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

Finn, Martin; Barnes‐Holmes, Dermot; Hussey, Ian; Graddy, Joseph Patrick

doi:10.1007/s40732-016-0173-4

Cited by 39 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, some of the earliest IRAP publications noted that response times on an IRAP may be influenced by general verbal biases typically found in natural languages, such as the tendency in English to respond "True" more quickly than "False" (Barnes-Holmes, Murphy et al, 2010, p. 62). Indeed, recent evidence indicates that IRAP effects may be influenced by these types of verbal biases and related variables (e.g., Finn et al, 2016;Maloney & BarnesHolmes, 2016;O'Shea, Watson, & Brown, 2016). On balance, the impact of such variables on the predictive validity of the IRAP has yet to be determined, and it is indeed possible that the sensitivity of the IRAP to natural-language biases contributes towards its relatively strong predictive validity (see Vahey et al, 2015).…”

Section: The Mdml Framework For Rft 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We should emphasize that the foregoing provides a relatively simplistic analysis of the IRAP effect and we recognize that it is moderated by numerous variables (see Finn, Barnes-Holmes, Hussey, & Graddy, 2016;Maloney & Barnes-Holmes, 2016). The point, however, is that we are currently using the MDML to help us unpack this very complexity, thus generating new types of research questions that appear to have a direct bearing on clinically relevant issues.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From the IRAP and REC model to a multi-dimensional multi-level framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding

Barnes‐Holmes

Luciano

et al. 2017

Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article presents the beginnings of a conceptual framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding (AARRing). The framework focuses on the dimensions and levels of AARRing that have been the focus of empirical and conceptual analyses in the literature on relational frame theory over the past 30 years. The name of the framework is abbreviated the MDML, and the conceptual and empirical context from which it emerged is presented. The framework currently consists of four dimensions, (i) coherence, (ii) complexity, (iii) derivation, and (iv) flexibility; and five levels of relational development, (i) mutual entailing, (ii) relational framing, (iii) relational networking, (iv) What is the MDML and What Does it Offer?At this point in an earlier version of the current paper we first presented the historical background to the MDML before describing the framework itself and explaining why we

show abstract

Section: The Mdml Framework For Rft 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From the IRAP and REC model to a multi-dimensional multi-level framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding

Barnes‐Holmes

Luciano

et al. 2017

Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In speculating about the single-trial-type-dominance-effect, Finn et al (2016) suggested that perhaps prior experimental experience with the IRAP might play a role in generating the effect. Since the Finn et al data were collected, our research team moved to a The Single-Trial-Type-Dominance-Effect 7 different university, which runs a large research participant pool populated with volunteers who vary considerably in the number of experiments they have completed previously using a range of latency-based measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, even when all four trial-type effects were history-consistent, the size of the Color-Color trial-type effect was significantly larger than for the Shape-Shape trial-type. The puzzling issue about this difference is that these two trial-types share the same response option within blocks of trials (i.e., "True" during historyconsistent blocks and "False" during history-inconsistent blocks) and thus the difference between the trial-types cannot be explained by a simple tendency to respond "True" more readily than "False", which is common in natural language (Dodds et al, 2015).In speculating about the single-trial-type-dominance-effect, Finn et al (2016) suggested that perhaps prior experimental experience with the IRAP might play a role in generating the effect. Since the Finn et al data were collected, our research team moved to a The Single-Trial-Type-Dominance-Effect 7 different university, which runs a large research participant pool populated with volunteers who vary considerably in the number of experiments they have completed previously using a range of latency-based measures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the Single-Trial-Type-Dominance-Effect in the IRAP: Developing a Differential Arbitrarily Applicable Relational Responding Effects (DAARRE) Model

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) has been used as a measure of implicit cognition and to analyze the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding. The current study employs the IRAP for the latter purpose. Specifically, the current research focuses on a pattern of responding observed in a previously published IRAP study that was difficult to explain using existing conceptual analyses. The pattern is referred to as the singletrial-type-dominance-effect because one of the IRAP trial-types produces an effect that is significantly larger than the other three. Based on a post-hoc explanation provided in a previously published article, the first experiment in the current series explored the impact of prior experimental experience on the single-trial-type-dominance-effect. The results indicated that the effect was larger for participants who reported high levels of experimental experience (M = 32.3 previous experiments) versus those who did not (M = 2.5 previous experiments). In the second experiment, participants were required to read out loud the stimuli presented on each trial and the response option they chose. The effect of experimental experience was absent but the single-trial-type-dominance-effect remained. In the third experiment, a different set of stimuli to those used in the first two was employed in the IRAP, and a significant single-trial-type-dominance-effect was no longer observed. The results obtained from the three experiments led inductively to the development of a new model of the variables involved in producing IRAP effects, the Differential Arbitrarily Applicable Relational Responding Effects (DAARRE) model, which is presented in the General Discussion.Key words: RFT, Relational network, IRAP, trial-type, differentialThe Single-Trial-Type-Dominance-Effect 3The study of derived stimulus relations has been used by many behavior analysts as a conceptual basis for analyzing behaviors that appear to be closely related to human language and cognition. Perhaps the clearest and most self-conscious example of this approach is provided by Relational Frame Theory (RFT; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001).Drawing on the seminal work of Sidman (1971; see 1994, for a book length treatment) on equivalence relations, RFT argued that the functional units of human language and cognition involve a wide range of generalized relational operants, known as relational frames, each possessing three core properties. The first property is mutual entailment and involves a bidirectional relation between two stimuli, such that if A is related to B then B is related to A.The second property is combinatorial entailment and involves three or more stimuli, such that if A is related to B and B is related to C, then A is related to C and C is related to A. The third property is the transformation of functions, which recognizes that any mutual or combinatorial entailment will involve specific behavioral functions. Thus, if A is related to B, and B acquires a mildly appetitive function, the func...

show abstract

Relational frame theory 20 years on: The Odysseus voyage and beyond

Barnes‐Holmes

Harte

2022

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The seminal text on relational frame theory (RFT) was published 20 years ago and purported to offer a single overarching behavior-analytic account of human language and cognition. In the years thereafter, an increasing number of empirical and conceptual articles, book chapters in edited volumes, and whole volumes devoted to the account emerged. In recent years, RFT has experienced a period of intense empirical and conceptual development, facilitated in part by a research grant awarded by the Flanders Science Foundation, under its Odysseus program. This research program aimed to advance and extend the RFT account beyond the rendition presented in the seminal Hayes et al. ( 2001) volume. The current article aims to provide an overview of this research program, the empirical work and concepts it gave rise to, and their implications for an RFT account of human symbolic language and cognition. Overall, therefore, the article provides an account of relatively recent developments in RFT that extend beyond the 2001 volume and thus will, we hope, inform future research and critiques of the theory going forward.

show abstract

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

Cited by 39 publications

References 14 publications

From the IRAP and REC model to a multi-dimensional multi-level framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding

From the IRAP and REC model to a multi-dimensional multi-level framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding

Exploring the Single-Trial-Type-Dominance-Effect in the IRAP: Developing a Differential Arbitrarily Applicable Relational Responding Effects (DAARRE) Model

Relational frame theory 20 years on: The Odysseus voyage and beyond

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About