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

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.