|
| Int'l Symposium - Derived Relational Responding and the Implicit Association Test |
| Sunday, May 29, 2005 |
| 10:30 AM–11:50 AM |
| Boulevard A (2nd floor) |
| Area: EAB; Domain: Basic Research |
| Chair: Ian T. Stewart (National University of Ireland, Galway) |
| Discussant: Ian T. Stewart (National University of Ireland, Galway) |
| Abstract: This symposium presents a series of studies that have combined the Implicit Association Test (IAT) with both behavioral and neuropsychological methodologies in order to explore derived (arbitrary relational) responding or relational framing, the behavior seen by RFT as the core process involved in human language. The IAT is based on the premise that when two stimuli are relationally coordinated (either semantically or associatively), it is easier to pair them together in a single relational response than when two stimuli are relationally distinct (i.e., the former response occurs more rapidly than the latter). Because the speed of the relational response is putatively outside the participant’s voluntary or conscious control, the test is seen to reveal implicit associations or evaluations. Typically, research in this area has employed stimuli with pre-experimentally established psychological functions with varying levels of stimulus salience, and thus the behavioral processes that give rise to the so called implicit associations remain unclear. By combining this methodology with an RFT-based theoretical approach and drawing on derived relations-based methodologies as well as reaction time and neuropsychological measures, studies such as those reported here hope to provide a more thorough behavioral analysis of core linguistic processes. |
| |
| The Implicit Relational Evaluation Procedure (IREP) and Event Related Potentials: Developing a Methodology for Assessing Previously Established Relational Frames |
| EILISH HAYDEN (National University of Ireland, Maynooth), Dermot Barnes-Holmes (National University of Ireland, Maynooth), Yvonne Barnes-Holmes (National University of Ireland, Maynooth), Ian T. Stewart (National University of Ireland, Galway) |
| Abstract: The current paper presents experimental research that has involved combining the Relational Evaluation Procedure (REP) with the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The general purpose behind combining these two methodologies is to provide a means of assessing specific relational frames that may have been established for individuals or specific populations. The current version of this methodology is called the Implicit Relational Evaluation Procedure (IREP). In contrast to the IAT, and other procedures derived from it, such as the GNAT and the EAST, the IREP can assess, at least in principle, any specific relation among sets of stimuli. The IAT, and its derivatives, assess only associations without providing a means of determining exactly how the elements are associated, or the continua along which the associations occur. In contrast, the IREP involves presenting relational terms (e.g., SIMILAR, OPPOSITE, BETTER, WORSE) as response options so that the relational properties between the sample and comparison stimuli can be assessed. The current paper presents some of the initial findings using the IREP, and event related potentials, and how it compares to the standard IAT as a method for assessing implicit attitudes. |
| |
| A Derived Relations Model of the Implicit Association Test: Reaction Times and Event Related Potentials |
| IAN T. STEWART (National University of Ireland, Galway), Dermot Barnes-Holmes (National University of Ireland, Maynooth), Yvonne Barnes-Holmes (National University of Ireland, Maynooth), Robert Whelan (Anglia Polytechnic University, Cambridge, UK), Simon Dymond (Anglia Polytechnic University, Cambridge, UK) |
| Abstract: The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is based on the premise that when two stimuli are relationally coordinated (either semantically or associatively), it is easier to pair them together in a single relational response than when two stimuli are relationally distinct (i.e., the former response occurs more rapidly than the latter). Because the speed of the relational response is putatively outside the participant’s voluntary or conscious control, the test is seen to reveal implicit associations or evaluations. Typically, research in this area has employed stimuli with pre-experimentally established psychological functions with varying levels of stimulus salience, and thus the behavioral processes that give rise to the so called implicit associations remains unclear (but see Mitchell, Anderson, & Lovibond, 2003). Furthermore, the use of differences in reactions times on the IAT, as the main measure of interest, has been questioned. The current paper reports a study that attempts to address these two key concerns using derived stimulus relations and event related potentials. |
| |
| Derived Relational Responding, the Implicit Association Test, and Event Related Potentials: A Possible Model of the Verbal Processes Involved in the IAT Effect |
| CATRIONA O'TOOLE (National University of Ireland, Maynooth), Sinead Smyth (National University of Ireland, Maynooth), Dermot Barnes-Holmes (National University of Ireland, Maynooth), Yvonne Barnes-Holmes (National University of Ireland, Maynooth), Ian T. Stewart (National University of Ireland, Galway) |
| Abstract: The current paper reports a study that was designed to test a Relational Frame Theory model of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). In Experiment 1, natural language stimuli were employed with a standard IAT procedure and both response latencies and event related potentials (ERPs) were recorded. A typical IAT effect was observed and this was also reflected in the ERPs measures. Experiment 2 involved training the baseline conditional discriminations necessary for the formation of four, four-member equivalence classes. Pictures of spiders were then paired with two members of one class and pictures of snakes to the two members of a second class. Similarly, pictures of babies were paired with two members of a third class, and pictures of romantic situations were paired with two members of the fourth class. The 12 stimuli were then used to determine if they would produce an IAT effect like that observed using “real” words. The findings showed that a significant IAT effect emerged, but only for those participants who subsequently passed a formal equivalence test. These findings highlight the need for clarity concerning the use of the word “association” in IAT research, and more importantly the source of the so called associations. |
|
| |