Generalized Pliance in Relation to Contingency Insensitivity and Mindfulness

Full reference: O'Connor, M., Byrne, P., Ruiz, F. J., & McHugh, L. (2019). Generalized pliance in relation to contingency insensitivity and mindfulness. Mindfulness, 10, 833–840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1046-5

Study type: Rule-governed behavior study / Translational research

Background and objectives

The ability to generate and follow rules allows human beings to respond effectively in contexts where learning through direct experience may be dangerous, override immediate consequences, and respond to delayed contingencies. However, this evolutionary asset can undermine sensitivity to changes in the environment and produce aversive consequences that could have been avoided. Behavior under the control of rules or instructions, known as rule-governed behavior, can be distinguished from behavior under the control of direct contingencies in the environment. Zettle and Hayes (1982) proposed three types of rule-governed behavior: pliance, tracking, and augmenting. Pliance involves following a verbal rule based on a history of socially or speaker-mediated reinforcement for correspondence between the rule and relevant behavior. Tracking, by contrast, is sensitive to environmental contingencies such that a change in these contingencies will lead to a corresponding change in behavior. When pliance is over-generalized, the problem of insensitivity to direct contingencies emerges, as socially mediated consequences are less predictable and controllable than other types of consequences.

Previous research has demonstrated that verbal instructions affect adaptation to changes in experimental contingencies. However, difficulties exist in experimentally manipulating pliance, as participants' learning histories can easily interfere with their instruction-following performance. Recently, Ruiz et al. (2018) developed the Generalized Pliance Questionnaire (GPQ), a self-report measure of generalized pliance. Although the validity of this measure depends on respondents' awareness and willingness to report on the degree to which they emit this type of rule-governed behavior, findings from the GPQ support conceptual accounts of generalized pliance. Furthermore, theoretical models emphasize that mindfulness may influence the way in which rules function and facilitate effective contact with direct contingencies in the environment. The aim of this study was to investigate self-reported generalized pliance as a predictor of sensitivity to changes in reinforcement schedules and mindfulness in generalized contexts.

Method

Participants

An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power to determine the required sample size. In accordance with earlier relevant research, the analysis revealed that 40 participants were required to provide 80% statistical power to detect a medium effect size (r = 0.38) at α = 0.05. This non-probability sample of 40 university students was recruited through the University College Dublin School of Psychology Research Participation System and posters in local businesses. Of the university students who participated in the study, 52.50% (N = 21) identified as male and 47.50% (N = 19) identified as female, with ages ranging from 18 to 36 (M age = 22.17, SD age = 4.16). Participants had completed a mean of 16.60 (SD = 2.02) years of education.

Experimental design

The design was correlational and cross-sectional. Three simple linear regression analyses were planned to test the hypotheses. Total scores on the GPQ served as the predictor variable in each regression model. Criterion variables included scores on the FMI-SF, csIGT, and WCST. The hypothesis was that increased scores on the GPQ would significantly predict increased perseverative errors on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test as well as decreased scores on the Contingency-shifting variant Iowa Gambling Task and the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory—Short Form.

Materials and apparatus

Four primary measures were utilized. The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) is a computerized version that presented participants with four stimulus cards (one featuring a red triangle, one featuring two green stars, one featuring three yellow crosses, and one featuring four blue circles). On each of 128 test trials, participants were provided with a response card featuring a design similar to the stimulus cards but varying in color, shape, and number. The Contingency-Shifting Variant Iowa Gambling Task (csIGT) is a computerized version consisting of 11 blocks of 20 trials each. On each trial, participants selected a card from four available decks with the goal of maximizing profits. The Generalized Pliance Questionnaire (GPQ) is an 18-item self-report measure of generalized pliance. Items are rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (never true) to 7 (almost always), with higher scores (range 18–126) reflecting increased dominance of pliance over the respondent's behavioral repertoire. The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory—Short Form (FMI-SF) is a 14-item self-report measure of mindfulness in generalized contexts. Items are rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (rarely) to 4 (almost always), with higher scores (range 14–56) indicative of greater mindful awareness.

Procedure

The University College Dublin Research Ethics Committee approved the study procedures, which were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants completed the study measures in a sound-attenuated booth: socio-demographic questionnaire, GPQ, FMI-SF, and WCST followed by the csIGT. Participation took approximately 35 minutes and participants received research participation credit for taking part in the study. All persons provided informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

Data analysis

For the WCST measure, participants' perseverative errors were the most commonly used measure and were calculated by summing the number of responses that involved perseveration of a previously successful strategy despite negative feedback signaling that the rules of the test had changed. In accordance with previous studies that administered the csIGT, mean net scores on the contingency-shifting phases were calculated by subtracting participants' frequency of disadvantageous choices from their advantageous choices. Mean net scores above zero reflect advantageous choices, while scores below zero reflect disadvantageous choices. Simple linear regression was used for all analyses.

Results

Descriptive statistics for participants' scores on the csIGT, WCST, GPQ, and FMI-SF are presented in Table 1. Bivariate correlations between the aforementioned measures are shown in Table 2.

Generalized pliance and perseverative errors: A simple linear regression was calculated to predict failure to modify responding after negative feedback, as measured by perseverative errors on the WCST, based on self-reported generalized pliance as measured by the GPQ. The GPQ was a statistically significant predictor of perseverative errors on the WCST, R² = 0.31, 95% CI [0.09, 0.54], F(1, 38) = 17.45, p < .001, indicating that self-reported generalized pliance accounted for 31% of the variance in failure to modify responding after negative feedback.

Generalized pliance and contingency-shift learning: Linear regression analysis was conducted to assess self-reported generalized pliance as a predictor of rapidity in adapting behavior to new reward and punishment contingencies, as measured by mean net scores on the contingency-shifting phases of the csIGT. The analysis revealed that the GPQ made a statistically significant contribution to predicting scores on the csIGT, R² = 0.21, 95% CI [0.00, 0.43], F(1, 38) = 10.29, p = .003, suggesting that 21% of the variance in task performance was accounted for by self-reported generalized pliance.

Generalized pliance and mindfulness: A simple linear regression was calculated to predict mindfulness in generalized contexts, as measured by the FMI-SF, based on self-reported generalized pliance. The GPQ was a statistically significant predictor of scores on the FMI-SF, R² = 0.22, 95% CI [0.01, 0.43], F(1, 38) = 10.69, p = .002, indicating that self-reported generalized pliance accounted for 22% of the variance in participants' levels of mindfulness.

Discussion and conclusions

This study investigated self-reported generalized pliance as a predictor of sensitivity to changing environmental contingencies and mindfulness. A large statistically significant positive relationship was found between self-reported generalized pliance and response perseveration despite changing schedules of reinforcement on the WCST. Similarly, participants' self-reported level of generalized pliance significantly predicted their rapidity in adapting behavior to new reward and punishment contingencies on the csIGT with a medium effect size. Further, in line with hypotheses, a medium statistically significant negative relationship was found between self-reported generalized pliance and mindfulness in generalized contexts. These findings support existing conceptual accounts of the sequelae of generalized pliance. According to Törneke et al. (2008), enormous advantages accrue from pliance as it can reduce sensitivity to other environmental contingencies in situational contexts in which learning through direct experience may be disadvantageous. However, when pliance is over-generalized, it is theorized to impede successful tracking and to promote hypersensitivity to socially mediated reinforcement—rendering the individual vulnerable to social whim. Consequently, sensitivity to direct contingencies is diminished. Consistent with this assertion, participants in the current study who reported elevated levels of pliant rule-following demonstrated diminished sensitivity when contingencies were intermittently changed without notice on the WCST and csIGT. Moreover, a context of mindfulness has been proposed to influence the way in which rules function and facilitate effective contact with direct environmental contingencies. This proposition concurs with the negative relationship found between mindfulness and self-reported generalized pliance in the current study.

The authors acknowledge several limitations. First, the study revealed that increased self-reported generalized pliance is predictive of decreased sensitivity to changing schedules of reinforcement but did not provide evidence of causation, limiting inferences by bidirectionality and third-variable problems. Second, the sample consisted exclusively of university students, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Third, the study relied on self-report measures of generalized pliance and mindfulness. Consequently, response biases such as socially desirable responding may have affected the findings.

Significance and contribution

This study contributes to understanding of rule-governed behavior through empirical examination of how generalized pliance relates to insensitivity to direct contingencies and mindfulness. The findings demonstrate that excessive rule-following patterns can produce insensitivity to environmental changes, a problem relevant to understanding behavioral rigidity. Although based on self-report measures, the study offers a valuable methodological approach for investigating rule-governed behavior and suggests that contexts of mindfulness can facilitate greater behavioral flexibility. These findings have implications for interventions aimed at increasing sensitivity to direct contingencies in populations experiencing patterns of behavioral rigidity.

---