Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 66, Issue 2, pp 291–299 | Cite as

The IRAP Is Nonrelative but not Acontextual: Changes to the Contrast Category Influence Men’s Dehumanization of Women

  • Ian HusseyEmail author
  • Dearbhaile Ní Mhaoileoin
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes
  • Tomu Ohtsuki
  • Naoko Kishita
  • Sean Hughes
  • Carol Murphy
Original Article

Abstract

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is frequently employed over other measures of so-called implicit attitudes because it produces 4 independent and “nonrelative” bias scores, thereby providing greater clarity around what drives an effect. Indeed, studies have sometimes emphasized the procedural separation of the four trial types by choosing to report only the results of a single, theoretically meaningful trial type. However, no research to date has examined the degree to which performance on a given trial type is impacted upon by other stimulus categories employed within the task. The current study examined the extent to which response biases toward “women” are influenced by two different contrast categories: “men” versus “inanimate objects.” Results indicated that greater dehumanization of women was observed in the context of the latter relative to the former category. The findings highlight that the IRAP may be described as a nonrelative, but not acontextual, measure of brief and immediate relational responses.

Keywords

Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure Relational Frame Theory Dehumanization of women 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

The first author was supported by a Government of Ireland Scholarship from the Irish Research Council.

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants 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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayden, E., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2008). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a response-time and event-related-potentials methodology for testing natural verbal relations: A preliminary study. The Psychological Record, 58(4), 497–516.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes-Holmes, D., & Hussey, I. (2016). The functional-cognitive meta-theoretical framework: Reflections, possible clarifications and how to move forward. International Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 50–57. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12166.
  4. Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2012). Equivalent stimuli are more strongly related after training with delayed matching than after simultaneous matching: A study using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). Psychological Record, 62(1), 41–54.Google Scholar
  6. 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: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(1), 57–75. doi: 10.1177/1079063208326928.Google Scholar
  7. De Houwer, J. (2006). What are implicit measures and why are we using them? In R. W. Wiers & A. W. Stacy (Eds.), The handbook of implicit cognition and addiction (pp. 11–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Houwer, J. (2011). Why the cognitive approach in psychology would profit from a functional approach and vice versa. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 202–209. doi: 10.1177/1745691611400238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. De Houwer, J., & Moors, A. (2010). Implicit measures: Similarities and differences. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 176–193). New York, NY: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Drake, C. E., Kramer, S., Habib, R., Schuler, K., Blankenship, L., & Locke, J. (2015). Honest politics: Evaluating candidate perceptions for the 2012 U.S. election with the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4(2), 129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2015.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.109.3.573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1991). Are women evaluated more favorably than men? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15(2), 203–216. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00792.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foody, M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2012). The role of self in acceptance and commitment therapy. In L. McHugh & I. Stewart (Eds.), The self and perspective taking: Research and applications (pp. 125–142). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  14. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., . . . Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713–728. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713.
  15. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  19. Houben, K., & Wiers, R. W. (2006). Assessing implicit alcohol associations with the Implicit Association Test: Fact or artifact? Addictive Behaviors, 31(8), 1346–1362. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.10.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hughes, S. (2012). Why we like what we like: A functional approach to the study of human evaluative responding (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Maynooth, Maynooth, Ireland: National University of Ireland. Retrieved from http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/4329/.Google Scholar
  21. Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2011). On the formation and persistence of implicit attitudes: New evidence from the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). The Psychological Record, 61, 391–410.Google Scholar
  22. Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016). Relational Frame Theory: The basic account. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), Handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 129–178). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Hughes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & De Houwer, J. (2011). The dominance of associative theorizing in implicit attitude research: Propositional and behavioral alternatives. The Psychological Record, 61(3), 465–498.Google Scholar
  24. Hughes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Vahey, N. A. (2012). Holding on to our functional roots when exploring new intellectual islands: A voyage through implicit cognition research. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1(1/2), 17–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2012.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huijding, J., de Jong, P. J., Wiers, R. W., & Verkooijen, K. (2005). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward smoking in a smoking and a nonsmoking setting. Addictive Behaviors, 30(5), 949–961. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.09.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hussey, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2012). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure as a measure of implicit depression and the role of psychological flexibility. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 19(4), 573–582. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2012.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hussey, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2015). From Relational Frame Theory to implicit attitudes and back again: Clarifying the link between RFT and IRAP research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2, 11–15. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hussey, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Booth, R. (2016). Individuals with current suicidal ideation demonstrate implicit “fearlessness of death.”. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 51, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.11.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hussey, I., Thompson, M., McEnteggart, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2015). Interpreting and inverting with less cursing: A guide to interpreting IRAP data. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4(3), 157–162. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2015.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karpinski, A. (2004). Measuring self-esteem using the Implicit Association Test: The role of the other. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1), 22–34. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.52.1.74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Nicholson, E., McCourt, A., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2013). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of obsessive beliefs in relation to disgust. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 2(1/2), 23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2013.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nock, M. K., Park, J. M., Finn, C. T., Deliberto, T. L., Dour, H. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2010). Measuring the suicidal mind: Implicit cognition predicts suicidal behavior. Psychological Science, 21(4), 511–517. doi: 10.1177/0956797610364762.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 166–180. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(4), 249–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Shea, B., Watson, D. G., & Brown, G. D. A. (2016). Measuring implicit attitudes: A positive framing bias flaw in the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). Psychological Assessment, 28(2), 158–170. doi: 10.1037/pas0000172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ostafin, B. D., & Palfai, T. P. (2006). Compelled to consume: The Implicit Association Test and automatic alcohol motivation. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 20(3), 322–327. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.20.3.322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Palfai, T. P., & Ostafin, B. D. (2003). Alcohol-related motivational tendencies in hazardous drinkers: Assessing implicit response tendencies using the modified-IAT. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(10), 1149–1162. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00018-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pinter, B., & Greenwald, A. G. (2005). Clarifying the role of the “other” category in the self-esteem IAT. Experimental Psychology, 52(1), 74–79. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.52.1.74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17(5/6), 269–290. doi: 10.1007/BF00288453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Remue, J., De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., Vanderhasselt, M. A., & 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(8), 1441–1449. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2013.786681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson, M. D., Meier, B. P., Zetocha, K. J., & McCaul, K. D. (2005). Smoking and the Implicit Association Test: When the contrast category determines the theoretical conclusions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(3), 201–212. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp2703_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rönspies, J., Schmidt, A. F., Melnikova, A., Krumova, R., Zolfagari, A., & Banse, R. (2015). Indirect measurement of sexual orientation: Comparison of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure, viewing time, and choice reaction time tasks. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1483–1492. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0473-1.
  43. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 734–746. doi: 10.1177/0146167212436401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2(4), 219–220. doi: 10.3758/BF03329252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swanson, J. E., Rudman, L. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). Using the Implicit Association Test to investigate attitude-behaviour consistency for stigmatised behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 15(2), 207–230. doi: 10.1080/02699930125706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vahey, N. A., Boles, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2010). Measuring adolescents’ smoking-related social identity preferences with the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) for the first time: A starting point that explains later IRAP evolutions. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10(3), 453–474.Google Scholar
  48. Vahey, N. A., 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 and Experimental Psychiatry, 48, 59–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.01.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental-Clinical and Health PsychologyGhent UniversityGentBelgium
  2. 2.Maynooth UniversityMaynoothIreland
  3. 3.Waseda UniversityShinjukuJapan
  4. 4.University of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations