Systematic Explorations of Methodological Parameters of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP)

Having briefly reviewed implicit measures, including the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP), and examined the small number of published studies that have explored the possible role of methodological features of the task itself, the current thesis set about investigating other procedural parameters that may influence IRAP effects. The increasing use of the IRAP in clinically-relevant domains made this task seem even more pressing and necessary. At one level, we simply hoped to contribute to the small literature on the possible influence of these factors on IRAP outcomes. At another level, we hoped that these exploratory methodological analyses would help to pave the way for more robust use of the IRAP in applied and clinical domains. The current thesis comprised of four studies (Experiments, 1, 2, 3a and 3b). In order to permit useful comparisons of the response patterns of the various procedural manipulations, there are strong overlaps in the experimental designs and analytic strategies employed across the four studies. Namely, all four studies involve a Typical IRAP as a control procedure and this is systematically compared to IRAPs with specific procedural modifications. In Experiment 1 (Chapter 2), we compared a Typical IRAP with a Natural Language IRAP in which the label and target stimuli were combined, rather than presented separately as is usually the case. This manipulation was simply to determine whether the use of more complex label-target combinations (that would perhaps be better suited to clinical research) would produce different IRAP effects than those typically observed with separate label and target stimuli. Overall, patterns of responding were very similar across both IRAPs and the findings, therefore, from Experiment 1 supported existing evidence which suggests that combining the label and target stimuli produces sound IRAP effects. However, such a manipulation involving the labels and targets appeared to have little or no direct impact on the outcomes. In Experiment 2 (Chapter 3), we employed a Self-esteem IRAP and manipulated the order in which the self vs. others rules were presented. In the Self-Rule First Condition, participants were presented with the rules as follows: the self-positive rule followed by the others-negative rule, while in the Others-Rule First Condition participants were presented with the others-positive rule followed by the self-negative rule. This manipulation sought to determine whether the simple order in which the rules are presented influenced IRAP outcomes. The results indicated that patterns of responding appeared to differ somewhat, but not significantly, between conditions, especially on Self-Negative and Others-Positive trial-types. Overall, the findings from Experiment 2 supported some existing evidence which suggests that rules exert some influence on IRAP effects, and thus warrant empirical attention. In Experiment 3a (Chapter 4), we employed the Spider Fear IRAP and manipulated the length of the test blocks presented between rules. To do so, we compared a Fast Switching IRAP and a Typical Switching IRAP. Specifically, the Fast Switching IRAP halved the length of the test blocks between rules, relative to the Typical Switching IRAP (and IRAPs generally), such that each block now contained only 16 trials, and not 32. Again, this manipulation sought to determine whether the typical rate at which blocks switch exerts its own influence on outcomes normally observed with the IRAP. Patterns of responding were somewhat similar across the two IRAPs. Stronger responding was recorded on the Fast Switching IRAP on the Fear-Spiders and Approach-Spiders trial-types, while the Typical Switching IRAP was stronger on the Fear-Nature and Approach-Nature trial-types. The difference on Fear-Spiders was significant. While there were differences in the two outcomes, one could not argue that either condition yielded a better IRAP outcome than the other. In Experiment 3b (Chapter 4), we again employed the Spider Fear IRAP and now manipulated the number of the test blocks presented. To do so, we compared a Double Length IRAP and a Typical Length IRAP. That is, instead of the typical 6 test blocks (i.e. 3 per rule), the Double Length IRAP presented 12 test blocks (6 per rule), although each test block contained the typical 32 trials. Overall, therefore, this modified IRAP presented a total of 384 trials -- that is double the number of trials presented in the Typical Length IRAP (i.e. 192). Again, this manipulation sought to determine whether the typical number of blocks exerts its own influence on outcomes normally observed with the IRAP. Patterns of responding were very similar across the Typical and Double Length IRAPs. In both cases, participants showed consistent responding with increasing numbers of block pairs, with no significant differences across each trial-type of increasing block pairs. The current thesis, therefore, undertook a number of systematic manipulations of various procedural parameters of the IRAP. Overall, one must conclude that these exerted practically no significant influence on the observed IRAP effects, although some variations were detected. These changes are discussed in the context of the existing literature and particularly with regard to more extensive use of the IRAP in the future

The Status of Rule-Governed Behavior as Pliance, Tracking and Augmenting within Relational Frame Theory: Middle-Level Rather than Technical Terms

A recent systematic review has highlighted that the terms “pliance,” “tracking,” and “augmenting” have rarely been used as the basis for conducting systematic experimental-analytic research since their conception in 1982, despite their theoretical centrality to the study of rule-governed behavior and their presumed impact on psychological suffering. Given that some time has passed since the review article, it may be useful to reflect again upon their place within the literature on the experimental analysis of human behavior, and relational frame theory in particular. As such, the current article constitutes a “position piece” rather than another formal systematic review. In reviewing (informally) the literature since the systematic review, the recent emergence of psychometric research involving these concepts could be seen as reinforcing the original conclusions, in that researchers are recognizing that pliance, tracking, and augmenting may be of limited value in the experimental analysis of human behavior. Instead, the concept of rule-governed behavior itself, as well as the subcategories of pliance, tracking, and augmenting, should be considered middle-level terms, which lack the relative precision of more technical terms within the literature on relational frame theory

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

Feel the Func: Interpreting IRAP Performances Based on Cfunc versus Crel Stimulus Properties

Two experiments tested a basic assumption of the differential arbitrarily applicable relational responding effects (DAARRE) model by examining the extent to which functional (Cfunc) and relational (Crel) properties of stimuli affect performances on the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP). Experiment 1 required participants to complete IRAPs in both their native and a foreign language. Twenty-one Brazilian participants (fluent in both Portuguese and English) completed two IRAPs, one in which Portuguese-language stimuli were predominantly used and a second in which English-language stimuli were predominantly used. The IRAP trial-type containing Portuguese-language (1) labels, (2) positively valenced targets, and (3) response options produced the largest IRAP effect across all eight trial-types (four within each IRAP). Consistent with the DAARRE model, the Cfunc properties of the native language stimuli appeared to dominate over the Crel properties, relative to the foreign language stimuli. Experiment 2 sought to extend Experiment 1 using a known-groups design involving stimuli that were assumed to possess differential Cfunc properties across two groups of Brazilian soccer fans. Two groups of participants were recruited, differing in their support for specific Brazilian soccer teams. They completed a single IRAP task that included the names of the teams and their corresponding team badges. It is critical to note that responding to the IRAP trial-types did not require any explicit evaluative response in that the IRAP required participants to simply categorize team badges with team names as “true” or “false.” The largest IRAP effect observed for each group was for the trial-type that presented the name and badge for that group’s supported team. Both experiments provide support for the DAARRE model analysis by indicating that the Cfunc properties of stimuli are critically important when interpreting IRAP performances. A number of caveats to this conclusion are discussed.</p

Back to the future with an up-dated version of RFT: More field than frame?

The current chapter presents an overview of a line of research that focuses on the behavioral dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding (AARRing), and the implications of this research for the on-going development of relational frame theory (RFT) itself. Specifically, the integration of two recent conceptual developments within RFT are de-scribed. The first of these is the multi-dimensional, multi-level (MDML) framework and the second is the differential arbitrarily applicable relational responding effects (DAARRE) model. Integrating the MDML framework and the DAARRE model emphasizes the transformation of functions within the MDML, thus yielding a hyper-dimensional, multi-level (HDML) frame-work for analyzing the behavioral dynamics of AARRing. The HDML generates a new conceptual unit of analysis for RFT in which relating, orienting, and evoking (ROEing) are seen as involved in virtually all psychological events for verbally-able humans. Some of the implications of the ROE as a unit of analysis for RFT are explored, including the idea that it may be useful to conceptualize the dynamics of AARRing as involving a field of verbal interactants. Keywords: dynamics, RFT, MDML, DAARRE, HDML, relating, orienting, evoking, field of interactant