Hi Kamil,

The task switching paradigm (see reviews by Meiran, 2010; Monsell, 2003) is probably the most precise measure of cognitive rigidity. In the task switching paradigm, participants have to rapidly switch between simple cognitive tasks, such as colour judgement (e.g., green versus red), shape judgement (e.g., circle versus square), and size (e.g., small versus large). This paradigm would enable you to study the processes associated with forming and changing trains of thoughts. Classical neuropsychological tests like the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST; in which participants need to find a sorting rule based on correct/ incorrect feedback provided by the experimenter) also provide a measure of cognitive rigidity. But compared to these classical tests, the task switching paradigm has the advantage of tapping different aspects of rigidity, including the cost of actual switching, the cost of maintaining readiness for a switch, the degree of disengagement from a previous set, and the rate of disengagement. Also, like the WCST, performance in the task switching paradigm is multifactorial, but unlike the WCST, the different factors are clearly distinguishable from one another (Meiran, 2010).

Another cognitive rigidity task is the water jar paradigm developed by Luchins (1942). This paradigm was designed to measure the Einstulling effect, a term used to describe rigid thought patterns formed through experience, which prevents identifying more adaptive approaches and solutions. In the task, participants are required to use three hypothetical jars to obtain a specific amount of water. Initial problems are solvable by the same complex formula, but in later “critical” problems a much simpler formula is also appropriate. In these trials, experience is said to comprise a “trap” which may result in overlooking the simple formula. This paradigm is thought to directly capture the notion of missing obvious adaptive solutions that lie right “under the nose” due to being caught up in learned and repetitive thought patterns (see Greenberg et al., 2012).

If you are looking for a questionnaire-based measure, then you might have a look at the Resistance to Change Scale (RTC; Oreg, 2003). The scale measures a dispositional tendency to resist change. Those with higher scores on this scale are less likely to voluntarily initiate changes and more likely to form negative attitudes toward the changes they encounter (Oreg, 2006). Oreg's work indicates that the trait consists of four dimensions: (i) the extent to which one enjoys and seeks out stable and routine environments (Routine Seeking); (ii) the extent to which individuals feel stressed and uncomfortable in response to imposed change (Emotional Reaction); (iii) the degree to which individuals are preoccupied with the short-term inconveniences versus the potential long-term benefits of the change (Short-Term Focus), and; (iv) a form of stubbornness and an unwillingness to consider alternative ideas and perspectives (Cognitive Rigidity). The latter subscale in particular might be most relevant to you, although composite RTC scores have also been shown to predict individuals’ reactions to change in a variety of contexts under both voluntary and imposed conditions (Oreg, 2003, 2006).

Hope this helps!

Greenberg, J., et al. (2012). “Mind the trap”: Mindfulness practice reduces cognitive rigidity. PLoS ONE, 7, e36206.

Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving–the effect of einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54, Number 248.

Meiran, N. (2010). Task switching: Mechanisms underlying rigid vs. flexible self control. In: Hassin, R., Ochsner, K., Trope, Y. (Eds.), Self control in society, mind and brain (pp. 202-220). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 134-140.

Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680-693.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73-101.

Perhaps this study could provide some leads.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297851/pdf/jaba00010-0102.pdf

Thank you for your answers and suggested studies.

In my research I define cognitive rigidity as "intractability for changing judgments and opinion" and I'm looking for a scale to measure it in this way.

Hi Kamil,

The task switching paradigm (see reviews by Meiran, 2010; Monsell, 2003) is probably the most precise measure of cognitive rigidity. In the task switching paradigm, participants have to rapidly switch between simple cognitive tasks, such as colour judgement (e.g., green versus red), shape judgement (e.g., circle versus square), and size (e.g., small versus large). This paradigm would enable you to study the processes associated with forming and changing trains of thoughts. Classical neuropsychological tests like the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST; in which participants need to find a sorting rule based on correct/ incorrect feedback provided by the experimenter) also provide a measure of cognitive rigidity. But compared to these classical tests, the task switching paradigm has the advantage of tapping different aspects of rigidity, including the cost of actual switching, the cost of maintaining readiness for a switch, the degree of disengagement from a previous set, and the rate of disengagement. Also, like the WCST, performance in the task switching paradigm is multifactorial, but unlike the WCST, the different factors are clearly distinguishable from one another (Meiran, 2010).

Another cognitive rigidity task is the water jar paradigm developed by Luchins (1942). This paradigm was designed to measure the Einstulling effect, a term used to describe rigid thought patterns formed through experience, which prevents identifying more adaptive approaches and solutions. In the task, participants are required to use three hypothetical jars to obtain a specific amount of water. Initial problems are solvable by the same complex formula, but in later “critical” problems a much simpler formula is also appropriate. In these trials, experience is said to comprise a “trap” which may result in overlooking the simple formula. This paradigm is thought to directly capture the notion of missing obvious adaptive solutions that lie right “under the nose” due to being caught up in learned and repetitive thought patterns (see Greenberg et al., 2012).

If you are looking for a questionnaire-based measure, then you might have a look at the Resistance to Change Scale (RTC; Oreg, 2003). The scale measures a dispositional tendency to resist change. Those with higher scores on this scale are less likely to voluntarily initiate changes and more likely to form negative attitudes toward the changes they encounter (Oreg, 2006). Oreg's work indicates that the trait consists of four dimensions: (i) the extent to which one enjoys and seeks out stable and routine environments (Routine Seeking); (ii) the extent to which individuals feel stressed and uncomfortable in response to imposed change (Emotional Reaction); (iii) the degree to which individuals are preoccupied with the short-term inconveniences versus the potential long-term benefits of the change (Short-Term Focus), and; (iv) a form of stubbornness and an unwillingness to consider alternative ideas and perspectives (Cognitive Rigidity). The latter subscale in particular might be most relevant to you, although composite RTC scores have also been shown to predict individuals’ reactions to change in a variety of contexts under both voluntary and imposed conditions (Oreg, 2003, 2006).

Hope this helps!

Greenberg, J., et al. (2012). “Mind the trap”: Mindfulness practice reduces cognitive rigidity. PLoS ONE, 7, e36206.

Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving–the effect of einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54, Number 248.

Meiran, N. (2010). Task switching: Mechanisms underlying rigid vs. flexible self control. In: Hassin, R., Ochsner, K., Trope, Y. (Eds.), Self control in society, mind and brain (pp. 202-220). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 134-140.

Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680-693.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73-101.

Viren,

You gave me a lot of useful information and it is a great support for me. Thank you very much! For my research I am looking for a questionnaire-based measure, so RTC looks interesting for me. Maybe receiving a grant for further research will enable me and colleagues use more time-consuming methods (e.g. connected with the task switching paradigm).

Regards,

Kamil

Glad to be able to help, and good luck with your research!

Look up literature under the title of Functional Fixedness

A very easy method, used in the past, involves tests of ideation, or "divergent thinking." These give a flexibility score, the opposite of which (i.e., low scores) are indicative of rigidity. Guilford and a few others have used these tests to show age trends in rigidity (drops among older adults).  I have a set of these tests, so there are choices. Scoring can be manual or computer.  I would be happy to help. --Mark (runco at uga dot edu)

Rochel, Mark,

Thank you for your help and suggestions - now I can choose from many alternative ways to measure cognitive rigidty in my research.

I was happy to offer those ideas. If you need any of the actual tasks or scoring guides, please let me know. My UGA email is good or my web site (just my name). But I do seem to be getting your messages just fine. Best of luck.

They are not direct measures of rigidity but may be of interest to you:

- need for cognition (measures a persons willingness to engage in effortfull thinking)

- need for closure (need to find an account for an event or task)

Research suggest this concepts are linked to social perception.

Unfortunately I do not know of any specific tool. But I suggest you do a search from the third generation therapies, specifically the theory of acceptance and commitment.

I understand that in these theories should find any specific instrument.

The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory

Article The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument Development ...

I see a new answer was posted for rigidity and I will look at that article for the CF inventory. Do keep in mind that the DT tests I mentioned earlier (and have been used in research hundreds of times) work pretty well, though they give scores for LOW RIGIDITY (i.e., scores for high flexibility). The DT tests I use are described at www.creativitytestingservices.com. There are over a dozen options. And now we have a good computerized scoring system for flexibility, which is highly reliable and fast. I have some papers on that, if they are of interest.