I am a rule-follower. I readily admit it. I love rules for so many reasons. Rules create order, define boundaries, and facilitate group cooperation towards common goals. (Unless it’s game night at the Bradley’s. In that case, rules are useless because only 2 out of 7 of us follow them.) But it’s interesting what the word “rules” invokes for people and their reaction to the idea of being a rule-follower. In some eye-opening conversations, I’ve learned that people, in general, find my attitude towards rules laughable and view their own aversion to rules (or following them) as a badge of honor. I don’t know if it’s an ideal we cling to because of our nationalistic focus on independence or what, but people are deeply convicted that they’re not the weak-minded, rule-following type.
Psychology says otherwise.
In pains me to admit this, because I too sit among the group of “humans” this research indicts. But, I figure we can’t do anything to change our quirks and foibles until we’re willing to acknowledge them. We have to look at it for what it is.
In his book detailing the creation of Acceptance and Commitment Theory (ACT), Dr. Steven C Hayes describes many of the different studies conducted to test cognitive behavioral theories and their consequences. The study pertinent to our discussion here was done by well-known behavioral psychologist Charlie Catania. (His team originated this research, but others have added to his contribution). Hayes describes that “Charlie and his colleagues … conducted a series of experiments that … explored how tenaciously people would cling to rules” (86)[1]. The purpose was to test if people were able to recognize and disregard rules if a better way could be found.
The structure of the experiment was simple. People were placed in front of a machine with a button that released a coin when it was pushed, but not predictably. Researchers set the button to release the coin at differing intervals—sometimes 4 pushes or 6, or other increments—ensuring inconsistency. They didn’t want participants to figure out the system too easily. Participants were told to push the button to earn money and then left to themselves with the machine.
As expected, people immediately began pushing the button and quickly increased their speed once they discovered the inconsistency. Even though they couldn’t predict how many pushes it would take to drop the coin, they understood that the more times they pushed the button, the more money they would make. (When the original experiment was done, video games weren’t even around yet but based on the description I read, I imagine people button-pushing like they’re trying to earn as many coins as possible from a timed coin block on Super Mario Bros … they got blisters for sure.)
Then, the experimenters changed the game.
Instead of dispensing a coin after a certain number of pushes, the machine would give coins on the first push after a certain number of seconds. Hayes explains:
You are trying to discover whether people will detect the change and adjust their rate of pushing the button. After all, now they can do a lot less work to get the dime—just one push will do instead of constant pushing.
Monkeys, birds and rats easily detect a change like this, with the machine dispensing food rather than money. They all soon slow down, pushing only once about every five seconds. Humans, however, often just keep pushing like crazy! Hour after hour.
pg. 86-87
Researchers made another alteration in their study and found that people who were not told the rule to “push the button to make money,” but instead were told to simply interact with the machine, recognized and adapted to the change in similar fashion to the other animals. The people who were told the rule were, unfortunately, consistently unable to adapt to the change.
Out of this research, and others like it, the name insensitivity effect was born. It is the label psychologists use for the human mind’s inflexibility. Whether a rule is told to us, or merely inferred, we have a habit of letting the rule dictate our behavior and our thinking. The inflexibility of our rule-following ways interferes with our ability to adapt or adjust to ineffective or even harmful behavior because it prevents us from seeing that change is needed. One version of the experiment recorded people blaming the machine: they were convinced it was broken and would only randomly work. Their adherence to the rule prevented them from considering problem-solving strategies. They just blamed the machine for not working and kept right on pushing the button to exhaustion.
Now, it’s important to note, and should be no surprise coming from me, that in some cases our adherence to rules is beneficial. For example, we follow traffic rules to keep ourselves and other drivers safe. Accidents can easily happen, sometimes tragic ones, when we don’t follow the rules. This means that we rarely ruminate about the hows/whys/usefulness of traffic laws. When followed, they work and serve a purpose that benefits us and those we live in community with. It is a good thing to follow these rules.
On the other hand, what if you grew up with a rule like, “you have to eat everything on your plate.” It’s no secret that portion control is a major problem in the American diet and that portion sizes are getting bigger and bigger. You will likely experience an ever-expanding waistline if you’re unwilling to confront a rule like this. It’s not a good rule, it doesn’t produce good results. As unhelpful to your health as this rule may be, it is also a relatively easy one to identify. Information on new rules about healthy eating habits abounds. Apart from recognizing your compulsion to follow the rule of “eating everything on your plate,” you don’t really have to be thoughtful about changing it. Google healthy eating habits, pick a new rule and voila, problem solved.
But what about those internal laws connected to more complex, less straight-forward issues?
Let me give you an example. Pictured below is an Instagram post from Dr. Caroline Leaf. First let me say, I greatly value her work. She offers sound advice on relationships, self-care and overall mental health. That is exactly why I chose to use this example—she is someone I would likely receive advice from without questioning much or filtering the application of the advice.
To reiterate, this is excellent advice. People are hurt far too often by perceived offenses or rejection, because they made a wrong assumption. As a whole, we are all a little too self-absorbed, sensitive and self-serving. To love others well we have to look past ourselves and our assumptions.
Now, say you read something like this and think “This is the person I really want to be. I want to always give people the benefit of the doubt and not assume judgmental or hurtful things about their behavior.” Again, noble ambition. If you determine to live this way, people will likely find a safe, kind, loving relationship from you. But let’s take a minute to consider the inferred and/or subconscious rules our inflexible brains will embrace to accomplish this relational goal:
- Don’t make assumptions about the behaviors, thoughts, or actions of others.
- Believe the best in people, they may be dealing with something difficult.
- If someone withdraws from me, I don’t need to worry that I’ve done something wrong—it’s probably not about me.
In certain circumstances, these are all exemplary standards to follow. But, in truth, not in all circumstances. Behavior and actions can be a strong indicator that someone isn’t trustworthy or safe. Also, if a person is dealing with something difficult in their lives, rude, disrespectful or harsh treatment towards you isn’t justifiable. And finally, if someone withdraws from you it may in fact be because you did something hurtful and you need to be open to owning your poor behavior and repair the relationship. In this case, it is easy to see how strict application of this great advice could cause major relationship problems. But sadly, a rigid approach to rules tends to be our default. The insensitivity effect prevents us from a mindfulness that allows for flexibility.
To break out of this mold, and live with what Dr. Hayes calls psychological flexibility, requires self-awareness and an objective approach to our own thought life that Hayes terms “diffusion.” Rather than give our brain and it’s thoughts automatic control and decision-making power, diffusion empowers the self to question its own thinking and disregard beliefs/rules that are ineffective situationally or on the whole. Simply put, give yourself both time and permission to question yourself and what motivates your behavior.
The first step towards psychological flexibility is awareness and acknowledgment of the inherent problem of all humans towards rigid-thinking and rule-following. (Yes, this is a proven, predictable problem for all of us, even you free-spirited types. “There are no rules” is still a rule.) Once you understand you have this default, you are more able to consider where and how the rules you follow influence your behavior. Then, you get to evaluate and decide which of those rules serves you well and is worth holding onto.
Diffusion is just one of many components in ACT meant to help people in their pursuit of psychological flexibility. ACT is itself a component of the larger mindfulness movement in psychology. If this discussion has piqued your interest, I recommend more from Dr. Hayes or others like him. I will include a link to his website below. His work contains insightful instruction and exercises to help people put into practice the kinds of thinking and behaviors that facilitate flexibility.
In a world filled with opportunities to distract, evade and avoid, it is easy to merely exist without realizing how much our quality of life and relationships depends on ourselves. To be who we are meant to be, and likely who we desire to be, takes investment in personal growth. We must be mindful, reflective, aware, and intentional about becoming our true selves. And the value of doing our work, as Brené Brown says, is entirely worth it.
For more information on Dr. Steven C Hayes and his work in Acceptance and Commitment Theory visit his website https://stevenchayes.com
For more from Dr. Caroline Leaf visit https://drleaf.com
For more from Brené Brown visit https://brenebrown.com
[1] Hayes, Steven C. A Liberated Mind: The Essential Guide to Act. Vermilion, 2019.
So interesting isn’t it? I love Psychology so much and the challenges it often presents. Makes one stop and think, or it should anyway.
I wonder if people who play Mao are more or less likely to notice when the rules of the game have changed than people who rage-quit Mao. 😜
It’s pretty sobering to realize that, whether or not you are able to distinguish the “rules of life” you’re playing by, you will still experience the consequences of adhering to/failing to adhere to them. If I do not acknowledge and deal with the rigidity of my thinking and my “rules,” boy-oh-boy will I absolutely suffer the slings and arrows of my outrageous inflexibility, even if I do everything “right” by a rulebook that doesn’t take that psychology into account.
… and I want to take into account both Dr. Hayes’ data of incredible rigidity WITH Dr. Leaf’s data of incredible neural-plasticity in my own personal growth, which indicates a lot of work ahead 🤦♀️ Is the person I want to be equivalent to who I was made to be…? Or is that a nonsense question?
Oh my goodness, Mao has got to be one of the best games ever invented for countering this tendency in our brains!!! 😆 Who knew you were teaching all these young people psychological flexibility when you taught them to play??!
Also, to your question “Is the person I want to be equivalent to who I was made to be?” … doubtful. We know that God’s plans for us are beyond anything we can think or imagine, which means we work on what we can see and move towards now, in present time, and then our connection between self-image and God’s design expands as we do. So, no, not a nonsense question. I think it’s wise to recognize the limits of our own thinking, especially in self-perception.