Correlation between self-reported rigidity and rule-governed insensitivity to operant contingencies.
Rigid clients may cling to old rules—build in live contingency checks to loosen the grip.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Adults filled out a rigidity scale. Then they worked on a computer task.
The task used a DRL 4-s / FR 18 schedule. Rules told them how to earn points.
Later, the rules stopped working. The study watched who kept following the old rules.
What they found
People who said they were rigid kept following the broken rules. Flexible people noticed the change and adjusted.
High rigidity scores predicted more pointless button pressing even after rewards stopped.
How this fits with other research
Fox et al. (2017) later showed that even accurate rules create the same sticky behavior. They found that rule wording, not personality, drives most insensitivity.
Rapport et al. (1996) moved the idea down to preschoolers. Rules still controlled kids even when payoffs were delayed 20 minutes.
Clarke (1998) tested overstated advice and saw adults still pick bad rules. All three studies echo the same theme: once rules are spoken, behavior often ignores new facts.
Why it matters
If your client sounds sure about "the way we do it," build in quick reality tests. Let the learner see the new payoff right away. Then ask them to say the rule again out loud. One extra contingency check can stop rigid rule lock-in.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After you state a new rule, run one probe trial where the payoff flips and ask, "What should you do now?"
02At a glance
03Original 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.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1994 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-659