Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 1994 Winter;27(4):659–671. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-659

Correlation between self-reported rigidity and rule-governed insensitivity to operant contingencies

Edelgard Wulfert 1,2,3,4, David E Greenway 1,2,3,4, Paula Farkas 1,2,3,4, Steven C Hayes 1,2,3,4, Michael J Dougher 1,2,3,4
PMCID: PMC1297851  PMID: 16795843

Abstract

Adults were selected on the basis of their scores on the Scale for Personality Rigidity (Rehfisch, 1958a). Their scores served as a measure of hypothesized rule governance in the natural environment. Experiment 1 studied the effects of accurate versus minimal instructions and high versus low rigidity on performance on a multiple differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) 4-s fixed-ratio (FR) 18 schedule. When the schedule was switched to extinction, accurate instructions and high rigidity were associated with greater perseveration in the response pattern subjects developed during the reinforcement phase. In Experiment 2, the effects of rigidity and of accurate versus inaccurate instructions were studied. Initially, all subjects received accurate instructions about an FR schedule. The schedule was then switched to DRL, but only half of the subjects received instructions about the DRL contingency, and the other half received FR instructions as before. Accurate instructions minimized individual differences because both high and low scorers on the rigidity scale earned points in DRL. However, when inaccurate instructions were provided, all high-rigidity subjects followed them although they did not earn points on the schedule, whereas most low-rigidity subjects abandoned them and responded appropriately to DRL. The experiments demonstrate a correlation between performances observed in the human operant laboratory and a paper-and-pencil test of rigidity that purportedly reflects important response styles that differentiate individuals in the natural environment. Implications for applied research and intervention are discussed.

Keywords: rule-governed behavior, instructional control, individual differences, insensitivity to contingencies, multiple schedules

Full text

PDF
659

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bartz W. R. Clinical judgment of rigidity by mental health professionals. Psychol Rep. 1969 Dec;25(3):915–922. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1969.25.3.915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Buskist W. F., Bennett R. H., Miller H. L. Effects of instructional constraints on human fixed-interval performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Mar;35(2):217–225. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Catania A. C., Matthews B. A., Shimoff E. Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Nov;38(3):233–248. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Harzem P. Experimental analysis of individual differences and personality. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Nov;42(3):385–395. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hayes S. C., Brownstein A. J., Haas J. R., Greenway D. E. Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule-governed from schedule-controlled behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Sep;46(2):137–147. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hayes S. C., Brownstein A. J., Zettle R. D., Rosenfarb I., Korn Z. Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 May;45(3):237–256. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hayes S. C., Rosenfarb I., Wulfert E., Munt E. D., Korn Z., Zettle R. D. Self-reinforcement effects: An artifact of social standard setting? J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Fall;18(3):201–214. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Joyce J. H., Chase P. N. Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Nov;54(3):251–262. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.54-251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lefrancois J. R., Chase P. N., Joyce J. H. The effects of a variety of instructions on human fixed-interval performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 May;49(3):383–393. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Linn B. S., Moravec J., Zeppa R. The impact of clinical experience on attitudes of junior medical students about death and dying. J Med Educ. 1982 Sep;57(9):684–691. doi: 10.1097/00001888-198209000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Matthews B. A., Shimoff E., Catania A. C., Sagvolden T. Uninstructed human responding: sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 May;27(3):453–467. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Miller L. K. Escape from an effortful situation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Sep;11(5):619–627. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Miller L. K. Some punishing effects of response-force. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):215–220. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Prue D. M., Keane T. M., Cornell J. E., Foy D. W. An analysis of distance variables that affect aftercare attendance. Community Ment Health J. 1979 Summer;15(2):149–154. doi: 10.1007/BF00757336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. REHFISCH J. M. A scale for personality rigidity. J Consult Psychol. 1958 Feb;22(1):11–15. doi: 10.1037/h0047945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. REHFISCH J. M. Some scale and test correlates of a personality rigidity scale. J Consult Psychol. 1958 Oct;22(5):372–374. doi: 10.1037/h0048746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Schaie K. W., Dutta R., Willis S. L. Relationship between rigidity-flexibility and cognitive abilities in adulthood. Psychol Aging. 1991 Sep;6(3):371–383. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.6.3.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Shimoff E., Catania A. C., Matthews B. A. Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Sep;36(2):207–220. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Torgrud L. J., Holborn S. W. The effects of verbal performance descriptions on nonverbal operant responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Nov;54(3):273–291. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.54-273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES