Behavioural Set Psychology: Rigidity of Thought and Behaviour

Behavioural Set Psychology: Rigidity of Thought and Behaviour

Rigidity in psychology is tied to behavioural set psychology and mental sets. Rigidity can be a learned behavioural trait: patterns of thinking and acting that form through repeated experience and resist pressure to change.

In this article we examine what rigidity is in psychology, how it relates to behavioural set psychology and mental set psychology, how researchers have defined and measured it across more than a century of work, and where the construct sits in the contemporary literature.

A 100-year-old construct

The construct of rigidity has a productive and venerable history in the field of psychology.

Systematic research on rigidity can be traced back to the Gestalt psychologists of the late 19th and early 20th century (Cattell, 1946; Chown, 1959; Lankes, 1915; Luchins & Luchins, 1994; Muller & Schumann, 1898; Spearman, 1927; Stewin, 1983).

An examination of the names associated with much of the early research on rigidity reads like an all-star roster: Raymond Cattell, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, William James, Kurt Lewin, Abraham Luchins, Milton Rokeach, Charles Spearman, and Louis Thurstone all made substantial contributions to the area.

More than 100 years of systematic study of rigidity have produced a large body of research with some clear and established findings. Controversies surrounding several fundamental aspects of rigidity remain.

Although the term rigidity may be somewhat out of vogue among personality and social psychologists today, considerable interest continues in a range of highly related personality variables, such as flexibility, need for closure, and openness to experience. Indeed, every major personality inventory contains a dimension similar to rigidity.

• But what is rigidity?
• How is it measured?
• What are the causes and correlates of resistance to change?

For social psychologists, answers to these questions bear special importance. Social psychologists have always been interested in behaviour change. As presented in the following review, rigidity is the tendency of an individual not to change.

We believe that a conceptual clarification of rigidity, a summary of the tools for measuring rigidity, and an analysis of the correlates of rigidity will be useful for determining the state of knowledge about this important construct.

The contemporary research base

Despite the long history of research on rigidity, the construct continues to attract researchers from a variety of psychological disciplines (D'Aunno & Sutton, 1992; McKelvie, 1990).

An examination of published research reveals that the term rigidity continues to be commonly used by psychological researchers. Between 1967 and 1998 the term rigidity was used in the abstracts or titles of 1,733 published articles contained in the PsycINFO database. The term continues to be current; between 1990 and 1998 it was used in the abstracts of 494 published studies.

Rigidity research appears across a variety of psychological subdisciplines including personality psychology, social psychology, cognitive psychology, counselling, developmental psychology, educational psychology, neuropsychology, organisational behaviour, ethology, psychopathology, and psychotherapy.

Defining the psychology of rigidity

In her 1959 review, Sheila Chown noted that the construct of rigidity had proved difficult to define. The term had been used to describe mental sets, extreme attitudes, ethnocentrism, stereotypy, lack of flexibility, perseveration, authoritarianism, and the inability to change habits.

Early approaches to the study of rigidity treated it as a unidimensional continuum ranging from rigid at one end to flexible at the other. Spearman (1927) described it as mental inertia. Spearman is widely known for introducing the g factor; less widely known is that he also proposed a p factor (perseveration factor).

A useful development since 1959 has been Rokeach's The Open and Closed Mind (1960). Summarising the wide range of approaches to the construct, Rokeach defined rigidity as a resistance to change in beliefs, attitudes, or personal habits. The usefulness of this definition is its multidimensional nature.

Rigidity is not simply the perseveration of behaviour on a behavioural task but can be divided into cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioural components.

Rigidity as mental or behavioural set

First, rigidity involves the formation of a mental or behavioural set. By set, we mean a learned mental or behavioural pattern that forms through repeated experience in a given situation. This is the core sense in which rigidity is a learned behavioural trait. The set itself is acquired, not innate, even where genetic and temperamental factors influence the speed and stability of acquisition.

Mental sets are expectations about future events (including attitudes, beliefs, expectancies, and schemas), whereas behavioural sets are patterns of observable responses.

Second, rigidity involves the perseveration of these sets, the continuation of the set in the face of pressure to change. Pressure to change can come from a variety of sources, including (a) the realisation that the set is no longer effective, efficient, or appropriate for the current situation; or (b) pressure from an external agent indicating that change is desirable.

We define rigidity as the tendency to develop and perseverate in the use of mental or behavioural sets.

Thus, there are two steps in the rigidity process: set formation and set perseveration. These two steps are positively correlated such that a person who quickly forms a set is likely to perseverate in its use.

Perseveration and habit

One important distinction is between perseveration and habit.

Habit

A habit is a typical pattern of behaviour: a behavioural set that occurs largely without reflection. Examples include daily routines such as routes to work or driving on the right side of the road in countries where that is the convention.

Perseveration

In and of themselves, habits are not rigid. A behavioural pattern only meets our definition of rigidity when it perseverates in the face of pressure to change.

Consider the case of a U.S. automobile driver who travels to England, where the convention is to drive on the left. If, after several driving excursions, the driver is still unable or unwilling to adapt to the new prevailing rules of the road, this would reflect rigidity, not a habit.

Measuring rigidity

Although the literature suggests some agreement on the definition of rigidity, no universally acknowledged or accepted measurement exists. Chown's review identified 47 measures of rigidity, and many additional measures have been developed since. Some researchers have moved away from the term rigidity and instead adopted labels such as personal need for structure, need for closure, openness, or flexibility.

Questionnaire measures of rigidity

By far the most widely used procedure for measuring rigidity is to ask respondents to rate statements on a Likert-type scale. These scales are easily administered to many respondents simultaneously and have the advantage of providing estimates for internal reliability.

Breskin Rigidity Test

The Breskin Rigidity Test is based on the Gestalt Laws of Pragnanz and measures individual differences in the tendency to form a perceptual set. Respondents are presented with pairs of images, one of which has good form and the other of which does not. Respondents are asked to select the one they prefer.

California Personality Inventory — Flexibility

The flexibility subscale of the CPI was developed to measure rigidity-flexibility of personality unassociated with political ideology. People scoring high on flexibility are described as imaginative, spontaneous, and able to adapt to change and the unexpected.

Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale

Budner (1962) defined intolerance of ambiguity as the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as sources of threat. The 16-item scale measures individual differences in desire for certainty.

Need for Closure Scale

The 42-item NFCS measures individual differences in preferences for order and structure and the abhorrence of disorder and chaos. The scale measures five correlated subsets labelled preference for structure, discomfort with ambiguity, decisiveness, predictability, and closed-mindedness.

Openness to experience

Openness to experience is one of the personality dimensions included in the Five-Factor Model of personality. Openness is a broad and general dimension that includes a preference for novelty, cognitive complexity, and flexibility.

Personal Need for Structure

Personal need for structure refers to individual differences in preference for cognitive simplicity and structure. Measured with a 12-item scale, the PNS represents the degree to which people are motivated to structure their worlds in simple and unambiguous ways.

Test of Behavioural Rigidity

Schaie distinguished between motor-cognitive flexibility and personality-perceptual flexibility. The factor analysis revealed three distinct factors: Psychomotor Speed, Personality-Perceptual (attitudinal flexibility), and Motor-Cognitive (the behavioural aspect of rigidity).

Summary

Rigidity is a multidimensional construct with more than 100 years of academic study behind it. The construct combines:

1. Set formation: the tendency to develop learned mental and behavioural patterns through repeated experience.
2. Perseveration: the tendency to continue applying those sets in the face of pressure to change.
3. A multidimensional structure: cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioural components, each measurable through different instruments (questionnaires, perseveration tasks).

The literature continues to evolve. Contemporary work increasingly uses related terms (flexibility, need for closure, openness, personal need for structure) to describe the same underlying construct from different angles.

For applied disciplines that depend on changing user behaviour, including conversion rate optimisation, the rigidity construct is a useful framework for understanding why some interface, copy, and offer changes meet resistance even when they are objectively superior.

FAQ

What is rigidity in psychology?
Rigidity is the tendency to develop and perseverate in the use of mental or behavioural sets: learned patterns that resist change even when the situation calls for it. It has cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioural components.

Is rigidity a learned behavioural trait?
Yes. The mental and behavioural sets that produce rigidity are formed through repeated experience in given situations. Genetic and temperamental factors influence the speed of acquisition, but the sets themselves are learned.

How is rigidity measured?
Rigidity is measured through questionnaires (Breskin Rigidity Test, CPI Flexibility, Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale, Need for Closure Scale, Openness to Experience, Personal Need for Structure, Test of Behavioural Rigidity) and through perseveration tasks. No single instrument is universally accepted.

What is the difference between mental set and behavioural set?
Mental sets are expectations about future events: attitudes, beliefs, expectancies, schemas. Behavioural sets are patterns of observable responses. Both are learned through repeated experience and both can perseverate.

What is the difference between perseveration and habit?
A habit is a typical pattern of behaviour that occurs without reflection. It only becomes rigidity when it perseverates in the face of pressure to change.

Who introduced rigidity to academic psychology?
The construct dates back to the Gestalt psychologists of the late 19th and early 20th century. Spearman (1927) described rigidity as mental inertia. Sheila Chown's 1959 Psychological Bulletin review and Milton Rokeach's The Open and Closed Mind (1960) are the foundational modern texts.

Where this fits in the OperatorAI methodology

This article sits under The Evidence Stack, one of the three named frameworks inside our OperatorAI methodology (GoGoChimp's CRO methodology, distinct from OpenAI's Operator agent product). GoGoChimp's four-layer testing discipline — operator-set hypothesis, sample-size discipline, The 99 Rule, and failure-as-information.

For where this work sits in our operating-model maturity classification, see The OperatorAI Maturity Model — the five-tier framework from Ad-hoc through Operator-Led.

If you operate in Scotland, see our local SEO pillar for Glasgow Map-Pack tactics.