Current Psychology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 37–46 | Cite as

The effects of learned helplessness on the processing of a persuasive message

  • Yair Amichai-Hamburger
  • Mario Mikulincer
  • Nir Zalts


The current study examines the effects of exposure to unsolvable problems on the processing of a persuasive message. Participants exposed to either unsolvable failure or no-feedback tasks were presented with one of four versions of an advertisement about a hair shampoo and rated their attitude towards this product. Two aspects of the message were manipulated: the quality of arguments (strong, weak) and the attractiveness of the communicator (attractive, non-attractive). In addition, participants rated their anxiety and the frequency of off-task thoughts during the experiment. Attitude towards the target product of participants in the failure condition was less affected by the argument’s quality and more influenced by communicator attractiveness than the attitude of participants in the no-feedback condition. Participants exposed to failures reported more anxiety and task-related worries than those exposed to no-feedback, and these ratings were found to mediate the effects of failure on the processing of a persuasive message. Results were discussed in terms of Learned Helplessness theories and the Elaboration Likelihood Model.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Batson, C. D. (1975). Attribution as a mediator of bias in helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1985). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: The role of message repetition. In A. Mitchell & L. Alwitt (Eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects (pp. 91–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Coyne, J. C., Metalsky, G. I., & Lavelle, T. L. (1980). Learned helplessness as experimenter-induced failure and its alleviation with attentional redeployment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 350–357.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ford, C. E., & Neale, J. M. (1985). Learned Helplessness and judgment of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1330–1339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kuhl, J. (1981). Motivational and functional helplessness: The moderating effect of the state versus action orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lavelle, T. C., Metalsky, G. I., & Coyne, J. C. (1979). Test anxiety and acknowledgment of contingencies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 381–387.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mikulincer, M. (1986). Attributional processes in the LH paradigm: The behavioral effect of globality attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1248–1256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mikulincer, M. (1988a). Reactance and helplessness following exposure to unsolvable problems: The effect of attributional style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 679–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mikulincer, M. (1988b). The relation between stable, unstable attribution and learned helplessness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 470–478.Google Scholar
  10. Mikulincer, M. (1989). Cognitive interference and learned helplessness: The effects of off-task cognitions on performance following unsolvable problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mikulincer, M. (1994). Human learned helplessness: A coping perspective. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  12. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.Google Scholar
  13. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz, (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology (Vol. 19), pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Strathman, A. J. (1994). To think or not to think: Exploring two routes to persuasion. In S. Shavitt & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspective (pp. 113–147). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  16. Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Keefe, D. E., Hayes, B. E., & Shearin, E. N. (1986). Cognitive interference: Situational determinants and traitlike characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sedek, G., & Kofta, M. (1990). When cognitive exertion does not yield cognitive gain: Toward an informational explanation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 729–743.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  19. Tesser, A., & Shaffer, D. R. (1990). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 479–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yair Amichai-Hamburger
    • 1
  • Mario Mikulincer
    • 1
  • Nir Zalts
    • 1
  1. 1.Bar-Ilan UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations