptoms within bipolar disorder. First, key methodological issues in this area are described, and criteria used for including studies in this review are defined. Then findings that negative life events predict worse outcomes within bipolar disorder are reviewed. Beyond general studies on relapse, it is important to differentiate predictors of depression from predictors of mania. When severe negative life events occur, they appear to trigger increases in bipolar depression. Nonetheless, many depressions are unrelated to negative life events and appear to be triggered by other variables. The strongest evidence suggests that negative life events do not trigger mania, except perhaps in certain contexts. Retrospective findings for schedule-disrupting life events as a trigger for manic symptoms await further assessment within a longitudinal study. Life events involving goal attainment do appear to trigger manic symptoms. Overall, it is time to differentiate among specific types of life events, as these different forms of events point towards mechanisms linking stressors with symptom expression. These mechanisms provide clues into ways to integrate the social environment with biological vulnerability (see Bipolar disorder is clearly a biological disorder. Nonetheless, over the past 15 years, a wealth of research has made it abundantly clear that psychosocial variables shape outcomes of this disorder. Much of this psychosocial research has focused on whether life events predict the timing and severity of symptoms within this disorder. This paper reviews the evidence that life events are related to symptom expression within bipolar disorder. This basic question has challenged researchers for over 20 years. Given the growing literature, this paper focus on addressing two more specific questions. Which types of symptoms are related to life events? What types of life events influence symptoms? Given the growing number of studies available on these issues, this review will focus on those studies with the most rigorous methodologies. To set the stage for this endeavor, it is important to first review the major methodological issues in research on life events and bipolar disorder, including issues related to design, measurement, and sampling.

show abstract

Section: Do Negative Life Events Predict Increases In Manic Symptomsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life events in bipolar disorder: Towards more specific models

Johnson

2005

Clinical Psychology Review

182

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From these results, it seems plausible to predict that proneness toward hypomania/mania symptoms may predispose persons toward responding with increased approach (and decreased withdrawal) motivational tendencies given challenging or frustrating situations, whereas proneness toward depressive symptoms may predispose persons toward responding with decreased approach (and increased withdrawal) motivational tendencies given these same situations. In other words, proneness toward hypomania/mania symptoms may lead to reactance-like responses, and proneness toward depressive symptoms may lead to helpless responses in the face of challenges (e.g., Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989;Mikulincer, 1988;Wortman & Brehm, 1975).…”

Section: Individual Differences In Responses To Anger-inducing Situatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proneness to hypomania/mania symptoms or depression symptoms and asymmetrical frontal cortical responses to an anger-evoking event.

Harmon‐Jones

Abramson

Sigelman

et al. 2002

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

164

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behavioral approach system (BAS) reflects the propensity to respond to signals of reward, including stimuli associated with safety and goal-oriented attack (e.g., anger). Hypomania/mania has been posited to involve increased BAS activity. In contrast, depression has been posited to involve decreased BAS activity. Building on past research, which suggests that increased left frontal cortical activity is a neurophysiological index of BAS activity, the present research tested the hypotheses that proneness toward hypomania/mania symptoms would be related to increased relative left frontal activity and that proneness toward depression symptoms would be related to decreased relative left frontal activity in response to an anger-evoking event. Results from 67 individuals who had completed a measure of proneness toward these affective symptoms and were exposed to an anger-evoking event supported the hypotheses.Prominent motivation theories share the assumption that two systems underlie much behavior. One system manages appetitive, incentive motivation and approach behavior. It has been called a behavioral activation system (Fowles, 1980(Fowles, , 1988, behavioral approach system (BAS; Gray, 1982Gray, , 1987Gray, , 1990Gray, , 1994aGray, , 1994b, and behavioral facilitation system (Depue & Collins, 1999;Depue & Iacono, 1989;Depue, Krauss, & Spoont, 1987). The other system, the behavioral inhibition system (BIS), inhibits ongoing behavior (Gray, 1982(Gray, , 1987(Gray, , 1990(Gray, , 1994b).Gray 's (1982, 1987, 1994a, 1994b) theory has served as the basis for most of the other theories. Hence, we focus on it. Gray has posited that these fundamental motivation systems are present in the mammalian central nervous system and that each responds to separate classes of reinforcing events with particular types of behavior. Moreover, each is mediated by a separate set of interacting brain structures that process particular types of information. The BIS responds to conditioned stimuli associated with punishment, conditioned stimuli associated with the omission or termination of reward (frustrative nonreward), and novel stimuli. It causes the interruption of ongoing behavior, increases arousal, which prepares the organism for the next behavior, and increases attention toward stimuli, which would increase information gain. The neural structures posited to be involved in the BIS are the septohippocampal system (composed of the septal area, entorhinal cortex, dentate gyrus, hippocampus, and subicular area), the prefrontal cortex, and the monoaminergic pathways that ascend from the mesencephalon to innervate the septohippocampal system.The BAS is posited to respond to stimuli associated with reward and relieving nonpunishment (safety). It also responds to stimuli associated with skilled escape and predatory aggression. The neural structures involved in the BAS are the basal ganglia (the dorsal and ventral striatum, and dorsal and ventral pallidum), the dopaminergic fibers that ascend from the mesencephalon (substantia nigra and nu...

show abstract

“…Secondary control is most likely to occur after attempts at primary control have failed. Naturalistic evidence on the temporal sequence of the two types of control indicates that behaviors reflecting secondary control (passivity, withdrawal, and submissiveness) are a late stage of reaction to stress; typically they are preceded by a stage of anger and protest-behaviors that we associate with primary control (for evidence regarding stages see Baum, Aiello, & Calesnick 1978;Klinger, 1975;Mann & Dashiell, 1975;Rothbaum, 1980;Wortman & Brehm, 1975). However, the evidence is far from clear-cut A TWO-PROCESS MODEL (Silver & Wortman, 1980), and we suspect that vacillation between primary and secondary control is common.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control.

Rothbaum

Weisz²,

Snyder³

1982

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

1,776

1,282

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is extensive evidence that people strongly value and are reluctant to relinquish the perception of control. Yet, both helplessness and locus of control theorists interpret various "inward" behaviors (passivity, withdrawal, and submissiveness) as signs of relinquished perceived control. As evidence, they note that inward behavior frequently is accompanied by causal attributions to limited ability, chance, and powerful others-all attributions that suggest uncontrollability. In contrast, we claim,that these attributions and the behaviors to which they relate may often reflect a type of perceived control that is generally overlooked. People attempt to gain control not only by bringing the environment into line with their wishes (primary control) but also by bringing themselves into line with environmental forces (secondary control). Four manifestations of secondary control are considered: (a) Attributions to severely, limited ability can serve to enhance predictive control and to protect against disappointment. Passive and withdrawn behaviors reflect the attempt to inhibit unfulfillable expectations, (b) Attributions to chance can reflect illusory control, since people often construe chance as a personal characteristic akin to an ability ("luck"). Individuals who make attributions to chance may exhibit passivity and withdrawal in skill situations, reserving energy and emotional investment for situations that allow them to capitalize on their perceived strength-that is, being lucky, (c) Attributions to powerful others permit vicarious control when the individual identifies with these others. Submission to a powerful leader, a group, or a deity sometimes enables the individual to join in their power, (d) All of the preceding attributions may foster interpretive control, in which the individual seeks to understand and derive meaning from otherwise uncontrollable events in order to accept them. When perceived control is recognized in both its primary and secondary forms, a broad range of inward behaviors can be seen as efforts to sustain rather than relinquish the perception of control.Factor analytic studies with children (reviewed in Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978) and systematic observations of adults (e.g., Beck, 1967;Marks, 1977) have identified a This article was funded in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grant 1-RO1-MH-34210-01.The authors are indebted to Camille Wortman for her unusually thorough review of a draft of this article. Her comments added depth and clarity to many of the Central points.Requests for reprints should be sent to Fred Rothbaum, Department of Child Study, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155. set of interrelated problem behaviors including passivity, withdrawal, and submissiveness (hereafter referred to as inward behavior). The popularity of the learned helplessness model (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978;Seligman, 1975) is due largely to its lucid account of at least some of these seemingly maladaptive behaviors (especially passivity and withdrawal). Adherents o...

show abstract

Responses to Uncontrollable Outcomes: An Integration of Reactance Theory and the Learned Helplessness Model

Cited by 585 publications

References 61 publications

Life events in bipolar disorder: Towards more specific models

Life events in bipolar disorder: Towards more specific models

Proneness to hypomania/mania symptoms or depression symptoms and asymmetrical frontal cortical responses to an anger-evoking event.

Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About