Advertisement

Rules of a Task

  • Davood Gozli
Chapter
  • 749 Downloads

Abstract

Rules serve multiple functions. They help us understand actions by relying on known categories of rule-governed action; they help us coordinate our actions with others who share the same rules. The concept of honest participant is introduced as something we implicitly hold in many of our interactions. Deviation from the concept of honest participant (cheating) is discussed and compared with other ways of deviating from expectation (rebellion, innovation). After the preliminary remarks, I discuss several ways in which experimental psychology has addressed the topic of rule-violation.

Keywords

Rules Tasks Experimental psychology Coordination Cooperation Honesty Cheating Illusions Rebellion Innovation Creativity Norms Intention Goal 

References

  1. Al-Aidroos, N., & Pratt, J. (2010). Top-down control in time and space: Evidence from saccadic latencies and trajectories. Visual Cognition, 18(1), 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansorge, U., Gozli, D. G., & Goller, F. (2017). Investigating the contribution of task and response repetitions to the sequential modulations of attentional cueing effects. Psychological Research (Online first).Google Scholar
  3. Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Why good thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of the pernicious Einstellung (set) effect. Cognition, 108(3), 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 955–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryan, C. J., Adams, G. S., & Monin, B. (2013). When cheating would make you a cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1001–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buetti, S., & Kerzel, D. (2009). Conflicts during response selection affect response programming: Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(3), 816–834.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Caspar, E. A., Cleeremans, A., & Haggard, P. (2018). Only giving orders? An experimental study of the sense of agency when giving or receiving commands. PLoS One, 13(9), e0204027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Debey, E., Liefooghe, B., De Houwer, J., & Verschuere, B. (2015). Lie, truth, lie: The role of task switching in a deception context. Psychological Research, 79(3), 478–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. New York, NY: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  10. Dennett, D. C. (2004). Freedom Evolves. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  11. Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Lies in disguise—An experimental study on cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 525–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foerster, A., Pfister, R., Schmidts, C., Dignath, D., Wirth, R., & Kunde, W. (2018). Focused cognitive control in dishonesty: Evidence for predominantly transient conflict adaptation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(4), 578–602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Foerster, A., Wirth, R., Herbort, O., Kunde, W., & Pfister, R. (2017). Lying upside-down: Alibis reverse cognitive burdens of dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(3), 301–319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Foerster, A., Wirth, R., Kunde, W., & Pfister, R. (2017). The dishonest mind set in sequence. Psychological Research, 81, 878–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freud, S., & Breuer, J. (1895). Studies in hysteria. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Giorgi, A. (2013). Reflections on the status and direction of psychology: An external historical perspective. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 44(2), 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gozli, D. G. (2017a). Behaviour versus performance: The veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27, 741–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gozli, D. G. (2017b). The lackluster role of misperceptions in an enactivist paradigm. Constructivist Foundations, 13, 133–135.Google Scholar
  19. Gozli, D. G., Chow, A., Chasteen, A. L., & Pratt, J. (2013). Valence and vertical space: Saccade trajectory deviations reveal metaphorical spatial activation. Visual Cognition, 21, 628–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Hilbig, B. E., & Hessler, C. M. (2013). What lies beneath: How the distance between truth and lie drives dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hilbig, B. E., & Thielmann, I. (2017). Does everyone have a price? On the role of payoff magnitude for ethical decision making. Cognition, 163, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hommel, B., Lippelt, D. P., Gurbuz, E., & Pfister, R. (2017). Contributions of expected sensory and affective action effects to action selection and performance: Evidence from forced- and free-choice tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3), 821–827.Google Scholar
  24. Jusyte, A., Pfister, R., Mayer, S. V., Schwarz, K. A., Wirth, R., Kunde, W., & Schönenberg, M. (2017). Smooth criminal: Convicted rule-breakers show reduced cognitive conflict during deliberate rule violations. Psychological Research, 81, 939–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perry, G. (2013). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. New York, NY: The New Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pfister, R., Wirth, R., Schwarz, K., Steinhauser, M., & Kunde, W. (2016). Burdens of non-conformity: Motor execution reveals cognitive conflict during deliberate rule violations. Cognition, 147, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pfister, R., Wirth, R., Schwarz, K. A., Foerster, A., Steinhauser, M., & Kunde, W. (2016). The electrophysiological signature of deliberate rule violations. Psychophysiology, 53, 1870–1877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pfister, R., Wirth, R., Weller, L., Foerster, A., & Schwarz, K. A. (2019). Taking shortcuts: Cognitive conflict during motivated rule-breaking. Journal of Economic Psychology, 71, 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sartori, G., Agosta, S., Zogmaister, C., Ferrara, S. D., & Castiello, U. (2008). How to accurately detect autobiographical events. Psychological Science, 19(8), 772–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schumacher, E. H., & Hazeltine, E. (2016). Hierarchical task representation: Task files and response selection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 449–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smedslund, J. (2009). The mismatch between current research methods and the nature of psychological phenomena: What researchers must learn from practitioners. Theory & Psychology, 19(6), 778–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stapel, D. (2016). Faking science: A true story of academic fraud (N. J. L. Brown, Trans.). https://errorstatistics.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/fakingscience-20141214.pdf
  37. Thiel, P. (2014). Zero to one: Notes on startups, or how to build the future. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  38. Ting, C. (2018). The feedback loop of rule-breaking: Experimental evidence. The Social Science Journal (Online first).Google Scholar
  39. Tipper, S. P., Howard, L. A., & Jackson, S. R. (1997). Selective reaching to grasp: Evidence for distractor interference effects. Visual Cognition, 4(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tworek, C. M., & Cimpian, A. (2016). Why do people tend to infer “ought” from “is”? The role of biases in explanation. Psychological Science, 27(8), 1109–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Bockstaele, B., Verschuere, B., Moens, T., Suchotzki, K., Debey, E., & Spruyt, A. (2012). Learning to lie: Effects of practice on the cognitive cost of lying. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 526.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Bockstaele, B., Wilhelm, C., Meijer, E., Debey, E., & Verschuere, B. (2015). When deception becomes easy: The effects of task switching and goal neglect on the truth proportion effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1666.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Verschuere, B., Prati, V., & Houwer, J. D. (2009). Cheating the lie detector: Faking in the autobiographical implicit association test. Psychological Science, 20(4), 410–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Welsh, T. N., & Elliott, D. (2004). Movement trajectories in the presence of a distracting stimulus: Evidence for a response activation model of selective reaching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(6), 1031–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wirth, R., Foerster, A., Herbort, O., Kunde, W., & Pfister, R. (2018). This is how to be a rule breaker. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 14, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wirth, R., Pfister, R., Foerster, A., Huestegge, L., & Kunde, W. (2016). Pushing the rules: Effects and aftereffects of deliberate rule violations. Psychological Research, 80, 838–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davood Gozli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MacauTaipaMacao

Personalised recommendations