Advertisement

Mindfulness

pp 1–8 | Cite as

Generalized Pliance in Relation to Contingency Insensitivity and Mindfulness

  • Martin O’Connor
  • Philip Byrne
  • Francisco J. Ruiz
  • Louise McHugh
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Conceptual accounts of pliance, a particular class of rule-governed behavior, propose that its generalization precipitates insensitivity to direct contingencies. Accordingly, a context of mindfulness has been theorized to influence the way in which rules function and facilitate effective contact with such contingencies. Despite the profound implications of these conceptualizations, there is a dearth of empirical support for their claims. This study aimed to investigate self-reported generalized pliance as a predictor of sensitivity to changing schedules of reinforcement and mindfulness. Forty young adults completed the Generalized Pliance Questionnaire (GPQ), Contingency-shifting variant Iowa Gambling Task (csIGT), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), and Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory—Short Form. Analyses revealed that higher scores on the GPQ were predictive of lower mindfulness and sensitivity to changing contingencies on the csIGT and WCST with medium to large statistically significant effect sizes. The findings support the aforementioned conceptual accounts and have implications for novel research in mindfulness.

Keywords

Mindfulness Contingency insensitivity Pliance Rule-governed behavior 

Notes

Author Contributions

MOC: Study design, statistical analysis, and manuscript preparation.

PB: Study design, data collection, and statistical analysis.

FJR: Study design and manuscript preparation.

LMH: Study design, statistical analysis, and manuscript preparation.

Martin O’Connor and Philip Byrne are joint first authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the Irish Research Council.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval for the study was provided by the University College Dublin Research Ethics Committee. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the Declaration of Helsinki or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Axelrod, B. N., Goldman, R. S., & Woodard, J. L. (1992). Interrater reliability in scoring the Wisconsin card sorting test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6(2), 143–155.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13854049208401851.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes-Holmes, D., O’Hora, D., Roche, B., Hayes, S. C., Bissett, R. T., & Lyddy, F. (2001). Understanding and verbal regulation. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 103–118). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Baruch, D. E., Kanter, J. W., Busch, A. M., Richardson, J. V., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2007). The differential effect of instructions on dysphoric and nondysphoric persons. The Psychological Record, 57(4), 543–554.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03395594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. Journal of General Psychology, 39, 15–22.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1948.9918159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cella, M., Dymond, S., & Cooper, A. (2010). Impaired flexible decision-making in major depressive disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 124(1–2), 207–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.11.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciarrochi, J., Zettle, R. D., Brockman, R., Duguid, J., Parker, P., Sahdra, B., & Kashdan, T. B. (2016). Measures that make a difference: a functional contextualistic approach to optimizing psychological measurement in clinical research and practice. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 320–346). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Donadeli, J. M., & Strapasson, B. A. (2015). Effects of monitoring and social reprimands on instruction-following in undergraduate students. The Psychological Record, 65(1), 177–188.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0099-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dymond, S., Cella, M., Cooper, A., & Turnbull, O. (2010). The contingency-shifting variant Iowa gambling task: an investigation with young adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32(3), 239–248.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390902971115.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardner, F. L., & Moore, Z. E. (2007). The psychology of enhancing human performance: the mindfulness-acceptance-commitment approach. New York: Springer Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grant, D. A., & Berg, E. A. (1948). A behavioral analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigl-type card-sorting problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(4), 404–411.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059831.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Greve, K. (1993). Can perseverative responses on the Wisconsin card sorting test be scored accurately? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 8(6), 511–517.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0887-6177(93)90051-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hambleton, R. K. (2001). The next generation of the ITC test translation and adaptation guidelines. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 164–172.  https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Haas, J. R., & Greenway, D. E. (1986). Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: distinguishing rule-governed from schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46(2), 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Melancon, S. M. (1989a). Avoiding and altering rule-control as a strategy of clinical intervention. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: cognition, contingencies and instructional control (pp. 359–386). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes, S. C., Zettle, R. D., & Rosenfarb, I. (1989b). Rule-following. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: cognition, contingencies and instructional control (pp. 191–220). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Hayes, S. C., Villatte, M., Levin, M., & Hildebrandt, M. (2011). Open, aware, and active: contextual approaches as an emerging trend in the behavioral and cognitive therapies. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 141–168.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104449.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes, S., Pistorello, J., & Levin, M. (2012a). Acceptance and commitment therapy as a unified model of behavior change. The Counseling Psychologist, 40(7), 976–1002.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000012460836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012b). Acceptance and commitment therapy: the process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hofmann, S., & Asmundson, G. (2008). Acceptance and mindfulness-based therapy: new wave or old hat? Clinical Psychology Review, 28(1), 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.09.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsieh, P. C., Yeh, T. L., Lee, I. H., Huang, H. C., Chen, P. S., Yang, Y. K., et al. (2010). Correlation between errors on the Wisconsin card sorting test and the availability of striatal dopamine transporters in healthy volunteers. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 35(2), 90–94.  https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.090007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ju, W., & Hayes, S. (2008). Verbal establishing stimuli: testing the motivative effect of stimuli in a derived relation with consequences. The Psychological Record, 58(3), 339–363.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2005). Coming to our senses. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  26. Kissi, A., Hughes, S., Mertens, G., Barnes-Holmes, D., Houwer, J., & Crombez, G. (2017). A systematic review of pliance, tracking, and augmenting. Behavior Modification, 41(5), 683–707.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445517693811.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kohls, N., Sauer, S., & Walach, H. (2009). Facets of mindfulness – results of an online study investigating the Freiburg mindfulness inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 224–230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lacerda, A., Dalgalarrondo, P., Caetano, D., Haas, G., Camargo, E., & Keshavan, M. (2003). Neuropsychological performance and regional cerebral blood flow in obsessive–compulsive disorder. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 27(4), 657–665.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-5846(03)00076-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Langer, E. J. (2000). Mindful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(6), 220–223.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luciano, C., Valdivia-Salas, S., & Ruiz, F. (2012). The self as the context for rule-governed behavior. In L. McHugh & I. Stewart (Eds.), The self and perspective taking: contributions and applications from modern behavioral science (pp. 143–160). Oakland: New Harbinger Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Matthews, B. A., Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Sagvolden, T. (1977). Uninstructed human responding: sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27(3), 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McAuliffe, D., Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2014). The dark-side of rule governed behavior. Behavior Modification, 38(4), 587–613.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514521630.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. McHugh, L., Procter, J., Herzog, M., Schock, A.-K., & Reed, P. (2012). The effect of mindfulness on extinction and behavioral resurgence. Learning & Behavior, 40(4), 405–415.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-011-0062-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Monestès, J., Villatte, M., Stewart, I., & Loas, G. (2014). Rule-based insensitivity and delusion maintenance in schizophrenia. The Psychological Record, 64(2), 329–338.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0029-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Monestès, J., Greville, W., & Hooper, N. (2017). Derived insensitivity: rule-based insensitivity to contingencies propagates through equivalence. Learning and Motivation, 59, 55–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2017.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Needleman, L. D., & Cushman, C. (2010). Mindfulness in cognitive-behavioral therapy. In S. G. Hofmann & M. A. Reinecke (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral therapy with adults: a guide to empirically-informed assessment and intervention (pp. 163–179). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Hora, D., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Instructional control: developing a relational frame analysis. Int J Psychol Psychol Ther, 4(2), 263–284.Google Scholar
  38. Plumb, J. C., Stewart, I., Dahl, J., & Lundgren, T. (2009). In search of meaning: values in modern clinical behavior analysis. Behav Anal, 32(1), 85–103.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392177.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Poppen, R. L. (1989). Some clinical implications of rule-governed behavior. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: cognition, contingencies and instructional control (pp. 325–358). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reese, H. W. (1989). Rule-governed behavior: cognitive and behavioristic views. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: cognition, contingencies and instructional control (pp. 3–84). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenfarb, I. S., Newland, M. C., Brannon, S. E., & Howey, D. S. (1992). Effects of self-generated rules on the development of schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58(1), 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ruiz, F., Suárez-Falcón, J., Barbero-Rubio, A., & Flórez, C. (2018). Development and initial validation of the generalized pliance questionnaire. J Contextual Behav Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.03.003.
  43. Schultz, P. W., & Searleman, A. (2002). Rigidity of thought and behavior: 100 years of research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 128(2), 165–207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Matthews, B. A. (1981). Uninstructed human responding: sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36(2), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 word solution. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2160588.
  46. Steingroever, H., Wetzels, R., Horstmann, A., Neumann, J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2013). Performance of healthy participants on the Iowa gambling task. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 180–193.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029929.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M., & Spreen, O. (2006). Executive functions. In A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary (3rd ed., pp. 401–545). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tchanturia, K., Davies, H., Roberts, M., Harrison, A., Nakazato, M., Schmidt, U., et al. (2012). Poor cognitive flexibility in eating disorders: examining the evidence using the Wisconsin card sorting task. PLoS One, 7(1), e28331.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028331.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Törneke, N., Luciano, C., & Valdivia-Salas, S. (2008). Rule-governed behavior and psychological problems. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8(2), 141–156.Google Scholar
  50. Turnbull, O., Evans, C., Kemish, K., Park, S., & Bowman, C. (2006). A novel set-shifting modification of the Iowa gambling task: flexible emotion-based learning in schizophrenia. Neuropsychology, 20(3), 290.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.20.3.290.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. D., Olendzki, A., et al. (2017). Mind the hype: a critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 13(1), 36–61.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617709589.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness—the Freiburg mindfulness inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40(8), 1543–1555.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wulfert, E., Greenway, D. E., Farkas, P., Hayes, S. C., & Dougher, M. J. (1994). Correlation between self-reported rigidity and rule-governed insensitivity to operant contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(4), 659–671.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-659.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1982). Rule-governed behavior: a potential theoretical framework for cognitive-behavior therapy. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (pp. 71–118). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
corrected publication November/2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College DublinDublin 4Ireland
  2. 2.Fundación Universitaria Konrad LorenzBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations