Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 69, Issue 2, pp 291–314 | Cite as

The On-Going Search for Perspective-Taking IRAPs: Exploring the Potential of the Natural Language-IRAP

  • Deirdre KavanaghEmail author
  • Adeline Roelandt
  • Lisa Van Raemdonck
  • Yvonne Barnes-Holmes
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes
  • Ciara McEnteggart
Original Article

Abstract

Under a Relational Frame Theory (RFT) framework, researchers have investigated the role of deictic relational responding (perspective-taking) in the analysis of self in relation to others, place, and time. The aim of the current research was to develop IRAPs that targeted deictic relational responding with regard to the mental states of self and others. This was pursued in a series of experiments that employed a novel version of the IRAP, known as the Natural Language-IRAP (NL-IRAP). The use of the NL-IRAP allowed for the presentation of relatively complex statements that required participants to infer the thoughts or beliefs of others on a trial-by-trial basis within the IRAP. Across a sequence of six experiments, a “self-focused IRAP” required participants to respond to both positive and negative statements about themselves, whereas an “other-focused IRAP” required participants to respond to similar statements about others. Experiments 1 and 2 investigated perspective-taking with regard to an unspecified other. Experiments 3–6 investigated perspective-taking with regard to a specified other, with the specified relationship between self and other manipulated across experiments. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 indicated that the other-focused IRAP produced overall bias scores that were significantly stronger than responding to the self-focused IRAP. It is interesting that nonsignificant differences were recorded across Experiments 3–6 when other was specified. The findings obtained across the six studies highlight potentially important limitations in the use of the NL-IRAP as a measure of perspective-taking.

Keywords

Relational Frame Theory (RFT) Natural-Language IRAP Deictic Perspective-taking 

Notes

Funding

This research was conducted with funding from the XXX.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Deirdre Kavanagh declares that she has no conflict of interest. Adeline Roelandt declares that she has no conflict of interest. Lisa Van Raemdonck declares that she has no conflict of interest. Yvonne Barnes-Holmes declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dermot Barnes-Holmes declares he has no conflict of interest. Ciara McEnteggart declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures in the current study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants.

References

  1. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbero-Rubio, A., Lopez-Lopez, J., Luciano, C., & Eisenbeck, N. (2016). Perspective-taking measured by implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP). The Psychological Record, 66, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0166-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Stewart, I., & Boles, S. (2010). A sketch of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the relational elaboration and coherence (REC) model. The Psychological Record, 60, 527–542.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2001). Analysing relational frames: Studying language and cognition in young children (Unpublished doctoral thesis). National University of Ireland, Maynooth.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. (2001). The development of self and perspective-taking: A relational frame analysis. Behavioral Development Bulletin, (1), 42–45.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernaerts, I., De Groot, F., & Kleen, M. (2012). De AAQ-II, een maat voor experiëntiële vermijding: normering bij jongeren. Gedragstherapie, 4, 389–399.Google Scholar
  7. Bernstein, R. F., Laurent, S. N., Nelson, B. W., & Laurent, H. K. (2015). Perspective-taking induction mitigates the effects of partner attachment avoidance on self-partner overlap. Personal Relationships, 22, 356–367.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bond, F., Hayes, S., Baer, R., Carpenter, K., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H., et al. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42, 676–688.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeBernardis, G. M., Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2014). Perspective taking as a continuum. The Psychological Record, 64, 123–131.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0008-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finn, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., & McEnteggart, C. (2018). Exploring the single-trial-type-dominance-effect on the IRAP: Developing a differential arbitrarily applicable relational responding effects (DAARRE) model. The Psychological Record, 68, 11–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0262-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 615–625.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022898.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Golijani-Moghaddam, N., Hart, A., & Dawson, D. L. (2013). The implicit relational assessment procedure: Emerging reliability and validity data. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 2, 105–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2013.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gore, N. G., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Murphy, G. (2010). The relationship between intellectual functioning and relational perspective-taking. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 10, 1–17.Google Scholar
  14. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heagle, A. I., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2006). Teaching perspective-taking skills to typically developing children through derived relational responding. Journal of Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention, 3, 1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hussey, I., McEnteggart, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Kavanagh, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., Parling, T., & Lundgren, T. (2014). Flexible perspective-taking: New concepts and a new behavioural measure. Dublin: Paper presented at the ACT-CBS Conference.Google Scholar
  17. Kanter, J. W., Parker, C. R., & Kohlenberg, R. J. (2001). Finding the self: A behavioral measure and its clinical implications. Psychotherapy, 38, 198–211.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.38.2.198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kavanagh, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., McEnteggart, C., & Finn, M. (2018). Exploring differential trial type effects and the impact of a read-aloud procedure on deictic relational responding on the IRAP. The Psychological Record, 68, 163–176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0276-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kavanagh, D., Hussey, I., McEnteggart, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016). Using the IRAP to explore natural language statements. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5(4), 247–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Konings, M., Bak, M., Hanssen, M., Van Os, J., & Krabbendam, L. (2006). Validity and reliability of the CAPE: a self-report instrument for the measurement of psychotic experiences in the general population. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 114, 55–61.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00741.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking as relational responding: A developmental profile. The Psychological Record, 54, 115–144.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montoya-Rodríguez, M. M., Molina, F. J., & McHugh, L. (2017). A review of relational frame theory research into deictic relational responding. The Psychological Record, 67, 569–579.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0216-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy: Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Rendón, M. I., Soler, F., & Cortés, M. (2012). Relaciones deícticas simples, toma de perspectiva y competencia social. Suma Psicológica, 19, 19–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0216-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Savla, G. N., Vella, L., Armstrong, C. C., Penn, D. L., & Twamley, E. W. (2013). Deficits in domains of social cognition in schizophrenia: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 39(5), 979–992.  https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbs080.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Sodian B., & Kristen S. (2010). Theory of Mind. In B. Glatzeder, V. Goel, & A. Müller (Eds.), Towards a theory of thinking: On thinking (pp. 189–201). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Stefanis, N. C., Hanssen, M., Smirnis, N. K., Avramopoulos, D. A., Evdokimidis, I. K., Stefanis, C. N., Verdoux, H., & Van Os, J. (2002). Evidence that three dimensions of psychosis have a distribution in the general population. Psychological Medicine, 32, 347–358.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291701005141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Vahey, N., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). A first test of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of self-esteem: Irish prisoner groups and university students. The Psychological Record, 59, 371–388.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vahey, N., Nicholson, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2015). A meta-analysis of criterion effects for the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) in the clinical domain. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 48, 59–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Villatte, M., Monestés, J.-L., McHugh, L., Freixa i Baqué, E., & Loas, G. (2010). Assessing perspective taking in schizophrenia using relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 60, 413–436.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Villatte, M., Monestés, J.-L., McHugh, L., Freixa, i., Baqué, E. F. i., & Loas, G. (2008). Assessing deictic relational responding in social anhedonia: A functional approach to the development of theory of mind impairments. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation & Therapy, 4, 360–373.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vitale, A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Campbell, C. (2008). Facilitating responding in accordance with the relational frame of comparison: Systematic empirical analyses. The Psychological Record, 58, 365–390.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weil, T. M., Hayes, S. C., & Capurro, P. (2011). Establishing a deictic relational repertoire in young children. The Psychological Record, 61, 371–390.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. World Health Organization. (2017). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental, Clinical, and Health PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations