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

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

Exploring the potential impact of relational coherence on persistent rule-following : the first study

Rule-governed behavior and derived relational responding have both been identified as important variables in human learning. Recent developments in the relational frame theory (RFT) have outlined a number of key variables of potential importance when analyzing the dynamics involved in derived relational responding. Recent research has explored the impact of one of these variables, level of derivation, on persistent rule-following and implicated another, coherence, as possibly important. However, no research to date has examined the impact of coherence on persistent rule-following directly. Across two experiments, coherence was manipulated through the systematic use of performance feedback, and its impact was examined on persistent rule-following. A training procedure based on the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) was used to establish novel combinatorially entailed relations that manipulated the feedback provided on the trained relations (A-B and B-C) in Experiment 1, and on the untrained, derived relations (A-C) in Experiment 2. One of these relations was then inserted into the rule for responding on a subsequent contingency-switching match-to-sample (MTS) task to assess rule persistence. While no significant differences were found in Experiment 1, the provision or non-provision of feedback had a significant differential impact on rule-persistence in Experiment 2. Specifically, participants in the Feedback group resurged back to the original rule for significantly more responses after demonstrating contingency-sensitive responding than did the No-Feedback group, after the contingency reversal. The results highlight the subtle complexities that appear to be involved in persistent rule-following in the face of reversed reinforcement contingencies

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

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