Persistent Rule-Following in the Face of Reversed Reinforcement Contingencies: The Differential Impact of Direct Versus Derived Rules

Abstract

Rule-governed behavior and its role in generating insensitivity to direct contingencies of reinforcement have been implicated in human psychological suffering. In addition, the human capacity to engage in derived relational responding has also been used to explain specific human maladaptive behaviors, such as irrational fears. To date, however, very little research has attempted to integrate research on contingency insensitivity and derived relations. The current work sought to fill this gap. Across two experiments, participants received either a direct rule (Direct Rule Condition) or a rule that involved a novel derived relational response (Derived Rule Condition). Provision of a direct rule resulted in more persistent rule-following in the face of competing contingencies, but only when the opportunity to follow the reinforced rule beforehand was relatively protracted. Furthermore, only in the Direct Rule Condition were there significant correlations between rule-compliance and stress. A post hoc interpretation of the findings is provided.

Examining the Moderating Impact of Plys and Tracks on the Insensitivity Effect: a Preliminary Investigation

“…First, we expected participants who were given any type of (initially accurate) instruction to demonstrate evidence of the IE. In-line with previous work (e.g., Donadeli & Strapasson, 2015;Harte et al, 2017;Hayes et al, 1986c;Henley et al, 2017;Kudadjie-Gyamfi & Rachlin, 2001;Ninnes & Ninnes, 1998;Otto et al, 1999), we obtained support for this hypothesis, such that participants in the ply and track group were more likely than those in the no-instructions group to select the MLCS after the programmed contingency reversal.…”

“…Despite their advantages, rules and instructions can also undermine our contact with other contingencies in the environment. Indeed, research has repeatedly shown that once behavior is controlled by a rule, individuals may persistently follow that rule, even when doing so no longer produces the most beneficial outcome (e.g., Donadeli & Strapasson, 2015; Harte, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & McEnteggart, 2017;Hayes, Brownstein, Haas, & Greenway, 1986;Hayes, Brownstein, Zettle, Rosenfarb, & Korn, 1986;Joyce & Chase, 1990;Kudadjie-Gyamfi & Rachlin, 2001;Miller, Hirst, Kaplan, DiGennaro Reed, & Reed, 2014;Ninnes & Ninnes, 1998;Otto, Torgrud, & Holborn, 1999). We refer to this insensitivity of behavior to the consequences of other (non-instructed) contingencies, as the instruction or rule-based "insensitivity effect (IE)" 1 .…”

The impact of high versus low levels of derivation for mutually and combinatorially entailed relations on persistent rule-following

“…More recently, research has begun to extend this line of work and to examine the impact of derived relations on persistent rule-following or contingency-based insensitivity (Harte, et al, 2017). Across two experiments, Harte et al sought to determine the extent to which participants would persist in rule-following when the reinforcement contingencies were reversed, and thus following the rule was no longer rewarded.…”

“…One limitation of the Harte et al (2017) study, which was acknowledged by the authors, was the dichotomy made between direct and derived rule-following. Strictly speaking, for RFT even the direct rule condition involved a certain (low) level of derivation.…”

From the IRAP and REC model to a multi-dimensional multi-level framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding

“…To date, however, very little research has attempted to integrate research on contingency insensitivity and derived relations. Our research group recently conducted a study that has attempted to fill this gap and the interpretation of the results has been greatly facilitated by the MDML (Harte, BarnesHolmes, Barnes-Holmes, & McEnteggart, 2017), and thus we will briefly consider this work here.…”