Abstract
BackgroundAdherence to inaccurate rules has been viewed as a characteristic of human rule-following (i.e., the rule-based insensitivity effect; RBIE) and has been thought to be exacerbated in individuals suffering from clinical conditions. This review intended to systematically examine these claims in adult populations.MethodologyWe screened 1464 records which resulted in 21 studies that were deemed eligible for inclusion. Each of these studies was examined to determine: (1) if there is evidence for the RBIE in adults and (2) if this effect is larger in those suffering from psychological problems compared to their non-suffering counterparts. In addition, we investigated how (3) different operationalizations of the RBIE, and (4) the external validity and risks of bias of the experimental work investigating this effect, might influence the conclusions that can be drawn from the current systematic review.Results(1) Out of the 20 studies that were relevant for examining if evidence exists for the RBIE in adults, only 11 were eligible for vote counting. Results showed that after the contingency change, the rule groups were more inclined to demonstrate behavior that was reinforced before the change, compared to their non-instructed counterparts. Critically, however, none of these studies examined if their no-instructions group was an adequate comparison group. As a result, this made it difficult to determine whether the effects that were observed in the rule groups could be attributed to the rules or instructions that were manipulated in those experiments. (2) The single study that was relevant for examining if adults suffering from psychological problems demonstrated larger levels of the RBIE, compared to their non-clinical counterparts, was not eligible for vote counting. As a result, no conclusions could be drawn about the extent to which psychological problems moderated the RBIE in that study. (3) Similar procedures and tasks have been used to examine the RBIE, but their precise parameters differ across studies; and (4) most studies report insufficient information to evaluate all relevant aspects affecting their external validity and risks of bias.ConclusionsDespite the widespread appeal that the RBIE has enjoyed, this systematic review indicates that, at present, only preliminary evidence exists for the idea that adults demonstrate the RBIE and no evidence is available to assume that psychological problems exacerbate the RBIE in adults.The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018088210).
Highlights
Rules1 constitute a set of statements that can govern behavior in various domains such as personal, professional, social, and legal contexts
We investigated how (3) different operationalizations of the rule-based insensitivity effect ’’ (RBIE), and (4) the external validity and risks of bias of the experimental work investigating this effect, might influence the conclusions that can be drawn from the current systematic review
To identify as many relevant records as possible, multiple electronic databases were searched (i.e., ‘‘Web of Science’’, ‘‘PsychINFO’’, ‘‘PsychArticles’’, and ‘‘PubMed [Medline]’’) using the search terms: ‘‘rule governed behavior’’, ‘‘rule-governed behavior’’, ‘‘rule governed behaviour’’, ‘‘rule-governed behaviour’’, ‘‘verbal regulation’’, ‘‘instructional control’’, ‘‘verbal rule’’, ‘‘instructed behavior’’, ‘‘instructed behaviour’’, ‘‘instructed learning’’, ‘‘instruction following’’, ‘‘instruction-following’’, ‘‘rule following’’, and ‘‘rule-following.’’ These search terms were iteratively developed with experts on systematic reviews and rule-governed behavior, and were subsequently presented to other experts on systematic reviews and rule-governed behavior who were not associated with the project
Summary
Rules constitute a set of statements that can govern behavior in various domains such as personal, professional, social, and legal contexts. We screened 1464 records which resulted in 21 studies that were deemed eligible for inclusion Each of these studies was examined to determine: (1) if there is evidence for the RBIE in adults and (2) if this effect is larger in those suffering from psychological problems compared to their non-suffering counterparts. Results showed that after the contingency change, the rule groups were more inclined to demonstrate behavior that was reinforced before the change, compared to their non-instructed counterparts. (2) The single study that was relevant for examining if adults suffering from psychological problems demonstrated larger levels of the RBIE, compared to their non-clinical counterparts, was not eligible for vote counting.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
