Journal of Abnormal Psychology
1968, Vol. 73, No. 3, 256-262
ALLEVIATION OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN THE DOG1
MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN2
STEVEN F. MAIERs
Cornell University University of Pennsylvania
AND JAMES H. GEER
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Dogs given inescapable shock in a Pavlovian harness later seem to "give up"
and passively accept traumatic shock in shuttlebox escape/avoidance training.
A theoretical analysis of this phenomenon was presented. As predicted by this
analysis, the failure to escape was alleviated by repeatedly compelling the dog
to make the response which terminated shock. This maladaptive passive behavior
in the face of trauma may be related to maladaptive passive behavior
in humans. The importance of instrumental control over aversive events in the
cause, prevention, and treatment of such behaviors was discussed.
This paper discusses a procedure that produces
a striking behavior abnormality in dogs,
outlines an analysis which predicts a method
for eliminating the abnormality, and presents
data which support the prediction. When a
normal, nai've dog receives escape/avoidance
training in a shuttlebox, the following behavior
typically occurs: At the onset of electric
shock, the dog runs frantically about, defecating,
urinating, and howling, until it scrambles
over the barrier and so escapes from shock.
On the next trial, the dog, running and howling,
crosses the barrier more quickly, and so
on until efficient avoidance emerges. See
Solomon and Wynne (1953) for a detailed
description.
Overmier and Seligman (1967) have reported
the behavior of dogs which had received
inescapable shock while strapped in a
Pavlovian harness 24 hr. before shuttlebox
training. Typically, such a dog reacts initially
to shock in the shuttlebox in the same manner
as the naive dog. However, in dramatic contrast
to the nai've dog, it soon stops running
1
This research was supported by grants to R. L.
Solomon from the National Science Foundation
(GB-2428) and the National Institute of Mental
Health (MH-04202). The authors are grateful to
him for his advice in the conduct and reporting of
this experiment. The authors also thank J. P. Brady
and J. Mecklenburger for their critical readings of
the manuscript.
2
At the time this work was carried out, the first
author was a National Science Foundation predoctoral
fellow at the University of Pennsylvania.
3
National Institute of Mental Health predoctoral
fellow.
and remains silent until shock terminates. The
dog does not cross the barrier and escape
from shock. Rather, it seems to "give up"
and passively "accept" the shock. On succeeding
trials, the dog continues to fail to make
escape movements and thus takes SO sec. of
severe, pulsating shock on each trial. If the
dog makes an escape or avoidance response,
this does not reliably predict occurrence of
future responses, as it does for the normal
dog. Pretreated dogs occasionally escape or
avoid by jumping the barrier and then revert
to taking the shock. The behavior abnormality
produced by prior inescapable shock is
highly maladaptive: a nai've dog receives little
shock in shuttlebox training because it escapes
quickly and eventually avoids shock
altogether. A dog previously exposed to inescapable
shock, in contrast, may take unlimited
shock without escaping or avoiding
at all.
Aside from establishing the existence of
this interference effect, the experiments of
Overmier and Seligman (1967) and Seligman
and Maier (1967) have pointed to the variables
controlling this phenomenon. Three
hypotheses concerning the necessary conditions
under which this phenomenon occurs
have been disconfirmed, and one has been
confirmed.
Overmier and Seligman (1967) tested two
hypotheses which had been advanced to explain
similar phenomena: a competing-motorresponse
hypothesis (Carlson & Black, 1960)
and an adaptation hypothesis (MacDonald,
256
LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN THE DOG 257
1946). The competing-response hypothesis
holds that, in the harness, the dog learned
some motor response which alleviated shock.
When placed in the shuttlebox, the dog performed
this response, which was antagonistic
to barrier jumping, and thus was retarded in
its acquisition of barrier jumping. This hypothesis
was tested in the following way:
Dogs, whose skeleto-musculature was paralyzed
by curare (eliminating the possibility
of the execution of overt motor responses),
received inescapable shock in the harness.
These dogs subsequently failed to escape in
the shuttlebox. Dogs, paralyzed by curare,
but not given inescapable shock, escaped normally.
These results disconfirmed the competing-response
hypothesis. The adaptation
hypothesis holds that the dogs adapted to
shock in the harness and therefore were not
motivated enough to escape shock in the
shuttlebox. Overmier and Seligman (1967)
found that dogs failed to escape in the
shuttlebox, even when the shock intensity was
increased to a point just below which some
dogs are tetanized and thus physically prevented
from jumping the barrier. These results
are inconsistent with the adaptation
hypothesis.
Seligman and Maier (1967) presented and
tested an analysis of the phenomenon in terms
of learned independence between shock termination
and instrumental responding. Learning
theory has traditionally stressed that
two relationships between events produce
learning: explicit contiguity (acquisition)
and explicit dissociation (extinction). Seligman
and Maier (1967) suggested that organisms
are sensitive to a third relationship:
independence between events. In particular,
they proposed that, during inescapable shock
in the harness, the dogs learned that shock
termination occurred independently of their
responses. Conventional learning theory allows
that animals are sensitive to the conditional
probability of shock termination given
any specific response, and are also sensitive
to the conditional probability of shock termination
not given that response. In the
special case in which these two probabilities
are equal (independence), it is suggested that
the animal integrates these two experiences.
Thus, learning that shock termination is
independent of a response reduces to learning
that shock termination follows the response
with a given probability, that shock termination
occurs with a given probability if the
response does not occur, and that these two
probabilities do not differ. Such an integration
could be called an expectation that shock
termination is independent of responding.
Seligman and Maier (1967) further proposed
that one condition for the emission of active
responses in the presence of electric shock
is the expectation that responding leads to
shock termination. In the absence of such
an expectation, emitted responding should
be less likely. When the dogs are subsequently
placed in the shuttlebox, shock mediates
the generalization of the initial learning
to the new situation, and the probability of
escape responding is thereby decreased.
This analysis was tested by varying the
dogs' control over shock termination in their
initial experience with shock. For one group
(Escape), pressing panels located about 3 in.
from either side of their heads terminated
shock. Another group (Yoked) received the
identical shock, but shock termination occurred
independently of its responses (since
shock duration was determined by the responses
of the Escape group). The Escape
group escaped normally in the shuttlebox,
while the Yoked group failed to escape in
the shuttlebox. This result confirmed the hypothesis
that the learning of independence of
shock termination and instrumental responding
is a necessary condition for the interference
effect. It disconfirmed a punishment interpretation
of interference to the effect that
the dogs failed to escape in the shuttlebox because
they had been punished in the harness
by the onset of shock for active responding.
This experiment equated the groups for punishment
by the onset of shock; the groups
differed only with respect to the independence
and nonindependence of shock termination
and the head-turning response. This theoretical
analysis, as noted below, predicts that failure
to escape shock should be eliminable by
compelling the dog to respond in a situation in
which its responses terminate shock. Repeated
exposure to the response-relief contingency
should replace the expectation that shock
termination is independent of responding with
258 M. E. P. SELIGMAN, S. F. MAIER, ANDJ. H. GEER
the expectation that responding produces
shock termination.
Learned "helplessness" was denned as the
learning (or perception) of independence between
the emitted responses of the organism
and the presentation and/or withdrawal of
aversive events. This term is not denned as
the occurrence of a subjective feeling of
helplessness (although such a possibility is
not excluded), nor is it to be taken as a
description of the appearance of the organism.
Such learning seems to be a necessary
condition for the occurrence of the interference
effect. That such learning occurs,
moreover, seems to be a necessary premise
for any systematic explication of the concept
of "hopelessness" advanced by Mowrer
(1960, p. 197) and by Richter (1957), the
concept of "helplessness" advanced by Cofer
and Appley (1964, p. 452), and the concept
of "external control of reinforcement" of
Lefcourt (1966).
Overmier and Seligman (1967) found that
if 48 hr. elapsed between the inescapable
shock in the harness and escape/avoidance
training in the shuttlebox, dogs did not show
the interference effect. Thus, although experience
with inescapable trauma might be a
necessary precondition for such maladaptive
behavior, it was not a sufficient condition.
However, Seligman and Maier (1967) found
that the interferenceeffect could be prolonged,
perhaps indefinitely. If 24 hr. after inescapable
shock in the harness the dog passively
accepted shock in the shuttlebox, the
dog again failed to escape after further rests
of 168 hr. or longer. Thus, chronic failure
to escape occurred when an additional experience
with nonescaped shock followed the first
experience.
Other work with infrahumans also suggests
that lack of control (the independence of response
and reinforcement) over the important
events in an animal's environment produces
abnormal behavior. Richter (1957) reported
that wild rats rapidly gave up swimming
and drowned when placed in tanks of
water from which there was no escape. If,
however, the experimenter (E) repeatedly
placed the rats in the tank and then took
them out, or if E allowed them repeatedly
to escape from his grasp, they swam for approximately
60 hr. before drowning. Richter
concluded that loss of hope was responsible
for the sudden deaths. Maier (1949) reported
that rats showed positional fixations when
they were given insoluble discrimination problems
(problems in which the responses of
the rat and the outcome are independent).
Making the problems soluble, alone, did not
break up these fixations. But the "therapeutic"
technique of forcing the rats to jump
to the nonfixated side when the problem was
soluble eliminated the fixations, Liddell
(1956) reported that inescapable shocks produced
experimental "neurosis" in lambs.
Masserman (1943, pp. 79-85) reported that
cats which instrumentally controlled the presentation
of food were less prone to experimental
neurosis than cats which did not have
such control.
The maladaptive failure of dogs to escape
shock resembles some human behavior disorders
in which individuals passively accept
aversive events without attempting to resist
or escape. Bettelheim (1960) described the
reaction of certain prisoners to the Nazi
concentration camps:
Prisoners who came to believe the repeated statements
of the guards—that there was no hope for
them, that they would never leave the camp except
as a corpse—who came to feel that their environment
was one over which they could exercise no
influence whatsoever, these prisoners were in a
literal sense, walking corpses. In the camps they
were called "moslems" (Mtiselmanner) because of
what was erroneously viewed as a fatalistic surrender
to the environment, as Mohammedans are
supposed to blandly accept their fate.
. . . they were people who were so deprived of
affect, self-esteem, and every form of stimulation,
so totally exhausted, both physically and emotionally,
that they had given the environment total power
over them [pp. 151-152].
Bleueler (1950, p. 40) described the passive
behavior of some of his patients:
The sense of self-preservation is often reduced to
zero. The patients do not bother anymore about
whether they starve or not, whether they lie on a
snowbank or on a red-hot oven. During a fire in
the hospital, a number of patients had to be led
out of the threatened area; they themselves would
never have moved from their places; they would
have allowed themselves to be burned or suffocated
without showing an affective response.
LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN THE DOG 259
It is suggested that an explanation which
parallels the analysis of the interference effect
in dogs may hold for such psychopathological
behavior in humans. Consider an individual
who has learned that his responses and
the occurrence and withdrawal of traumatic
events are independent. If a necessary condition
for the initiation of responding is the
expectation that his responses may control
the trauma, such an individual should react
passively in the face of trauma.
The time course of the interference effect
found with dogs suggests that such human
disorders may also be subject to temporal
variables. Experience with traumatic inescapable
shock produces interference with subsequent
escape learning. This interference dissipates
over time. Traumatic events must
intervene if permanent failure to escape shock
is to occur. This suggests that one traumatic
experience may be sufficient to predispose an
individual to future maladaptive behavior,
producing, perhaps, a temporary disturbance
which Wallace (1957) has called the "disaster
syndrome." In order for this experience to be
translated into a chronic disorder, however,
subsequent traumatic events may have to
occur.
Because the interference effect in dogs and
these forms of human psychopathology may
be acquired in similar ways, information
about the modification of the interference effect
may lead to insights concerning the
treatment of such psychopathological behavior
in humans. Two categories of treatment could
be attempted: prevention or "immunization"
against the effects of future inescapable
shock (proactive), or modification of maladaptive
behavior after inescapable shock has
had its effect (retroactive). Seligman and
Maier (1967) reported that prior experience
with escapable shock immunizes dogs against
the effects of later inescapable shock. Thus,
preventive steps have been shown to be
effective.
The above analysis of the interference effect
predicts that by exposing a dog to the
contingent relationship of shock termination
and its responses the interference effect established
by prior exposure to unavoidable
shock should be eliminated. This experiment
reports an elimination of learned "helplessness"
in dogs that had chronically failed to
escape from traumatic shock. Such retroactive
treatment resembles the traditional treatment
of human psychopathology more than does
the preventive procedure.
METHOD
Subjects
The 5s were four mongrel dogs. They weighed
25-29 lb., were 15-19 in. high at the shoulder, and
were housed in individual cages with food and water
freely available. Each dog chronically failed to escape
shock (see Procedure) as a result of receiving inescapable
shock in Experiment I of Seligman and
Maier (1967).
Apparatus
The apparatus is described fully by Overmier and
Seligman (1967). In brief, it consisted of two separate
units: a Pavlovian harness, in which initial
exposure to inescapable shock occurred, and a dog
shuttlebox, in which escape/avoidance training and
modification of the failure to escape were carried
out.
The unit in which each 5 was exposed to inescapable
shock was a rubberized cloth hammock located
inside a shielded white sound-reducing cubicle. The
hammock was constructed so that S's legs hung
down below his body through four holes. The S's
legs were secured in this position, and 5 was strapped
into the hammock. The S's head was held in position
by panels placed on either side and a yoke between
them across S's neck. Shock was applied from a
500-VAC transformer through a fixed resistor of
20,000 ohms. The shock was applied to S through
brass-plate electrodes coated with electrode paste
and taped to the footpads of S's hind feet. The
shock intensity was 6.0 ma.
The unit in which S received escape/avoidance
trials was a two-way shuttlebox with two black
compartments separated by an adjustable barrier.
Running along the upper part of the front of the
shuttlebox were two one-way mirror windows,
through which E could observe and which E could
open. The barrier was set at S's shoulder height.
Each compartment was illuminated by two SO-w.
and one 7}-w. lamps. The CS consisted of turning
off the four SO-w. lamps which resulted in a sharp
decrease in illumination. The UCS was 4.5-ma.
electric shock applied through the grid floors from
a SOO-VAC source. The polarity pattern of the grid
bars was scrambled four times a second. Whenever
S crossed from one side of the shuttlebox to the
other, photocell beams were interrupted, and the
trial was terminated. Latency of crossing was measured
from CS onset to the nearest .01 sec. by an
electric clock, Seventy decibels (SPL) white noise
was present in both units.
260 M. E. P. SELIGMAN, S. F. MAIER, ANDJ. H. GEER
Procedure
Inescapable shock exposure. Each S was strapped
into the harness and given 64 trials of inescapable
shock. The shocks were presented in a sequence
of trials of diminishing duration. The mean intershock
interval was 90 sec. with a 60-120-sec. range.
Each S received a total of 226 sec. of shock.
Instrumental escape/avoidance training. Twentyfour
hours after inescapable shock exposure, Ss received
10 trials of instrumental escape/avoidance
training in the shuttlebox. The onset of the CS
(dimmed illumination) initiated each trial, and the
CS remained on until trial termination. The CSUCS
onset interval was 10 sec. If S crossed to the
other compartment during this interval, the CS
terminated, and no shock was presented. If S did
not cross during the CS-UCS interval, shock came
on and remained on until 5 crossed. If no response
occurred within 60 sec. of CS onset, the trial was
automatically terminated, and a 60-sec. latency was
recorded. The average intertrial interval was 90 sec.
with a 60-120-sec. range.
All four Ss failed to escape shock on each of the
10 trials. Thus each S took SOOsec. of shock during
the first escape/avoidance session.
Testing for chronic failure to escape. Seven days
later, Ss were again placed in the shuttlebox and
given 10 further escape/avoidance trials. Again, each
S failed to escape shock on every trial (although one
S avoided shock once, on the fifth trial). By this
time, each S was failing to make any escape movements
and was remaining silent during shock on
every trial. Previous work has shown that when a
dog remains silent and fails to make escape movements
during shock, this reliably predicts that the
dog will continue to fail to escape and avoid.
Treatment. The attempt at behavioral modification
consisted of two distinct phases: all Ss received
Phase I; if Phase I succeeded, as it did with one
of the four dogs, no further treatment was given,
and "recovery" (see Recovery section below) was
begun. The other three Ss received Phase II
following Phase I.
Phase I: no barrier, calling. At intervals ranging
from 4 to 25 days following the demonstration that
the interference was chronic, Ss were again placed
in the shuttlebox. The escape/avoidance contingencies
used previously remained in effect during Phase
I and II trials. The barrier dividing the two sides
of the shuttlebox (formerly set at shoulder height)
was removed. Thus in order to escape or avoid, S
had only to step over the remaining S-in. high
divider. In addition, E opened the observation
window on the side of the shuttlebox opposite the
side S was on and called to S ("Here, boy") during
shock and during the CS-UCS interval. The rationale
for such treatment was to encourage S to
make the appropriate response on its own, thus
exposing itself to the response-reinforcement contingency.
One S responded to this treatment and
began to escape and avoid. The remaining Ss then
received Phase II.
Phase II: forced escape/avoidance exposure. Phase
II began when it was clear that Phase I would not
produce escape and avoidance in the remaining three
Ss since they remained silent and motionless during
Phase I. The S was removed from the shuttlebox,
and two long leashes were tied around its neck.
The S was put back into the shuttlebox, and escape/avoidance
trials continued. The end of each
leash was brought out at opposite ends of the
shuttlebox. Thus, two Es were able to drag S back
and forth across the shuttlebox by pulling one of
the leashes. Phase II consisted of pulling S across
to the safe side on each trial during shock or during
the CS-UCS interval. A maximum of 25 Phase II
trials per day were given. The rationale for Phase II
was to force S to expose himself to the responsereinforcement
contingency. Such "directive therapy"
continued until S began to respond without being
pulled by E.
Recovery. Following Phase II (for three dogs) and
Phase I (for the other dog), each S received further
escape/avoidance trials. The barrier height was
gradually increased over the course of IS trials until
shoulder height had been reached. Ten further
escape/avoidance trials were then given. The last
five of these recovery trials (with the barrier at
shoulder height) were administered from 5 to 10
days following the first five trials with the barrier
at this height. This tested the durability of the
recovery.
RESULTS
Figure 1 presents the results of this study.
It is clear that the procedures employed in
Phases I and II of treatment were wholly
successful in breaking up the maladaptive
failure to escape and avoid shock. With the
single exception of one S on one trial, the
dogs had not escaped or avoided the intense
shock prior to treatment. This is indicated
UJ
W
UJ
2 80-
(/}
£ 6O£
4 0 U
~*N
U 2Occ
_
UJ O
0.
PRE
—
^ +^""^ ""^J
h
z
UJ
S
SUJ
cc
POST
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5
TRIALS (BLOCKS OF 5)
FIG. I. Mean percentage of escape plus avoidance
responses before treatment and during posttreatment
recovery trials.
LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN THE DOG 261
by the mean percentage of escape or avoidance
responses present at or near zero during
the pretreatment phase. Following Phase I
(no barrier, calling) and Phase II (forced
escape/avoidance exposure) of treatment,
posttreatment recovery trials without forcing
or calling were given to determine the effectiveness
of the treatment. All 5s escaped or
avoided on every recovery trial.
The behavior of one S was successfully
modified by Phase I of treatment. After
sporadic failures to escape shock during this
phase, it began to escape and avoid reliably
after 20 Phase I trials. With the barrier
increased to shoulder height, it continued to
avoid reliably. The other three dogs all responded
to treatment in a fashion similar to
one another: after failing to respond to
Phase I, each of these dogs began to respond
on its own after differing numbers of Phase II
trials on which it had to be pulled to safety.
One of the Phase II Ss required 20 forced
exposures to escape and avoid in Phase II
before it began to respond without being
pulled; the other two required 35 and SO
such trials. During the course of Phase II
trials, progressively less forceful pulls were
required before S crossed to the safe side.
With the barrier increased to shoulder height
following Phase II, each 5 escaped and
avoided efficiently. At this stage, the dogs
responded like normal dogs at or near asymptotic
avoidance performance.
DISCUSSION
The chronic failure of dogs to escape shock
can be eliminated by physically compelling
them to engage repeatedly in the response
which terminates shock. Solomon, Kamin, and
Wynne (1953) also attenuated maladaptive
behavior in dogs by forcing them to expose
themselves to the experimental contingencies.
They reported that dogs continued to make
avoidance responses long after shock was no
longer present in the situation. A glass barrier,
which prevented the dogs from making the
response and forced them to "reality test,"
attenuated the persistent responding somewhat.
Such "directive therapy" also is similar
to Maier and Klee's (1945) report that abnormal
positional fixations in rats were eliminated
by forcing the rat to respond to the
nonfixated side, and to Masserman's (1943,
pp. 76-77) report that "neurotic" feeding
inhibition could be overcome by forcing the
cat into close proximity with food.
Seligman and Maier (1967) suggested that
during its initial experience with inescapable
shock, S learns that its responses are independent
of shock termination. They further
suggested that this learning not only reduces
the probability of response initiation to escape
shock, but also inhibits the formation
of the response-relief association if 5 does
make an escape or avoidance response in
the shuttlebox. That the dogs escaped and
avoided at all after being forcibly exposed
to the response-relief contingency confirmed
the suggestion that they had initially learned
that their responses were independent of
shock termination and that this learning was
contravened by forcible exposure to the contingency.
The finding that so many forced
exposures to the contingency were required
before they responded on their own (before
they "caught on") confirmed the suggestion
that the initial learning inhibited the formation
of a response-relief association when the
dog made a relief-producing response.
The perception of degree of control over
the events in one's life seems to be an important
determinant of the behavior of human
beings. Lefcourt (1966) has summarized extensive
evidence which supports this view.
Cromwell, Rosenthal, Shakow, and Kahn
(1961), for example, reported that schizophrenics
perceive reinforcement to be externally
controlled (reinforcement occurs independently
of their responses) to a greater
extent than normals. Such evidence, along
with the animal data cited above, suggests
that lack of control over reinforcement may
be of widespread importance in the development
of psychopathology in both humans and
infrahumans.
In conclusion, one might speculate that
experience with traumatic events in which the
individual can do nothing to eliminate or
mitigate the trauma results in passive responding
to future aversive events in humans.
The findings of Seligman and Maier (1967)
suggest that an individual might be immunized
against the debilitating effects of uncontrollable
trauma by having had prior ex-
262 M. E. P. SELIGMAN, S. F. MAIER, ANDJ. H. GEER
perience with instrumental control over the
traumatic events. Finally, the findings suggest
that the pathological behavior resulting
from inescapable trauma might be alleviated
by repeated exposure of the individual to the
trauma under conditions in which his responses
were instrumental in obtaining relief.
It has been demonstrated that normal escape/avoidance
behavior can be produced in
"passive" dogs by forcibly exposing them to
relief-producing responses.
REFERENCES
BETTELHEIM, B. The informed heart. New York:
Free Press of Glencoe, 1960.
BLEUELER, E. Dementia praecox or the group of
schizophrenics. New York: International Universities
Press, 1950.
CARLSON, N. J., & BLACK, A. H. Traumatic avoidance
learning: The effect of preventing escape
responses. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1960,
14, 21-28.
COFER, C. N., & APPLEY, M. A. Motivation: Theory
and research. New York: Wiley, 1964.
CROMWELL, R., ROSENTHAL, D., SHAKOW, D., &
KAHN, T. Reaction time, locus of control, choice
behavior and descriptions of parental behavior in
schizophrenic and normal subjects. Journal of
Personality, 1961, 29, 363-380.
LEFCOURT, H. M. Internal versus external control of
reinforcement: A review. Psychological Bulletin,
1966, 65, 206-221.
LIODELL, H. S. Emotional hazards in animals and
man. Springfield, 111.: Charles C Thomas, 19S6.
MAcDoNALD, A. Effect of adaptation to the unconditioned
stimulus upon the formation of conditional
avoidance responses. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1946, 36, 11-12.
MAIES, N., & KLEE, J. Studies of abnormal behavior
in the rat: XVII. Guidance versus trial and error
in the alteration of habits and fixations. Journal
of Psychology, 1945, 19, 133-163.
MAIER, N. R. F. Frustration: The study of behavior
without a goal. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1949.
MASSERMAN, J. H. Behavior and neurosis. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1943.
MOWRER, O. H. Learning theory and behavior. New
York: Wiley, 1960.
OVERMIER, J. B., & SELIGMAN, M. E. P. Effects of
inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and
avoidance responding. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology, 1967, 63, 28-33.
RICHTER, C. On the phenomenon of sudden death
in animals and man. Psychosomatic Medicine,
19S7, 19, 191-198.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P., &MAIER, S. F. Failure to escape
traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1967, 74, 1-9.
SOLOMON, R. L., KAMIN, L., & WYNNE, L. C.
Traumatic avoidance learning: The outcomes of
several extinction procedures with dogs. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 19S3, 48,
291-302.
SOLOMON, R. L., & WYNNE, L. C. Traumatic avoidance
learning: Acquisition in normal dogs. Psychological
Monographs, 1953, 67(4, Whole No. 3S4).
WALLACE, A. F. C. Mazeway disintegration: The
individual's perception of sodocultural disorganization.
Human Organization, 1957, 16, 23-27.
(Received November 4, 1966)