Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Most of our daily life is organized around rules and social norms. But what makes rules so special? And what if one were to break a rule intentionally? Can we simply free us from the present set of rules or do we automatically adhere to them? How do rule violations influence subsequent behavior? To investigate the effects and aftereffects of violating simple S-R rule, we conducted three experiments that investigated continuous finger-tracking responses on an iPad. Our experiments show that rule violations are distinct from rule-based actions in both response times and movement trajectories, they take longer to initiate and execute, and their movement trajectory is heavily contorted. Data not only show differences between the two types of response (rule-based vs. violation), but also yielded a characteristic pattern of aftereffects in case of rule violations: rule violations do not trigger adaptation effects that render further rule violations less difficult, but every rule violation poses repeated effort on the agent. The study represents a first step towards understanding the signature and underlying mechanisms of deliberate rule violations, they cannot be acted out by themselves, but require the activation of the original rule first. Consequently, they are best understood as reformulations of existing rules that are not accessible on their own, but need to be constantly derived from the original rule, with an add-on that might entail an active tendency to steer away from mental representations that reflect (socially) unwanted behavior.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Conscious and nonconscious information processing: attention and performance XV (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70, 1–70. CrossRef
Chermayeff, M., Dupre, J., & Matthew Akers, M. (2012). Marina Abramovic: the artist is present [motion picture]. USA: Show Of Force.
Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 472–517. CrossRef
Fillenbaum, S. (1966). Memory for gist: some relevant variables. Language and Speech, 9(4), 217–227. PubMed
Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119. CrossRef
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506. CrossRef
Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a stroop-like task. Memory and Cognition, 7(3), 166–174. CrossRef
Mayo, R., Schul, Y., & Burnstein, E. (2004). “I am not guilty” vs. “I am innocent”: successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 433–449. CrossRef
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. CrossRef
Pfister, R. (2013). Breaking the rules: cognitive conflict during deliberate rule violations. Berlin: Logos.
Pfister, R., Wirth, R., Schwarz, K., Steinhauser, M., & Kunde, W. (submitted). Burdens of non-conformity: motor execution reveals cognitive conflict during deliberate rule violations. Cognition.
Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. CrossRef
Schroder, H. S., Moran, T. P., Moser, J. S., & Altmann, E. M. (2012). When the rules are reversed: action-monitoring consequences of reversing stimulus–response mappings. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(4), 629–643. CrossRef
Wason, P. C. (1959). The processing of positive and negative information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11(2), 92–107. CrossRef
Wegner, D. M., Coulton, G. F., & Wenzlaff, R. (1985). The transparency of denial: briefing in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 338. CrossRef
Wirth, R., Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2015). Asymmetric transfer effects between cognitive and affective task disturbances. Cognition and Emotion, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2015.1009002.
- Pushing the rules: effects and aftereffects of deliberate rule violations
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg