Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of Data and Materials

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

Funding

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Ireland

    Emma Maloney

  2. Dublin City University, Dublin City, Ireland

    Mairéad Foody

  3. National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Ireland

    Carol Murphy

Authors
  1. Emma Maloney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mairéad Foody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carol Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol Murphy.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maloney, E., Foody, M. & Murphy, C. Do Response Options in the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) Matter? A Comparison of Contextual Relations versus Relational Coherent Indicators. Psychol Rec 70, 205–214 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00360-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00360-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation