Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. 1.

    Throughout this article, we have adopted the strategy of not correcting for multiple tests of statistical significance, but instead we report actual p values. However, we also report if the values remain significant following correction for multiple tests.

  2. 2.

    As noted above, this difference across the trial types was not expected and thus any analysis or discussion of this finding must remain entirely post-hoc. We decided to employ both regular t-tests and Bayesian paired t-tests, one for each IRAP, because when the data were collapsed across all six experiments the Ns were relatively large (total N = 209) and thus the likelihood of obtaining significant p values increases dramatically. The results for both tests were significant with extremely strong evidence from the Bayes analyses: self-focused IRAP (Positive EventNegative Reaction; M = .185, SD = 0.345, Negative EventPositive Reaction, M = .049, SD = .293, t(208) = 5.202, p < .001, 95% CI [.084, .187], BF1 = 43939); other-focused IRAP (Positive EventNegative Reaction; M = .231, SD = 0.341, Negative EventPositive Reaction, M = .074, SD = .329, t(208) = 5.747, p < .001, 95% CI [.103, .210], BF1 = 578829).

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.

  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.

  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.

  4. Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2001). Analysing relational frames: Studying language and cognition in young children (Unpublished doctoral thesis). National University of Ireland, Maynooth.

  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.

  6. Bernaerts, I., De Groot, F., & Kleen, M. (2012). De AAQ-II, een maat voor experiëntiële vermijding: normering bij jongeren. Gedragstherapie, 4, 389–399.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  34. World Health Organization. (2017). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/

Download references

Funding

This research was conducted with funding from the XXX.

Author information

Correspondence to Deirdre Kavanagh.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

The data for the current manuscript was collected, and prepared with the support of the FWO Type I Odysseus Programme at Ghent University, Belgium. We are very grateful to the reviewers for their thorough and constructive commentaries.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table 10. Experiment 1: Descriptive statistics for questionnaires

Appendix B

Table 11. Experiment 2: Descriptive statistics for questionnaires

Appendix C

Table 12. Experiment 3: Descriptive statistics for questionnaires

Appendix D

Table 13. Experiment 4: Descriptive statistics for questionnaires

Appendix E

Table 14. Experiment 5: Descriptive statistics for questionnaires

Appendix F

Table 15. Experiment 6: Descriptive statistics for questionnaires

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kavanagh, D., Roelandt, A., Van Raemdonck, L. et al. The On-Going Search for Perspective-Taking IRAPs: Exploring the Potential of the Natural Language-IRAP. Psychol Rec 69, 291–314 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00333-w

Download citation

Keywords

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