Advertisement

Do Response Options in the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) Matter? A Comparison of Contextual Relations versus Relational Coherent Indicators

  • Emma Maloney
  • Mairéad Foody
  • Carol MurphyEmail author
Original Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Empirical analysis of features of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure may be important to results. As such, the current research compared effects of response options that were contextually cued relational responses (Crels) versus relational coherence indicators (RCIs) across two IRAPs conducted with college student participants (N = 40). The IRAPs were similar except for the response options used, which were either “Same”/“Opposite” (Crels) versus “Accurate”/“Inaccurate” (RCIs). D-scores for both IRAPs showed the expected IRAP effect (bias). A critical difference was noted dependent upon the type of response options used: the IRAP effect was shown to be stronger when Crel response options were used. There was no statistically significant interaction effect shown between response option used and order of completion (i.e., Crel IRAP first vs. RCI IRAP first), however, there was a statistically significant interaction effect shown between type of response options used on the IRAP, order of completion, and block-order presentation (consistent trial-blocks vs. inconsistent trial blocks presented first). Findings are discussed regarding potential implications and further research.

Keywords

IRAP CrelRCIs response options 

Notes

Availability of Data and Materials

All data and materials used in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Funding Information

The second author is funded by the Marie-Sklodowska-Curie Actions COFUND Collaborative Research Fellowship for a Responsive and Innovative Europe (CAROLINE).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national 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

  1. Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., Dymond, S., & O’Hora, D. (2001). Multiple stimulus relations and the transformation of stimulus functions. Relational Frame Theory, 51–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47638-X_3
  2. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Power, P., Hayden, E., Milne, R., & Stewart, I. (2006). Do you really know what you believe? Developing the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a direct measure of implicit beliefs. The Irish Psychologist, 32, 169–177.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes-Holmes, D., Murphy, A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2010). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP): Exploring the impact of private versus public contexts and the response latency criterion on pro-white and anti-black stereotyping among white Irish individuals. The Psychological Record, 60, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes-Holmes, D., Waldron, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). Testing the validity of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure and the Implicit Association Test: Measuring attitudes toward Dublin and country life in Ireland. The Psychological Record, 59, 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Stewart, I. (2011). Exploring screen presentations in the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 11, 377–388.Google Scholar
  6. Cullen, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2008). Implicit pride and prejudice: A heterosexual phenomenon? In M. A. Morrison & T. G. Morrison (Eds.), The psychology of modern prejudice (pp. 195–223). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Dawson, D. L., Barnes-Holmes, D., Gresswell, D. M., Hart, A. J., & Gore, N. J. (2009). Assessing the Implicit Beliefs of Sexual Offenders using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: A first study. Sexual Abuse, 21, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finn, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Hussey, I., & Graddy, J. (2016). Exploring the behavioural dynamics of the implicit relational assessment procedure: The impact of three types of introductory rules. The Psychological Record, 66, 309–321.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0173-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finn, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., & McEnteggart, C. (2018). Exploring the single-trial-type-dominance-effect in the IRAP: Developing a Differential Arbitrarily Applicable Relational Responding Effects (DAARRE) model. The Psychological Record, 68, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B.A., & Banaji, M.R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,(2), 197–216.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2
  12. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayes, S. C., & Barnes, D. (1997). Analysing derived stimulus relations requires more than a concept of stimulus class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 225–233.CrossRefGoogle 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: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hussey, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2012). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure as a measure of implicit depression and the role of psychological flexibility. Cognitive & Behavioral Practice, 19, 573–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hussey, I., Daly, T., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2015). Life is good, but death ain’t bad either: Counter-intuitive implicit biases to death in a normative population. The Psychological Record, 65, 731–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maloney, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016). Exploring the behavioural dynamics of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: The role of relational contextual cues versus relational coherence indicators as response options. The Psychological Record, 66, 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murphy, C., MacCarthaigh, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2014). Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure and attractiveness bias: Directionality of bias and influence of gender of participants. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 14, 333–351.Google Scholar
  19. McEnteggart, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Adekuoroye, F. (2016). The effects of a voice hearing simulation on implicit fear of voices. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5, 154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKenna, I. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2007). Testing the fake-ability of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP): The first study. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 7, 123–138.Google Scholar
  21. Nicholson, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2012). Developing an implicit measure of disgust propensity and disgust sensitivity: Examining the role of implicit disgust propensity and sensitivity in obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Journal of Behaviour Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 43, 922–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Remue, J., De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., Vanderhasselt, M., & De Raedt, R. (2013). Self-esteem revisited: Performance on the implicit relational assessment procedure as a measure of self-versus ideal self-related cognitions in dysphoria. Cognition & Emotion, 27, 1441–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of IrelandMaynoothIreland
  2. 2.Dublin City UniversityDublin CityIreland
  3. 3.National University of IrelandMaynoothIreland

Personalised recommendations