Searching for the variables that control human rule‐governed “insensitivity”

Fox et al. (2017) asked adults to play a computer game for points. First, each person got a rule that told them exactly how to win. Half the rules were right. Half were wrong.

Later, the point system changed without warning. The researchers watched who kept following the old rule and who switched to the new contingencies.

When the first rule was accurate, every single adult stuck to it—even after the game changed and the rule no longer paid off. They were 'insensitive' to the new contingencies.

When the first rule was wrong, people split. Some followed it anyway. Others ditched it. Yet even the switchers stopped noticing later changes. Once any rule took hold, most people stopped tracking what the game actually did.

Wulfert (1994) saw the same stubborn pattern. Adults who said they were 'rigid' on a questionnaire kept obeying outdated rules far longer than flexible peers. Fox's lab data now backs up that survey link.

Rapport et al. (1996) extends the idea to preschool boys. Rules kept 3- to 5-year-olds compliant for 15-20 minutes even when reinforcement was delayed. The adult 'insensitivity' Fox shows starts young.

Sauter et al. (2020) seems to disagree. Moral stories plus instructions barely moved honesty in 5- to 8-year-olds. But the kids were younger and the rules were vague. Once children reach adult-level verbal skill, clear rules lock in behavior—then insensitivity appears.

Your learners may master a rule perfectly and still fail when the contingencies shift. Build 'contingency checks' into every program: probe without cues, rotate reinforcement schedules, and teach self-monitoring. If the data change, prompt the learner to test the old rule against the new outcome. Don't assume rule mastery equals contingency tracking.