Upload
others
View
9
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A STUDY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS AMONG EXECUTIVES IN PUBLIC SECTOR
UNDERTAKING ,
DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the award of the degree of
Mnittx of ^IjilogopI)? IN
PSYCHOLOGY
BY /^ - f
SAYEEDUZZAFAR
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DR. MAHMOOD S. KHAN READER
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
ALIGARH (INDIA)
1995
DS2859
* . .\(,;C I MO-
^/^,.
.:;':•; '-'• !> • - • . * ' .^ ' i - < ^
t>i.:^l5j*^'^ ««r-
Bah. 3S^'. Jl.
CONTENTS
Page Nc
CERTIFICATE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CHAPTERS :
1. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE 1-32
2. I IETHODOLOGY 33-40
3. RESULTS & DISCUSSION 41-59
REFERENCES 60-68
APFENDIX
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOG AUGARH MUSUM UNIVERSITY
AUOARH-202001
Supervisor's Certificate
This is to certify tl at M.Phil, dissertation
entitled "A STUDY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS AMONG
EXECUTIVES IN PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING" submitted by
Mr. Sayeeduzzafar for the degree of M.Phil. in
Psychology, has been carried out under my supervision.
The dissertation is suitable for submission to the
examiner for evaluation.
(DR. MAHMOOD 5. KHAN) READER
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am extremely thankful to my supervisor Dr. Mahmood S. Khan, Reader, Deptt. of Psychology, A.M.U., Aligarh, for his invaluable suggestions and timely guidance. This dissertation would never have been completed without his stimulating guidance.
I also express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Qamar Hasan, Prof, and chairman Deptt. of Psychology for his selfless help and sustained inspiration.
Prof. Afzal Kureshi, my teacher who is no more now with us, encouraged and had supported me at all levels of my present work. May Almighty Allah rest his soul in peace.
I am also thankful to Prof. Mrs. Hamida Ahmad, Or. Saeeduzzafar, Dr. S.A. Ansari, Dr. A.Sufian Zilli, Dr. Akbar Husain, Dr. Rahat. A. Khan, Dr. Asia Ejaz for their continuous help and moral support.
At the outset, a very special thanks is also due to rof.D.M.Pestonjee of IIM, Ahmedabad, whose critical and valuable suggestions contributed significantly to the refinement of this dissertation, despite his own temporal professional pressures. I also wish to thanks Mrs. Roslmi D. Pestonjee Danish D. Pestonjee and Vijay for their homely treatment.
I am also indebted to my research colleagues, Dr. Intekhab Alam, Dr.Shah Alam, Miss. Anisa W. , Miss. Rehana Ahmad, Miss. Rizwana, Miss. Meena Arya, Mr. Bilal A. Khan, Mr. Ishtiaq, Mr. Jawed Ahmed, Mr. Nasir Al l Mr. Abdullah K. Charbidar, Miss Arshi, Humaira, Hina Zaki, and Mr. Rashidul Hague
My very special thanks are due to my research colleague Miss. Saba Shaheen for her continuous morale and intellectual support, particularly during data collection at BHEL, Bhopal.
A special thanks is also due to Prof. Martin E.P. Seligman and Dr. Ahmadullah Siddiqui of U.S.A. for their encouragement and research help.
The help and support of my IIMA colleagues and friends Mr. Mallikarjun, Prof. V.Padmanand(Anand), Anang, Debashish, Rajeev Bhagwat, Sudhir Jain, R. Panda, Babu v., Mufeed Ahmad, Mujtaba has made the going easier.
I am duty bound to record with deep emotions and nostalgia, the benevolence and inspiration received from my Papa, Ammy, sister Nasreen, brothers, Mahmood, Obaid,
Junaid, and cousins HaBhim, Mudaasir and Rehan. Thanks are also due to my Nani, Mama, Chacha and aunt ies MB. Qamar, Fahmeeda, KhurBheeda, Afrida, Shakeela, Afroz Shamim and Foof ie s .
I aw deeply indebted to a number of people at BHEL Bhopal for my dissertation. Spatial limitations precludes my mentioning each one of them individually in this note of acknowledgement. However, I especially wish to place on record my thanks Mr. Mehta, Senior Manager (TCCB), R.K. Agrawal, DGM (Quality control) and Mr. R.K. Pandey, Senior Manager (HRD) and Mr. QaiBer Abbas, Miaa. Daiay, Miaa. Shaiata, Dr. Raza, Sultana aunty and Saud.
I am also grateful to Mr. Muqimuddin, Co-ordinator, and Mr. Siraj Ahmad, Astt. Co-ordinator, lOS, Aligarh Chapter for their financial assistance during my research work.
( SAYEED-UZ
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED
LH - LEARNED HELPLESSNESS
LHl - INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS
LH2 - INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS
LH3 - INTERNAL-GLOBAL-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS
LH4 - EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS
LH5 - INTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS
LH6 - EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS
LH7 - EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS
LH8 - EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS
LHT - TOTAL LEARNED HELPLESSNESS
EXl - EXECUTIVE GROUP 1
EX2 - EXECUTIVE GROUP 2
EX3 - EXECUTIVE GROUP 3
EX4 - EXECUTIVE .GROUP 4
CHAPTER - 1
INIRODLCTICN AND REviEv/ OF L;TERATURE
MEANING AND CONCEPT OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS
The term 'Learned Helplessness' also known as
LH is of recent origin in the literature of Psychology. LH
means, uncontrollability of all those environmental
conditions where an individual feels that the situations
existing in the environment may not be altered, eliminated or
changed. According to Pestonjee and Reddy (1988), "learned
helplessness is a cognitive state of being (an individual or
an animal) which believes that whatever it does is not going
to alter the outcome of en event". In other words, it comes
to believe in response-outcome non contingency. The concept
of LH can be better understood from the statements of the
people that they often do not like many things prevailing in
the society, their neighbourhood, organizations and on their
jobs. And they are unable to alter or eliminate all those
undesirable things. Undoubtedly these statements explicitly
reveal their feelings of uneasiness with existing
environmental conditions. They express their inability to do
any thing to change them for the betterment. Now, it is
obvious from such statements that LH is the outcome of the
feeling of uneasiness with the existing environmental
conditions and the inability to change them for tl"e better.
Therefore, LH has been viewed as the cognitive state of
beings (animals/humans) who believe that whatever they do
will not alter the outcome of an event.
This concept of LH was accidently discovered
by Overmier and Seligman (1967) when they were conducting an
experiment on mongrel dogs to determine the relationship of
fear conditioning to instrumental learning by inducing
inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance
conditioning. In his series of experiments dogs were
subjected to inescapable electric shock with variation in
duration, degree and frequency. Initially the dogs struggled
very hard to escape shock. After repeated failure to escape,
the dogs passively endured the shocks by discontinuing their
efforts to escape. At this time they made escape possible.
But, in spite of escape being possible, the dogs made no
attempt to escape. Whereas, the other group of dogs who did
not received any shock earlier did escape well. On the basis
of this finding they stated that the dogs learned that shocks
were independent of their behaviour and this learning was
transferred to new situation inhibiting escape response in
that altered situation. Overmier and Seligman (1967) termed
this state of dogs as a Learned Helplessness (LH).
The subsequent research on LH was carried out
by Seligman and Maier (1967) , in which they probed that the
LH effect was caused by the uncontrollability of the original
shock. According to them the phenomenon of LH results from
experience with uncotrollability. They define
uncontrollability as the response - outcome independence^
means subject has no control over the outcome of the event.
To support his argument that LH results from the experience
of uncontrollable outcomes. Maier and Seligman used a
'triadic design' in which three groups of eight mongrel dogs
were used as a subject. The escape group was trained in a
hammock to turn off the shock by pressing a panel with their
nose. The yoked group received shocks identical in numbers,
durations, and pattern similar to that of the escape group.
The yoked group differed from the escape group only in terms
of the instrumental control in which the subjects received
over-shock while pressing the panel. This pressing of the
panel did not affect the progranuned shocks given to the yoked
group. The third group named as the naive group received no
shock in the hammock. After 24 hours of the hammock
treatments, all the three groups received escape-avoidance
training in a shuttle box. The escape and naive group
performed well in the shuttle box, they jumped the barriers
readily to avoid shocks. In contrast the yoked group was
found significantly slower to respond than the other two
groups. On the basis of their findings they stated that it is
not shock itself but inability to control the shock produced
and the failure to respond, this they termed as learned
helplessness (LH). The occurrence of the LH phenomenon was
also observed and reported by Thomas and Batler (1969), on
cats; Padilla and Padilla (1970), on cats and fish and Braud
et al (1969) , on rats using more or less the same triadic
design. This supported the findings of Overmier and Seligman
(1967) and Seliginan and Maier (1967) .
Inspired by the research finding and
conceptual development of the phenomenon of LH based on
animal studies, the later researchers planned to conduct
research/experiments on human subjects and tried to probe
further regarding the concept and causal factors of LH.
Perhaps the first study conducted on human subject was
carried out in two phases by Thorton and Jacobs (1970, 1971).
In animal studies to develop XJH phenomenon mere traumatic
shock were used. But it was not possible in human subjects
due to ethical considerations.
Thus, Thorton and Jacobs used typical stress
set instructions which involved subjective setting of the
stress level, according to subject perception of having
unpleasant but not painful. The shock used were of such
level that the subject could perceive it as unpleasant but
not painful. They conducted a series of experiments and
observed the LH phenomenon in humans as perceived by Seligman
et al in animals.
A number of studies have been done after
Thorton and Jacobs (1971) , but according to Seligman,
Hiroto's (1974) study is the representative. This stv dy mat,
conducted on college students and finds the same results as
observed by Seligman et al. on mongrel dogs. Hiroto used the
same design as used by Seligman and others. He divided their
subjects into three groups. The first group of subjects
called the escape group received a loud noise which they
learned to turn off by pressing a button. The subjects in the
inescapable group received the same noise, but the noise were
independent of their responding. A third group received no
noise. All the three group then taken to a hand shuttle box,
in order to escape noise, the subjects had to move his hand
from one side to other. Both the no noise and escape groups
learned readily in the shuttle box with their hands. Like
other species, however, the human inescapable group failed to
escape and avoid rather most sat passively and took the
aversive noise, means a phenomenon like LH were noticed in
the subjects. Apart from this study, other investigators
like (Fosco and Geer, 1971; Racinscas, 1971; Glass and
Singer, 1972; Roth, 1973; Krantz, Glass and Snyder, 1974;
Roth and Bootzin, 1974; Hiroto and Seligman, 1975; Rodin,
1975; Miller and Seligman, 1975a; Roth and Kubal, 1975;) used
humans as subject and supported the findings of the
phenomenon of LH as observed by Seligman, Overmier and Maier
(1967, 1967) on mongrel dogs.
LEARNED HELPLESSNESS MODELS ;
ELEMENTARY MODEL OF L.H.
The term LH was first used by Seligman, and
Overmier (1967) to describe the impaired performance of dogs
in an instrumental training situation produced by prior
exposure to uncontrollable aversive stimuli. According to
Susan Roth, "LH refers to an interference in learning
occurring due to experience with noncontingent rewards, and
to underlying processes hypothesized to be responsible for
this interference: the learning of response-reinforcement
independence and its generalization." Response-reinforcement
independence means our responses do not produce desired
outcomes. When an organism is repeatedly exposed to outcome
which are independent of his responses, it develops a feeling
that the outcomes are uncontrollable or independent of his
responses. This learning can result in the development of an
expectation that outcomes would be independent of responses
in future also. Which in turn leads to deficits in
performance (Maier et al, 1969; Seligman et al, 1971) . The
basis of performance deficits are of three types, which are
as follows:
MOTIVATIONAL DEFICITS
When a person believes that outcomes are not
dependent upon his responses, it leads to reduced motivation/
incentive for making efforts. The belief that outcome are
independent to response, the person generalizes it to other
new situations also. Let us take an example of a Sr. manager
TCCB Of BHEL, who had sent a proposal for some changes in the
design of the transformer to the R&D department. By making
this change the quality of the transformer can be improved a
lot. But all suggestions have been turned down by the DGM
(Research & Development or R&D) without giving any cause.
Even after some time when the above DGM of R&D got
transferred to some other place, and the new DGM who is
quite responsive to bringing in some technological changes,
for good performance of their products, the above Sr.
manager did not send any proposal for change. This is
because he believes that submitting such a proposal is
futile. A number of researchers have observed the
motivational deficits in human and animals because of LH
(Behrend and Bitterman, 1963; Lefcourt, 1966; Ratter, 1966;
Frumkin and Brookshire, 1969; Powel and Creer, 1969; Pyne,
Anderson and Murcurio, 1970; Padilla and Padilla, 1970;
Ketter and Giaclone, 1970; Padilla, 1973; Maier, Albin and
Teasta, 1973; Enberg, Hansen, Welker and Thomas, 1973; Gamzu,
Williams and Schwartz, 1973; Bainbridge, 1973; Hiroto,
1974; Welker, 1974; Hiroto and Seligman, 1975; Hiroto,
Seligman and Klien et al, 1975;' Miller and Seligman, 1975;
Seligman and Beagley, 1975; Seligman, Rosselini and Kozak,
1975; Rossiline and Seligman, 1975).
COGNITIVE DEFICITS
LH can also produce cognitive deficits, as
the organism does not think that responses and outcomes are
contingently related. Inference with future learning occurs,
and there is difficulty in forming new cognitives of response
producing outcomes. Let us take the example of the above Sr.
manager again who has acquired a cognitive set that
submitting any proposal leads only to a non sanction. It will
be more difficult for him to accept the fact that some of
these proposals can be accepted or sanctioned. This type of
cognitive deficits were also observed in animals and men by
a number of researchers in different experiments (Rescorla,
1967; Thomas, Freeman, Svincki, Burr and Lyons, 1970;
Mellgren and Ost, 1971; Kemler and Shepp, 1971; Mackintosh,
1973; Hiroto and Seligman, 1974; Miller and Seligamn; Maier
and Teasta, 1975; Klien et al, 1975) .
EMOTIONAL DEFICITS
Expectancy of response-outcome-independence
leads to emotional disturbance in the form of anxiety,
depression, insomnia etc. The above stated Sr. manager might
become indifferent towards other areas of his life, and can
show withdrawal symptoms and may even remain absent from duty
frequently. Emotional deficits are also reported by several
researchers among LH persons and or animals (Sines, Cleeland
and Adkins, 1963; Elliot, 1969; Moot, Cabella and Crabtree,
1970; Jay Weiss, 1970; Corah and Bofa, 1970; Seligman and
Grooves, 1970; Honkanson, Degood, Forest and Brittain, 1971;
Desiderato and Newman, 1971; Averill and Rosenn, 1972; Payne,
1972; But Seligman's model of LH fails to explain how
generalizability takes place from one situation to another
situation (Hiroto and Seligman, 1975) . Moreover,
helplessness did not always generalize beyond the setting in
which actual response-outcome independence was experienced
(Peterson, 1982; Alloy et al, 1984) . This model also did not
account for the impact of individual differences like gender
(Dweck and Repucci, 1973; Baucom, Danker and Brown, 1979).
Benson and Kennelly, 1976; and Burglass and Jones, 1978
explained that the expectancy of response-outcome
independence as well as aversive outcome are necessary to
induce LH.
ATTRIBUTION MODEL OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS
To resolve the inadequacies in Seligman's
model Abramson et al., 1978 produced a reformulated model of
LH based on attribution theory. Attribution theories
10
suggested that people make causal explanation for observed
events and behaviour (Heider,, 1958; Wong and Weiner, 1981) .
These causal attributions have a powerful effect on feelings,
plans and well beings. This theory provides a framework by
which attribution made by persons can be classified along
many dimensions (Passer et al. , 1979). The basic dimensions
are Internal-External, Stable-Unstable (Weiner, 1971) and
Global-Specific (Seligman et al.)
INTERNAL-EXTERNAL ( I-E )
The I-E dimension makes a distinction between
causes. Internal causes are based within the person whose
behaviour the theory seeks to explain and are believed to be
applicable to that person only. While External causes are not
the part of the person whose behaviour is being explained.
They are expected to affect all persons who attempt to behave
similarly. This dimension represents self-other- continuum
and gives rise to two different types of helplessness.
PERSONAL HELPLESSNESS (PH)
PH refers to believes that there are responses
which can produce the desired outcomes. But the person does
not have them in his repertoire. Like lack of ability, poor
skills and lack of efforts etc.
11
UNIVERSAL HELPLESSNESS (UH)
UH refers to believes that relevant others
also do not have the requisite responses in their responses.
It is important to note that the reference person for
universal helplessness are relevant others and not just any
body. This includes luck, task difficulty and work overload
etc.
An additional effect associated with the I-E
dimension is loss of self esteem. Internal attribution make
the person feel that he, unlike others, has been unable to
control the desired outcomes, and is ashamed, feels guilty,
and loss of self esteem. On the
other hand, external attribution make the person felt that
all are helpless like him, and prevent such loss of self
esteem.
STABLE - UNSTABLE (S-U)
This dimension of attribution model
distinguishes factors which are long lived and recurrent from
those which are short lived and intermittent. Attribution of
failure to stable factors would produce helplessness effect
which persist for a longer period of time. While unstable
causal attribution would produce helplessness which
dissipitates with time. These unstable causes may not be
12
present in future situations. Seligman and his associates
proposed that chronicity of helplessness occur when stable
attribution are made (like, lack of ability, task
difficulty, and lack of power). This is because such factors
are likely to be present in the future. Therefore, these
factor will prevent response from having the desired effect.
If the attribution is unstable like (recession, poor health
and or insufficient effort) cause is not expected to occur in
future or unlikely to be chronic.
GLOBAL - SPECIFIC (G-S)
Global factors are those which exist in most
situations and influence outcome widely. In contrast,
specific factors are unique of the original situation and do
not generalize across situations. Global attribution of
uncotrollability imply that helplessness would occur across
situations. The generality of helplessness may thus be
explained by the G-S dimension of attributions.
Global causes like lack of aptitude, poor
health, and recession affect a wide variety of situations
including that in which the causes were stated. Whereas,
specific causes like insufficient effort, and difficult task
may affect only one or few mpre specific situations. Hence,
attribution to global causes affect the behaviour of the
13
person in many other situations (Alloy, 1982) and the person
may generalize the situation where this cause is relevant.
In contrast to specific causes helplessness is likely to
occur in dissimilar situations.
All the three dimensions of causal
attributions described above are continuous rather than
dichotomous. These three dimensions of attributions can be
grouped together in different combinations which will result
in eight types of causal attributions. These are :
1. Internal - global - stable
2. Internal - global - unsteJsle
3. Internal - specific - stable
4. Internal - specific - unstable
5. External - global - stable
6. External - global - unstzJsle
7. External - specific - stable
8. External - specific - unstable
Each of these dimensions has a different
implication for the future expectations of people, and their
performance on subsequent tasks.
Taking the effects of these three dimensions
together, it is observed that executives who makes internal-
global-stable attributions, like lack of aptitude for
14
managerial work will show highest personal helplessness in
large number of organizational situations. Similarly,
executives who make, external-stable-global attribution such
as fate or destiny will express highest universal
helplessness across a large number of organizational
situations.
The second major attributional model of LH was
presented by Miller and Norman (1979). This model supports
all the predictions of the reformulated LH model (Abramson et
al., 1978) . Besides, it provides new insight into the process
by which causal attribution and LH emerge. LH has been
viewed in the Abramson's attribution model as a cognition
produced by experiences of response-outcomes-independence
and the attribution that persons make for the experience. In
addition to this cause. Miller and Norman suggested that
attributions are also affected by person's charaicteristics,
as well as the particular situation in which the experience
takes place. These three elements interact to give rise to
causal attributions, which determines future expectations as
well as the likelihood of consequent helplessness. However,
this model fails to describe and clarify as to how the
interaction of experiences, information about situations and
personal characteristics gives rise to each type of causal
attribution. But this model does attempt to indicate the
variable involved in the development of LH, and gives
15
evidences of their significance in the development of Learned
Helplessness.
According to the Miller and Norman model the
two types of information which affect LH are outcome cues and
situational cues. Outcome cues refers to the feedback
received by the person from his previous experience, about
the extent to which outcome depended on his effort and extent
of previous success. Situational cues refer to the
significant stimuli or information received from the context
of the particular experience, such as instructions about the
uncontrollable stimuli (Glass and Singer, 1973; Hiroto, 1974;
Klein et al. , 1976), amount of exposure to uucontrollability
(Roth and Kubal, 1976) and other stimuli such as other's
performance (Weiner, 1974). Individual differences which
significantly affect LH are gender (Dweck and Repucci, 1973),
previously held expectations about performance (Hiroto, 1974)
and depressive mood (Hammen and Krantz, 197 6) .
After the reformulation, LH is conceived
primarily as a cognitive phenomenon in humans that emerges
following experiences of response-outcome independence. In
each person the experience gives rise to causal attributions
which represent a fairly stable characteristics and affect
future behaviour. More generally, a person first learns that
he/she makes for it, might or might not be helpless in future
16
situations. Therefore, helplessness need no more be treated
as a specific reaction to a particular experience in the
laboratory. Instead, it may be considered ao an enduring
state of response-outcome expectancy that individuals bear in
themselves.
The state-oriented approach towards LH was
suggested in Seligman's original reformulation. The original
reformulation lends support to this approach by suggesting
that the situational view of helplessness as a short lived
reaction to laboratory experience does not adequately explain
LH (Miller and Norman, 1979) . In spite of these theoretical
advances, most research has avoided studies ot naturally
occurring LH (Brown and Siegel, 1988), and has tended to
treat LH as a transient state observed immediately after a
short experience of experimentally induced response-outcome
independence.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE ON ATTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS & L.H.
INTERNAL-EXTERNAL (I-E) ATTRIBUTIONS
A number of researches has been done on
examining the link between I-E attribution and LH.
Internal attributions leads to greater loss in self esteem as
17
compared to external attributions (Abramson et al. , 1978;
McFarland and Ross, 1982; Peterson and Seligman, 1984;
Mikulincer, 1986, 1989). In his study of I-E attribution on
performance following insolvable problems, Mikulincer
manipulated perceived task importance, perceived task
difficulty and threat to self esteem, and examined the
effects of I-E attribution. While the performance deficits
for external attribution could be examined by recourse of
self handicapping strategies adopted by the person to protect
his self esteem. Internal attribution for failure leads to
personal helplessness whereas external attribution leads to
universal helplessness. In most of the laboratory based
researches on LH, personal and universal helplessness has
been treated as orthogonal dimensions. However, Sahoo's
(1991) study in organizational setting found the two to be
significantly and positively correlated. Balakriahnan (1990)
found that knowing that others are also helpless is no
consolation in reducing performance deficits. In a study on
the homeless, Burn (1992) found that environments which are
consistently low in control lead to external attribution and
universal helplessness. Similar results has also been
reported by Dweck and Repucci (1973) and Hanusa and Schultz
(1977) .
18
STABLE-UNSTABLE (S-U) ATTRIBUTIONS
Attribution of failure to stable factors leads
to chronicity of helplessness (Weiner, 1974; Mikulincer,
1986, 1988; Mikulincer and Nizan, 1988).
Attribution of failure to unstable cues is not
likely to lead to chronic deficits because those causes may
not be present in future.
GLOBAL-SPECIFIC (G-S) ATTRIBUTIONS
A number of researchers (Alloy, 1982;
Anderson, 1983; Mikulincer and Nizan, 1988; Snyder and
Higgins, 1988) found that global attributions are more likely
to lead to generalization of LH to dissimilar situations.
While specific attributions like poor effort is less likely
to lead to generality of LH in other situations.
Because the causal factors of the earlier
situations may not be present in later situations. The
available literature indicates that global and stable
attributions are necessary for generalization of
expectancies of uncontrollability to dissimilar situations.
19
ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE AND ANALYSIS
A number of people explain events in a
habitual fashion called "attribution style". The type of
attribution a person makes may be influenced by his general
attributional style (Seligman et al., 1979) and environmental
cues. Some people habitually attribute bad happenings to
external, stable and global causes, and good happenings to
internal, stable and specific causes.
The style becomes more important in situations
where the information about causes is ambiguous. A number of
researches have been done' on attributional style and
LH/depression using attributional style questionnaire-ASQ
(Seligman et al. , 1979; Alloy et al., 1984; Peterson et al.,
1988) . They found that a subject with global attributional
style for negative events showed LH deficits which
generalized to both similar as well as dissimilar
situations. Metalasky et al., 1984, in a naturalistic
situation found that students with more internal and global
attribution style showed more severe reactions.
Let's take an example of a Sr. manager, who
is not applying for the post of DGM. He can offer several
explanations for this behaviour, which in turn we may use to
predict their future behaviour.
20
"My efforts to convince the Selection Committee to
make me DGM are of no use, because
I I lack the aptitude for DGM work
(internal-global-stable).
II My current health is in shambles after the
accident (internal-global- unstable) .
Ill Any person can get such posts only through
destiny (external-global-stable).
IV There is recession in the industry
(external-global-unstable).
V I have not put in enough effort to convince the
selection committee
(internal-specific-unstable).
VI I do not have skills beyond my specialization
(internal-specific-stable).
VII This post is always given to owner's relatives
(external-specific-stable).
VIII The selection committee members are busy at
present
(external-specific-unstable).
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS
Attribution analysis of LH is still the most
well documented theory, but alternative explanation of LH has
emerged in recent years. Snyder and Higgins (1988) has tried
21
to explain LH by recourse to excuse making. "Excufie making is
the process of shifting causal attributions lor negative
personal outcomes from sources that are more ceiirral to the
person's sense of self to sources that are relatively less
central, thereby, resulting in perceived benefits to the
person's image and sense of control " (Snyder and Higgins,
1988) .
A global attribution produces more task-
irrelevant self-preoccupation (off task cognitionn), which
impairs performance on a subsequent task. On the other hand,
a specific, attribution for failure is an excuse attribution
which shifts the responsibility away from the person,
thereby making failure irrelevant for self evaluation. By
making excuses, people split the person who may have
performed poorly in some situation from the real person who
does well otherwise (Snyder et al.,1983). This e cou.se making
reduces engagement in off-task cognitions the main cause of
performance deficits.
Sedek and Kofta (1990) has put torth an
informational explanation of LH by defining inicot rollability
in information processing terms. When a person is in the
uncontrollable situation, he receives consistent
informational feedback as he engages in hypothesis testing
activity during problem solving. Gradually, some of the
hypotheses are disapproved and he is able to construct an
22
adequate cognitive schema for the future. But on the other
hand, a person facing uncontrollable situations receive
meaningless informational feedback and he is unable to
construct an appropriate cognitive schema for behaviour. The
high disorderliness thus produced does not get reduced
inspite of cognitive exertion by the person. Thiij inability
to have any cognitive gain leads to a state ot cognitive
exhaustion in which little hypothesis testing it3 done. This
state is the immediate antecedent of LH symptoms.
The main difference between the attributional
model and information model of LH is that the original theory
views response-outcome noncontingency as the crucial aspect,
thus locating the source of helplessness in something that
follows behavioral acts (i.e. their outcome which are
independent to behaviour). In contrast the present approach
attributes helplessness to difficulties encountered at an
early stage of action development, namely when an organism
attempts to derive an anticipatory schema usually called
action programme for successful guidance of future activity.
According to the current theory, the essential feature of
helplessness training is repeatedly experiencing the
inability to derive such a programme by means of hypothesis
testing activity (Sedek and Kofta, 1990) .
23
LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN ORGANIZATIONS
A very few studies of LH in n.it uralistic
settings has been found in the review of literature.
Balakrishnan (1990) found LH to be positively-
correlated with chance locus of control and negatively-
correlated with internal locus of control, job involvement
and job satisfaction.
In this study attributional theory did not get
adequate support. Education level was inversely related with
LH.
People in financial organization were found to
have higher personal helplessness as compared to those in
manufacturing and consulting organizations.
Baum and Gatc'hel (1981) studied crowding in
college dormitories and found attribution to be important
determinants of helplessness. Golin et al. (1981) found that
attribution style of children and adults at a particular
time predicted depression in future. Hammen, Krantz and
Cochran (1981) found similar result for college students.
Metalasky et al. (1982) found that students with internal and
global attribution styles showed more severe depression
24
symptoms after receiving low mid term grade. Sahoo (1991)
found positive correlation between PLH and ULH and negative
correlation between PLH and Job satisfaction. Employees in
financial institutions showed less helplessness than employee
in educational and industrial organizations, contrary to the
finding of Balakrishnan (1990) for executives. Cliawla (1994)
found no relationship among PLH and ULH with demographic
variables among the managerial staff of Banking sectors.
Means age, sex, educational background and income has no
effect on Learned Helplessness. Lata and Dhar (1989) found
that age has significant correlation with learned
helplessness, more in old ages, less in young ages.
Sarkar(1993) reported very low level of learned helplessness
in middle managers of engineering industry.
Rampant employee indiscipline is observed in
many public and even private sector organizations in
different forms. If we ask to an executive what he does to
control indiscipline in the organizations, he will respond,
"What can I do? I am helpless". Or if we ask to any
executives what you will do to convince your employees not to
go on strike, they will say, "How can I ? I am not even sure
whether it is my job?" There are so many evidences of such
examples from our own personal and work experience. These
example capture a phenomenon very widely pervasive in life.
Injustice, inequities and deprivation are experienced as
aversive conditions. In such situations, people would
25
normally engage in instrumental activity, directed towards
removing or alleviating aversive conditions.
Perception of attractive, valued and
attainable goals or rewards tend to lead people to put in
efforts to obtain them. Problem faced in life would
ordinarily push people to squarely face them and engage in
problem solving activities. Some people remain passive and
apathetic, reflecting maladaptive behaviour. They tend not
to do anything and quietly suffer the unpleasant consequences
of inaction. And some even deny that the problem exists,-
others show different types of withdrawal behaviour. The LH
construct provides a clear explanation about why the
phenomenon observed in the above said example takes place.
When people initially make any effort and
often failed to achieve desired results, they believe that
desired results are uncertain, no matter what they do. From
these experiences they learned that they were helpless and
there was no use even to try. Thereafter, they reduced their
efforts or gave up completely, became passive and sad, and
faced the undesired outcome with inaction.
According to Martinko and Gardner (1982)," LH
can be induced by a variety of expei'iences in
organizations." Bureaucratic organizations are observed to
26
direct member behaviour through established rules and
routines which inhibit self expression and limit autonomy
(Conger and Kanungo, 1988).
Therefore, employees learn from the
organizational environment to suspend their judgement and
come to doubt whether their own ideas and actions are
acceptable at the job. Over time these organizations shapes
employees to become incapable of demonstrating innovation or
responsibility, even when such behaviour is desired and
rewarded (Argyris, 1957). For example, lack of control over
production process experienced by assembly line workers
(Blauner, 1964) can induce a sense of powerlessness and
cause LH. These workers become generally passive and
therefore, cannot be depended upon to exercise initiative on
the few occasions when it is required.
There are other factors which causes
helplessness in organizations. When a person faced very
difficult or impossible goals,they fail to find meaningful
relationship between their actions and desired results
(Stedry and Kay, 1966) . Employees and executives who are
held accountable for results produced by otherE;, or given
formal roles without commensurate resources and authority,
perceived a sense of powerlessness at their job (Kanter,
1983). Organizational rewards which are perceived to be
27
independent of efforts (Kerr, 1975) may be expected to
increase the sense of helplessness among employees. Conger
and Kanoongo (1988) stated that jobs providing very little
challenges and meaning or involving role ambiguity, role
conflict and role overload are related to powerlessness.
Factors which induced uncertainty in the
organizational environment have been suggested as possible
causes of helplessness. Toffler (1970) has stated that
rapidly changes in environment may give rise to helplessness
among workers.
Financial emergencies, significant
technological changes and mergers can induce significant
alterations in organizational structure, strategies and
tactics. These changes causes uncertainty in laiqe segments
within the organizations (Cogner and Kanungo, 1988).
Unpredictable work environment were also observed to be
related to "burnout" among health service professionals
(Cherniss, 1980).
LEARNED HELPLESSNESS AND ITS RELATED CONSTRUCTS
LOCUS OF CONTROL
Locus of control refers to the general
expectation that people hold about the major cause of events
28
and results. The causes could either be their own beliaviour
or qualities (internal control) or could be fate, chance and
other powerful people (external control). Most of the
researchers has used I-E scale (1966) to measure the internal
and external locus of control as bipolar states on a
continuum. Contrary to common belief, the scale was not
designed to measure the general conception of locus of
control (Lefcourt, 1981). The original aim was to assess the
expectancies about own control with regard to different goals
such as achievement, social recognition and affect ioii. Locus
of control has been treated as a trait, where persons with
high control are said to be potent and assertive, while the
external are held as helpless and incompetent (Cohen et al.,
1976).
However, some researchers have also indicated
the existence of multiple locus of control as against the
simple undimensional model proposed by Rotter
( eg. Collins, 1974).
Like learned helplessness, locus of control is
also a personality construct related to believes held by
people about desired outcomes. Unli)ce LH, which focuses on
the cognitive states where outcomes are perceived to be
independent of response, locus of control makes individuals
to identify causes of events around them. While causal
29
attributions made for perception of LH indicates causes which
interfere with responses made to achieve desired outcomes.
And locus of control merely indicates what the person
believes is the cause of outcome in general. Locus of control
which refers to an expectancy about events in general appears
to have poor predictive capacity, while LH uses an
attributional model to make elaborate predictions about
chronicity and cross-situational generalization of
maladaptive behaviour.
LEARNED RESOURCEFULNESS (LR)
Theoretical conceptualization suggested that
self control skills are learned; individual with different
learning histories are expected to show substantial
differences in self control (Rosenbaum, 1980). LR refers to
"an acquired repertoire of behaviour and skills (mostly
cognitive) by which a person self-regulates internal
responses such as emotions, cognitions and pain) that
interfere with smooth execution of desired behaviour
" (Rosenbaum and Ben Ari, 1985) . The construct proposes that
LR is triggered by a situation where well established
responses fail to produce expected outcomes. Following the
experience of uncontrollability, a person who had low LR
showed significantly higher performance deficits with
30
similar controllable tasks than those persons who had high LR
(Rosenbaum and Jaffe, 1983). Hence, persons with strong
self-control skills or high LR are likely to show low
personal helplessness.
Like LH, learned resourcefulness is also a
hypothetical construct which seeks to explain differences in
behaviour when action fails to produces desired results.
Although both these constructs reflects a stable disposition
held by individuals. LH has been identified as a cognitive
state while LR has been conceived as a set of cognitive and
behavioural skills. LR construct does not explain variations
in maladaptive behaviour such as chronicity and cross-
situational generalization, Which learned helplessness does.
SELF EFFICACY
According to Bandura (1977), " self- efficacy
is a belief in one's capability for performance of a specific
task. "Bandura's self efficacy theory of effects of control
is compatible with Minimax-hypothesis. Personal control
gives a sense of self efficacy (perceived ability) to the
individual for tackling an aversive event. This results in
reduction of their level of anxiety and arousal.
Biggs and Tofler (1981) suggested that the
expectancy about the outcomes sets the general context (to
31
respond or not respond), but actual involvement with the task
and persistence revolves around perception of sell-efficacy.
Self efficacy like LH is a hypothetical
construct about expectations that a person holds about the
ability of their actions to produce desired outcomes. The
primary difference is that, self-efficacy is posited with
respect to a specific situation while LH refers to a more
generalized trait carried by people. Hence, self-efficacy
does not reflect a stable disposition, and precludes its use
as a means of predicting behaviour in other situations or in
future.
CHAPTER - I I
METHODOLOGY
32
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The present research aimed at studying the
learned helplessness (LH) in a public sector undertaking. Its
relevence lay in the present scenario in the public sectors
which reveals widespread symptoms of learned helplessness
like indifference, lack of initiative in problem solving,
inaction while facing unpleasant conditions, etc.
There is widespread cynicism in the public
sector at all levels in the hierarchy. Employees behave as if
they have given up all hopes. The malady is more rampant in
the executives managers of public sector
undertakings. Executives are frequently seen expressing their
helplessness in dealing with the subordinates and superiors
alike. On enforcing discipline and punctuality, a common but
exasperated response is " What can I do?" or for that matter,
"What can anybody do?" Interference of trade unions is often
cited as one reason for their belief in futility of making
any effort. In the past, some attempts have been made to
explain such maladaptive behaviour using the learned
helplessness concept( Martinko and Gardner, 1982).
33
The aim of a scientific endeavor like the
present one is to ascertain facts and analyze them in an
objective manner, to work out a neat design,
systematically analyze the data and present the data in
the light of whatever parallel findings are available
(McGuigan, 1969; McNemar, 1962; Edward, 1956; and Siegal
and Castella, 1989).
Subscribing to these requirements of
scientific study, the present research is directed to
explore learned helplessness among the executives of a
public sector undertaking. It also proposes to
determine the relationship of learned helplessness with
several demographic variables.
SAMPLE ;
The size of the sample plays a
significant role in the statistical analysis of the data
and in the generalizability of results. There is no
clear rule regarding the appropriate size of the sample
for a particular analysis." It has been proposed that the
sample for stable results are directly proportional to
the number of variables involved. Thorndike (1979)
proposed a rule or informal guide that "there should be
34
ten respondent for each variable plus fifty respondents".
And as per this guide or rule we should have 11*10+50 -
160 respondents. Keeping this in view and availability
of the data the study was conducted on 172 executives of
different hierarchal posts working in BHARAT HEAVY
ELECTRICALS Ltd. Bhopal unit, a public sector
undertaking. After scrutiny of filled data 07 were
rejected because of various reasons like incomplete
information, wrong entry etc. The remaining 16'S cases
were used in this study. The respondents were broadly
divided into four groups on the basis of their position
in the organization.
1 . EXECUTIVE-I OR EXl (DGM/DGM/AGM) 35
2 . EXECUTIVES-II OR EX2 ( SENIOR MANAGER) 4 0
3 . EXECUTIVES- I I I OR EX3 ( MANAGERS) 4 5
4 . EXECUTIVES-IV OR EX4 (DY. MANAGERS) 4 5
TOTAL EXECUTIVES = 165
A l l t h e r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e h a v i n g
e n g i n e e r i n g b a c k g r o u n d i n t h e fo rm of d e g r e e and
d i p l o m a s . Some had management b a c k g r o u n d .
PROCEDURE ;
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (Bhopal unit)
35
executives were selected as a sample keeping in mind the
availability of the data, cost and distance for data
Collection. BHEL has eleven units including one
administrative unit. This organization runs in three
shifts. And most of the executive cadre are coming in
the first shift from 7.00 am to 4.00 pm. Keeping in mind
the maximum availability of respondents first shift
executives were chosen for data collection. While in
other shifts very few executive were available because
at that very time most of the units are controlled by
senior supervisors, and in case of emergency senior
officers move in to handle the problem. The data were
collected using the survey method. Each respondent was
personally contacted by the investigator and data was
collected through questionnaire. Executives of all the
eleven units were included in the sample. I'hey were
assured of confidentiality of their responses.
TOOL USED
The study was performed through a
questionnaire " A psychometric measure of learned
helplessness" developed by Pestonjee and Reddy (1988).
This scale is based on the attributional model of
learned helplessness, developed by Abramson et
al(1978,80). Three sets of attributional dimension have
36
been developed (a)Internal-External (b) Stable- Unstable
and (c) Global-Specific.
a) INTERNAL-EXTERNAL : Individuals tend to attribute
outcomes to internal factor, when they believe that
outcomes are more likely or less likely to happen to
themselves, than to relevant others.
Conversely when they believe that outcomes as
likely to happen themselves as to relevant others, they
are making extra attributions.
b) STABLE-UNSTABLE : Stable attributions are the
ones when the state of helplessness is likely to persist
for an individual over a period of time under similar
condition or situations. Unstable attributions, on the
other hand, may result in a state of helplessness for a
shorter period.
c) GLOBAL-SPECIFIC : Global factors are ones that can
cause helplessness generally in a wide variety of
situations and tasks. And specific factors causes
helplessness in a particular specific situation.
These three attributions combined
37
together give eight different attributions of learned
helplessness. These are as follows.
1. INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LHl)
2. INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH2)
3. INTERNAL-GLOBAL-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH3)
4. EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH4)
5. INTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH5)
6. EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH6)
7. EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH7)
8. EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH8)
The learned helplessness scale has 24
statements. The statements are non-uniformly distributed
into eight groups (factors) of attributions discussed
above. A six point rating scale is used ranging from
"strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". The respondents
strongly agreeing with the statement will get a rating
of one and strongly disagree will get six. The ratings
have reverse meaning, higher the score lower the learned
helplessness. The scale has reliability and validity
within acceptable norms.
The following are the brief statements of the eight
different types of learned helplessness of the scale
used.
38
1. INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LHl) : There
are six statements in the scale for measuring this type
of helplessness. Here an individual experiencing this
helplessness attributes it to himself, in a specific
situation and is likely to last long, eg. specialization
and expertise.
2. INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE (LH2): Same as Internal-
specific-stable, but it is not likely to last long, eg.
poor effort. There are four statements in this scale for
this category of helplessness.
3. INTERNAL-GLOBAL-STABLE (LH3): Here too the individual
attributes his learned helplessness to internal factors.
They are general in nature and are likely to last long,
eg. lack of aptitude. There are only two statements, of
which, for one the score is to be reversed.
4. EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE (LH4): There are three
statements and all of them are related to undesirable
elements in the culture of one's organization and his
inability to do anything about them.
39
5. INTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE (LH5): There are three
statements in this category of helplessness which are
internal but temporary and global, eg. current health.
6. EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-SPECIFIC (LH6): Learned helplessness
due to factors, external to individuals, universal and
permanent, eg. destiny. There are two statements in this
category for which rating of one will be reversed.
7. EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE (LH7): There are two
statements and ratings for both are to be reversed. This
helplessness is due to external factors only, but very
specific and stable in nature.
8. EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE (LH8) : Learned helplessness
due to external factors only, but global and unstable.
These are related to effort expanded and the results
obtained by people in general. The number of statements
are two and rating for both are to be reversed.
STATISTICAL ANALYSES ;
The data were analyzed with the help of
SPSS and SYSTAT software packages on personal computer.
40
The mean, median, standard deviation,
correlation, significance of difference between means
were calculated.
The whole data were divided into high
and low groups of executives considering Learned
Helplessness, Age, Present Experience, and Total
Experience using median, i.e. High LH group. Low LH
group, High Age group. Low Age group. High Present
Experience group. Low Present Experience group. High
Total Experience group. Low Total Experience group.
Analysis were done for different sub groups like
Executives groupl(Exl), Executives group2(Ex2), Executives
groups3 (Ex3), and Executives group4 (Ex4).
CHAPTER - I I I
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
41
The present research was an exploratory research which was
mainly directed to explore the learned helplessness (LH) ,
among the various hierarchies of executives of public sector
undertaking. Further it was also attempted to find out the
relationship of LH with some of the important demographic
variables. The sample has been categorised as Exl comprising
of GM, DGM, AGM, Ex2 comprising of Senior Managers, Ex3
comprising of Managers, and Ex4 comprising of Dy. Managers,
respectively from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) ,
Bhopal unit.
The four groups differ in terms of power,
position and resposibilities on their jobs in the
organizations. The data obtained were statistically analyzed
for all the eight dimensions of learned helplessness
seperately for the comparison groups and also on the total
learned helplessness of each group. The results have been
shown in the following Tables with their discussions.
between the means of two groups may be interpreted in terms
of their positions, responsibilities and status. However, on
LHl the two arouDS differed .q i an i f i rrint-1 v .qhowino mnr-f^
42
TABLE - 1 MEAN SCORES OF EXl, EX2, EX3 AND EX4
LHl
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5 LH6
LH7
LH8
LHT
AGE
PR.
EXl (N-35)
EXPR.
T. EXPR.
MEAN
19.82
14.08
08.54
09.00
09.40 05.34
08.74
08.48
83.42
48.65
04.02
26.25
EX2 (N-40)
MEAN
22.45
12.80
08.20
07.65
09.40 07.15
09.02
09.05
85.72
48.22
03.20
25.45
EX3 (N-45)
MEAN
20.48
14 .73
08.20
06.80
10.82 06.75
09.24
08.91
85.95
41.53
06.71
19.15
EX4 (N-45)
MEAN
14 .17
14.55
06.51
07.24
09.57 06.93
08.13
08.15
75.28
3 9.53
04 .51
16.84
The Table-1 shows the mean scores of Exl, Ex2,
Ex3, and Ex4 on all the eight dimensions of learned
helplessness, total learned helplessness and demographic
variables, to have a general look about the trend of the
results in all the four comparison groups. It appears from
the mean scores that Ex4 had shown higher deqree of learned
helplessness, followed by Exl. The Ex2 and Ex3 had shown
almost similar trend and lesser degree of lielplessness in
comparison to Exl and Ex4.
43
TABLE
MEAN, S.D. AND t-VALUE FOR EXl AND EX2
LH FACTORS EXl (N-35)
MEAN S.D.
EX2 (N-40)
MEAN S.D. t-VALUE
LHl
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5
LH6
LH7
LH8
LHT
19.82
14.08
08.54
09.00
09.40
05.34
08.74
08.48
83.42
03.59
03.07
01.60
02.26
01.69
01.51
01.74
01.20
06.06
22.45
12.80
08.20
07.65
09.40
07.15
09.02
09.05
85.72
03 .64
02.06
01.58
02.49
02 .14
01.78
01.50
01.30
04 .79
03.16*
02.13
00.94
02.50**
00.00
05.02*
00.77
01.58
01.81
* - Significant at .01 level of significance **- Significant at .05 level of significance
As shown in the Table-2, the Exl and Ex2
groups do not differ significantly on total learned
helplessness, but the difference between the means of two
groups have been found significant on LHl, LH4 AND LH6. On
the remaining five dimensions the difference between the two
groups were found to be insignificant. This difference
between the means of two groups may be interpreted in terms
of their positions, responsibilities and status. However, on
LHl the two groups differed significantly showing more
feeling of helplessness in Ex2, which indicates lack of
44
specialization and expertise in specific situations -
iitunediate decision makings and implementations. On LH4,
the two groups diffrered significantly. The mean score
of Exl is higher showing low degree of helplessness as
compared to Ex2, which may be due to the presence of
undesireable things in the organization - lack of autonomy,
communication and feedback. The comparison of means on LH6
dimension showed that there was significant difference
between Exl and Ex2. Since this factor of LH is related to
external-global factor like luck, chance and destiny, looking
dominant in Exl, because most of the decisions in public
sectors are taken at the govt, level so the top officials
have to implement the decisions in their organizations, which
is being imposed on them. As a result of this kind of
frequent experience might develop the attribution of
external-global factor. Therefore, this group showed more
helplessness in comparison to others. The results obtained on
factors LHl, LH4, and LH6 are supported directly or
indirectly with the findings of early researchers (Hiroto,
1974; Martinko and Gardner, 1982).
45
TABLE
MEAN, S.D., AND t-VALUE FOR EXl AND EX3
LH FACTORS EXl (N-35) EX3 (N-45)
LHl
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5
LH6
LH7
LH8
LHT
MEAN
19.82
14.08
08.54
09.00
09 .40
05.34
08.74
08.48
83 .42
S.D.
03.59
03.07
01.60
01.69
01.69
01.51
01.74
01.20
06.06
MEAN
20.48
14.73
08.20
06.80
10.82
06.75
09.24
08.91
85.95
S.D.
04 .01
02 .74
01.40
01.74
01.46
01.49
01.28
01.37
04.76
t - VALUE
00.78
01.00
01.36
04.88*
04.05*
04.27*
01.47
01.53
02.40*
As shown in Table-3, the two groups differed
significantly on LH4, LH5, LH6, and also on total LH. The two
groups differed significantly on LHT, the mean score of both
the groups had shown that the Exl group suffered with high
degree of helplessness as compared to their junior
counterparts. The helplessness of Exl group can be attributed
so many factors like their power, position, responsibility,
status, govt, policies etc., because they are the top
officials of the organization and are responsible for every
mishap or activity in the organization. The two groups also
differed on LH4 dimension, and Ex3 are found to be more
46
suffered, this can be attributed to lack of autonomy,
communication and feedback, which may be prevelent in the
organization.
On LH5 dimension, the two group also differed
significantly, and the mean score of the two group showed
higher level of helplessness in Exl, this can be attributed
to current health, which is internal-global and unstable in
nature. At the same time their average age is highest among
the groups and age deteriorate the health as well as
performance in other terms. On LH6 dimensions, the two groups
differed significantly, and Exl group had shown low mean
score as compared to their counterparts. This trend of result
is almost same for Exl as discussed in Table-2.
TABLE - 4
MEAN, S.D. AND t - VALUE FOR EXl AND EX4
LH FACTORS EXl (N-35)
MEAN S.D.
EX4 (N-45)
MEAN S.D. t-VALUE
LHl
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5
LH6
LH7
LH8
LHT
19.82
14.08
08.54
09.00
09.40
05.34
08.74
08.48
83.42
03.59
03.07
01.60
02.26
01.69
01.51
01.74
.01.20
06.06
14.17
14.55
06.51
07.24
09.57
06.93
08.13
08.15
75.28
02.20
01 .80
01.37
01.50
01.90
01 . 14
01 . 14
01.21
04 .64
08.43*
00.82
06.51*
04.09*
00.42
05.48*
01.90
00.99
06.61*
47
It is evident from Table-4, that Exl and Ex4
were found to differ significantly, on LHl, LH3, LH4, LH6,
and LHT. The feeling of helplessness is higher in Ex4 than
Exl. The presence of higher LH may be attributed to lack of
specialization and expertise, (LHl), lack of aptitude (LH3) ,
undesireable things in the environment like lack of autonomy,
feedback and communication (LH4), are the prominent cause of
helplessness feeling. On the total LH the significance of
difference between the means of the two groups clearly
indicates that the higher degree of LH in Ex4 than Exl. It is
obvious from the trend of the results discussed that nature
of the work, autonomy in the decision making exercise of
powers, emerges as causative factors to develop a greater
degree of helplessness in Ex4 as compared to Exl.
TABLE - 5
MEAN, S.D. AND t- VALUE FOR EX2 AND EX3
LH FACTORS EX2 (N-40)
MEAN S.D.
EX3 (N-45)
MEAN S.D. VALUE
LHl
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5
LH6
LH7
LH8
LHT
22 .45
12 .80
08.20
07.65
09.40
07.15
09.02
09.05
85.72
03.64
02 .06
01.58
02.49
02 .14
01.78
01.50
01.30
04.79
20.48
14 . 73
08.20
06.80
10.82
06.75
09.24
08.91
85.95
04,
02
01
01,
01
01
01 ,
01,
04 ,
.01
.74
,04
.74
.46
.49
.28
. 37
.76
02.40^*
03 .78*
00.00
02.42**
03.64*
01.17
00.68
00.50
00.22
48
As shown in. Table-5, the significance of
difference between the means of Ex2 and Ex3 were found
significant only on LHl, LH2, LH4, and LH5. The significance
of difference could not be obtained on other dimensions of
learned helplessness including total learned helplessness. It
is seen from the mean score of Ex3, on LHl is lower indicates
high helplessness because of lack of expertise and
specialization. While on LH2, the Ex2 showed higher degree of
helplessness can be attributed to poor efforts. And this poor
effort is because of the absence of incentives in the form of
promotion or identification with the job. On LH4 dimension
the Ex3 showed higher helplessness as compared to their
counterparts, because of the presence of undesireable things
in the environment. While on LH5 dimension the Ex2 showed
high degree of helplessness can be attributed to their poor
health or any other internal but temporary problems.
49
TABLE - 6
MEAN, S.D. AND t VALUE FOR EX2 AND EX4
LH FACTORS EX2 {N-40) EX4 (N-45)
LHl
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5
LH6
LH7
LH8
LHT
MEAN
22.45
12 .80
08.20
07.65
09.40
07 .15
09.02
09.05
85.72
S.D.
03.64
02.06
01.58
02.49
02.14
01.78
01.50
01.30
04.79
MEAN
14.17
14.55
06.51
07.24
09 .57
06 .93
08.13
08 .15
75 .28
S.D.
02 .20
01.80
01. 37
01.50
01 . 90
01 . 14
01 . 14
01.21
04 .64
t - VALUE
12.45*
04.26
05.45*
00.93
00.39
00.70
03.17*
03.60*
10.23*
As shown in the Table-6, the comparison of
means between the two groups viz, Ex2 and Ex4 clearly showed
that the two groups are found to be different significantly
on LHl, LH2, LH3, LH7, LH8 and LHT. As regards the LHl
dimension, the Ex4 groups had shown higher helplessness and
differed significantly on LHl dimension as compared to to
their counterparts, because of lack of specialization and
expertise with the present job. As for as LH2 dimension is
concerned, Ex4 group showed less helplessness mainly due to
their making of more effort on the job as compared to their
counterparts. This Ex4 group has a lot of expectation in the
50
job hierarchy, promotional avenues in the form of rewards and
incentives, therefore, they make more effort on their own
with the present job. As a result they have lesser degree of
helplessness than the comparison group on LH2. Since these
two groups also differed significantly on LH3, which shows
higher LH in Ex4, may be caused by lack of aptitude on the
present job. The mean score on LH7 and LH8 had shown the
higher degree of helplessness in Ex4 as compared to Ex2. On
LH7 the Ex4 group showed higher helplessness and both the
group differed significantly, because this factor is external
and the reason may be attributed to family problems, social
relations and organizational support. This kind of tendency
may be influencing more to the Ex4 because they are beginners
in to act in the managerial capacity as compared to Ex2. On
LH4 the Ex4 group is also found to differ significantly and
showed higher degree of helplessness, this helplessness can
be attributed to lack of rewrds for special efforts. On total
LH dimension also both the groups differed significantly and
mean score of the two groups revealed that the Ex4 group
suffered with high feeling of LH as compared to their
counterparts. And the difference and causes are same as
discussed earlier.
51
TABLE - 7
MEAN, S.D. AND t- VALUE FOR EX3 AND EX4
LH FACTORS EXl (N-35) EX3 (N-45)
LHl
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5
LH6
LH7
LH8
LHT
MEAN
20.48
14.73
08.20
06.80
10.82
06.75
09.24
08.91
85.95
S.D.
04.01
02 .74
01.04
01.74
01.46
01.49
01.28
01.37
04.76
MEAN
14.17
14.55
06.51
07.24
09.57
06.93
08.13
08.15
75.28
S.D.
02 .20
01.80
01.37
01 . 50
01.90
01.14
01.14
01.21
04 .64
t - VALUE
09.41*
00.37
07.34*
01.33
03.72*
00.69
04.62*
02.92*
10.88*
It is apparent from Table-7, that the
difference between the Ex3 and Ex4 differed significantly on
LHl, LH3, LH5, LH7, LH8 and on LHT. The trend of the result
is almost similar on LHl, LH3, LH7, LH8 and LHT. As far as
LH5 is concerned this Ex4 group also showed higher degree of
higher helplessness as compared to their counterparts, though
this factor is attributed with health, but here some other
internal- specific problem is operating may be lack of
adjustment or other psychosomatic problems.
52
TABLE
MEAN, S.D. AND t - VALUE FOR HIGH LH AND LOW LH GROUP
LH FACTORS HIGH LH GROUP (N-85) LOW LH GROUP (N-80)
LHl
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5
LH6
LH7
LH8
LHT
MEAN
18.00
14.15
07.58
06.97
10.00
06.45
08.75
08.58
80.51
S.D.
04.02
02.85
01.66
02.02
02.02
01.40
01.51
01.38
03.21
MEAN
21.67
15.01
08.05
08.28
10.50
06.77
09.22
09.20
88.72
S.D.
03 .43
02.91
01.53
02 .12
01.86
01.85
01.20
01.19
03 .06
t-VALUE
06.23
01.95
01.96
04.22*
01.78
01.28
02.47**
03 .26*
17.10*
As shown in Table-8, the the two groups
differed significantly on LHl, LH4, LH7, LH8 and LHT. The LHl
is related to specilization and expertise, the mean LH score
is very low in high learned helplessness group as compared to
low learned helplessness group. It revealed that the high
learned helplessness have been found lackness in
specialization and expertise in specific situation which
emerged as a factor contributing helplessness in executives.
The high learned helplessness group also showed significant
difference on LH4 which may be attributed to undesireable
elements in the organization. The high learned helplessness
group was also found significantly different on LH7 chat is
53
related with very specific internal-situation may be family
problems as compared to low learned helplessness group. With
regard to LH8, the two groups differed significantly, this
LH8 factor is related to efforts and rewards. The high
learned helplessness group was found much helpless as
compared to low learned helplessness group. This factor of LH
signifies that the high learned helplessness group have shown
high degree of helplessness due to lack of effort and reward
in the organization. On the LHT the two groups differed
significantly. Now it is apparent from the mean values as
shown in Table-8, the four factors i.e. LHl, LH4, LH7 and LH8
have emerged as a sources of feeling of learned helplessness
among the executives.
TABLE - 9
MEAN, S.D. AND t VALUE FOR HIGH AND LOW AGE GROUP
LH FACTORS HIGH
LHl
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5
LH6
LH7
LH8
LHT
MEAN
20.05
14.21
08.04
08.05
10.03
06.37
09.06
08.81
84.65
AGE GROUP(N-
S.D.
04.38
02.71
01.63
02 .35
01.93
01.77
01.49
01.35
05.34
•94) LOW
MEAN
19.32
15.01
07 .50
07 .01
10 .54
06.88
08.87
08.98
84.15
AGE GROUP(N-71)
S .D.
03 .78
03 . 11
01.56
01.76
01 .96
01.38
01.25
01.30
04.68
t-VALUE
01.15
01.77
02.34*
03.46*
01.70
02 .12**
00.90
00.85
00.64
54
As shown in Table-9, the two groups differed
significantly on LH3, LH4 and LH6. The low age group showed
the higher degree of helplessness as compared to the high age
group.. This result is contradictory to the finding of Lata
and Dhar (1989), that higher age group suffered with higher
helplessness. The difference between the two groups on LH3,
LH4 and LH6 can be attributed to lack of aptitude,
undesireable things in the organization, and some external-
universal permanent factors like chance and destiny has the
sources of helplessness as compared to high age group.
However, the two groups did not differ significantly on total
learned helplessness.
TABLE - 10
MEAN, S.D. AND t- VALUE FOR THE HIGH PRESENT EXPERIENCE AND LOW PRESENT EXPERIENCE GROUP
LH FACTORS HIGH PR. EXP. GRP.(N-72) LOW PR. EXP. GRP.(N-93)
MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. t-VALUE
LHl
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5
LH6
LH7
LH8
LHT
19
14
07
07
10
06.
08,
09
83,
.29
.48
.70
.59
.63
.34
.77
.04
.83
03,
03,
01
02,
01,
01.
01.
01.
10.
.85
.00
.66
.21
.71
.55
,51
.32
.79
20.
14.
07.
07,
09,
06.
09.
08.
84.
.16
.63
.89
.62
.93
.81
.13
.76
.96
04
02
01
02
02
01
01
01
05
.37
.84
.58
.14
.08
.67
.27
.33
.48
00 .40
0 0 . 3 2
0 0 . 7 6
0 0 . 8 0
0 2 . 4 1 ^ *
0 1 . 9 5
0 1 . 7 1
0 1 . 2 7
0 0 . 8 1
55
As shown in Table-10, the high and low present
experience group did not differ significantly on any
dimension of learned helplessness except LH5 . The Lh5 factor
is related to current health or may be any other personal
problem found to be a cause of helplessness in low present
experience group. The two groups did not differ significantly
on total learned helplessness.
TABLE - 11
MEAN, S.D. AND t- VALUE FOR HIGH TOTAL EXPERIENCE AND LOW TOTAL EXPERIENCE GROUP
LH FACTORS HIGH TOT. EXP.GRP.(N-94) LOW TOT. EXP. GRP.(N- 71)
MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. t-VALUE
L H l
LH2
LH3
LH4
LH5
LH6
LH7
LH8
LHT
1 9 . 8 9
1 4 . 2 5
0 7 . 9 4
0 8 . 0 9
0 9 . 9 8
0 6 . 3 5
0 9 . 0 5
0 8 . 7 8
8 4 . 3 7
0 4 . 3 2
0 2 . 7 9
0 1 . 6 7
0 2 . 2 7
0 1 . 9 5
0 1 . 7 4
0 1 . 4 6
0 1 . 3 0
0 5 . 3 8
1 9 . 6 3
1 4 . 9 8
0 7 . 6 3
0 6 . 9 7
1 0 . 5 7
0 6 . 9 5
0 8 . 8 8
0 9 . 0 1
8 4 . 6 6
03 . 9 6
03 . 0 2
0 1 . 5 3
01 . 8 6
0 1 . 9 1
0 1 . 4 1
0 1 . 2 8
0 1 . 3 5
0 4 . 8 6
0 0 . 4 0
0 1 . 6 2
0 1 . 2 9
0 3 . 6 U
0 1 . 9 6
0 2 . 5 0
0 0 . 8 5
0 1 . 1 5
0 1 . 1 5
As shown in Table-11, high and low total
experience groups also did not found to differ significantly
on any learned helplessness dimension other than LH4. The
56
mean score on LH4 is low in low total experience group
indicates that the feeling of learned helplessness may be
caused by undesireable things in the organization. These two
groups also did not differ significantly on total learned
helplessness. It appears from the trend of the result taht LH
may be attributed to environmental factor rather than
experience on the job.
TABLE-12
TABLE SHOWING r - VALUE OF LH WITH AGE, PRESENT EXPERIENCE
AND TOTAL EXPERIENCE
AGE PRESENT EXPERIENCE TOTAL EXPERIENCE
LHT .094 -.056 .092
As shown in Table-12, LH was found low
positively correlated with the age, though the value is
insignificant but the trend of the data showed that LH is
to some extend found to be related with age. Infact in one of
the studies carried out by Lata and Dhar (1989) reported
positive correlation with age. The finding obtained is
supporting the finding of Lata and Dhar (1989) . It is also
found that the LH is inversely related with the present
experience of executives on the job. The inverse correlation
reveals that only present experience on the job is not
influencing to develop the feeling of learned helplessness in
the executives. However, Lh was found low positively related
57
with total experience indicates that the total experience on
the job have some influence on the development of feeling of
helplessness in the executives of public sector undertaking.
Though the sample size of the present study is
small, if we take the sample of other category of employees
from the same organization keeping in view only the factor of
age and total experience on learned helplessness, we may
obtain positive correlation of learned helplessness with age
and total experience in public sector undertaking. Attempt to
be made in future to include other categories of employees to
make the findings of the present research more authentic and
generalized.
It appeared from the trend of the results
that the executives of this Public Sector Undertaking did not
show the higher degree of feeling of helplessness in general
but they had shown some degree of the feeling of learned
helplessness on factors like LHl (internal-specific-stable),
LH2 (internal-specific-unstable), LH4 (external-specific-
unstable) and LH6 (external-global-stable). On the other
remaining dimension of learned helplessness all the
executives had shown very lesser degree of learned
helplessness.
The present researcher was in great difficulty
to compare their findings with the findings of other
researchers in this area due to non-availability of research
findings.
58
According to the finding of the present
study the learned helplessness may be primarily due to
external attributions like undesirable things in the
organizations, strong believe in destiny etc. but, also on
some internal attribution like lack of specialization,
expertise and poor efforts in specific situations.
The learned helplessness may be lead to
performance deficits in the organizations. It can be
controlled by the management using some intervention
strategies.
The management should follow up a learned
helplessness measurement programme for its executives when
some changes takes place in the organization. The new comers
in the organization should be properly guided and given
assignment where they are likely to succeed. The management
should make aware to its executives that their failure on job
may be due to some specific internal and or external factors,
which might develop the feeling of helplessness, so specific
causes to be spelt out on some important occassions. There is
need to bring change in executives perception of
uncontrollability of outcomes, they should be given
encouragement, verbal feedback, and social persuation by the
management. The executives should be provided pre-treatment
strategies that may reduce the susceptibility of learned
59
helplessness. Lastly, through the principle of modelling
executives can unlearn organizationally induced helplessness
by seeing the model of success. This method of modelling
should encourage the management to develop some programme to
make successful executives more visible or rewards success
through social recognition.
The future research in this area requires an
extensive investigation using all categories of employees and
relate this concept with performance of employee at all
levels in the organizations.
REFERENCES
60
A l l o y , L . B . ; Seligman,M. gene ra l i ty -Personality
E . P o f
and
Abramson,L.Y.; Garber,J. and Seligman.M.E.P. (1980) : Learned helplessness in humans: An attributional analysis. In J.Garber and M.E.P. Seligman (Eds) Human Helplessness: Theory and Applications, New York: Academic Press.
Abramson,L.Y.; Seligman,M.E.P. and Teasdale.J. (1978) : Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of OG of Abnormal Psychology, Vol -87, Pg. 49-74.
Alloy.L.B.(1982) : The role of perceptions and attributions for response-outcome noncontingency in learned helplessness: A commentary and discussion. Journal of Personality, Vol -50 (4) Pg. 443-479.
Peterson, C. ; Abramson,L.Y. and (1984) : Attribution style and
learned helplessness. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol-46(3), Pg. 681-687
Anderson,C.A. (1983) : Motivational and performance deficits in interpersonal settings : The effect of attribution style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -45, Pg. 1136-1141.
Argyris,C. (1957) Personality and Organization. New York : Harper and Row.
Averill,J.R. and Rosenn,M. (1972) : Vigilant and nonvigilant coping strategies and Psychophysiological stress reaction during the anticipation of electric shock. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -23, Pg. 128-141.
Bainbridge,P.L. (1973) : Learning in the rat: Effect of early experience with an unsolvable problem. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol - 82, Pg. 301-307.
Balakrishnan,S. (1990) : A study of learned helplessness in organizations. Doctoral Dissertation, IIM, Ahmedabad.
Bandura,A. (1977) : Self Efficacy : Towards a unifying theory of behavioural changes. Psychological Review, Vol -84, Pg. 191-215.
Baucom,D.J.and Danker-Brown,P. :Influence of sex roles on the development of learned helplessness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol -47, Pg. 928-936.
61
Benson,J.S. and Kenelly,K.J. (1976) : Learned helplessness : The result of uncontrollable
reinforcement or uncontrollable aversive stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -34, Pg. 138-145.
Blauner,R. (1964) : Alienation and freedom. The factory worker and his industry. Chicago : Chicago University Press.
Brand,W.; Weppman,B. and Ruso,D. (1969) : Task and species generality of the helplessness phenomenon. Psychonomic Science, Vol - 16, Pg. 154-155.
Brown,J.D. and Siegal,J.M. (1988) : Attribution of negative life courts and depression. The use of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -54, Pg. 316-322.
Burglas,S. and Jones,E.E.(1978) : Drug choice as an internalization strategy in response to noncontingent success.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -36, Pg. 405-417.
Burn,S.M. (1992) : Loss of control, attributions and helplessness in the homeless. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol -22(15), Pg. 1161-1174.
Chawla,A.K. (1994) : Learned helplessness in the Banking sector : Interaction of individual and role characteristics. FPM Dissertation, IIM, Ahmedabad.
Cherniss,C. (1980) Staff Burnout. Benerly Hills : Sage.
Cohen,S.; Rothbart,M. and Phillip,S. (197 6) : Locus of control and generality of learned helplessness in humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -34, Pg. 1049-1056.
Collins,B.E. (1974) : Four component of Rotter's Internal-External Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -29, Pg. 381-391.
Conger, J. A. and Kanoongo, R.N. (1988) -. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, Vol -13, Pg. 471-482.
Corah,N.L. and Boffa,J. (1970) : Perceived control, self observation and response to aversive stimulation.
62
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -16, Pg. 1-4.
Desiderate,0. and Newman, A. (1971) : Conditional Suppression produced in rats by tones paired with escapable or inescapable shock. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol -77, Pg. 427-443.
Dweck,C.S. and Repucci,N.D. (1973) -. Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -25, Pg. 109-116.
Edwards,A.L. (1956) Statistical analysis for students in Psychology and Education. New York : Rinehart & Co. Inc.
Elliot,R. (1969) : Tonic heart rate : Experiments on the effects of collative variable lead to an hypothesis about its motivational significance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -12, Pg.211-228
Enberg,L.A.; Hansen,G.; Welker,R.L. and Thomas,D.R. (1973) : Acquisition of key pecking via autoshaping as a function prior experience : Learned laziness. Science, Vol -178, Pg.1002-1004.
Fosco,F. and Geer,J.H. (1971) : Effect of gaining control over aversive stimuli after differing amounts of no control. Psychological Reports, Vol - 29, Pg. 1153-1154.
Frumkin,K. and Brookshire,K.H. (1969) : Conditioned feared training and later avoidance learning m Goldfish. Psychonomic Science, Vol -16, Pg. 159-160.
Gamzu,E.R.; Williams,D.A. and Scwartz,B. (1973) : Pitfalls of organism and concept : Learned laziness. Science, Vol -101, Pg. 367-368.
Glass,D.C. and Singer,J.E. (1972) : Urban Stress : Experiments on noise and social stressors. New York: Academic Press.
Hammen,C.L. and Krantz,S. (1976) : Effective of success and failure on depression cognitions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol -85, Pg. 577-586.
Heider,F. (1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York : Wiley.
Hiroto,D.S. (1974) : Locus of control and learned helplessness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol-102, Pg. 187-193.
63
Hiroto.D.S. and Seligman,M.E.P. (1975) : Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol - 32, Pg. 311-327.
Hokanson,J.E.; DeGood, D.E.; Forrest,M.S. and Brittain,T.M. (1971) : Availability of avoidance
behaviour in modulating vascular-stress responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -19, Pg. 60-68.
Kemler,D. and Shepp,B. (1971) : The learning and transfer of dimensional relevance and irrelevance in children. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol -90, Pg. 120-127.
Kerr.S. (1975) : On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, Vol -18, Pg. 769-783.
Klein,D.C.; Fencil-Morse,E. and Seligman,M.E.P. (1975) : Depression learned helplessness and attribution of failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, In Press.
Krantz.D.S.; Glass,D.C. and Snyder,M.L. (1974) : Helplessness, stress level and the coronary prone behaviour pattern. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, Vol -10, Pg. 2 84-300.
Lata,S.& Dhar,V. (1989): Effect of age and sex on learned helplessness. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology,vol -64 Pg. 87-90.
Lefcourt,H.M. (1981) : Locus of Control : Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale,N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaumm.
Mackintosh,N.J. (1973) : Stimulus selection : Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. In R.A. Hindle and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.)Constraints on learning. New York : Academic Press.
Maier,S.F.; Albin,R.W. and Testa,T.J.(1973) : Failure to learn to escape in rats previously exposed to inescapable shock depends on nature of escape response. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol -85, Pg. 581-592.
Martinko,M.J. and Gardner,W.L. (1982) : Learned helplessness: An alternative explanation for performance
64
deficits. Academy of Management Review, Vol -7, Pg. 195-204.
Mcfarland,C. and Ross,M. (1982) : Impact of causal attribution on effective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -48(6), Pg. 1534-1539.
McGuigan,F.J. (1959) Psychology - it methodological approach. New Delhi : Prentice Hall of India (P) Ltd.
McNemar.Q. (1962) : Psychological statistics. New York : John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Mellgren,R.L. and Ost,J.W.P. (1971) : Discriminate stimulus exposure and learning of an operant discrimination in the rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol -77, Pg.179-187.
Mikulincer,M. (1989) : Cognitive interference and learned helplessness : The effects of off-task cognitions on performance following unsolvable problems. British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol -28(1), Pg. 13-29.
Mikulincer,M. (1986) : Attribution processes in the learned helplessness paradigm : Behavioural effects of global attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 51(6), Pg. 1248-1256.
Mikulincer,M. and Nizan,B. (1988) : The relation between stable/unstable attribution and learned helplessness : British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol -27, Pg. 221-230.
Miller-III,I.W. and Norman,W.H. (1979) : Learned helplessness in humans: A review and attribution theory model. Psychological Bulletin, Vol -86 (1), Pg. 93-118.
Miller,W. and Seligman,M.E.P. (1975) : Depression in humans. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol -84, Pg. 228-238.
Overmier,J.B. and Seligman,M.E.P. (1967) : Effect of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance responding. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol - 63(1), Pg. 28-33.
Padilla,A.M. (1973) : Effect of prior and interpolated shock exposure on subsequent avoidance learning by Goldfish. Psychological Reports, Vol -32, Pg. 451-456.
Padilla,A.M.; Padilla,C.; Ketterer,T. and Giacolone.D. (1970) :Inescapable shock and subsequent avoidance
65
c o n d i t i o n i n g in Gold f i sh . Psychonomic Science, Vol - 20, Pg. 295-296.
P a s s e r , M . W . ; K e l l e y . H . H . and M i c h e l a . J . C . (1978) : M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g of t h e c a u s e s f o r n e g a t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o u r . Journal of Personal i ty and s o c i a l Psychology, Vol -36, Pg. 951-962.
P a y n e , R . ; A n d e r s o n , D . C . and M u r c u r i o , J . (1970) : Preshock- produced a l t e r a t i o n in pa in e l i c i t e d f i g h t i n g . Journal of Comparative and Phys io log ica l Psychology, Vol -71 , Pg. 258-266.
P a y n e , R . J . (1972) : A l t e r a t i o n of Sidman a v o i d a n c e b a s e l i n e s by CS p a i r e d wi th avo idab le or unavoidable shock. Psychological Reports, Vol - 3 1 , Pg. 291-294.
Pestonjee,D.M. and Reddy,P. (1988) : Development of a P s y c h o m e t r i c measure of l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s ( L H ) , Working Paper No.746, Ahmedabad : IIM.
P e t e r s o n , C . and S e l i g m a n , M . E . P . (1984) -. Causa l e x p l a n a t i o n as r i s k f a c t o r fo r dep re s s ion : Theory and P r a c t i c e . Psychological Review, Vol -91 (3 ) , Pg. 377-389.
P e t e r s o n , C . ; Semmel,A.; Von Baeye r ,C . ; Abramson,L.Y.; M e t a l a s k y , G . I . and S e l i g m a n , M . E . P . (1988) : The a t t r i b u t i o n s t y l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Cognitive Theory and Research, Vol -6 , Pg. 287-300.
P o w e l l , D . A . and C r e e r , T . L . (1969) : I n t e r a c t i o n of d e v e l o p m e n t a l and e n v i r o n m e n t a l v a r i a b l e s i n shock e l i c i t e d a g g r e s s i o n . Journal of Comparative and Phys io log ica l Psychology, Vol -69 , Pg. 219-225,
R a c i n s c a s , J . R . (1971) :Maladapt ive consequences of l e s s or l a ck of con t ro l over a v e r s i v e e v e n t s . Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Waterloo U n i v e r s i t y , Ontar io , Canada.
Rescor la ,R .A. (1967) : Pavlovian c o n d i t i o n i n g and i t s p rope r c o n t r o l p rocedure . Psychological Review, Vol -74, Pg. 71-79 .
R o d i n , J . (1975) : Ove rc rowd ing p e r c e i v e d c h o i c e and r e s p o n s e t o c o n t r o l l a b l e o u t c o m e s . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, In Press .
R o s e l l i n i , R . and S e l i g m a n , M . E . P . (1975) : Lea rned h e l p l e s s n e s s and escape from f r u s t r a t i o n . Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behaviour Processes , Vol - 1 , Pg. 149-158.
66
Rosellini,R. and Seligman,M.E.P. (1975) : Learned helplessness and escape from frustration. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol -1, Pg. 149-158.
Rosenbaum,M. (1980) : A schedule for assessing self-control behaviour : Preliminary findings. Behaviour Therapy, Vol -11, Pg. 109-121.
Rosenbaum.M. and Ben Ari,K. (1985) : Learned helplessness and learned resourcefulness : Effects of noncontingent success and failure, on individual differing in self control skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -48, Pg. 198-215.
Rosenbaum,M. and Jaffe,Y. (1983) : Learned helplessness : The role of individual differences in learned resourcefulness. British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol -22, Pg. 215-225.
Roth,S (1973) : The effect of experimentally induced expectancies of control: Facilitation of controlling behaviour or learned helplessness. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, North Western University,
Roth,S. and Bootzin,R.R. (1974) : Effects of experimentally induced expectancies of external control: An investigation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -31, Pg. 680-691.
Roth,S. and Kubal.L. (1975) : The effects of noncontingent reinforcement on tasks of differing importance : Facilitating and learned helplessness effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -32, Pg. 680-691.
Sahoo,F.M. (1991) : Learned helplessness in organizations. Management and Labour Studies, Vol -16(1), Pg. 1-11.
Sarkar,S.U. (1993) : The effects of perceived organizational climate on organizational role stress and learned helplessness of middle level executives in engineering industry. Unpblished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Gujrat, Gujrat.
Sedek.G. and Kofta,M. (1990) : When cognitive exertion does not yield cognitive gain : Toward an informational explanation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -58(4), Pg. 729-743.
Seligman,M.E.P.; Maier,S.F. and Solomon,R. (1971) : Unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events. In
67
F.R.Brush(Ed.) Aversive Conditioning and Learning, New York, Academic Press.
Seligman,M.E.P. and Groves,D. (1970) : Non-transient learned helplessness. Psychonomic Sciences, Vol -19, Pg. 91-92.
Seligman,M.E.P. and Maier,S.F. (1967) : Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol - 74 Pg. 1-9.
Seligman,M.E.P. and Beagley,G. (1975) : Learned helplessness in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol -88, Pg. 534-541.
Seligman,M.E.P. (1975) Helplessness : On Depression, development and Death. San Francisco : Freeman.
Seligman,M.E.P.; Abramson,C.Y.; Semmel,A. and Von Baeyer,C. (1979) : Depressive attribution style. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol -88, Pg. 242-247.
Seligman,M.E.P.; Rosellini,R.A. and Kozak,M. (1975) : Learned helplessness in rat : Reversibility, time course and immunization. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol -88, Pg. 542-547.
Siegal,S.C.; Castellan,Jr. and John.N. (1989) : Parametric statistics for the behavioural science (2nd eds.) McGraw Hill Publications Co.
Sines,J.0.; Cleeland,C. and Adkins,J. (1963) : The behaviour of normal and stomach lesion susceptible rats in several learning situations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, Vol -102, Pg. 91-94.
Snyder,C.R. and Higgins,R.L. (1988) : Excuses : Their effective role in the negotiation of reality. Psychological Bulletin, Vol -104(1), Pg. 23-35.
Snyder,C.R. ; Higgins,R.L. and Stucky,R.J. (1983) : Excuses : Masquerades in search of grace. New York : Willey.
Stedry,A.C. and Kay,E. (1966) : The effect of goal difficulty on performance. Behavioural Science, Vol -11, Pg. 459-470.
Thomas, D. R. ,- Freemai^ F.: ,n (. y iljricki, J. G. ; Burr, D. E. S. and Lyons, J. (1970) : Effects of'%K~fc.ra dimensional training
•t^ v\
DS-Z-O^j
68
on stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, Vol -83, Pg. 1-2.
Thomas,E. and Batler,A. (1969) : Learned helplessness: A melioration of symptoms by cholinergic blockade of the septxim. Science, In Press.
Thorndike,R.L. and Hagen,E.P. (1979) Evaluation in Psychology (4th Eds.). Eastern
Measurement and New Delhi : Wiley
Thorton,J.W. and Jacobs,P.D. (1971) helplessness in human subjects. Journal of Psychology, Vol - 87, Pg. 295-296.
: Learned Experimental
Weiner,B. attribution Press.
(1974) Achievement theory. Morristown, N.J.
motivation and General Learning
Welker,R.E. (1974) : Learned laziness: A replication and extension. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado.
APPENDIX
PARTICULARS OF THE CANDIDATES :
1. NAME OF YOUR ORGANIZATION
2. YOUR HIGHEST QUALIFICATION
3. AGE
4. SEX
5. DESIGNATION
6. EXPERIENCE IN THE PRESENT POST
7. TOTAL EXPERIENCE
8. PROMOTIONAL AVENUES
9 . INCOME
10. MARITAL STATUS
11. NUMBER OF DEPENDENT
12. FAMILY STRUCTURE
DEAR RESPONDENT : Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements by-putting appropriate number against the bracket ( ), showing your degree of agreement or disagreement with the statement given below ....
STRONGLY AGREE - 1 AGREE - 2 SLIGHTLY AGREE - 3 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE - 4 DISAGREE - 5 STRONGLY DISAGREE - 6
Your explicit response es will be very useful for this research work. Please do not conceal the facts, the responses would be treated in strict confidence and for research purpose only.
THANKS