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

Emma Maloney,Carol Murphy,Mairéad Foody

doi:10.1007/s40732-019-00360-7

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.

Highlights

Empirical analysis of features of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure may be important to results
Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) research used cued relational responses (Crels),; recent IRAP researchers have tended to use relational coherence indicators (RCIs) (e.g., True/False; Right/Wrong; Yes/No; see Hussey et al 2015; McEnteggart et al 2016; Hussey and Barnes-Holmes 2012), it is important to examine whether Crels/RCIs are interchangeable with no effect on the research, or if there is a potential impact on IRAP findings depending on which type of response options are used
Unlike in Maloney and Barnes-Holmes (2016) there was no interaction between IRAP type and order of completion (Crel IRAP first vs. RCI IRAP first)

Summary

Introduction

Empirical analysis of features of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure may be important to results. The impact of the use of types of response options has been examined (Maloney and Barnes-Holmes 2016), and the expected implicit bias was shown to be stronger under conditions with response options that were contextually related stimuli (Crels such as Similar/Opposite) versus relational coherence indicators (RCIs such as True/False). IRAP research used Crels, (e.g., same–opposite); recent IRAP researchers have tended to use RCIs (e.g., True/False; Right/Wrong; Yes/No; see Hussey et al 2015; McEnteggart et al 2016; Hussey and Barnes-Holmes 2012), it is important to examine whether Crels/RCIs are interchangeable with no effect on the research, or if there is a potential impact on IRAP findings depending on which type of response options are used.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion