The Psychological Record

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0315-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Individual Consistencies as Interactive Styles under Decision

and Ambiguity Contingencies
Emilio Ribes-Iñesta 1 & Darcy Raúl Martínez-Montor 1

# Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Abstract
Mainstream study of individual differences, including so-called personality, are based on responses to items and scores in tests
that are not directly descriptive or predictive of actual behaviors in real-time situations. A behavioral account of individual
differences should deal with the idiosyncratic consistencies of individuals´ behavior that make every individual different to others
in the way in which interact with situational events. An alternative methodology is presented to study individual consistencies as
interactive styles. Styles are conceived as idiosyncratic profiles that characterize individuals interacting with gradients defining
situational contingencies. Two experimental studies were carried out to find individual consistencies in two different situations:
decision and ambiguity contingencies. Six college students participated in two studies exploring individual consistencies in each
of the two contingency situations. They were exposed to four different computer tasks, of which two corresponded to each
contingency situation. One of the tasks in each situation was presented twice, within a 1-month interval. All participants
performed differently in both contingency situations but showed within-subject consistent functional profiles as depicted by 8-
degree polynomial regression analyses. Findings support the possibility of identifying individual consistencies across time and
across situations in real-time performances.

Keywords Individual differences . Interactive styles . Individual consistencies . Ambiguity contingencies . Decision
contingencies

Psychometric methods have approached the analysis of indi-
vidual differences in behavior by using standard tests, ques-
tionnaires, and inventories, and its eventual correlation with
clinical data or educational achievement (Allport, 1961;
Cattell, 1965; Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970; Koch, Ortner,
Eid, Caspers, & Schmitt, 2014; McCrae & Costa, 1997;
Musek, 2007; O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007). Individuals are
compared in their scores as members of a population used to
statistically validate the measurement instruments.
Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that are used to classify and
predict the behavior of individuals, scores are not descriptive
of any type of behavior. A score does not inform about what
individuals actually do, did, or may do in given situations or
under certain circumstances. Tests, inventories, and
* Darcy Raúl Martínez-Montor
darcymtz@outlook.com
1
Universidad Veracruzana, Orizaba 203 (Fracc. Veracruz),
91020 Xalapa, Mexico
questionnaire scores are unspecific regarding actual behavior
of individuals. This explains why psychometric classifications
consist of general categories or scales in which all individuals
fit with a higher or lower weight, depending on the scores
being obtained in test or questionnaire situations. These instru-
ments are built supposing that items are pertinent samples or
measures of a given capacity or behavioral disposition or state.
Items replace real situations and, in general, verbal responses
replace real interactions. Psychometric assessment has result-
ed in allocating individuals in a population distribution assum-
ing that they show a given amount of an operationally defined
tendency, state, capacity, or disposition predictive of some
kind of related behaviors.
In previous years, an alternative strategy for assessing some
aspects related to personality has been proposed. This ap-
proach moves from the analysis of individual differences to
that of individual consistencies as interactive styles under dif-
ferent contingency situations (Ribes & Sánchez, 1992; Ribes
& Contreras, 2007; Ribes, Contreras, Martínez, Viladrich, &
Doval, 2005). The concept of interactive styles emphasizes
the unique manner in which every individual behaves in

relation to general types of contingencies. Contingencies are
understood as interdependent relations between the individual
and events conforming the circumstances of a situation
(Ribes, 1997). Therefore, situations can be functionally clas-
sified in terms of their contingency organization under defined
quantitative parameters. This approach allows for the replace-
ment of verbally referred situations by different actual real-
time situations, with the same functional characteristics
irrespectively of the sceneries being represented.
Operationally speaking, interactive styles are concerned with
the consistent ways in which each individual behaves in each
type of contingency organization. Actual performance in real
time in each type of contingency situation allows the identifi-
cation of an idiosyncratic profile characteristic of each indi-
vidual. This idiosyncratic profile can be conceived as the out-
come of a personal history of interactions, which are related to
biographical tendencies.
In order to evaluate styles as tendencies, it is necessary to
set up situations with open contingencies in which criteria of
performance are cancelled out. Otherwise, behavior will be
determined primarily by present circumstances and goals,
and historical factors (biographical tendencies) become em-
bedded and minimized. Whereas adjustive interactions occur
under closed contingencies, interactive styles are observable
only under open contingencies. Open contingencies consist in
situations in which no achievement criteria are established or
required, in contrast to closed contingencies in which individ-
uals have to achieve predetermined criteria or outcomes. It is
assumed than under open contingencies all individuals will
show different performances, whereas under closed contin-
gencies they will show uniform performances (Ribes &
Sánchez, 1990). This is why individual differences should
be considered an outcome of individual consistencies and
not as sheer variability (Ribes & Sánchez, 1990).
A study by Harzem (1984) illustrates the effect of open
contingencies in relatively restricted experimental procedures.
Harzem explored the emergence of individual differences in
university students exposed to traditional schedules of rein-
forcement using pressing a key as a response. Participants were
not instructed about specific response requirements, being ex-
posed to different mixed schedules of reinforcement involving
fixed ratio (FR), differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL),
and fixed interval (FI) components. Instructions only stressed
that points would be provided on a counter as response out-
comes. No information was provided about other criteria such
as the rate or patterning or any other aspect of expected perfor-
mance. All participants showed different patterns of key
responding, none of them corresponding to the schedules of
reinforcement to which they were actually exposed.
Approaching some personality-related aspects from the
standpoint of interactive styles precludes any previous classi-
fication where to allocate individuals. On the contrary, to the
extent that every individual shows idiosyncratic styles, the
Psychol Rec
emphasis is turned to identifying generic contingency situa-
tions in which individuals deploy their particular interactive
styles. Although 12 contingency situations were initially iden-
tified (Ribes & Sánchez, 1990), they were afterwards reduced
to 8, because of the possibility of evaluating true covariations
between events and behavior, and not simple behavioral cor-
relations as usually occurs in traditional psychometric ap-
proaches. The contingency situations identified so far are risk,
decision, frustration, ambiguity, persistence, conflict, distrac-
tion, and scanning (Ribes, 2018). Table 1 briefly describes
each of these generic contingency situations. Two of these
situations have already been experimentally assessed and cor-
respond to personality factors explored in previous studies:
risk and achievement persistence contingencies (Ribes &
Contreras, 2007; Ribes et al., 2005; Ribes & Sánchez,
1992). Contingency situations were presented as a video-
game–like situation on a computer monitor screen, and indi-
viduals interacted in real time with the events presented by
using two joysticks during a series of sessions, during which
values of the contingency parameters were varied. Every style
was assessed in two ways: as a consistent performance be-
tween situations with equivalent contingency parameters,
and between time presentations of the same situation, usually
after 1 month or more. The former afforded for across task
validation whereas the latter afforded for across time valida-
tion (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004;
Mischel, 1968). Individuals were exposed to open contingen-
cy situations and, as a control procedure, they were also ex-
posed to the same situation under closed contingencies. As a
result of this last procedure, it was expected that individual
differences would disappear.
Two studies were done on risk contingencies (Ribes et al.,
2005; Ribes & Sánchez, 1992). Risk contingencies were de-
fined as a situation with at least two options of responding, one
of which signaled or informed about the amount and probabil-
ity of outcomes, whereas another did not provide information
about outcomes but indicated contrasting variations in their
probability and amount. Both studies found individual consis-
tencies as styles, depicted by the profiles obtained by means of
9- and 8-degree polynomial regression analyses. Profiles
showed the covariation of choice for risk/no risk alternatives
in terms of the number of accumulated earnings, in two differ-
ent but similar games: a horse race and a values investment
simulation. Each participant showed a singular profile, but per-
formances of each participant in the repeated measures (across
time and across situations) were similar among themselves.
Achievement persistent contingencies were assessed in a dif-
ferent study (Ribes & Contreras, 2007). Persistence was de-
fined in terms of a situation in which individuals could choose
between two options, one with a constant response require-
ment, and another with an increasing response requirement in
order to achieve the same outcomes. Results of the study
showed consistent profiles in three of the four participants.
Psychol Rec

Table 1 All contingency

situations available for the
assessment of the interactive
styles
Situation Definition
Risk Describes the generic situation implying that one of the response options indicates the
magnitude and probability of the consequences of the behavior involved in it, while
the other option does not provide any indication, while at the same time it implies
contrasting variations of probability and magnitude of the consequence
Decision Describes the generic situation when there is opportunity of responding to only one of
two optional events uncertain in time
Frustration Describes the generic situation when the behavior of the individual is blocked, that is,
prevented or delayed, without prior signaling of such blocking
Ambiguity Generic situation in which events are difficult to discriminate because they show
incongruous relations among them, or because they cannot be perceptually
distinguished from one another
Persistence Describes the generic situation when the consequences of the behavior remain constant
in the available response options, but at least in one of them the requirement to
obtain such consequences increases in an unspecified manner
Conflict Describes the generic situation when two competitive options take place in terms of
their consequences and the criteria for choosing between them
Distraction Describes the generic situation in which events or stimulus objects with irrelevant or
falsely informative properties are presented
Scanning Describes the generic situation in which there is a qualitative and quantitative diversity
of potential stimulus events, which are updated by the execution of non-required
responses

An 8-degree polynomial regression depicted the covariation
between choice of the constant/variant alternatives and incre-
ments in the response requirement. This study only validated
the temporal consistency of performance, because it only used
a single task consisting in filling two 40-cell patterns. In both
studies, on risk and on persistence contingencies, participants
were instructed to just enjoy the game during open contingen-
cies, and were required to obtain a predetermined number of
points during closed contingencies. The closure of contingen-
cies erased individual differences in both studies.
Two experiments were designed in order to confirm the
identification of individual consistencies in generic situations,
one involving decision and the other ambiguity. As in previ-
ous studies, individual consistencies as interactive styles
should be identified under open contingencies and should
not show under closed contingencies. In these experiments,
situations were designed in terms of gradients including 9
values of the parameters defining the contingency situation.
These gradients, described in the next sections, supported the
use of 8-degrees polynomial regressions to depict the perfor-
mance profiles of the resulting interactive styles. The gradi-
ents allowed also for a continuous scale to compare the co-
variation of the events parameters and response characteristics
under evaluation.
Experiment 1: Decision Contingencies
This experiment was designed to evaluate consistencies in
performance of the individuals across tasks and across time
in a decision contingencies situation. In terms of opportunity,
this contingency situation was defined as responding to only
one of two optional events in time.
Method
Participants Six undergraduate students aged 18–21 years
(three male—P1, P2, and P3; three female—P4, P5, and P6)
volunteered as participants. All of them were students of the
Faculty of Humanities at the University of Veracruz and were
invited to be part of the study by their professor.
Apparatus and Setting Two HP Compaq 6500 Pro desktop
computers with AMD Athlon processors were used. The
screen displayed instructions, stimuli, and outcomes.
Participants used a videogames joystick to respond, moving
the pointer to aim and shoot the target. The task was pro-
grammed using Visual Basic Studio 2013, and responses were
automatically recorded. The study was carried out in two
rooms, isolated from noise and distractors, where the comput-
er systems were located.
Design Experiment 1 was divided in three sessions. In Session
1, participants were exposed to a naval-battle game. Four and
8 weeks later, the same participants were exposed again to the
same naval-battle game (Session 2) and to a duck-hunting
game (Session 3), respectively. The replication of the study
in different experimental sessions allowed for within-subject
comparisons across time with respect to the naval-battle situ-
ation and for within-subject comparison across situations (the

naval-battle and the duck-hunting games). In each session, the
participants were exposed to the experimental phases during 3
consecutive days.
Every session involved three experimental phases. In each
session, phases 1 and 2 involved open-contingency condi-
tions, whereas Phase 3 involved closed contingency condi-
tions. Each phase involved 9 blocks, and in each block, sub-
jects were exposed to 10 trials. In order to assess individual
consistencies in the participants in a decision contingency,
events presentation was manipulated according to different
temporal positions and separation in order to establish a re-
sponse–opportunity gradient. Because a decision contingency
implies two concurrent events, the response–opportunity gra-
dient was constituted by the temporal scale overlapping and
spacing those events, and a constant but limited time to re-
spond to them. In every phase, each block was paired with the
corresponding value of a response–opportunity gradient, as
shown in Fig. 1. During the discriminative time, the target
was visible on the screen, and the participant were able to
shoot it, whereas during the nonoperative time the target was
invisible. Although the presentation of the gradient was as-
cending through the blocks in Phase 1 (values 1–9), it was
presented in a descending fashion in Phase 2 (values 9 –1),
and again ascending in Phase 3 of every session.
Procedure Experimental tasks consisted of two different
games displayed on the computer screen. One game simulated
two simultaneous naval battles, and participants were asked to
choose and shoot the enemy target in one of these particular
battles. The other game simulated two simultaneous duck-
hunting sessions, and participants were asked to choose and
shoot flying ducks in one of the screens. Figure 2 shows the
screens of both tasks.
The naval-battle game was presented on a partitioned screen.
A different battle was displayed on each side of the screen.
Participants could shoot the target on only one of the two si-
multaneous battles (see Fig. 2) in each trial. At the top center of
the screen was shown the total number of points won in each
phase. At the right top of the screen, a counter showed remain-
ing time. Participants could move the pointer over the enemy
targets using the analogue handler of the joystick. In order to
change over from one battle to the other, the participants had to
choose and move the analogue handler in the opposite side. By
pressing the “L” or “R” buttons, to left or right battle, respec-
tively, the participants could shoot and try to destroy the enemy
target in that particular battle. On each trial, the participants
could only shoot once and on one battle only. Whether or not
the enemy target was hit, the trial ended when the shooting
button was pressed. The duck-hunting task was similar to the
naval-battle game, both in operation and instructions.
Each trial lasted 20 s and intertrial intervals were 3 s long. If
the participant shot an enemy target or duck before the 20-s
period elapsed, the screen display was frozen during the
Psychol Rec
intertrial interval. For each enemy target destroyed, 10 points
were added to the total points. The total amount of points that
the participant could win on each phase was 900. Variations in
temporal positions of the enemy targets were manipulated
according to the parametric manipulation of the response–op-
portunity gradient. According to this manipulation, the partic-
ipants could get the same points in less time if they chose left
battle when values 1–6 of the gradient were presented. On the
other hand, the participants could the same points in less time
if they chose the right option when values 7–9 of the gradient
were presented. Before experimental sessions, a training trial
was run to teach participants to move the pointer using the
analogue handlers of the joystick and shoot the target.
The following instructions were given during phases 1 and
2 in the two sessions involving the naval-battle game (sessions
1 and 2), in which open contingencies were evaluated:
Welcome. On each side of the screen there is a different
naval-battle that will show a different enemy plane. You
can only shoot one target in one of those battles, by
pressing the “L” button if you want to shoot the target
of the left side, or the “R” button if you want to shoot the
target of the right side. You may move the pointer in any
side by using the analogue handler of the joystick, the
left one to move around the left side and the right one to
move on the right side.
From the beginning of the battle you have 20 s to pre-
pare your pointer and shoot. After 20 seconds you will
lose your chance to shoot.
Let’s begin the battle. Good luck and have fun!
During Phase 3, a DVD movie previously chosen by each
participant, could be exchanged for earned points at the end
of the phase. Establishing a minimum of points to obtain a
DVD movie allowed to determine a response requirement to
close contingencies in the situation. The following instruc-
tions were added:
This time you will have the opportunity to obtain a DVD
movie. In order to obtain the DVD at the end of nine
sessions, you will have to earn at least 600 points. Try to
do your best by destroying as many planes as possible.
Instructions for the duck-hunting game were similar, replacing
naval battles with duck-hunting sessions.
Data Analysis Following the analysis of previous studies
(Ribes & Contreras, 2007; Ribes et al., 2005; Ribes &
Sánchez, 1992) a polynomial regression was calculated.
Polynomial regression allows for identifying covariations be-
tween two variables, irrespectively of their temporal order. In
addition, the use of polynomial regression assumes that the
Psychol Rec
Fig. 1 Temporal position and
duration of the discriminative
time and nonoperative time in
each panel of the task. This
manipulation across the blocks
constitutes the response-
opportunity gradient presented in
Experiment 1
dependency between the values of each variable is not linear,
that is, do not correspond point to point, as is the case for
individual differences in behavior. A larger number of liberty
degrees provides robust evidence when consistencies in the
regression function are found in repeated occasions. In order
to identify a general function describing individual consisten-
cies across time and situations in a decision contingency, an 8-
degree polynomial regression was calculated, correlating la-
tency of the shooting response in both sides with the value of
the gradient of opportunity across sessions under open contin-
gencies. The use of an 8-degree polynomial regression added
variability to the profiles representing individual behavior, in
such a way that obtaining similar profiles provided a stronger
support for within-subject consistencies.
Results and Discussion
Figure 3 shows the mean shooting-response latency in both
options in every value of the response–opportunity gradient
for each participant. Latency shows the opportunity to respond
to a given target under the temporal parameters defining a
choice situation. The left column shows the results of
Session 1, the central column shows the results of Sessions
2, and the right column shows the results of Session 3. For
each session, the circles and triangles match with phases 1 and
2, respectively. Also, the black line shows the results of Phase
3 of each session under closed contingencies.
Overall, Fig. 3 shows that in phases with an open contingen-
cy (phases 1 and 2) the pattern of the latency of the shooting-
response was dissimilar among participants, but shows a robust
within-subject consistency. On the other side, when the partic-
ipants were exposed to the closed contingency condition,
shooting-response latency patterns were homogenous among
participants, with an increasing tendency along larger values
in the response–opportunity gradient. With exception of P3
and P6, this figure shows that the black lines—corresponding
to closed contingency condition—are not overlapped to the
lines corresponding to open contingency condition.

Fig. 2 Examples of the screen
displays shown in Sessions 1 and
2 (top panel) and in Session 3
(bottom panel) in Experiment 1
and 2
Figure 4 shows the polynomial regression function cor-
relating the latency of the shooting-response with the 9
values of the response–opportunity gradient during phases
1 and 2 (open contingency condition) in every session for
each participant. The solid line shows the polynomial
function of Session 1, the hyphen line shows the function
of Session 2, and the pointed line shows the function of
Session 3. The figure shows that all the polynomial func-
tions are singular and idiosyncratic for each participant,
and also consistent between sessions for all of them. In
addition, the figure shows that the pattern of response was
sensitive to the changes in the values of the response–
opportunity gradient.
Overall, data support the hypotheses that individual behav-
ior may show idiosyncratic consistencies when there are not
specific criteria to fulfill, and that when a specific criterion is
imposed, the pattern of behavior among individuals tends to
become homogeneous. Finally, present data confirmed the
possibility of finding interactive styles, as individual consis-
tencies, in a new situation previously not explored: decision
contingencies.
Psychol Rec
Experiment 2: Ambiguity Contingencies
This experiment was designed to evaluate the consistency of
the performance of the individuals across time and across
situations in an ambiguity contingencies situation.
Ambiguity was defined as a situation in which events are
difficult to discriminate because they show incongruous rela-
tions among them, or because they cannot be perceptually
distinguished from one another.
Method
Participants The same participants as those of Experiment 1.
Apparatus and Setting The same as Experiment 1.
Design The experimental design was similar to that used in
Experiment 1, except that in Experiment 2 the participants
were exposed to an ambiguity gradient. The ambiguity con-
tingency consisted of the covariation of different degrees on
incongruence between the shooting-response and the
Psychol Rec

Fig. 3 Mean latency (s) per

session of the shooting response
in each value of the response-
opportunity gradient for each
participant in the three sessions of
Experiment 1. The left column
shows the results of Session 1, the
central column shows the results
of Session 2 and the right column
shows the results of Session 3.
For each Session, the circles and
triangles match with phases 1 and
2, respectively. Also, the black
line shows the results of Phase 3
of each session

destruction of the target, associated to increasing difficulty in
the visual discriminability of the targets. In this experiment,
parametric manipulation consisted in pairing in each block the
corresponding value of an ambiguity gradient (Table 2). The
gradient consisted in different degrees of probability of the
expected outcome (10 points when destroying the target)
and the visual discriminability of the target (showing the tar-
gets in different chromatic scales of orange hue).
Data Analysis Data analysis was similar to that of Experiment
1, except that the polynomial regression correlated the number
of changeovers from the right to the left panel with the value
of the gradient of ambiguity across sessions under open con-
tingencies. Changeovers indicate the difficulty of discriminat-
ing targets in each of the concurrent targets, in such a way that
number of changeovers should increase when ambiguity is
perceived in both options.
Procedure In this experiment, the probability of the
predetermined outcomes and visual discriminability of the
targets were adjusted according to the ambiguity gradient,
and the following text was added to the instructions in all
 Psychol Rec

Fig. 4 Polynomial regression correlating latency (s) of the shooting contingency condition. The solid line shows the function of Session 1,
response per trial with every value of the response-opportunity gradient the hyphen line corresponds to Session 2, and the pointed line
for each participant in all sessions of Experiment 1 during open corresponds to Session 3

phases: “The enemy targets will show in red color, while the During closed contingencies participants were in-
allied planes will show in yellow color. If you shoot an allied formed that they should obtain at least 600 points at the
plane you will lose 10 points.” end of nine sessions in order to earn a previously selected
DVD.
Table 2 Probability of the expected outcomes and RGB hue values for
the color of the targets (planes or ducks) shown in Experiment 2 Results and Discussion
Block Panel Probability RGB hue value Value of
the gradient*
Figure 5 shows the number of changeovers from the right to
the left panel in every value of the ambiguity gradient for each
1 Left 1 230 0 38 1 participant. The left column shows the results of Session 1, the
Right 0.75 233 84 0 central column shows the results of Session 2, and the right
2 Left 1 230 0 38 2 column shows the results of Session 3. For each session, the
Right 0.5 23 60 0
circles and triangles match with phases 1 and 2, respectively.
3 Left 1 230 0 38 3
Also, the black line shows the results of Phase 3 (closed con-
Right 0.25 232 35 0
tingency) of each session.
4 Left 0.75 233 84 0 4
Right 0.75 233 84 0 Overall, Fig. 5 shows that during open contingencies
5 Left 0.75 233 84 0 5 (phases 1 and 2), patterns of changeovers from the right to
Right 0.5 231 60 0 the left panel were different between participants, but shows
6 Left 0.75 233 84 0 6 robust within-subject consistencies. When participants were
Right 0.25 232 35 0 exposed to the closed contingency condition, changeovers
7 Left 0.5 231 60 0 7 patterns were homogenous among participants in the three
Right 0.5 231 60 0 sessions of the experiment. Nonetheless, the general tendency
8 Left 0.5 231 60 0 8 of the pattern of changeovers was different between phases.
Right 0.25 232 35 0
Figure 6 shows the polynomial regression function corre-
9 Left 0.25 232 35 0 9
Right 0.25 232 35 0
lating the number of changeovers from the right to the left
panel with the nine values of the ambiguity gradient during
*= The value of the gradient refers to the level of ambiguity
Psychol Rec

Fig. 5 Number of changeovers

from the right to the left panel per
session in each value of the
ambiguity gradient for each
participant in the three sessions of
Experiment 2. The left column
shows the results of Session 1, the
central column shows the results
of Session 2, and the right column
shows the results of Session 3.
For each session, the circles and
triangles match with phases 1 and
2, respectively. Also, the black
line shows the results of Phase 3
of each session

phases 1 and 2 (open contingency condition), in every session
for each participant. The solid line shows the polynomial func-
tion of Session 1, the hyphen line shows the function of
Session 2, and the pointed line shows the function of
Session 3. Overall, results show within-subject consistent
polynomial functions, singular and idiosyncratic for each par-
ticipant. In addition, it was observed that patterns of change-
overs were sensitive to changes in the values of the ambiguity
gradient, and that this sensitivity was idiosyncratic for all par-
ticipants. Except for P4, who showed a different tendency
between Session 1 and the other two sessions, the rest of the
participants showed similar functions between sessions.
It should be noted that differences in the number of change-
overs were negligible when contingency was closed. These
effect supports the assumption that individual behavior is pri-
marily determined by ongoing contingencies that override
historical tendencies as initial conditions for interaction.
General Discussion
The results of these experiments confirm that individuals
show idiosyncratic interactive styles under generic situational
contingencies. These interactive profiles are consistent along

Fig. 6 Polynomial regression correlating the number of changeovers
from the right to the left panel with every value of the ambiguity
gradient for each participant in all sessions of Experiment 2 during
time and across particular instances of those circumstances,
but can be evaluated only under open contingencies, that is, in
situations in which no predetermined criteria of effectiveness
or outcomes are established. These results extend previous
findings (Ribes & Sánchez, 1992; Ribes & Contreras, 2007;
Ribes et al., 2005), in which interactive styles were evaluated
under real-time situations involving risk and achievement per-
sistence contingencies. In all these studies, closing contingen-
cies by setting specific response demands or outcome require-
ments eliminated differences among individuals, privileging
the influence of ongoing outcome requirements relative to
initial biographical tendencies. In contrast, under open contin-
gencies, all individuals behaved differently relative to each
other and developed unique profiles as depicted by the poly-
nomial regression functions. During open contingencies, in-
structions only informed about the task, without demanding
any criterion of performance. Participants were just encour-
aged to enjoy the task and amuse themselves. The elimination
of specific outcome and response demands allowed for bio-
graphical tendencies to take place. All subjects behaved dif-
ferently under the same conditions, and when biographical
tendencies were modulated by introducing specific demands,
individuals developed similar performances.
The same participants volunteered in the two present ex-
periments. This fact allows us to compare functional profiles
among the subjects in each experiment as well as to compare
within-subject profiles of each individual in both experiments.
Psychol Rec
open contingency condition. The solid line shows the function of
Session 1, the hyphen line corresponds to Session 2, and the pointed
line corresponds to Session 3
Results of Experiment 1 show that each participant deployed
consistent profiles across time and situations in spite of the
degrees of the polynomial regression used and the limited
number of observations that any within-subject experiment
involves. The form of the regression functions was almost
identical, especially in the same tasks at different times, in
general showing similar tendencies. In Experiment 2, partici-
pants also developed characteristics individual profiles, simi-
lar to the replication of the first task and the presentation of the
second task.
None of the functions observed were linear, so that it is not
possible to predict one value of the covariation from another
value in the same profile. Performances did not follow any
particular, constant tendency along the gradients defining both
contingency situations. The important feature in all the pro-
files is that none of the participants can be classified according
to a fixed type of “decision making” or “tolerance to ambigu-
ity.” There are no “low decision makers” or “high decision
makers,” and the same can be said about ambiguity. No indi-
vidual can be characterized as high or low in “tolerance to
ambiguity” or a similar characteristic. Each individual showed
different high- and low-performance scores along the different
values of the corresponding gradients. No typology can be
applied to individuals. On the contrary, each of the participants
showed a unique way of interacting in real time with decision
and ambiguity contingencies. They could coincide in some
relative scores regarding values in any of the gradients, but
Psychol Rec
their functional profiles were always different to some extent.
This means that every participant, at different values of the
gradient, may be identified as a faster decision maker or as
slower decision maker, as more or less tolerant to ambiguity.
Profiles depict when these characteristics can be predicted for
each participant.
By the same token, the profile describing the interactive
style of each participant in one of the contingency situations
does not seem to covary with the profile in the other situation.
Within-subject differences between profiles in the two contin-
gency situations in all participants confirm that both interac-
tive circumstances are functionally independent of each other.
Therefore, the interactive style of a given individual in a de-
cision contingencies situation does not allow us to predict his/
her interactive style in an ambiguous contingencies situation.
We assume that this functional independence is determined by
the dimensions and parameters inherent to each contingency
situation. To the extent that each situation is defined by differ-
ent contingency relations and parameters, it can be expected
that the corresponding interactive styles will be orthogonal to
each other. No necessary covariations may be assumed in the
ways in which individuals interact with different contingency
generic situations. Orthogonality of interactive styles suggests
that the uniqueness entailed by the acknowledgement of per-
sonality as a distinctive way of behaving, and is not restricted
to the singularity of each interactive style in a given individ-
ual. Uniqueness may also involve the complete set of interac-
tive styles, as a peculiar organization of tendencies to interact
in a manner unlikely to be replicated by other individuals.
Although interactive styles, as has been shown in this and
previous studies, only can be evaluated under open contingen-
cies in the various generic situations, this does not preclude
their influence during performance under closed contingen-
cies. As previously stated, interactive styles consist of the
unique manner of dealing with situations that characterizes
each individual as a developmental outcome of his/her per-
sonal biography. Interactive styles, as historical factors, are
always present in the initial condition of a new interaction.
Interactive styles represent tendencies, and not particular
kinds of behavior potentially demanded by different situa-
tions. Tendencies are not occurrences, but rather consist of
collections or successions of occurrences in time (Kantor,
1924–1926; Ryle, 1949). They take place as initial contacts
in situations that functionally replicate the manner in which
individuals have contacted similar situations in the past. The
degree of functional correspondence of such initial contact
with acting contingencies in the situation may determine if
the style is merged in the behavior demanded by the situations,
or if it is embedded as an interfering influence during perfor-
mance. In the latter case, interactive styles may be considered
to induce individual differences in situations under closed
contingencies. In the former case, interactive styles facilitate
the occurrence of the performance being required. If
performances of individuals in learning or problem-solving
situations were examined moment-to-moment, it could be
seen that individuals show particular ways of facing the task,
especially at the beginning of the episode.
These possible biographical influences have been loosely
identified as strategies or attitudes (Bruner & Goodman,
1947), and probably influence performance in terms of facil-
itation or interference of the required behavior demanded by
the situation. The phenomenon of rule-governed behavior
(Catania, Matthews, & Shimoff, 1982) is an outstanding ex-
ample of the possible interrelation of interactive styles and
required contingencies in a task. In one of a series of
experiments, Ribes and Martínez (1990) studied the effects
of true and false instructions in a first-order matching-to-
sample task on university students. Participants had to choose
among three comparative stimuli (geometrical figures), one
that matched the sample stimulus in terms of an oddity or
similarity criterion, that is, different in form and color, or dif-
ferent in form or color. Participants were exposed to false and
true instructions about the marching criterion. Participants al-
ways showed correct performances under the true instruction
condition. But during the false instruction condition, a genu-
ine ambiguity contingency, participants showed different
levels of correct performance. Some did not adjust to the
matching criterion in spite of the fact that their responses were
informed to be wrong (contradicting the instruction). Other
participants showed intermediate levels of correct perfor-
mance, whereas a few switched after few trials to respond
according to the correct matching criterion, in spite of the false
instructions. This finding suggests that individuals were dif-
ferentially reactive to the effective task demands, whereas
others could not discriminate the pertinence of instructions
relative to response outcomes. Interactive styles could well
be contributing to a functional threshold to effective require-
ments. This point of view opens new ways of looking at indi-
vidual differences in cognitive and learning situations, empha-
sizing the need to identify the functional parameters of such
situations, and the relevance that may have specific interactive
styles in the initial contact with them.
It is important to remark that interactive styles, as biograph-
ical tendencies, fit into the logical category of dispositional
concepts (Ryle, 1949). Dispositional terms do not correspond
to entities or occurrences, but to circumstances as a collection
of occurrences. Because of this, interactive styles cannot be
used in causal-type statements. Interactive styles are to be
identified as outcomes of biographical conditions and not as
causes of behavior. These styles would be only part of the
diverse factors that participate in behavioral episodes, in this
case, as factors that facilitate or interfere with expected or
required performance. The unique development of interactive
styles as individual consistencies in behavior may help to
produce a conceptual turn towards real-time analyses of indi-
vidual differences in behavior.

Acknowledgements The second author acknowledges the doctoral fel-
lowship granted by the National Council of Science and Technology of
México (CONACYT) to carry out this research.
Funding This study was funded by the National Council of Science and
Technology of México (CONACYT) (grant number 286405).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest Emilio Ribes-Iñesta declares that he has no conflict
of interest. Darcy Raúl Martínez-Montor declares that he has no conflict
of interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institu-
tional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its
later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
References
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New
York: Holt.
Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing
factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
42, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058484
Campbell, K., Bonacci, A., Shelton, J., Exline, J., & Bushman, B.
(2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences
and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45.
Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1982). Instructed versus
shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal
responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38,
233–248. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.38-233
Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. New York:
Penguin.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the
sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). Champaign: IPAT.
Psychol Rec
Harzem, P. (1984). Experimental analysis of individual differences
and personality. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 42, 385–395.
Kantor, J. R. (1924–1926). Principles of psychology (Vols. 1–2).
Chicago: Principia Press.
Koch, T., Ortner, T. M., Eid, M., Caspers, J., & Schmitt, M. (2014).
Evaluating the construct validity of objective personality tests using
a multitrait-multimethod-multioccasion-(MTMM-M)-approach.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 208–230.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as human
universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: John Wiley.
Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for
the big one in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 1213–1233.
O’Connor, M., & Paunonen, S. (2007). Big five personality predictors of
post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual
Differences, 43, 971–990.
Ribes, E. (1997). Causality and contingency: Some conceptual consider-
ations. The Psychological Record, 47, 619–637.
Ribes, E. (2018). El estudio científico de la conducta individual: Una
introducción a la Psicología Científica. Ciudad de México:
Manual Moderno.
Ribes, E., & Contreras, S. (2007). Individual consistencies in behavior:
Achievement persistence interactions as personality styles.
Psychological Reports, 101, 365–377. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.
101.2.365-377
Ribes, E., Contreras, S., Martínez, C., Viladrich, C., & Doval, E. (2005).
Individual consistencies across time and tasks: A replication of in-
teractive styles. The Psychological Record, 55, 619–631. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF03395530
Ribes, E., & Martínez, H. (1990). Interaction of contingencies and rule
instructions in the performance of human subjects in conditional
discrimination. The Psychological Record, 40, 565–586.
Ribes, E., & Sánchez, S. (1990). El problema de las diferencias
individualidad: un análisis conceptual de la personalidad. In E.
Ribes (Ed.), Problemas conceptuales en el análisis del
comportamiento humano (pp. 79–99). Mexico City: Trillas.
Ribes, E., & Sánchez, S. (1992). Individual behavior consistencies as
interactive styles: Their relation to personality. The Psychological
Record, 42, 369–387.
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. New York: Barnes & Noble.