Structural Components of Cognitive Rigidity

The introduction describes the object of the study - cognitive rigidity. The purpose of the study is to identify the component composition of cognitive rigidity through the processes of switching, interference and control. Presumably, cognitive rigidity is not a unitary construct and has its own structure including the processes of switching, interference and control. The results of the study of cognitive rigidity within the framework of three approaches are discussed: cognitive rigidity as interference (J. Stroup), as switching and cognitive control (A. Lachins). The study was conducted in 2 stages: the participants of the first stage were 584 respondents (M = 21.46; SD = 6.22); the participants of the second stage were 204 (M = 19.66; SD = 5.06). A series of samples included in the test of J. Stroup, the method “Study of the influence of past experience on the way of problem solving” and “Lability of thinking” by A. Lachins, reflecting the processes of switching, interference and control, were conducted. The study revealed statistically significant differences between the indicators of variables within each technique. Within the framework of correlation analysis, intercorrelations between the scales within each technique were recorded, indicating the unity of interference, switching and cognitive control. At the same time, the differentiated nature of correlations between the parameters of all variables indicates the difference in measurement procedures. Within the framework of factor analysis, cognitive rigidity breaks down into a number of components, which allows us to assume its heterogeneity and to set the task of differentiating cognitive rigidity taking into account its structures. The results of the study contribute to supplementing the previously developed general model of rigidity, and can also be applied to the study of cognitive rigidity.

1. Bilalich M., Makleod P. Khoroshee — vrag luchshego? [Is the good the enemy of the best?]. Vmire nauki[In the World of Science], 2014. No. 5, рр. 30—35.
2. Dunker K. Psikhologiya produktivnogo (tvorcheskogo) myshleniya [The Psychology of Productive (Creative) Thinking]/ Ed. Matyushkin A.M. Psikhologiya myshleniya: Sbornik perevodov s nemetskogo i angliiskogo [Psychology of Thinking:A Collection of Translations from German and English]. Moscow: Progress, 1965. Рр. 86—245. (In Russ.).
3. Zalevskii G.V. Lichnost' i fiksirovannye formy povedeniya [Personality and Fixed Forms of Behavior]. Moscow: Publ.IP RAN. 2007. 336 р. (In Russ.).
4. Zalevskii G.V. Fiksirovannye formy povedeniya individual'nykh i gruppovykh sistem (v kul'ture, obrazovanii, nauke, norme i patologii) [Fixed forms of behavior of individual and group systems (in culture, education, science, norm and pathology)].Moscow: Publ. Tomsk: Tomskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2004. 460 р.
5. Karpov A.V., Karpov A.A., Filippova Iu.V. Spetsifika vzaimosviazi protsessov metamyshleniia i metapamiati [Specificity of the relationship between the processes of metamemory and metamemory]. Eksperimental'naia psikhologiia = Experimental Psychology, 2022. Vol. 8, no. 4, рр. 50—67. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2022150403 (In Russ.).
6. Rigidnost' [Rigidity] // Bol'shoi psikhologicheskii slovar' [The Big Dictionary of Psychology] / pod red. B.G. Meshcheryakova, V.P. Zinchenko. 4-e izd., rasshir. Moscow: SPb., 2009.
7. Lazareva N.Iu., Savinova A.D., Chistopol'skaia A.V. Vliianie eksperimental'nykh uslovii na sub"ektivnuiu otsenku insaitnosti resheniia [The influence of experimental conditions on the subjective assessment of decision insight]. Eksperimental'naia psikhologiia = Experimental Psychology, 2023. Vol. 16, no. 1, рр. 23—42. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2023160102 (In Russ.).
8. Lobanov A.P. Praktikum po obshchei i kognitivnoi psikhologii: praktikum [Practicum on General and Cognitive Psychology: Practicum]. Minsk: Belarusian State Pedagogical University, 2014. 144 p. (In Russ.).
9. Lobanov A.P., Pevneva A.N. Vliyanie rigidnosti — fleksibil'nosti na issledovatel'skii potentsial studentov [The influence of rigidity-flexibility on the research potential of students]. Voprosy psikhologii = Voprosy Psychologii, 2021. Vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 34—43. (In Russ.).
10. Marakshina Yu.A., Vartanova A.V., Bespalov B.I. Rol' lateral'noi asimmetrii v zadache podavleniya otveta po komponentam vyzvannykh potentsialov [The role of lateral asymmetry in the task of response suppression by components of evoked potentials]. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki = Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2017. Vol. 14, no. 4, рр. 679—697. DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2017-4-679-697 (In Russ.).
11. Nizharadze G.A. O dvukh tipakh rigidnosti pri reshenii intellektual'nykh zadach [About two types of rigidity in solving intellectual tasks]. Voprosy psikhologii = Voprosy psychologii, 1987. 3, pp. 142—145. (In Russ.).
12. Pevneva A.N. Kognitivnaia rigidnost' v paradigme Lachins-effekta [Cognitive rigidity in the paradigm of Lachins-effect].Vesti BGPU. Seriia. Pedagogika. Psikhologiia. Filosofiia = Vesti BSPU. Series. Pedagogy. Psychology. Philosophy, 2022. No. 3, рр. 82—86. (In Russ.).
13. Pevneva A.N. Konstrukt rigidnosti v kontseptsii kognitivno-lichnostnogo razvitiia [Construct of rigidity in the concept of cognitive-personal development]. Zhurnal Belorusskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiia. Psikhologiia = Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy. Psychology, 2023. No. 2, рр. 84—92. (In Russ.).
14. Pevneva A.N. Kognitivnye psikhofiziologicheskie patterny effekta Strupa v kontekste obshchei kontseptsii rigidnosti [Cognitive psychophysiological patterns of the Stroop effect in the context of the general concept of rigidity]. Adukatsyia і vykhavanne = Adukatsiya i vykhavanne, 2023. No. 7(379), рр. 33—42. (In Russ.).
15. Starodubtsev A.S., Allakhverdov M.V. «Vliianie ustanovki o nalichii konfliktnykh stimulov v teste Strupa na velichinu interferentsii» [“The influence of the attitude about the presence of conflict stimuli in the Stroop test on the magnitude of interference”]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Psikhologiia = Vestnik of St. Petersburg University. Psychology, 2017. Vol. 7, no. 2, рр. 137—153. (In Russ.).
16. Cherenkova L.V., Sokolova L.V. Vozrastnaia dinamika krossmodal'nogo praiminga [Age dynamics of crossmodal priming]. Eksperimental'naia psikhologiia = Experimental psychology, 2022. Vol. 15, no. 4, рр. 84—98. DOI:DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2022150405 (In Russ.).
17. Budner S. Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 1962. No. 30, рр. 29—50.
18. Ciarrochi J. Said T., Deane F.P. When simplifying life is not so bad: the link between rigidity, stressful life events, and mental health in an undergraduate population. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 2005. Vol. 33, no. 2, рр. 185—197.
19. Elovainio M., Kivimäki M. The effects of personal need for structure and occupational identity in the role stress process. The Journal of social psychology, 2001.141(3), рр. 365—378. DOI:10.1080/00224540109600558
20. Francis R., HawesD., Abbott M. Intellectual giftedness and psychopathology in children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Exceptional Children, 2016. Vol. 82, iss. 3, рр. 279—302.
21. Kok A. Varieties of inhibition: manifestations in cognition, event-related potentials and aging. Acta psychologica, 1999. No. 101(2-3), рр. 129—158. DOI:10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00003-7
22. Luchins A.S. Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 1942. Vol. 54, 6(248).DOI:10.1037/h0093502
23. Miyake A., Friedman N.P., Emerson M.J., Witzki A.H., Howerter A., Wager T.D. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "Frontal Lobe" tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive psychology, 2000.41(1), рр. 49—100. DOI:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
24. Moskowitz G.B. Individual differences in social categorization: The influence of personal need for structure on spontaneous train inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1993. Vol. 65, 1, pp. 132—142.
25. Priester M.J., Clum G.A. The problem-solving diathesis in depression, hopelessness, and suicide ideation: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 1993. Vol. 15, 3, pp. 239—254.
26. Rigidität / Psychologisches Wörterbuch / Dorsch. Hrsg. von Fridrich Dorsch — 12. Überarb. und erw. Aufl. Born; Göttingen; Toronto; Seattle: Huber, 1994. Pр. 668.
27. Portoghese I., Lasio M., Conti R., Mascia M.L., Hitchcott P., Agus M., Gemignani A., Penna M.P. Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Factor structure, invariance, reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity among Italian university students. PsyCh Journal, 2020. No.9(6), pр. 934—941. DOI:10.1002/pchj.401
28. Schaie K.W. A test of behavioral rigidity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955.No. 51(3), pp. 604—610. DOI:10.1037/h0046287
29. Schultz P., Searleman A. Rigidity of thought and behavior: 100 years of research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 2002.  128(2), pр. 165—207.
30. Stroop J.R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of experimental psychology, 1935. Vol. 18, no. 6, pр. 643—662.
31. Zakreski M.J.When Emotional Intensity and Cognitive Rigidity Collide: What Can Counselors and Teachers Do? Gifted Child Today, 2018. 41, no.4, pр. 208—216.