Training and testing for a transformation of fear and avoidance functions via combinatorial entailment using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP): Further exploratory analyses

Leech, Aileen; Barnes‐Holmes, Dermot

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2019.104027

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The descriptor ‘Training‐IRAP’ is used because it is part of the existing software package, available for free download, and is formally labelled the GO‐IRAP. Furthermore, the ‘Training IRAP’ label itself has already been documented in the literature in a manner consistent with the current research (e.g., Harte et al, 2018; Harte, Barnes‐Holmes, Barnes‐Holmes, McEnteggart et al, 2020) and also in other research domains (e.g., Leech & Barnes‐Holmes, 2020). At this point it would likely cause unnecessary confusion in the research community if we now deviated from the ‘Training‐IRAP’ label.…”

supporting

confidence: 86%

Exploring a Training IRAP as a single participant context for analyzing reversed derived relations and persistent rule‐following

Harte

Barnes‐Holmes

Moreira

et al. 2021

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rule‐governed behavior and derived stimulus relations have always shared strong conceptual links within behavior analysis. However, experimental analysis linking the two domains remains limited. The current study consisted of three experiments that aimed to continue to bridge this experimental gap. The first experiment sought to establish the extent to which a training version of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) could be used to establish and successfully reverse experimentally established derived relations. The results suggested that the Training IRAP could successfully produce derived reversals. Experiments 2 and 3 explored the extent to which reversed derived relations would control rule‐governed behavior when the contingencies for rule‐following competed with the rule. In Experiment 2, the task contingencies were immediately in opposition to the (reversed) derived rule, and participants generally responded in accordance with the task contingencies, rather than the rule. In Experiment 3, the task contingencies were initially rule‐consistent before a contingency reversal that later made them rule‐inconsistent. Here evidence of rule‐persistence emerged. The results of the research are considered within the context of a recent framework that has emerged out of RFT for analyzing the dynamics involved in derived relational responding.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 86%

Exploring a Training IRAP as a single participant context for analyzing reversed derived relations and persistent rule‐following

Harte

Barnes‐Holmes

Moreira

et al. 2021

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experimental analyses are now needed to identify the contextual variables that may produce more robust individual‐participant transformation effects using physiological and indeed other measures. For instance, recent findings across two studies (Leech et al, 2018, 2020) where a latency‐based measure (the implicit relational assessment procedure: IRAP, Barnes‐Holmes et al, 2010) was used to train and to test for the transformation of fear responses using pictures of spiders as aversive stimuli, suggest that increasing the level of exposure to opportunities to derive combinatorial entailment relations may facilitate the subsequent transformation of fear functions in accordance with such relations. Perhaps exposing participants to multiple equivalence tests and/or using different equivalence testing contexts, would increase the likelihood of obtaining relatively reliable derived transfer test performances at both the group and individual level?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer of conditioned fear and avoidance: Concurrent measurement of arousal and operant responding

Rodríguez-Valverde

Luciano

Barnes‐Holmes

et al. 2020

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A reversal design was employed for the analysis of transfer of fear and avoidance through equivalence classes. Two 5‐member equivalence classes (A1‐B1‐C1‐D1‐E1 and A2‐B2‐C2‐D2‐E2) were established. Then B1 and C1 were paired with shock (CS+) and served as SDs in avoidance training (B2 and C2 were trained as CS‐/S∆s for avoidance). Further avoidance training followed with D1 and E1 (as SDs) and D2 and E2 (as S∆s), with the first presentation of each of these stimuli serving as the first transfer test. Afterwards, aversive conditioning contingencies were reversed: B2 and D2 were paired with shock and trained as SDs for avoidance, B1 and D1 were presented without shock (CS‐/S∆s). Transfer was tested again with C1, E1, C2 and E2. This reversal was implemented to allow for the within‐subject replication of transfer effects upon changes in the function of only a subset of each class's elements. Avoidance (key presses) and conditioned fear (skin conductance and heart rate) were simultaneously measured. Results show a clear transfer effect for avoidance, with between‐ and within‐subject replications. For physiological measures, transfer effects in the first test could only be imputed on the basis of group‐based inferential statistical analysis. Evidence for between‐subject replication was weaker, with only a limited proportion of participants meeting the individual criterion for transfer.

show abstract

“…Citations of Vahey et al (2015) often '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 Year Power Social Psychology IRAP research inappropriately or inaccurately cite these recommendations. For example, many papers make reference to the sample size recommendation reported in Vahey et al's (2015) abstract (i.e., "N = 29 to 37") even when the authors are employing a completely different analyses (e.g., other than a one-tailed Pearson's r correlation with 𝛼-level = .05) and/or are conducting research outside of the clinical domain to which Vahey et al (2015) limited the scope of their meta-analysis (e.g., Farrell et al, 2015;Kavanagh et al, 2016;Kavanagh, Roelandt, et al, 2019;Leech & Barnes-Holmes, 2020;Maloney & Barnes-Holmes, 2016).…”

Section: Participants Per Study (All Studies)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing, sample sizes, and statistical power in research using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure

Hussey

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following recent calls to examine the replicability of behavioral research, I examine sample sizes and statistical power, key determinants of replicability, in research using a task that has seen broad use in behavioral research: the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure. A systematic review was used to gather all published studies employing the IRAP and extract their designs and sample sizes. The use of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing was found to be nearly ubiquitous, justifying the examination of statistical power. Using an established method, median sample sizes were used to estimate the statistical power to detect the average published effect size in psychological research (r = .20) in each year. Sample sizes and the statistical power they imply were found to be very low in IRAP studies (in 2022, median N = 64, power = .34). A the current rate of growth, power will only reach the recommended minimum of .80 by 2080. The IRAP literature was directly compared with the Social and Personality psychology literature using an existing dataset. Median sample sizes and their implied statistical power were lower in the IRAP literature in all years than they were in Social and Personality psychology at the beginning of the Replication Crisis in 2011 and in all subsequent years. Improvements in sample sizes and statistical power in the Social and Personality psychology literature were significantly and substantially larger than in the IRAP literature. Direct tests of the reproducibility and replicability of claims in the IRAP literature are needed.

show abstract

Training and testing for a transformation of fear and avoidance functions via combinatorial entailment using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP): Further exploratory analyses

Cited by 7 publications

References 25 publications

Exploring a Training IRAP as a single participant context for analyzing reversed derived relations and persistent rule‐following

Exploring a Training IRAP as a single participant context for analyzing reversed derived relations and persistent rule‐following

Transfer of conditioned fear and avoidance: Concurrent measurement of arousal and operant responding

A systematic review of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing, sample sizes, and statistical power in research using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About