No abstract

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 'selffocused IRAP' required participants to respond to both positive and negative statements about themselves, whilst 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 selffocused IRAP. Interestingly, non-significant 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.

No abstract

No abstract

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