Generalized Pliance in Relation to Contingency Insensitivity and Mindfulness
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.
KeywordsMindfulness Contingency insensitivity Pliance Rule-governed behavior
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.
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 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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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
- 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
- Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Kabat-Zinn, J. (2005). Coming to our senses. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 word solution. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2160588.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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