The Psychological Record

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 163–176 | Cite as

Exploring Differential Trial-Type Effects and the Impact of a Read-Aloud Procedure on Deictic Relational Responding on the IRAP

  • Deirdre Kavanagh
  • Yvonne Barnes-Holmes
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes
  • Ciara McEnteggart
  • Martin Finn
Original Article


Under the rubric of Relational Frame Theory (RFT), researchers have investigated the role of deictic relational responding in the analysis of self in relation to others, place, and time, primarily through the use of an extended developmental protocol (Barnes-Holmes, 2001). In a move toward extending methodologies for studying deictic relational responding, more recent research has employed the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) to measure deictic relational responding regarding I versus OTHER (Barbero-Rubio et al. in The Psychological Record, 66, 243–252, 2016). The initial purpose of the current study was to systematically replicate and extend this research. This extension involved the inclusion of a control condition in which no responding to self was involved, only responding to others. The results from Experiment 1 yielded significant IRAP effects for two of the four trial-types in both the deictic and control IRAPs. A second experiment involved a novel method for collecting IRAP data (a read-aloud procedure), which had been shown to yield significant effects for all four trial-types, and four significant effects were indeed recorded for both deictic and control IRAPs. Based on the current findings, a model is presented that seeks to explain the differential trial-type effects that are observed across the different IRAPs and the impact of the read-aloud procedure.


Relational frame theory IRAP Deictic DAARRE model 



This research was conducted with funding from the FWO Type I Odysseus Program at Ghent University, Belgium awarded to Dermot Barnes-Holmes.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have 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.


  1. Alexopoulos, T., Muller, D., Ric, F., & Marendaz, C. (2012). I, me, mine: Automatic attentional capture by self-related stimuli. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 770–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2001). Analysing relational frames: Studying language and cognition in young children (unpublished doctoral thesis). National University of Ireland Maynooth.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes-Holmes, D., Finn, M., McEnteggart, C., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2017). Derived stimulus relations and their roles in a behavior-analytic account of human language and cognition. The Behavior Analyst.
  6. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.Google Scholar
  7. De Corte, K., Buysee, A., Verhofstadt, L., Roeyers, H., Ponnet, K., & Davis, M. (2007). Measuring empathetic tendencies: Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the interpersonal reactivity index (IRI). Psychologica Belgica, 47, 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finn, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Hussey, I., & Graddy, J. (2016). Exploring the behavioral dynamics of the implicit relational assessment procedure: The impact of three types of introductory rules. The Psychological Record, 66, 309–321Google Scholar
  9. Finn, M., Barnes-Holmes, & McEnteggart, C. (2017). Exploring the single-trial-type-dominance-effect in the IRAP: Developing a differential arbitrarily applicable relational responding effects (DAARRE) model. The Psychological Record.
  10. Franck, E., De Raedt, R., Barbez, C., & Rosseel, Y. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Dutch Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Psychologica Belgica, 48, 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gore, N. G., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Murphy, G. (2010). The relationship between intellectual functioning and relational perspective-taking. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10, 1–17.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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: ACT CBS Conference.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Maloney, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016). Exploring the behavioral 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
  17. McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking as relational responding: A developmental profile. The Psychological Record, 54, 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental in psychology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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. Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 4, 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weil, T. M., Hayes, S. C., & Capurro, P. (2011). Establishing a deictic relational repertoire in young children. The Psychological Record, 61, 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental, Clinical, and Health PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations