Rule-based insensitivity to contingencies according to self-reported generalized pliance/tracking and the instruction functions

IF 3.1 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-02 DOI:10.1016/j.jcbs.2026.100979
Esmeralda Martínez-Carrillo, Francisco J. Ruiz
{"title":"Rule-based insensitivity to contingencies according to self-reported generalized pliance/tracking and the instruction functions","authors":"Esmeralda Martínez-Carrillo,&nbsp;Francisco J. Ruiz","doi":"10.1016/j.jcbs.2026.100979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Rule-based insensitivity to contingencies is a behavioral phenomenon in which participants instructed to respond correctly exhibit lower sensitivity to changing contingencies compared to those who learn through trial and error. A recent review highlighted a bias in the literature, suggesting that trial-and-error participants may follow rules that are similar to those followed by individuals who have learned through explicit instruction. Furthermore, two types of rule-following, pliance and tracking, are believed to influence this insensitivity, but the analysis has incurred the conceptual shortcoming of defining these rules from the experimenter's perspective instead of focusing on the functions the rules have for participants. This study aimed to address these limitations by asking participants about the task functions at the end of the experiment and by recruiting those with self-reported generalized pliance and tracking. Ninety participants completed a matching-to-sample task in two conditions: General Instruction (GI) and General Instruction + Responding Criteria (GI + RC; i.e., explicit instruction indicating how to respond correctly). As expected, the GI + RC group showed less sensitivity to changing contingencies. Interestingly, about one-third of GI participants believed they had responding criteria, behaving similarly to the GI + RC group. There were no sensitivity differences between high pliance and high tracking participants, but pliance participants were more motivated to follow instructions and earn points. This study builds upon previous research by examining participants' rule-following in the trial-and-error condition and highlighting the varying functions of traditional tasks for high pliance and tracking individuals. These differences might increase insensitivity in pliance participants, but also enhance their sensitivity by heightening their motivation for the arbitrary reinforcement of the task</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47544,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science","volume":"39 ","pages":"Article 100979"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212144726000062","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rule-based insensitivity to contingencies is a behavioral phenomenon in which participants instructed to respond correctly exhibit lower sensitivity to changing contingencies compared to those who learn through trial and error. A recent review highlighted a bias in the literature, suggesting that trial-and-error participants may follow rules that are similar to those followed by individuals who have learned through explicit instruction. Furthermore, two types of rule-following, pliance and tracking, are believed to influence this insensitivity, but the analysis has incurred the conceptual shortcoming of defining these rules from the experimenter's perspective instead of focusing on the functions the rules have for participants. This study aimed to address these limitations by asking participants about the task functions at the end of the experiment and by recruiting those with self-reported generalized pliance and tracking. Ninety participants completed a matching-to-sample task in two conditions: General Instruction (GI) and General Instruction + Responding Criteria (GI + RC; i.e., explicit instruction indicating how to respond correctly). As expected, the GI + RC group showed less sensitivity to changing contingencies. Interestingly, about one-third of GI participants believed they had responding criteria, behaving similarly to the GI + RC group. There were no sensitivity differences between high pliance and high tracking participants, but pliance participants were more motivated to follow instructions and earn points. This study builds upon previous research by examining participants' rule-following in the trial-and-error condition and highlighting the varying functions of traditional tasks for high pliance and tracking individuals. These differences might increase insensitivity in pliance participants, but also enhance their sensitivity by heightening their motivation for the arbitrary reinforcement of the task
根据自我报告的广义顺应/跟踪和指令功能,基于规则的对偶然事件的不敏感
基于规则的对偶然事件的不敏感是一种行为现象,在这种现象中,与那些通过试验和错误学习的参与者相比,被指示正确反应的参与者对变化的偶然事件表现出较低的敏感性。最近的一篇综述强调了文献中的一种偏见,表明试错法参与者可能遵循的规则与通过明确指导学习的个体遵循的规则相似。此外,两种类型的规则遵循,顺从和跟踪,被认为影响这种不敏感性,但分析产生了概念上的缺陷,从实验者的角度来定义这些规则,而不是关注规则对参与者的功能。本研究旨在通过在实验结束时询问参与者关于任务功能的问题,并通过招募那些自我报告普遍服从和跟踪的人来解决这些限制。90名参与者在两种条件下完成了匹配样本的任务:一般指令(GI)和一般指令+反应标准(GI + RC,即指示如何正确反应的明确指令)。正如预期的那样,GI + RC组对变化的偶然性表现出较低的敏感性。有趣的是,大约三分之一的GI参与者认为他们有回应标准,行为与GI + RC组相似。高依从性和高跟踪性参与者之间没有敏感性差异,但依从性参与者更有动力遵循指示并获得积分。本研究建立在先前研究的基础上,通过检查参与者在试错条件下的规则遵循情况,并强调传统任务在高依从性和跟踪个体方面的不同功能。这些差异可能会增加顺从参与者的不敏感性,但也会通过提高他们任意强化任务的动机来增强他们的敏感性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
18.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science is the official journal of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS). Contextual Behavioral Science is a systematic and pragmatic approach to the understanding of behavior, the solution of human problems, and the promotion of human growth and development. Contextual Behavioral Science uses functional principles and theories to analyze and modify action embedded in its historical and situational context. The goal is to predict and influence behavior, with precision, scope, and depth, across all behavioral domains and all levels of analysis, so as to help create a behavioral science that is more adequate to the challenge of the human condition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书