A Retrospective Critique Overmier & Seligman (1967)
Presented by: Jack Hunter
Experimental Design
Sample limitations:
- Independent measures experiment
- Mongrel dogs
- Small sample size
Artificial conditions:
- Light prefacing shocks
- Highly unnatural
Logical Flaws
This experiment establishes a connection between
inescapable shock conditioning and an inhibited
escape-avoidance response in dogs.
It does not provide a solid basis for Overmier and
Seligman’s theory of “learned helplessness”, but it
does disprove some alternate explanations.
Ethical Concerns
Cost-benefit analysis: Does the (potential) scientific
value of this study outweigh the harm that has been
inflicted?
Costs
Benefits
Animal torture. Repeated shocks,
small cages with restraints, and a
tranquilizing agent.
Improves our understanding on
how pavlovian fear conditioning
affects escape-avoidance.
Conclusions
1. These experiments are
needlessly cruel: steps
could have been taken to
reduce suffering.
2. Why did Overmier and
Seligman choose to
experiment on dogs?
Discussion Question
What would be a more ethical way to
test Overmier & Seligman’s theory
of “learned helplessness”?