Association for Behavior Analysis International

Recent advances in Relational Frame Theory (RFT) and the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) have aimed to expand the basic account of human language and cognition. To this end, the validation of the IRAP as a measure of relational responding has become paramount. As such, the current series of papers were designed to systematically manipulate the relational features of the IRAP using non-clinical samples. Paper 1 manipulated the rule order presentation of IRAP blocks, and found differential effects for each rule order presented. Paper 2 assessed the degree to which instructions for responding on the IRAP (i.e., specified responding, non-specified responding and response-focused instructions) influenced effects. Specifically, it was found that instruction type influenced the strength and direction of IRAP effects. Paper 3 manipulated the presentation of relational coherence indicators (RCIs, for example true and false) versus relational contextual cues (Crels, for example, similar or different) as response options. Results demonstrated that when participants completed an IRAP with Crels first, their effects became non-significant when they completed an IRAP with RCIs, suggesting that response options are not functionally equivalent. Overall, the symposium offers systematic analyses of the IRAP, which not only informs IRAP effects, but relational responding more generally.

The importance of the effects of rules and instructions on human behaviour have long been identified as important in the psychological literature. However the number of experimental studies that have tested this suggestion is limited. The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) was employed and manipulated the order in which rules for responding were presented in a Self-esteem IRAP. Forty-one undergraduate students were divided into two conditions with differing starting rules. This sought to determine whether the simple order in which the rules are presented influenced patterns of relational responding on the IRAP. The results indicated that patterns of responding differed somewhat between conditions. The findings supported some existing evidence which suggests that rules influence relational responding. At the time of writing, a second study was to commence using a new methodology designed to address similar questions. From preliminary analyses, it can be suggested that rules exert varying degrees of influence over relational responding.

Early studies using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) involved using relational contextual cues (Crels) as response options. A large number of IRAP studies, however, have also employed relational coherence indicators (RCIs), the two most common being True and False. The untested assumption was that the nature of the response options should have no impact on IRAP performance. The current study addressed this gap in the literature. Undergraduate participants were exposed to two IRAPs, one employing the Crels Similar and Different and the other employing the RCIs True and False. When participants first completed an IRAP using the Crels and then completed a second IRAP using the RCIs there was a significant reduction in the effect and it also became non-significant (from zero). This finding indicates that Crels versus RCIs should not be considered functionally equivalent and the use of different types of response options requires careful and systematic analysis.