Psychological Research

, Volume 80, Issue 5, pp 838–852 | Cite as

Pushing the rules: effects and aftereffects of deliberate rule violations

  • Robert Wirth
  • Roland Pfister
  • Anna Foerster
  • Lynn Huestegge
  • Wilfried Kunde
Original Article

Abstract

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.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15(9), 610–615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrington, C. M., Weaver, S. M., & Pauker, R. L. (2010). Stimulus-based priming of task choice during voluntary task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1060–1067.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chermayeff, M., Dupre, J., & Matthew Akers, M. (2012). Marina Abramovic: the artist is present [motion picture]. USA: Show Of Force.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 472–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. (1974). Perceptual coding strategies in the formation and verification of descriptions. Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 101–111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fillenbaum, S. (1966). Memory for gist: some relevant variables. Language and Speech, 9(4), 217–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hasson, U., Simmons, J. P., & Todorov, A. (2005). Believe it or not. On the possibility of suspending belief. Psychological Science, 16(7), 566–571.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding: a framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kessler, Y., Shencar, Y., & Meiran, N. (2009). Choosing to switch: spontaneous task switching despite associated behavioral costs. Acta Psychologica, 131(2), 120–128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim, D., & Hommel, B. (2015). An event-based account of conformity. Psychological Science, 26(4), 484–489.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Liefooghe, B., Demanet, J., & Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Persisting activation in voluntary task switching: it all depends on the instructions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(3), 381–386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Notebaert, W., Houtman, F., Opstal, F. V., Gevers, W., Fias, W., & Verguts, T. (2009). Post-error slowing: an orienting account. Cognition, 111(2), 275–279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pfister, R. (2013). Breaking the rules: cognitive conflict during deliberate rule violations. Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
  23. Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 74–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Pfister, R., Janczyk, M., Wirth, R., Dignath, D., & Kunde, W. (2014). Thinking with portals: revisiting kinematic cues to intention. Cognition, 133(2), 464–473.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reason, J. (1995). Understanding adverse events: human factors. Quality in Health Care, 4(2), 80–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Vandierendonck, A., Demanet, J., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2012). A chain-retrieval model for voluntary task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 241–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wason, P. C. (1959). The processing of positive and negative information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11(2), 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wegner, D. M. (2009). How to think, say, or do precisely the worst thing for any occasion. Science, 325(5936), 48–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wirth, R., et al. (2015). Through the portal: Effect anticipation in the central bottleneck. Acta Psychologica. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.07.007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Wirth
    • 1
  • Roland Pfister
    • 1
  • Anna Foerster
    • 1
  • Lynn Huestegge
    • 1
  • Wilfried Kunde
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyJulius-Maximilians-University of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations