Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 66, Issue 2, pp 309–321 | Cite as

Exploring the Behavioral Dynamics of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: The Impact of Three Types of Introductory Rules

  • Martin FinnEmail author
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes
  • Ian Hussey
  • Joseph Graddy
Original Article

Abstract

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is increasingly used in applied and clinical settings, and yet many of the procedural variables of the measure have not been subjected to a systematic analysis. One such variable is the type of rules that are employed when instructing the IRAP and the effect this might have on participants’ performances. In the current article, three experiments were used to assess the impact of three different types of rules or instructions on IRAP performance. The instructions varied in the degree to which they specified parts of the relational network being assessed by the IRAP. The findings showed that the type of rule presented to participants during an IRAP can have a dramatic effect on the strength and direction of the trial-type effects that are produced by the measure. Furthermore, the type of instructions employed appear to interact with the order in which the IRAP blocks are presented (history-consistent versus history-inconsistent). The findings indicate that the behavioural dynamics that occur when participants complete an IRAP require extensive and systematic experimental and conceptual analyses, and this work will likely have an important bearing on research seeking to investigate the predictive validity of the IRAP in applied research settings.

Keywords

Relational Frame Theory Trial-types D-IRAP scores 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Martin Finn declares that he has no conflict of interest. Dermot Barnes-Holmes declares that he has no conflict of interest. Ian Hussey declares that he has no conflict of interest. Joseph Graddy 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 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., Hussey, I., & Luciano, C. (in press). Relational frame theory: Reflecting upon its historical roots and future development. In R. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & T. Biglan (Eds), Wiley Handbook of contextual behavioural science. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. 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(3), 527–542.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., Dymond, S., & O’Hora, D. (2001). Multiple stimulus relations and the transformation of stimulus functions. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational Frame Theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 51–72). New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Cabello, F., Luciano, C., Gomez, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2011). Human schedule performance, protocol analysis, and the" silent dog" methodology. The Psychological Record, 54(3), 6.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. De Houwer, J., Heider, N., Spruyt, A., Roets, A., & Hughes, S. (2015). The relational responding task: toward a new implicit measure of beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 319.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  8. Hayes, S. C. (1986). The case of the silent dog - verbal reports and the analysis of rules: A review of Ericsson and Simon's protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45(3), 351–363.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2013). A functional approach to the study of implicit cognition: The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) and the Relational Elaboration and Coherence (REC) model. In S. Dymond & B. Roche (Eds.), Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application (pp. 97–125). Oakland CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  12. Hughes, S, & Barnes-Holmes, D. (in press). Relational frame theory: The basic account. In R. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & T. Biglan (Eds), Wiley Handbook of contextual behavioural science. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Hughes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Vahey, N. (2012). Holding on to our functional roots when exploring new intellectual islands: A voyage through implicit cognition research. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes, S., Hussey, I., Corrigan, B., Jolie, K., Murphy, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D., (2016). Faking revisited: Exerting strategic control over performance on the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levin, M. E., Hayes, S. C., & Waltz, T. (2010). Creating an implicit measure of cognition more suited to applied research: A test of the Mixed Trial – Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (MT-IRAP). International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6, 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nicholson, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2012). The implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a measure of spider fear. The Psychological Record, 62(2), 263.Google Scholar
  18. O'Shea, B., Watson, D. G., & Brown, G. D. (2015). Measuring implicit attitudes: a positive framing bias flaw in the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). Psychological Assessment. doi: 10.1037/pas0000172.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wulfert, E., Dougher, M. J., & Greenway, D. E. (1991). Protocol analysis of the correspondence of verbal behavior and equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56(3), 489–504.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Finn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes
    • 1
  • Ian Hussey
    • 1
  • Joseph Graddy
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Experimental, Clinical and Health PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations