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

Abstract

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...

Emotional Faces in Symbolic Relations: A Happiness Superiority Effect Involving the Equivalence Paradigm

“…The current study demonstrates that the IRAP effect is also sensitive to the nature of the stimuli presented through the trials and to experimentally induced, derived relations. Moreover, this study is consistent with the claim that the participant’s performance is multi-determined by the stimulus functions interacting with stimulus relations during the course of the IRAP trials (see Finn et al, 2018). In this section, we discuss how functions of certain stimuli may have even more impact on the direction and magnitude of the IRAP effect than the relational coherence previously learned by the participant.…”

“…Oliver (2014), for instance, asserted that features such as coherence to the history of reinforcement, complexity of the stimulus relationship, and the level of the participant’s experience with the stimulus relationship ( derivation ) presented on the screen might all influence response latency in IRAP trials. Consistent with this view, Finn et al (2018) proposed that interactions between the function of the stimuli, the relationship between them, and the response options presented on the screen might account for different patterns of IRAP performances. In this sense, if an IRAP trial component has, for instance, a stronger orienting function, this feature will influence the dynamics of the arbitrarily applicable relational responding in the course of the IRAP trials.…”

“…The IRAP has been used largely as a type of psychometric instrument for the measurement of implicit cognition (e.g., Hughes and Barnes-Holmes, 2011; Carpenter et al, 2012; Rabelo et al, 2014). More recently, several studies have demonstrated that the IRAP is also useful for exploring and analyzing the dynamics of arbitrary relational responding (e.g., Oliver, 2014; Finn et al, 2016; Maloney and Barnes-Holmes, 2016; Finn et al, 2018). Oliver (2014), for instance, asserted that features such as coherence to the history of reinforcement, complexity of the stimulus relationship, and the level of the participant’s experience with the stimulus relationship ( derivation ) presented on the screen might all influence response latency in IRAP trials.…”

“…In this sense, if an IRAP trial component has, for instance, a stronger orienting function, this feature will influence the dynamics of the arbitrarily applicable relational responding in the course of the IRAP trials. By considering the functions and interactions between the IRAP elements proposed by Finn et al (2018), it would be possible to capture the strength of a given pattern of relational responding in flight (cf. Barnes-Holmes et al, 2016).…”

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

“…It could be argued that this type of work fits with contemporary studies using the IRAP to investigate the dynamics of relational framing (e.g., Finn et al 2016;Maloney and Barnes-Holmes 2016;Finn et al 2018;). In particular, Finn et al (2016) looked at the potential impact of presenting rules prior to participant completion of consistent and inconsistent trialtypes in the IRAP.…”