Self-esteem revisited: Performance on the implicit relational assessment procedure as a measure of self- versus ideal self-related cognitions in dysphoria

Remue, Jonathan; Houwer, Jan De; Barnes‐Holmes, Dermot; Vanderhasselt, Marie‐Anne; Raedt, Rudi De

doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.786681

Cited by 69 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As expected, the IRAPSE showed a significant effect for the self-positive response bias as indexed by significant one-sample t-tests in all diagnostic groups (ps ≤ 0.001). This is in line with (1) previous SE IRAP effects (e.g., [40] and [41]) and (2) findings for the 'universality' of self-positive implicit biases (e.g., [37]). An odd-even split-half procedure (applying the Spearman-Brown formula) was used to assess the reliability of the IRAP [42].…”

Section: Preliminary Analysessupporting

confidence: 92%

Implicit and explicit self-esteem discrepancies in people with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

Dimaro

Roberts

Moghaddam

et al. 2015

Epilepsy & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Self-esteem (SE), or one's sense of competence and worth, is reduced in many mental and physical\ud disorders. Low SE is associated with perceived stigma and disability and poor treatment outcomes. The present\ud study examined implicit and explicit SE (automatic and deliberate views about the self) in people with epilepsy\ud and people with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNESs). Discrepancies between implicit SE and explicit SE\ud have been found to correlate with psychological distress in disorders often associated with PNESs but are\ud relatively unexplored in PNESs. We hypothesized that, compared with epilepsy, PNESs would be associated\ud with lower self-reported SE and greater discrepancies between implicit SE and explicit SE.\ud Methods: Thirty adults with PNESs, 25 adults with epilepsy, and 31 controls without a history of seizures were\ud asked to complete the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale as a measure of explicit SE and an Implicit Relational\ud Assessment Procedure as a measure of implicit SE. The State–Trait Anxiety Inventory and Patient Health\ud Questionnaire—15 (a somatic symptom inventory) were also administered.\ud Results: We found significant group differences in explicit (p b 0.001) but not implicit SE. Patients with PNESs\ud reported lower SE than the other groups. No group differences were found in implicit SE. Implicit–explicit SE\ud discrepancies were larger in the group with PNESs than in the other groups (p b 0.001). Higher frequency of\ud PNESs (but not epileptic seizures) was associatedwith lower explicit SE (rs=−.83, p b 0.01) and greater SE discrepancies\ud (i.e., lower explicit relative to implicit SE; rs = .65, p b 0.01). These relationships remained significant\ud when controlling for anxiety and somatization.\ud Conclusion: Patients with PNESs had lower explicit SE than those with epilepsy or healthy controls. In keeping\ud with our expectations, there were greater discrepancies between implicit SE and explicit SE among patients\ud with PNESs than in the other groups. Our results, including the strong relationship between PNES frequency,\ud anxiety, and explicit–implicit SE discrepancies, support the interpretation that PNESs serve to reduce cognitive\ud dissonance, perhaps protecting patients' implicit SE

show abstract

Section: Preliminary Analysessupporting

confidence: 92%

Implicit and explicit self-esteem discrepancies in people with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

Dimaro

Roberts

Moghaddam

et al. 2015

Epilepsy & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Houwer, Barnes-Holmes, Vanderhasselt, & De Raedt, 2013). Although both scores are derived from responding to stimuli such as 'unhealthy' and 'bad' they reflect fundamentally different ways in which these stimuli are related.…”

Section: The Current Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, when fully concepts (e.g., 'unhealthy foods' and 'healthy foods') are related to a second set of concepts (e.g., good or bad adjectives), they do not provide any information about the specific manner in which those concepts are related. For instance, it may be that, for some individuals, the scores obtained from such procedures reflect beliefs that unhealthy foods are bad for them whereas for other individuals, those same scores might reflect beliefs that unhealthy foods prevent bad events such as negative thoughts and feelings from occurring (for related arguments see Remue, DeHouwer, Barnes-Holmes, Vanderhasselt, & De Raedt, 2013). Although both scores are derived from responding to stimuli such as 'unhealthy' and 'bad' they reflect fundamentally different ways in which these stimuli are related.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Obesity, food restriction, and implicit attitudes to healthy and unhealthy foods: Lessons learned from the implicit relational assessment procedure

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. Electronic mail should be sent to sean.hughes@ugent.be. IRAP Food Cognition 2 AbstractIt has been argued that obese individuals evaluate high caloric, palatable foods more positively than their normal weight peers, and that this positivity bias causes them to consume such foods, even when healthy alternatives are available. Yet when self-reported and automatic food preferences are assessed no such evaluative biases tend to emerge. We argue that situational (food deprivation) and methodological factors may explain why implicit measures often fail to discriminate between the food-evaluations of these two groups. Across three studies we manipulated the food deprivation state of clinically obese and normal-weight participants and then exposed them to an indirect procedure (IRAP) and self-report questionnaires. We found that automatic food-related cognition was moderated by a person's weight status and food deprivation state. Our findings suggest that the diagnostic and predictive value of implicit measures may be increased when (a) situational moderators are taken into consideration and (b)we pay greater attention to the different ways in which people automatically relate rather than simply categorize food stimuli. The Western world is currently facing an obesity epidemic. Over the past three decades, obesity rates have exploded at an alarming rate (Finucane et al., 2011), to the point that one in three adults in the United States (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 2014) as well as one in five Europeans are currently overweight (WHO, 2013). As prevalence rates have grown so too have the health-related, socioeconomic, and psychological costs associated with this phenomenon (Finkelstein, Ruhm, & Kosal, 2005;Wardle & Cooke, 2005). With obesity comes an increased risk of type-II diabetes, adult heart disease, as well as several forms of cancer and premature morbidity (Reilly, et al., 2003;Wang, McPherson, Marsh, Gortmaker, & Brown, 2011). In addition to its economic burden, obesity is also associated with a host of psychosocial problems, including anxiety, depression, and social discrimination (see Puhl & Heuer, 2009; Sutin, Stephan, & Terracciano, 2015;Wang et al., 2011). If we are to design effective interventions to ameliorate or even reverse this epidemic then research will need to elucidate those factors that contribute to the development and maintenance of this phenomenon.One such factor appears to be food choice, and in particular, the excessive consumption of energy dense foods containing high levels of calories, sugars, and fat as well as the under consumption of nutrient dense foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Accumulating evidence suggests that obese individuals tend to consume higher levels of fats, sugars, and proteins than their normal-weight counterparts (e.g., Mai et al., 2011;McGloin et al., 2002;Nicklas, Yang, Baranowski, Zakeri, & Berenson, 2003). Several authors have sought to explain this maladaptive pattern of behavior in terms of food-related evaluations. That is, obese individuals are t...

show abstract

“…Remue, De Houwer, Barnes-Holmes, Vanderhasselt, & De Raedt, 2013). The stimulus categories "I am", "positive" and "negative" might therefore be used to target self-related evaluative responses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The IRAP Is Nonrelative but not Acontextual: Changes to the Contrast Category Influence Men’s Dehumanization of Women

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is frequently employed over other measures of so-called implicit attitudes because it produces four independent and "non-relative" bias scores, thereby providing greater clarity around what drives an effect. Indeed, studies have sometimes emphasized the procedural separation of the four trial-types by choosing to report only the results of a single, theoretically meaningful trial-type. However, no research to date has examined the degree to which performance on a given trial-type is impacted upon by other stimulus categories employed within the task. The current study examined the extent to which response biases toward "women" are influenced by two different contrast categories: "men" versus "inanimate objects". Results indicated that greater dehumanization of women was observed in the context of the latter relative to the former category. The findings highlight that the IRAP may be described as a non-relative, but not a-contextual, measure of brief and immediate relational responses.Keywords: Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure, Relational Frame Theory, dehumanization of women IRAP IS NON-RELATIVE BUT NOT A-CONTEXTUAL 3The IRAP is non-relative but not a-contextual: Changes to the contrast category influence men's dehumanization of women The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) was created as a way to assess natural verbal relations "on the fly" (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Stewart, & Boles, 2010).More specifically, the IRAP was designed to capture arbitrarily applicable relational responding, which is posited by Relational Frame Theory (RFT) to account for complex human behavior such as language and higher cognition (see Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001; Hughes & Barnes-Holmes, 2016 for detailed treatments). The IRAP has now been employed in a wide range of contexts, including the assessment of such relational responding in domains of both clinical (see Vahey, Nicholson, & Barnes-Holmes, 2015 for meta-analysis) and social relevance (e.g., Drake et al., 2015;Rönspies et al., 2015), as well as within basic science contexts (e.g., Bortoloti & de Rose, 2012;Hughes, 2012;).Due to some procedural similarities with other measures such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT: Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998), the IRAP is frequently referred to or employed as a measure of so-called "implicit attitudes" (e.g., Hussey & Barnes-Holmes, 2012), a term that was borrowed from cognitive psychology and refers to "automatic" behaviors that are emitted outside of awareness or intentionality, under low volitional control and/or with high cognitive efficiency (see De Houwer & Moors, 2010). However, more recent work has emphasized that such references to the IRAP as a measure of implicit attitudes were heuristic in nature, and has attempted to clarify the relationship between the cognitive and functionalanalytic approaches to such behavioral phenomena (Hughes, Barnes-Holmes, & De Houwer, 2011;Hughes, Barnes-Holmes, & Vahey, 2012; see Barnes-Holmes & Hu...

show abstract

Self-esteem revisited: Performance on the implicit relational assessment procedure as a measure of self- versus ideal self-related cognitions in dysphoria

Cited by 69 publications

References 21 publications

Implicit and explicit self-esteem discrepancies in people with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

Implicit and explicit self-esteem discrepancies in people with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

Obesity, food restriction, and implicit attitudes to healthy and unhealthy foods: Lessons learned from the implicit relational assessment procedure

The IRAP Is Nonrelative but not Acontextual: Changes to the Contrast Category Influence Men’s Dehumanization of Women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About