Meta-Analysis of Research on Rigidity and its Structural Components: a Theory of the Question

The article presents the results of a meta-analysis of scientific publications devoted to the research of rigidity. As a working definition, rigidity will be understood as a construct that represents a cognitive-personal formation in the form of a continuum with bipolar poles. The aim of the work is a meta-analysis of studies of rigidity and a discussion of the published literature to present rigidity as a construct that is a cognitive-personal formation and manifests itself in the form of a continuum with bipolar poles. An analysis of Russian and English-language articles published in scientific journals indexed in ScienceDirect databases (https://www.sciencedirect.com/), e-library (https://www.elibrary.ru/) integrated with the Russian Science Citation Index, Google Scholar search engine (https://scholar.google.ru/) and online service Books Ngram Viewer was performed. The ranking of keywords related to rigidity in psychology and medicine has been carried out, the dynamics of the definitions of rigidity in psychology has been reflected, the general approaches to its research have been defined, the structural components and methods of their diagnostics as well as the continual nature of the phenomenon under research have been described. Research on rigidity is characterized by high theoretical, methodological and practical relevance, as well as insufficient development of categorical and conceptual apparatus, unclear content, boundaries and place of rigidity in the system of psychological concepts, the structural components, the representation of its positive aspect. The listed aspects of the conceptualization of rigidity will form the basis of the key contribution to the conceptual model of the phenomenon under consideration.

Introduction

The relevance of the research of rigidity in general and in its psychological aspect proper is due to the processes of intensification occurring in modern society and requiring a high rate of adaptation to changes, finding ways to stabilize stability in stressful situations and meeting needs in unstable conditions. Rigidity is one of the psychological constructs with systematic research accumulated from the late 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. Carrying out the analysis of the results of scientific research of rigidity contributes to the systematization, detailed study of the phenomenon, as well as the identification of problems in this area.
The purpose of this study is a meta-analysis of studies of rigidity and a discussion of published information (literature) to present rigidity as a construct that is a cognitive-personal formation and manifests itself in the form of a continuum with bipolar poles.

Method

2.1.           Methods

Literature search. The analysis, generalization and structuring of the results of theoretical, empirical and experimental studies of rigidity were the main methods of research.

2.2.          Procedure

At the stage of formation of key words on reference materials on psychology (dictionaries, encyclopedias, thesauruses of databases) words in Russian “ригидность” and English “rigidity” were chosen. The next stage of the research involved the selection of resources adequate for use in the search. The international scientometric databases ScienceDirect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/) and e-library (https://www.elibrary.ru/) integrated with the Russian Science Citation Index were used to search for sources. Additionally, the search engine Google Scholar was involved (https://scholar.google.ru/).

Results

3.1.           The frequency of use of the term “ригидность” in the national and “rigidity” in foreign literature

Rigidity is one of the oldest psychological constructs, with systematic research dating back to the late 19th century. In Russian-language sources, the term “rigidity” first began to be used from the 1780s. Thus, to analyze definitions, the words in Russian “ригидность” and English “rigidity” languages were chosen as key words in the course of using the information analysis toolkit (Korsini & Auerbah, 2003, p. 763). In Russian-language sources (on-line service Books Ngram Viewer) the term “rigidity” first began to be used in the 80s of the late XVIII century, including the first decades of the XX century. During the period of the peak of the activity of using the term “rigidity” (1940s) there were more than 50 terms denoting it (Zakreski, 2018, p. 48). However, after a significant decline in its popularity (since the 1950s), there is a steady interest of domestic researchers in this problem, which persists until 1995. Thus, in the period from January 1, 1999 to January 1, 2023, 12200 scientific publications were dedicated to the problem of rigidity in the Russian literature.

Figure 1. Use of the term “ригидность” in the national literature

In English-language sources, the use and popularity of the term “rigidity” actively increased in the 1960s. In particular, from 1967 to 1988, the term “rigidity” was used in 1,733 published psychological studies (Schultz & Searleman, 2002, p. 166) and, despite a significant decrease in its use from 1990 to 1998 (in 494 articles), this construct continues to attract researchers in various fields of psychological science. Thus, between January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2023 the reference to the problem of rigidity in foreign literature is reflected in 2 180 000 publications, of which 1 860 000 in books, 1 340 in magazines and 4 650 in newspapers (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Use of the term “rigidity” in foreign literature

keyword “rigidity” in the electronic library e-library

A qualitative analysis of the keyword “rigidity” in the electronic library e-library integrated with the Russian Science Citation Index showed its presence in 637 publications. When ranking the keywords, the dominant position is occupied by the definition “rigidity”, which is indicated in 378 (59.34 % of the total number of publications) articles in psychology and medicine; the second position is occupied by the concept “arterial rigidity” and is reflected in 182 (28.57 %) publications, the third – “mental rigidity”, is identified in 75 (11.77 %) publications, the fourth and fifth ranks in terms of references are taken by “arterial rigidity” – 23 (3.61 %) and “vascular rigidity” – in 20 (3.14 %) publications, “cognitive rigidity” is represented by the sixth position and is found in 16 (2.51 %) publications.

Key words related to the research of stiffness in the field of medicine are represented by vascular, arterial, aortic, corneoscleral, muscular, myopic accommodation, axial stiffness, and a number of other stiffnesses. The occurrence of key words in the field of psychology such as: “rigidity/flexibility”, “thought rigidity”, “affective rigidity”, “maladaptive rigidity”, “dispositional rigidity”, “role rigidity”, “frustration rigidity”, “fixed behavioral rigidity”, “mental rigidity”, “sensory rigidity”, “attitudinal rigidity” and several others, are reflected in 458 (71.89%) publications.

3.3.          Analysis of the definitions of the concept of “rigidity”

Analyzing the definitions of the concept of rigidity and the number of works devoted to this problem, we can state that so far there is no generally accepted definition of rigidity. The term “rigidity” has been used to describe mental and behavioral attitudes (Chown, 1959; Rokeach, 1960), dogmatism (Rokeach, 1960), stereotyping (Neuberg, Newsom, 1993), lack of flexibility, perseveration (Goldstein, 1942), authoritarianism (Adorno et al., 1950) and inability to change habits (Vingerhoets et al., 1990), making it difficult for scholars to reach consensus on a definition (Chown, 1959). Despite the complexity, it is possible to identify a common semantic basis and variants of application of the concept of rigidity by modern researchers in the context of the inability of a personality to reconstruct a behavior strategy under conditions objectively inducing its change, “even if the needs of the new situation require a different behavior” (Korsini & Auerbah, 2003, p. 763).

3.4.          Approaches to the study of rigidity

The problem of rigidity research dates back to the well-known works of J. Cattell and J. Stroop, gradually leading to the formation of three main approaches (Lobanov, 2008). Each approach reflects a particular conceptual line in treating the nature and essence of the subject. In the framework of the first approach rigidity is manifested as a fixed form of behavior (G.V. Zalewski, E.V. Galazhinsky, N.V. Kozlova K.W. Schaie, R. Dutta, S.L. Willis), within the framework of the second approach rigid behavior is studied as a result of neurological (pathological) damage (E. Bleier, C. Sherrington, T. Shapiro) and within the framework of the third approach rigidity is revealed as an intellectual (cognitive) immaturity (K. Goldstein, K. Dunker, J. Kettell, R. Quettell, K. Levin, H. Mayer, E. McDermott, J. O’Connor, J. Piaget). The latter approach is based on the results (and conclusions) of J. Piaget’s research. Piaget’s “centered/decentered” cognitive strategies, the use of unidimensional, rigid “centered” cognitive strategies versus multidimensional, flexible, “decentered” strategies (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Common Approaches to the Study of Rigidity

As a result of the analysis of common approaches, two important aspects should be noted. The first aspect is that the methodological approach of the research is based on the understanding of rigidity as a construct within the framework of cognitive-personal development, which corresponds to the latter approach. The second important aspect in the research approaches to rigidity reflects an interdisciplinary scientific category and thus can claim the status of transdisciplinary knowledge. Within this approach, rigidity is commonly understood as a mechanism present in all disorders, shaping and sustaining these disorders (Alsawy et al., 2014; Morris & Mansell, 2018). At the same time, rigidity based on psychological components, metacognitive, emotional, volitional, motivational processes and personality traits can be a risk factor: changes in mental (psychological) health, psychological well-being, the appearance of emotional and cognitive problems. In this perspective, the emphasis is placed on rigidity as a transdiagnostic process that makes other processes pathological in the structure of personality.

3.5.          Rigidity structure

Turning to the structure of rigidity, the analysis of search results revealed that among 637 publications (in the e-library integrated with the Russian Science Citation Index), keywords “cognitive rigidity” was found in 20 (2.14 %), “emotional rigidity”, “sensory rigidity”, “affective rigidity” in 18 (2.58 %) and “motivational rigidity” in 4 (0.63 %) cases. This demonstrates the problem of identifying and studying the structural components of rigidity. At the same time, it should be noted that various researchers consider a similar set of rigidity types (structural components) found in contemporary psychological literature: cognitive, emotional (affective), and motivational. Thus, B. Meshcheryakov, V. Zinchenko also describe the cognitive, affective and motivational components of rigidity, understood as the inability to adjust the program of activity in accordance with the requirements of the situation (Meshcheryakov & Zinchenko, 2009, p. 477).

Cognitive rigidity is characterized by an inability to change ideas about the environment, uncritical thinking, lack of readiness to comprehend and, accordingly, to restructure actions when receiving new information. It is manifested in the installation effect (Einstellung effect) in the form of readiness to repeat the actions formed in the past experience without regard to their adequacy or optimality to new conditions, was first discovered by A. Luchins (Luchins, 1942, 1951). In A. Luchins’ sequential solving of five tasks by using the same pattern, an attitude is formed that is used later in solving the remaining five tasks. The Luchins effect consists in the human brain’s tendency “to cling to the familiar way of solving, the first one that comes to mind, and to ignore the others” (Bilalic & MacLeod, 2014, p. 32). By tracing eye movements with an infrared camera, M. Bilalic and P. MacLeod studied the Luchins effect, attracting chess players of different levels (amateurs and grandmasters) as test subjects. Thus, they established the efficiency of the Lachins effect and proved the temporary reduction of “the ability of professional chess players to the level of weak players” (ibid, p. 32). At the same time, the mechanism of the emergence of attitudes is insufficiently understood.

By cognitive rigidity M.J. Zakreski understands difficulty in changing mental attitudes and defines it as a decrease in the ability to cognitively switch, the desire for novelty (Zakreski, 2018, p. 208). Switching problems are defined by slowness and complexity of transition from one class of phenomena and objects of surrounding reality to another, from an established assumption or idea to finding a more effective way to solve a problem. Assessment of cognitive functions characterized by switching, in particular, flexibility of attention, i.e. the ability to quickly and effectively switch attention depending on changing conditions of the current task, changes in psychological attitude, is carried out by the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), developed by D. Grant, E.A. Berg (Grant & Berg, 1948; Strauss, Sherman, Spreen, 2006).  Adaptation of the classical version of the WCST in Russia was carried out by the Moscow Scientific and Practical Center for Drug Abuse Prevention of the Moscow Health Committee (Polunina & Davydov, 2004). As A.G. Polunina and D.M. Davydov note, the number of perseverative and non-perseverative errors when sorting cards with images of a different number of figures by color and shape moderately correlates with the tests of the general intelligence – D. Wechsler scales for adults. However, the WCST is aimed at diagnosing non-involved cognitive functions when performing tests of general intelligence, such as the ability to distinguish abstract categories, to switch attention when a category changes, to concentrate attention on the selected category and to use feedback (ibid, pp. 218-219). The test is a labor-intensive neuropsychological toolkit. It is necessary to note presence of a question (a problem) about conditions of change of a way of action and a problem of overstepping attitudes.

Cognitive rigidity and its characteristics are highlighted using the Remote Associates Test (RAT), which was developed by S. Mednick (Mednick, 1962). The lack of cognitive flexibility in the course of the tasks set before the participants to find one correct word that should reflect a stable word combination with each of the three stimulus words (for example: “same / tennis / head”) is interpreted as difficulties in the ability to adapt behavior and preference in the use of established attitudes. Currently, the test of distant associations is adapted in a number of foreign countries (Germany, Holland, Italy, China, Japan), but there are contradictions in the purpose of the test due to the lack of research on its internal and external structure. In particular, there is a question about the theoretical and empirical appropriateness of using it to study divergent or creative thinking (Lee, Huggins & Therriault, 2014). In Russia, the test was adapted in the laboratory of V. N. Druzhinin under the supervision of T.V. Galkina and L.G. Alekseeva (the teenage version) and A.N. Voronin (the adult version). The number of answers with an assessment of their originality was changed, thereby it acquired features of the test for divergent thinking (see: Druzhinin, 2008, p. 180-254).

The manifestation of cognitive rigidity is associated with difficulties in perceiving an object in a changed situation, which characterizes the manifestation of perceptual rigidity. When perceiving a Necker cube, Rubin vase, or bistable image, which can be perceived as upper left or lower right from the front, two conditions of volitional control are present. One has to do with the retention of the perceptual object, the other with the shifting of attention from one perceptual object to the other. A study of perceptual rigidity in the S. Breskin (1968), based on Gestalt laws, involves respondents’ preference for one of two figures, one representing a “completed Gestalt” and the other an “unfinished Gestalt”. Respondents who prefer the first option are more rigid (Breskin, 1968).

Cognitive rigidity does not allow a person to consider and generate alternative possibilities, explanations of events or situations (Fedorova, 2004), which makes it difficult to find an optimal solution to problems, and is characteristic of a high level of intolerance of uncertainty (Priester & Clum, 1993). Intolerance of Ambiguity S. Budner defines it as a tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as a source of threat, and tolerance to ambiguity as a tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable (Budner, 1962, p. 29). Modification of the questionnaire of intolerance to uncertainty S. Budner (1962) on the Russian-speaking sample was conducted by T.V. Kornilova and M.A. Chumakova (Kornilova & Chumakova, 2014). The uncertainty tolerance questionnaire is represented by a two-factor model including uncertainty tolerance and uncertainty tolerance. The concept of tolerance for ambiguity, double meaning, ambiguity of stimuli, complexity of their interpretation, originally introduced by Frenkel-Brunswick E. (Frenkel-Brunswick, 1949), is understood as an attitude towards ambiguous, dynamically changing, probabilistic and contradictory stimulation. Tolerance for uncertainty is formed as a result of insufficient information.

The manifestation of cognitive rigidity at a high level of intolerance to uncertainty results in a need (a motivational component) for the individual to strive to reduce tension in a situation of uncertainty, in order to avoid information overload. In turn, this leads to dispositional motivation for cognitive structuring of the surrounding reality in simple, unambiguous ways, i.e. to a “personal need for structure” (Personal Need for Structure – PNS) (Moskowitz, 1993; Neuberg & Newson, 1993). Researchers M. Elovainio, M. Kivimäki (Elovainio & Kivimäki, 2001) understand personal need for structure as a chronic desire for certainty, along with a concomitant aversion to ambiguity (ibid, p. 367). The structural model of personal need, according to J. Ciarrochi, T. Said, and F.P. Deane (Ciarrochi, Said & Deane, ) 2005), consists of two interrelated components: the desire for a simple structured world and intolerance for uncertainty. The scale, measured with 12 questions, reflects the degree of personal need to structure one’s environment, and its high level is associated with a tendency to stereotyping (Schaller, et al., 1995).

The manifestation of cognitive rigidity has its own characteristics in the form of interference effects, which are manifested in the Stroop paradigm. In the test created by J.R. Stroop (Stroop, 1935) test based on the works of J M. Cattell (Cattell, 1886), in which differences were found between the rate of pronunciation of a word read aloud and the name of the color of the object being presented. Words (“Stroop Stimuli”) denoting different colors were written in a different color, with participants having to name the color of the ink with which the word was written. The Stroop effect is that the meaning of the word interferes with the ability to name the color of the ink. The scientist attributed the resulting effect to the ease of reading based on habitual and automated activities compared to naming the color of the ink, which determines the interference delay. The Stroop task has been used as a tool to study attention, interference, and cognitive structures, and reflects individual differences in perseveration propensity, which P. Graf, B. Uttl, and H. Tuokko called “cognitive flexibility” or flexibilism (Graf, Uttl & Tuokko, 1995).

Flexibility and rigidity in psychological science are commonly viewed as opposite poles. They in many respects are “mirror images” of each other and provide an opportunity of mutual transitions if the functioning model of reaction ceases to be effective (Morris & Mansell, 2018, p. 4). In this case, in the work of E.V. Volkova, A.Yu. Kalugin, and V.M. Rusalov, flexibility and rigidity are different constructs, as they have different mechanisms of occurrence (Volkova, Kalugin & Rusalov, 2022). Currently there is no generally accepted definition and tools for measuring this construct (Dennis, & Vander Wal, 2010, p. 242). In general, cognitive flexibility is understood as the ability to switch from one mode of action to another in order to adapt to changing environmental conditions. As a psychodiagnostic toolkit for measuring cognitive flexibility, as a rule, the color and verbal test of J.R. Stroop (Stroop, 1935), the Neuropsychological Test (TMT), the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ), and the Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS).

The development of the Cognitive flexibility inventory (CFI) model was conducted by J.P. Dennis, J.S. Vander Wal (Dennis, & Vander Wal, 2010). The model includes three components of cognitive flexibility: propensity to perceive complex situations as controllable; ability to perceive multiple alternative explanations of life phenomena and human behavior; ability to generate several alternative solutions in complex situations (ibid, p. 242). The Cognitive Flexibility Questionnaire (CFI-R) on the Russian-speaking sample is adapted by S.S. Kurginyan, E.Yu. Osavoluk (2018) and includes two scales that measure three aspects of flexibility: control (“the individual’s ability to perceive difficult situations as controllable” (aspect “a”) (Kurginyan & Osavolyuk, 2018, p. 108) and alternatives (“an individual’s ability to give multiple explanations for life events and manifestations of human behavior” (aspect “b”), as well as to offer multiple different ways to resolve difficult situations (aspect “c”) (ibid, p. 108). The authors understand cognitive flexibilism as a specific ability of an individual that allows him/her to “organize his/her cognitive activity and intellectual behavior depending on the changed conditions” [33, p. 128]. According to researchers, high values indicate cognitive adaptability, low values indicate cognitive rigidity (ibid, p. 105-119).

Cognitive rigidity makes it difficult for the individual to use alternative possibilities and explanations in problem solving, complicating the process of adaptation. At the same time, creative individuals capable of adapting to changes and surprises are characterized by high flexibility, but at the same time inconsistency and non-self-sufficiency. The first flexibility scale was developed by H. Gough and included in the California Personality Inventory-Flexibility (CPI), designed to measure rigidity-flexibility (Gough & Bradley, 1996). Lack of flexibility and stubbornness are characteristic of individuals with low scores on the Rigidity scale. Factor analysis of 28 items allowed researchers to identify seven factors, but there is a problem with factor analysis of the flexibility scale.

The personal-perceptual (cognitive) component, reflecting the cognitive aspect of rigidity, along with the behavioral, i.e., psychomotor and motor-cognitive, of the three-component model of rigidity by K.W. Schaie (Schaie, 1990). The psychomotor component measures the rate at which the individual reacts to an uncertain situation. The motor-cognitive component reflects its behavioral aspect, i.e., the ability to quickly switch from one activity to another. The researcher evaluated it by means of two tasks: the task of alternating lowercase and uppercase letters in words, and the task of alternating synonyms and antonyms for words, followed by their arbitrary variation. High scores indicate low rigidity and high flexibility. Due to the fact that the psychomotor component does not measure the rigidity itself, and the motor-cognitive reflects its behavioral aspect, of particular interest is the personal-cognitive aspect within the framework of the cognitive-personal development. The latter represents the ability to adapt to new conditions, environments, situations, in connection with which the concept of “attitude flexibility”, which is the polar opposite of rigidity, is acquired over time.

Cognitive rigidity is inseparable from affective (affective rigidity), which when solving research tasks highlights the manifestation of monotonous emotional responses to changed objects of emotion, determining the constancy of the evaluation of events. Cognitive rigidity, defined as difficulty in changing mental attitudes, contributes to emotional tension. The study of affective rigidity is related to the beginning of the study of emotions (James, 1884), and its model is defined by the conceptualization of emotion structures in theoretical approaches: conceptualizing emotions as evolutionarily basic programs of affect (Ekman & Cordaro, 2011; Izard, 1992); social and cultural constructs of the mind (Barrett, 2006; Mesquita & Boiger, 2014); multi-component processes driven by situation assessment (Lewis, 2005; Scherer, 2005). Over time, all theories have been grouped into three large classes: affect program theories, constructivist theories, and evaluation theories (Moors, 2017). Notable is the component composition of emotion, which includes changes in subjective feelings (arousal), in cognitions (beliefs), in tendencies to act (goals), in expressive behavior (facial expressions), and in physiology (hormonal changes). Along with this, emotions are determined by preceding events and can be directed at another person (Lange, et. al., 2020). Emotions directed toward the self (internal EQ), toward understanding the other person (social EQ), and emotions that make life more harmonious (existential EQ) represent a model of emotional intelligence (Bear et. al., 2007).

Affective rigidity is reflected in a modern modification of the classic J.R. Stroop (Stroop, 1935) called the Emotional Stroop Test (EST), based on the experimental work of C. Ray (Ray, 1979). The test received its development in the research of F.P. McKenna, D. Sharma (McKenna & Sharma, 2004), aimed at studying the difference in “fast” and “slow” interference effects with the advantage of the first effect. On the basis of the identified features found differences in the manifestation of the two effects, researchers conclude about the different nature of the classic Stroop test and ECT test (Algom, Chajut & Lev, 2010). However, R.H. Phaf and K.J. Kan (Phaf & Kan, 2007) in their research conclude about the presence of “fast” and “slow” effects in the classic Stroop test and only about the presence of “slow” effect in ECT. At the same time, contemporary studies attempt to theoretically analyze the mechanisms of Stroop’s emotional effect (Stroop, 1935; Sysoeva, 2014, p. 49-65). Affective rigidity is included in the structure of the Minnesota Multiple Personality Inventory (MMPI), modified by F.B. Berezin, M.P. Miroshnikov, and R.V. Rozhanets (MMPI). Normally, it characterizes the tendency to be pedantic, competitive and stuck on negative experiences, while high scores reveal affective intensity of experiences, hostility, tendency to paranoid reactions and is used for clinical diagnosis and psychiatric research (Berezin, et. al., 1976).

Cognitive and affective rigidity have their parallels in the manifestation of inflexibility of motivational features of needs and habitual ways of their satisfaction. Motivational rigidity is reflected in A. Luchins’ experiment (Luchins, 1942, 1951; Luchins, Wertheimer & Luchins, 1970).  When solving problems, respondents with a strong attitude pay more attention to calculation, with a weak attitude to finding ways of solving (Luchins, Wertheimer & Luchins, 1970). According to G.A. Nizharadze, “the more the individual is focused on achieving success, the more likely he will stick to the way of solution that has several times led to success” (Nijaradze, 1987, p. 144). The scientist explains this fact by the loss of incentive to search for new ways to solve problems, and offers rigidity of thinking, arising “when solving Luchins’ problems and in similar situations, to call motivational” (ibid, p. 144). When solving the Einstellung water-jar task in a situation of stress, the individual also adheres to the habitual way. A study by P.W. Schultz and A. Searleman (Schultz & Searleman, 1998) found a significant relationship of personal need for structure with Luchins task solving under stressful conditions, in which responses are altered, affecting the course of the task. This allows us to consider rigidity as a condition.

Motivational rigidity is presented in the form of a five-component model by researchers A. Kruglanski, D. Webster, and A. Klem (Kruglanski, Webster & Klem, 1993), including the need for structure, discomfort from uncertainty (ambiguous situation), determination, predictability and closedness. This model was created by researchers based on the Need for Closure Scale (NFCS), in which 42 items measure individual differences in preference (need) for order, structure, and negation of disorder. Russian-language adaptation of the English-language questionnaire “Striving for Cognitive Closure” by A. Kruglanski, D. Webster, A. Klem (ibid, 1993), including in the original version five questions of the “lie scale” and forty-two questions, was conducted by M.I. Yasin, O.E. Khukhlaev (Yasin & Khukhlaev, 2023).

In general, it should be noted that the study of stiffness comes down to two directions: as stiffness proper and stiffness as perseveration. Stiffness as perseveration is defined by four variants of study: TBR, Einstellung Water-Jar Task, Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST) and Stroop task. The study of rigidity proper includes components such as “perceptual rigidity” (Breskin, 1968), rigidity-flexibility (CPI; Gough & Bradley, 1996), tolerance of ambiguity (Intolerance of Ambiguity, Budner, 1962), need for closure (NFCS; Kruglanski, Webster & Klem, 1993), personal need for structure (PNS; Neuberg & Newsom, 1993), toward behavioral rigidity (TBR; Schaie, 1990). Empirical evidence suggests a multidimensional construction of rigidity, but at present cognitive rigidity is quite widely studied and represented, and a methodological apparatus for its study has been developed. Along with this, it should be noted that there is no single generally accepted diagnostic toolkit for studying the structural components of rigidity.

3.6.          Rigidity study

Conducting a meta-analysis of studies, it should be noted that stiffness as an independent object has been studied by scientists from different points of view. Most often the method “Tomsk rigidity questionnaire” by G.V. Zalewski was used in the study of rigidity. In spite of the current “classical” views and interpretations of the term, the content of the publications was concentrated around the topics based on the recognition of not only negative, but also positive component of rigidity. A number of studies prove and characterize the positive role of rigidity in the intellectual and personal potential of a person (Pavlova & Kornilova, 2019), in the process of life self-determination (Fedorova, 2004), in the socio-cultural environment (Burets, 2014; Mazur & Peresko, 2019), in the context of the problem of self-realization (as an integral indicator of the degree of openness of the psychological system) (Galazhinskii, 2001), in determining the pre-professional world image of students (Kozlova, 2007), in professionalism of personality on the way of its achievement (Zalevsky & Kozlova, 2005), in evaluation of personal-professional formation (Kozlova, Berestneva & Shelehov, 2009).

At the same time a number of researchers estimate rigidity as a negative factor underlying rigid behavior caused by etiology and pathogenesis of neuropsychiatric disorders (Zalevsky, 1993), fixed forms of behavior (Zalevsky, 2004), professional burnout (Kukuev & Verhovtsev, 2015), disadaptation (Smirnova & Salevski, 2005), lack of success (Yashin, 2015), marginalism, procrastination, learned helplessness (Mitina & Mitin, 2020).

Discussion

The results obtained highlight the diversity of the used concepts of rigidity, which indicates its terminological polysemy, the lack of development of the categorical apparatus and the difficulties in justifying the choice of basic definitions by researchers. The psychological characteristic of rigidity synthesizes various mental processes – cognitive, emotional, volitional, motivational as well as personality traits, and can be a cognitive-personal formation.

The phenomenon of rigidity is interpreted from the point of view of fixed forms of behavior; the result of neurological (pathological) damage; intellectual (cognitive) immaturity. The latter approach is based on the results and conclusions of J. Piaget’s studies of “centered/decentered” cognitive strategies, the use of one-dimensional, rigid “centered” cognitive strategies in comparison with multidimensional, flexible, “decentred” strategies, which largely predetermined the goal of the study, aimed at representation construct of rigidity based on the concept of cognitive-personal development within the framework of general psychology.

Theoretically, rigidity can be represented as a continuum, a cognitive-personal formation, including cognitive, affective, motivational (behavioral) structural components. The manifestation of rigidity depends largely on the degree of its expression, on the context of the situation or problem solving. By resorting to the use of rigid forms of behavior, a person can more effectively cope with the demands of the situation. The emphasis on the positive component of rigidity allows us to focus attention on a continuum approach to the nature of the phenomenon under consideration and thereby expand the vector of directions for its research in the field of general psychology.

Thus, the results of the meta-analysis of the research of rigidity, which do not claim to be complete and are not far from exhaustive, allow us to conclude that the research of rigidity is a problem, for the reasons of lack of a generally accepted definition of rigidity, its uncertain content, structural organization, as well as the continuum nature. Conceptually, the general strategy of developing theoretical representations of rigidity can be laid within the concept of cognitive-personal development, and its listed aspects will form the basis of the key contribution of developing a conceptual model of the phenomenon.

Conclusions

Competing interests: The author declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
2. Algom, D., Chajut, E., & Lev, S. (2004). A rational look at the emotional Stroop phenomenon: a generic slowdown, not a Stroop effect. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 133(3), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.323
3. Alsawy, S., Mansell, W., Carey, T. A., McEvoy, P., & Tai, S. J. (2014). Science and practice of transdiagnostic CBT: A Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) approach. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 7(4), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijct.2014.7.4.334
4. Barrett, L. F. (2006). Are emotions natural kinds? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 28–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745–6916.2006.00003.x
5. Bear, J.-M., Evsikova, N., Andre, K., & Kiseleva K. (2007). Emotional factor. Psychologies. 18, (supplement). 24–33.
6. Berezin, F.B., Miroshnikov, M.P., & Rozhanets, R.V. (1976). Technique of the Multilateral Study of Personality (in Clinical Medicine and Psychohygiene). Moscow : Medicine. [Berezin F.B., Miroshnikov M.P., Rozhanets R.V. (1976). Metodika mnogostoronnego issledovaniya lichnosti (v klinicheskoy meditsine i psikhogigiyene). Moskva : Meditsina].
7. Bilalic, M. & MacLeod, P. (2014). Is good the enemy of better? In the World of Science, 5, 31–35.
8. Breskin, S. (1968). Measurement of Rigidity, a Non-Verbal Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 27, 1203–1206. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1968.27.3f.1203
9. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x
10. Burets, Yu.M. (2014). The tendency to rigidity among students of different professions. Izvestiya Smolenskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 1, 502–509. [Burets YU.M. (2014). Sklonnost’ k rigidnosti u studentov raznykh professiy. Izvestiya Smolenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 1, 502–509].
11. Cattell, J.M. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, XI, 41(1), 63–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/os-XI.41.63
12. Chown, S. (1959). Rigidity; a flexible concept. Psychological bulletin, 56(3), 195–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042732
13. Ciarrochi, J., Said, T., & Deane, F.P. (2005). 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 & Counseling, 33, 185–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069880500132540
14. Dennis, J.P., & Vander Wal, J.S. (2010). The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument Development and Estimates of Reliability and Validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 241–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
15. Druzhinin, V.N. (2008). Psychology of general abilities (3rd ed.). St. Petersburg [et al]: Peter. Peter Press. [Druzhinin V. N. (2008). Psikhologiya obshchikh sposobnostey (3-ye izd.). Sankt-Peterburg [i dr.]: Piter. Piter Press].
16. Ekman, P., & Cordaro, D. (2011). What is meant by calling emotions basic. Emotion Review, 3, 364–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911410740
17. Elovainio, M., & Kivimäki, M. (2001). The effects of personal need for structure and occupational identity in the role stress process. The Journal of social psychology, 141(3), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600558
18. Fedorova, E.P. (2004). Studying of display of the mental rigidity in process a vital self-determination. Siberian Journal of Psychology, 20, 60–62. [Fedorova, Ye.P. (2004). Izucheniye proyavleniya psikhicheskoy rigidnosti v protsesse zhiznennogo samoopredeleniya. Sibirskiy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 20, 60–62].
19. Francis, R., Hawes, D. J., & Abbott, M. (2016). Intellectual Giftedness and Psychopathology in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Literature Review. Exceptional Children, 82(3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598779.
20. Frenkel-Brunswick, E. (1949). Tolerance toward ambiguity as a personality variable. American Psychologist, 3, 268.
21. Galazhinskii, E.V. (2001). Mental rigidity as an integral index of the degree of openness of the psychological system (in the context of the problem of personality self-realization). Siberian Journal of Psychology, 14/15, 48–53. [Galazhinskiy Ye.V. (2001). Psikhicheskaya rigidnost’ kak integral’nyy pokazatel’ stepeni otkrytosti psikhologicheskoy sistemy (v kontekste problemy samorealizatsii lichnosti). Sibirskiy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 14/15, 48–53].
22. Goldstein, K. (1942). Concerning rigidity. Character and Personality, 11, 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1943.tb01932.x.
23. Gough, H.G., & Bradley, P.B. (1996). California Psychological Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
24. Grant, D.A., & Berg, E.A. (1948). A behavioral analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigl-type card-sorting problem. Journal of experimental psychology, 38(4), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059831
25. Graf, P., Uttl, B., & Tuokko, H. (1995). Color- and picture-word Stroop tests: performance changes in old age. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 17(3), 390–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639508405132
26. Izard, C.E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion-cognition relations. Psychological Review, 99(3), 561–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.561
27. James, W. (1884). What is an Emotion? Mind, 9, 188–205. http://dx.doI.org/10.1093/mInd/os-IX.34.188
28. Kornilova, T.V., & Chumakova, M.A. (2014). Scales of tolerance and intolerance for uncertainty in the modification of the S. Badner questionnaire. Experimental Psychology, 1, 92–110. [Kornilova T.V., Chumakova M.A. (2014). Shkaly tolerantnosti i neterpimosti k neopredelennosti v modifikatsii oprosnika S. Badnera. Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya, 1, 92–110].
29. Kozlova, N.V. (2007). Rigidity as a system-wide property determining the pre-professional worldview of students. Siberian Journal of Psychology, 26, 175–180. [Kozlova, N.V. (2007). Rigidnost’ kak obshchesistemnoye svoystvo, opredelyayushcheye doprofessional’noye mirovozzreniye studentov. Sibirskiy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 26, 175–180].
30. Kozlova, N.V., Berestneva, O.G., & Shelehov, I.L. (2009). The peculiarities of personal and professional formation of university students. Bulletin of Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 9, 103–107. [Kozlova N.V., Berestneva O.G., Shelekhov I.L. (2009). Osobennosti lichnostno-professional’nogo stanovleniya studentov vuza. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 9, 103–107].
31. Kruglanski, A.W., Webster, D.M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(5), 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.65.5.861
32. Kukuev, E. A., & Verhovtsev, K.N. (2015). The teacher’s rigidity as a factor of professional burnout. Kazan: Kazanskaya nauka. [Kukuyev Ye.A., Verkhovtsev K.N. (2015). Rigidnost’ pedagoga kak faktor professional’nogo vygoraniya. Kazan’: Kazanskaya nauka].
33. Kurginyan, S.S., & Osavolyuk, E.Yu. (2018). Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Structure of the Russian version, its reliability and validity. Psihologicheskij zhurnal, 39(2), 105–119. [Kurginyan S.S., Osavolyuk Ye.YU. (2018). Oprosnik kognitivnoy gibkosti: Struktura russkoyazychnoy versii, yeye dostovernost’ i validnost’. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 39(2), 105–119].
34. Lange, J., Dalege, J., Borsboom, D., van Kleef, G.A., & Fischer, A.H. (2020). Toward an Integrative Psychometric Model of Emotions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 444–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895057
35. Lee, C., Huggins, A.C., & Therriault, D.J. (2014). A measure of creativity or intelligence? Examining internal and external structure validity evidence of the Remote Associates Test. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 446-460. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036773
36. Lewis, M.D. (2005). Bridging emotion theory and neurobiology through dynamic systems modeling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 169–194. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0500004X
37. Lobanov, A.P. (2008). Psychology of intelligence and cognitive styles. Minsk: Agentstvo Vladimira Grevtsova. [Lobanov, A.P. (2008). Psikhologiya intellekta i kognitivnyye stili. Minsk: Agentstvo Vladimira Grevtsova].
38. Luchins, A.S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. The Psychological Monographs, 54. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0093502
39. Luchins, A.S. (1951). On recent usage of the Einstellung-effect as a test of rigidity. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 15(2), 89–94. ttps://doi.org/10.1037/h0059762
40. Luchins, A.S., Wertheimer M., & Luchins, E.H. (1970). Wertheimer’s seminars revisited: problem solving and thinking. Faculty-Student Association State University of New York at Albany.
41. Luthar, S.S., Zigler, E.F., & Goldstein, D. (1992). Psychosocial adjustment among intellectually gifted adolescents: the role of cognitive-developmental and experiential factors. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 33(2), 361–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1469-7610.1992.TB00872.X
42. Mazur, E.Y., & Peresko, E.V. (2019). The study of rigidity (lability) of thinking in psychology students. Bulletin of the University of World Civilizations, 10(3(24)), 48–55. [Mazur Ye.YU., Peresko Ye.V. (2019). Izucheniye rigidnosti (labil’nosti) myshleniya u studentov-psikhologov. Vestnik Instituta Mirovykh Tsivilizatsii, 10(3(24)), 48–55].
43. McKenna, F.P., & Sharma, D. (2004). Reversing the emotional Stroop effect reveals that it is not what it seems: the role of fast and slow components. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 30(2), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.382
44. Mednick, S.A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850
45. Mesquita, B., & Boiger, M. (2014). Emotions in Context: A Sociodynamic Model of Emotions. Emotion Review, 6, 298 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914534480
46. Mitina, L.M., & Mitin, G.V. (2020). Psychological Analysis of the Problem of Marginalism, Procrastination and Learned Helplessness as Barriers to Personal and Professional Development. Psychological Science and Education, 25(3), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2020250308 [Mitina L.M., Mitin G.V. (2020). Psikhologicheskiy analiz problemy marginalizma, prokrastinatsii i vyuchennoy bespomoshchnosti kak bar’yerov lichnostnogo i professional’nogo razvitiya. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovaniye, 25(3), 90–100].
47. Moors, A. (2017). Integration of two skeptical emotion theories: Dimensional appraisal theory and Russell’s psychological construction theory. Psychological Inquiry, 28, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1235900
48. Morris, L., & Mansell, W. (2018). A systematic review of the relationship between rigidity/flexibility and transdiagnostic cognitive and behavioral processes that maintain psychopathology. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2043808718779431
49. Moskowitz, G.B. (1993). Individual differences in social categorization: The influence of personal need for structure on spontaneous trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.132
50. Neuberg, S.L., & Newson, J.T. (1993). Personal need for structure: individual differences in the desire for simpler structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.113
51. Nijaradze, G.A. (1987). On Two Types of Rigidity in Solving Intellectual Tasks. Voprosy psychologii, 3, 142–145. [Nizharadze, G. A. (1987). O dvukh tipakh rigidnosti pri reshenii intellektual’nykh zadach. Voprosy psikhologii, 3, 142–145].
52. Pavlova, E.M., & Kornilova, T.V. (2019). The Role of the Triad of Traits “Tolerance for Uncertainty – Emotional Intelligence – Intuition” in Self-Assessed Creativity in Creative Professionals. Psychological-Educational Studies, 11(1), 107–117. [Pavlova Ye.M., Kornilova T.V. (2019). Rol’ triady chert «tolerantnost’ k neopredelennosti – emotsional’nyy intellekt – intuitsiya» v samootsenke kreativnosti tvorcheskikh professionalov. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskiye issledovaniya, 11 (1), 107–117].
53. Phaf, R.H., & Kan, K.J. (2007). The automaticity of emotional Stroop: A meta–analysis. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38(2), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.10.008
54. Polunina, A.G., & Davydov, D.M. (2004). The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test as a Cognitive Assessment Tool. In T.B. Dmitriyeva (ed.), Social Psychiatry. Moscow: Publ. of GNTS SSP im. V.P. Serbskogo. 217–236. [Polunina A.G., Davydov D.M. (2004). Viskonsinskiy test sortirovki kartochek kak instrument kognitivnoy otsenki. V T.B. Dmitriyeva (red.), Sotsial’naya psikhiatriya. Moskva: Izd. GNTS SSP im. V.P. Serbskogo. 217–236].
55. Priester, M.J., & Clum, G.A. (1993). The problem-solving diathesis in depression, hopelessness, and suicide ideation: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 15(3), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01371381
56. Psychological Encyclopedia. Per. s angl. / Pod red. R. Korsini, A. Auerbah. – 2-e izd. – SPb. i dr.: Piter, Piter print, 2003. – 1094 s.[ Psikhologicheskaya entsiklopediya. Per. s angl. / Pod krasn. R. Korsini, A. Auerbakha. – 2-ye izd. – SPb. i dr.: Piter, Piterprint, 2003].
57. Ray, C. (1979). Examination stress and performance on a color–word interference test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49(2), 400–402. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1979.49.2.400
58. Rigidity // The Big Dictionary of Psychology (2009). Ed. by B. G. Meshcheryakov, V. P. Zinchenko. 4th ed., ext. Moscow; St. Petersburg, 477. [Bolshoi Enciklopedicheskiy slovar’ / pod red. B.G. Meshcheryakova, V.P. Zinchenko. – 4-e izd., rasshir. M., Spb., 477].
59. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. New York, NY: Basic Books.
60. Schaie, K.W. Intellectual development in adulthood. In: Birren J.E., Schaie K.W., editors. Handbook of the psychology of aging. (3rd ed.). New York: Academic Press; 1990. 291–309.
61. Schaller, M., Boyd, C., Yohannes, J., & O’Brien, M. (1995). The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.544.
62. Scherer, K.R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44, 695–729. doi:10.1177/0539018405058216
63. Schultz P.W., & Searleman, A. (1998). Personal need for structure, the Einstellung task, and the effects of stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(3), 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00179-7.
64. Schultz, P., & Searleman, A. (2002). Rigidity of thought and behavior: 100 years of research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 128(2), 165–207.
65. Smirnova, S.V., & Salevski, G.V. (2005). The preventive maintenance desadaptation freshman of the high school by means of development their psychic flexibility. Siberian Psychological Journal, 22, 54–58. [Smirnova S.V., Salevskiy G.V. (2005). Profilaktika dezadaptatsii pervokursnikov vuza putem razvitiya ikh psikhicheskoy gibkosti. Sibirskiy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 22, 54–58].
66. Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test // A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 526–545. ISBN 9780195159578.
67. Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651.
68. Sysoeva, T.A. (2014). Theoretical analysis of emotional Stroop effect mechanisms. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 11(1), 49–65. [Sysoyeva, T.A. (2014). Teoreticheskiy analiz mekhanizmov emotsional’nogo effekta Strupa. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 11(1), 49–65].
69. Vingerhoets, A.J., Croon, M., Jeninga, A.J., & Menges, L.J. (1990). Personality and health habits. Psychology and Health, 4(4), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449008400401.
70. Volkova, E.V., Kalugin, A.Yu., & Rusalov, V.M. (2022). Personality Traits, Attitudes to Life
    and Patterns of Behavior. Natural Systems of Mind, 2(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/ 10.38098/nsom_2022_02_01_03.
71. Yashin, A.A. (2015). Cognitive rigidity as the factor of poor success. Psychology and psychotechnics, 11, 1146–1157. https://doi.org/10.7256/2070-8955.2015.11.16968. [Yashin, A.A. (2015). Kognitivnaya rigidnost’ kak faktor neuspeshnosti. Psikhologiya i psikhotekhnika, 11, 1146–1157].
72. Yasin, M.I., & Khukhlaev, O.E. (2023). Russian-Language Adaptation of the Questionnaire D. Webster and A. Kruglyanski “The Need for Cognitive Closure”. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 20(2), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2023-2-282-299. [Yasin M.I., Khukhlayev O.Ye. (2023). Russkoyazychnaya adaptatsiya oprosnika D. Vebstera i A. Kruglyanskogo «Potrebnost’ v kognitivnoy zamknutosti». Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 20(2), 282–299].
73. Zakreski, M.J. (2018). When Emotional Intensity and Cognitive Rigidity Collide: What Can Counselors and Teachers Do? Gifted Child Today, 41(4), pp. 208– 216. https://doi:10.1177/1076217518786984.
74. Zalevsky G.V. (2004). Fixed forms of behavior of individual and group systems (in culture, education, science, norm and pathology). Tomsk: Tomsk State University. [Zalevskiy G.V. (2004). Fiksirovannyye formy povedeniya individual’nykh i gruppovykh sistem (v kul’ture, obrazovanii, nauke, norme i patologii). Tomsk: Tomskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet].
75. Zalevsky G.V., Kozlova N.V. (2005). Mental rigidity-flexibility as an acmeological invariant of professionalism. Siberian Psychological Journal, 22, 146–149. [Zalevskiy G.V., Kozlova N.V. (2005). Psikhicheskaya rigidnost’-gibkost’ kak akmeologicheskiy invariant professionalizma. Sibirskiy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 22, 146–149].
76. Zalevsky G.V. (1993). Mental rigidity as a normal and pathological condition. Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk University. [Zalevskiy G.V. (1993). Psikhicheskaya rigidnost’ kak normal’noye i patologicheskoye sostoyaniye. Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomskogo universiteta].