Testing the Validity of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure and the Implicit Association Test: Measuring Attitudes Toward Dublin and Country Life in Ireland

Abstract

The current study aimed to test the validity of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP), as compared to the Implicit Association Test (IAT), by assessing the attitudes of Dublin dwellers and rural dwellers towardThe currently most popular and well-researched measure of so-called implicit attitudes is the Implicit Association Test, or IAT (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The core assumption underpinning the method is that individuals should respond quickly when asked to emit a similar response for two concepts that are closely associated in memory, but should respond more slowly when the two concepts are less closely associated. The first IAT study by Greenwald et al. (1998) asked participants in one task to categorize the names of flowers with positive words and the names of insects with negative words, but in a second task these categorizations were reversed (flowers-negative and insects-positive). The predicted IAT effect was observed: The participants responded faster on flower-positive andWe would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive reviews of the original manuscript.

Using the Implicit Association Test and the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure to Measure Attitudes Toward Meat and Vegetables in Vegetarians and Meat-Eaters

“…As predicted, response latencies were faster for consistent than for inconsistent trials (e.g., participants responded more quickly to Pleasant-Love-Similar than to Pleasant-Love-Opposite). These results have since been replicated across a small number of other studies (e.g., Barnes-Holmes, Murphy, BarnesHolmes, & Stewart, 2010;Barnes-Holmes, Waldron, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2009;Cullen, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2009;Dawson, Barnes-Holmes, Gresswell, Hart & Gore, 2009;McKenna et al, 2007;Power, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2009;Roddy, Stewart, & BarnesHolmes, in press;Vahey, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2009). Nevertheless, research on the IRAP as an implicit measure is very limited, and further empirical study is required before its reliability and validity can be determined.…”

Implicit and explicit self-esteem discrepancies in people with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

“…This is in line with (1) previous SE IRAP effects (e.g., [40] and [41]) and (2) findings for the 'universality' of self-positive implicit biases (e.g., [37]). An odd-even split-half procedure (applying the Spearman-Brown formula) was used to assess the reliability of the IRAP [42]. Split-half reliability was 0.85, which is comparable to other IRAP measures [43] and other implicit SE measures [44] and suggested that the IRAPSE reliably detected unintentional selfevaluations (in this case, implicit SE).…”

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: Exploring the Impact of Private Versus Public Contexts and the Response Latency Criterion on Pro-White and Anti-Black Stereotyping Among White Irish Individuals

“…The primary datum was response latency, defined as the time in milliseconds that elapsed between the onset of a trial and a correct response emitted by a participant. To control for individual variations in speed of responding that may act as a possible confound when analyzing between-group differences, the response latency data for each participant were transformed into D IRAP scores (Barnes-Holmes, Murtagh, et al, in press;Barnes-Holmes et al, 2009;Cullen & Barnes-Holmes, 2008;Vahey et al, 2009) using an adaptation of the Greenwald, Nosek, and Banaji (2003) …”