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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15(9), 610–615.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. (1974). Perceptual coding strategies in the formation and verification of descriptions. Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 101–111.
Fillenbaum, S. (1966). Memory for gist: some relevant variables. Language and Speech, 9(4), 217–227.
Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119.
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.
Hasson, U., Simmons, J. P., & Todorov, A. (2005). Believe it or not. On the possibility of suspending belief. Psychological Science, 16(7), 566–571.
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.
Kessler, Y., Shencar, Y., & Meiran, N. (2009). Choosing to switch: spontaneous task switching despite associated behavioral costs. Acta Psychologica, 131(2), 120–128.
Kim, D., & Hommel, B. (2015). An event-based account of conformity. Psychological Science, 26(4), 484–489.
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.
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.
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.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.
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.
Pfister, R. (2013). Breaking the rules: cognitive conflict during deliberate rule violations. Berlin: Logos.
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.
Pfister, R., Janczyk, M., Wirth, R., Dignath, D., & Kunde, W. (2014). Thinking with portals: revisiting kinematic cues to intention. Cognition, 133(2), 464–473.
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.
Reason, J. (1995). Understanding adverse events: human factors. Quality in Health Care, 4(2), 80–89.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231.
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.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247.
Vandierendonck, A., Demanet, J., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2012). A chain-retrieval model for voluntary task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 241–283.
Wason, P. C. (1959). The processing of positive and negative information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11(2), 92–107.
Wegner, D. M. (2009). How to think, say, or do precisely the worst thing for any occasion. Science, 325(5936), 48–50.
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.
Wirth, R., et al. (2015). Through the portal: Effect anticipation in the central bottleneck. Acta Psychologica. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.07.007.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wirth, R., Pfister, R., Foerster, A. et al. Pushing the rules: effects and aftereffects of deliberate rule violations. Psychological Research 80, 838–852 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0690-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0690-9