The on-going search for perspective-taking IRAPs : exploring the potential of the natural language-IRAP

Under a Relational Frame Theory (RFT) framework, researchers have investigated the role of deictic relational responding (perspective-taking) in the analysis of self in relation to others, place, and time. The aim of the current research was to develop IRAPs that targeted deictic relational responding with regard to the mental states of self and others. This was pursued in a series of experiments that employed a novel version of the IRAP, known as the Natural Language-IRAP (NL-IRAP). The use of the NL-IRAP allowed for the presentation of relatively complex statements that required participants to infer the thoughts or beliefs of others on a trial-by-trial basis within the IRAP. Across a sequence of six experiments, a self-focused IRAP required participants to respond to both positive and negative statements about themselves, whereas an other-focused IRAP required participants to respond to similar statements about others. Experiments 1 and 2 investigated perspective-taking with regard to an unspecified other. Experiments 3-6 investigated perspective-taking with regard to a specified other, with the specified relationship between self and other manipulated across experiments. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 indicated that the other-focused IRAP produced overall bias scores that were significantly stronger than responding to the self-focused IRAP. It is interesting that nonsignificant differences were recorded across Experiments 3-6 when other was specified. The findings obtained across the six studies highlight potentially important limitations in the use of the NL-IRAP as a measure of perspective-taking

Using the IRAP to explore natural language statements

This study explored a modification to the typical presentation of label and target stimuli on Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) effects. We asked whether combining the labels and targets into a single phrase would influence performances. The key purpose of the study was to determine the feasibility of altering the way in which stimuli are presented within the IRAP, so as to potentially employ more complex natural language-like statements in future research. In the Typical IRAP employed here, labels and targets were presented as separate words, while in the Natural Language IRAP they were combined to form a single statement. The results demonstrated no substantive differences in the effects recorded on both types of IRAP, thus supporting the future use of a Natural Language version

From IRAP to CBIT: tax distortions and redistributive effects

The paper explores the differences between IRAP (the Regional Tax on Productive Activities) and CBIT (the Comprehensive Business Income Tax), which approximately corresponds to allow the deduction of labor cost from the taxable base of IRAP. By developing a DSGE model that ncorporates business taxes, like IRAP or CBIT, we find that tax distortions due to IRAP are more contractionary than those caused by the presence of CBIT. Empirically, tax revenues and redistributive effects are more carefully analyzed. We implement a microsimulation model (MSM) based on a dataset of more than 150,000 incorporated firms. We show that small incorporated firms are particularly harmed by IRAP, especially when business run a loss instead of a profit. This is due to the fact that IRAP is a business tax on value added, which does not allow for the deduction of labor cost. For this purpose, we focus on the introduction of a reform based on the CBIT principle. Our result is that CBIT is particularly costly and more able to enhance the profitability for larger enterprises. Moreover, the tax design of CBIT is more regressive compared to the IRAP including tax allowances. Consequently, an efficiency-equity trade-off between IRAP and CBIT might be emphasizedbusiness cycles, tax distortions, micro-simulations models, distributive effects, Italy.

The implicit relational assessment procedure: emerging reliability and validity data

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is a measure of ‘implicit cognition' developed on the basis of a contemporary behavioural analysis of language and cognition. The IRAP has now been applied to a range of foci over five years of published research. A frequently-cited caveat in publications to date is the need for further research to gauge the reliability and validity of the IRAP as an implicit measure. This review paper will provide a critical synthesis of available evidence for reliability and validity. The review applies a multifaceted test-theory approach to validity, and reliability is assessed through meta-analysis of published data. The discussion critically considers reviewed IRAP evidence with reference to the extant literature on alternative implicit measures, limitations of studies to date, and consideration of broader conceptual issues

A pilot study of the relations within which hearing voices participates : towards a functional distinction between voice hearers and controls

The current research used the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a preliminary step toward bringing a broad, functional approach to understanding psychosis, by focusing on the specific phenomenon of auditory hallucinations of voices and sounds (often referred to as hearing voices). On this path, we created a taxonomy of some critical features of voice hearing based on the existing literature (i.e., perceived normality of voices, appraisals of self and other people hearing voices, and fear of voices) as a focus of our experimental manipulations. It was our hope that our findings would add to the broad literature that has used explicit measures to study these phenomena, and that the use of an 'implicit' measure might assist toward a functional analytic understanding. Three pilot studies were conducted to assess the relations within which hearing voices participates in non-clinical voice hearers (i.e., individuals who hear voices but have no clinical diagnosis or distress) and compared to non-voice hearing control participants. The IRAP effects demonstrated both positive and negative relational responses across the three studies, and these effects varied according to explicit levels of delusional ideation. Furthermore, these IRAP effects also predicted explicit aspects of voice hearing and well-being. The current set of pilot studies demonstrate the utility and precision of the IRAP in this domain, and we propose that this type of experimental analysis may hold potential for future bottom-up functional analyses of voice hearing

An Investigation into the relationship between the gender binary and occupational discrimination using the implicit relational assessment procedure

The social construction of gender-as-binary plays an important role within many contemporary theories of gender inequality. However, to date, the field of psychology has struggled with the operationalization and assessment of binarist ideologies. The current article proposes a technical framework for the analysis of the gender binary and assesses the suitability of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of binarist gender beliefs. Forty-seven undergraduate students (26 female; M-age = 23.84) completed two IRAPs assessing the coordination of certain traits exclusively with women and others exclusively with men. Effects found on the IRAP were in the expected direction (i.e., relating men but not women with certain traits and women but not men with other traits). In addition, the traits ascribed to men within the IRAP were evaluated as more hirable by a large majority of participants (83%) on an explicit preference task. The results therefore support the arguments that, first, gender traits do seem to be framed oppositionally in language and, second, this binary may underpin existing gender hierarchies in certain contexts

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of spider fear, avoidance and approach

The current study examined the use of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of spider fear, approach, and avoidance. Participants were drawn from a normative sample of university undergraduates. Experiment 1employed two IRAPs, one targeting spider fear, the other targeting spider approach/avoidance. The Fear of Spiders Questionnaire (FSQ) and a Behavioral Approach Task (BAT) using a spider moult were also employed. Negative response biases for spider fear and avoidance, but not for approach, were recorded. The bias for fear was significantly stronger than for avoidance and approach. Both IRAP's failed to provide evidence for the predicative validity of the IRAP in terms of the BAT. Experiment 2 was a partial replication of Experiment 1 but using a live house spider instead of a moult for the BAT. A similar pattern of results was obtained across the two IRAPs, but one specific trial-type (SpiderApproach) predicted approach responses on the BAT. The research, thus, replicated a previously published study by Nicholson and Barnes-Holmes (2012), thus supporting the predictive validity of the IRAP but at a level of precision not provided in the earlier study. Implications for applied research are considered

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of implicit relative preferences: A first study

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) was designed to examine implicit beliefs or attitudes. In Experiment 1, response latencies obtained from Irish participants on the IRAP showed a strong preference for Irish over Scottish and American over African. In contrast, responses to explicit Likert measures diverged from the IRAP performance in indicating Irish equally likeable to Scottish and African more likeable than American. Using a similar IRAP, Experiment 2 showed that participants from the United States showed strong implicit preferences for American over Irish, Irish over Scottish, and Scottish over African; the explicit Likert measures again diverged from the IRAP. The findings provide preliminary support for the IRAP as a useful measure of implicit beliefs

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of implicit relative preferences: A first study

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) was designed to examine implicit beliefs or attitudes. In Experiment 1, response latencies obtained from Irish participants on the IRAP showed a strong preference for Irish over Scottish and American over African. In contrast, responses to explicit Likert measures diverged from the IRAP performance in indicating Irish equally likeable to Scottish and African more likeable than American. Using a similar IRAP, Experiment 2 showed that participants from the United States showed strong implicit preferences for American over Irish, Irish over Scottish, and Scottish over African; the explicit Likert measures again diverged from the IRAP. The findings provide preliminary support for the IRAP as a useful measure of implicit beliefs