Abramson later proposed another addition to the learned helplessness theory in 1989 which he called the learned ‘hopelessness’ theory of depression. The new theory suggested that having pessimistic attributions followed by a negative life event leads to a feeling of hopelessness which is likely to result in depression.
A big problem with the learned helplessness theory of depression is that it is part of the cognitive explanations of mood disorders and so ignores the biological explanation of depression. The learned helplessness theory focuses on internal cognitions and ignores factors associated with the biological explanation such as genes, structural abnormalities of the brain and abnormalities of the neurotransmitters. This is a problem because many studies suggest that biological factors do play a part in the development of depression and so patients might not be treated in the most effective way.
Another problem with the learned helplessness theory of depression is that there is evidence to suggest that pessimistic attributions seem to disappear when the person is not depressed. This conflicts with Abramson’s theory as it suggests that the pessimistic attributions could be an effect of depression rather than a cause whereas Abramson’s theory claims that pessimistic attributions leaves a person at risk of depression, not the other way around.
A study which supports the learned helplessness theory is that of Alloy and Abramson in 1979. A research project on college students showed that the students with pessimistic attributions in the high risk group of depression displayed a very large increase in major depression compared with the low risk group after two years. This evidence supports the learned helplessness theory as the theory suggests that pessimistic attributions leave a person at high risk of depression which was shown in the study.
Another issue with learned helplessness is that there is no empirical evidence to support the theory. This is because the learned helplessness theory, like other cognitive explanations, focus on internal cognitions. This is a problem because unlike in biological explanations where there may be structural abnormalities of the brain that can be physically identified, thought abnormalities or deficits in cognition cannot be proven to exist.
The focus on internal cognitions in the learned helplessness theory is also a problem because it doesn’t fully take into consideration the effect of the environment and social surroundings in which people live. This is a weakness of the theory as it somewhat ignores events and relationships in the lives of the patients which may be important and of significance if they are to be treated effectively.
However, the theory doesn’t completely ignore environment and social surroundings because, Abramson’s more recent ‘hopelessness theory of depression’ (1989) suggests that it is both having pessimistic attributions and a negative life event that can lead to a feeling of hopelessness which is likely to result in depression. This is a strength as it shows that the theory doesn’t fully ignore other explanations which may be effective in explaining depression as well as the learned helplessness theory.
The learned helplessness theory is part of the cognitive explanation and so leads to the use of cognitive treatment for depression. This is a strength of learned helplessness because it has been found that cognitive treatments are very effective in treating depression as shown in a meta-analysis study by Robinson which found cognitive therapies to be more effective than psychotherapies and drug therapies. Cognitive therapies are therefore widely used in treating patients and this suggests that the theory behind the treatment must be logical.
A strength of the learned helplessness theory is that while succeeding in changing the depressed persons way of thinking, it also looks at the underlying cause of the depression as it suggests that if punishment of an individual is too harsh, the individual will eventually continue behaving in the way that is being punished and accept their punishment. This is a strength when compared with the other cognitive explanation because it explains both the cause of the depression and explains how to go about changing these thoughts whereas Beck’s dysfunctional thinking explanation doesn’t discover the underlying cause. However, Abramson’s reformulated theory in 1978 contradicts the previous theory by Seligman as Abramson suggests that it is the types of attributions people make about events that is important in determining whether they become depressed. This doesn’t explain the underlying cause of the depression.
A weakness of the learned helplessness theory is that it ignores any references to past events in the patients’ lives such as loss of a loved one. Learned helplessness believes that depression is due to internal cognitions and pessimistic attributions and this is a weakness when compared with the psychodynamic explanation of depression because vital pieces of information about important events in childhood are being ignored and this may mean that the patient is being treated in a way which does not work for them and isn’t effective.
