Interpreting and inverting with less cursing: A guide to interpreting IRAP data

Hussey, Ian; Thompson, Miles; McEnteggart, Ciara; Barnes‐Holmes, Dermot; Barnes‐Holmes, Yvonne

doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2015.05.001

Cited by 46 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They also differ in what kinds of manipulations are used, from minimal manipulations that prime a concept in memory (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001) to intensive longterm interventions that unfold over several weeks (O'Brien et al, 2010). The studies are also diverse in their use of implicit tasks, ranging from popular tasks such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998;Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2007) to less popular tasks such as the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP; Barnes-Holmes, Murphy, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2010;Hussey et al, 2015).…”

Section: Overview Of Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures

Forscher¹,

Lai²,

Axt³

et al. 2016

Preprint

141

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a novel technique known as network meta-analysis, we synthesized evidence from 492 studies (87,418 participants) to investigate the effectiveness of procedures in changing implicit measures, which we define as response biases on implicit tasks. We also evaluated these procedures’ effects on explicit and behavioral measures. We found that implicit measures can be changed, but effects are often relatively weak (|ds| < .30). Most studies focused on producing short-term changes with brief, single-session manipulations. Procedures that associate sets of concepts, invoke goals or motivations, or tax mental resources changed implicit measures the most, whereas procedures that induced threat, affirmation, or specific moods/emotions changed implicit measures the least. Bias tests suggested that implicit effects could be inflated relative to their true population values. Procedures changed explicit measures less consistently and to a smaller degree than implicit measures and generally produced trivial changes in behavior. Finally, changes in implicit measures did not mediate changes in explicit measures or behavior. Our findings suggest that changes in implicit measures are possible, but those changes do not necessarily translate into changes in explicit measures or behavior.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures

Forscher¹,

Lai²,

Axt³

et al. 2016

Preprint

141

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was the case for the gender IRAP dataset used in the current paper (for paper length discussions of the task see Barnes-Holmes et al, 2010;Hussey, Thompson, McEnteggart, Barnes-Holmes & Barnes-Holmes, 2015).…”

Section: A Brief Description Of the Irapmentioning

confidence: 87%

The PI IRAP : An alternative scoring algorithm for the IRAP using a probabilistic semiparametric effect size measure

Schryver

Hussey

Neve

et al. 2018

Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) has been used to assess the probability of arbitrarily applicable relational responding or as an indirect measure of implicit attitudes. To date, IRAP effects have commonly been quantified using the DIRAP scoring algorithm, which was derived from Greenwald, Nosek and Banaji's (2003) D effect size measure. In the article, we highlight the difference between an effect size measure and a scoring algorithm, discuss the drawbacks associated with D, and propose an alternative: a probabilistic, semiparametric measure referred to as the Probabilistic Index (Thas, De Neve, Clement, & Ottoy, 2012). Using a relatively large IRAP dataset, we demonstrate how the PI is more robust to the influence of outliers and skew (which are typical of reaction time data). Finally, we conclude that PI models, in addition to producing point estimate scores, can also provide confidence intervals, significance tests, and afford the possibility to include covariates, all of which may aid single subject design studies.

show abstract

“…Positive D-IRAP score can include both elements (accepting positive traits and denying negative traits) equally or can be based more on one of them. According to the recommendations, the overall D-IRAP scores may be calculated (Hussey et al, 2015). However, then the benefits of the IRAP application are lost as it is an instrument more complex and it places a larger burden on participants compared to the IAT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The IRAP can capture these four different stimulus relations independently from one another, which enables a better understanding a history of learning. Researchers are encouraged to interpret these scores (and also their combinations, like D-IRAP-POS for positive traits and D-IRAP-NEG for negative traits in case of the self-esteem IRAP; see Hussey, Thompson, McEnteggart, Barnes-Holmes, & Barnes-Holmes, 2015). Currently, the IRAP is widely used to assess implicit attitudes, such as those related to the self (e.g.…”

Section: Implicit Self-esteem -Irapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narcissism and self-esteem revisited: The relationships between the subscales of the NPI and explicit/implicit self-esteem

Pilch¹,

Hyla²

2017

Polish Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of the previous research which tried to investigate links between self-esteem and narcissism in search of the source of narcissistic fragility are not consistent. The aim of the study was to contribute to the understanding of this complex relation by assessing relationships between the four facets of grandiose narcissism measured by the NPI and the two kinds of self-esteem i.e. explicit (ESE) and implicit (ISE), and by comparing the results with theoretical models. The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure, a more recent measure based on response latency, was used to assess ISE. The analysis confirms the reports on NPI heterogeneity. Different relationships between the particular facets of narcissism and ESE/ISE were observed. These differences indicate that composite measures of narcissism and ISE do not reflect the entire complexity of the phenomena. The results provide support for the two theoretical models i.e. the global marker model and the mask model.

show abstract

Interpreting and inverting with less cursing: A guide to interpreting IRAP data

Cited by 46 publications

References 25 publications

A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures

A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures

The PI IRAP : An alternative scoring algorithm for the IRAP using a probabilistic semiparametric effect size measure

Narcissism and self-esteem revisited: The relationships between the subscales of the NPI and explicit/implicit self-esteem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About