The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP ) and the Malleability of Ageist Attitudes

Cullen, Claire; Barnes‐Holmes, Dermot; Barnes‐Holmes, Yvonne; Stewart, Ian

doi:10.1007/bf03395683

Cited by 59 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As predicted, response latencies were faster for consistent than for inconsistent trials (e.g., participants responded more quickly to Pleasant-Love-Similar than to Pleasant-Love-Opposite). These results have since been replicated across a small number of other studies (e.g., Barnes-Holmes, Murphy, BarnesHolmes, & Stewart, 2010;Barnes-Holmes, Waldron, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2009;Cullen, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2009;Dawson, Barnes-Holmes, Gresswell, Hart & Gore, 2009;McKenna et al, 2007;Power, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2009;Roddy, Stewart, & BarnesHolmes, in press;Vahey, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2009). Nevertheless, research on the IRAP as an implicit measure is very limited, and further empirical study is required before its reliability and validity can be determined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 58%

Using the Implicit Association Test and the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure to Measure Attitudes Toward Meat and Vegetables in Vegetarians and Meat-Eaters

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 58%

Using the Implicit Association Test and the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure to Measure Attitudes Toward Meat and Vegetables in Vegetarians and Meat-Eaters

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consistent with published IRAP research (e.g. Cullen et al 2009 ), the response latency data for each participant were transformed into a D-score, which represents the difference between consistent and inconsistent responding. In order to compare responding on the four main trial-types, the D-scores were then transformed into DIRAP-(trial-type) scores, which were then collapsed according to trial-type to generate a D-score for each trial-type (PUPIL vs. EBD PUPIL).…”

Section: Irap Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In simple terms, the methodology predicts that on average, participants will respond more quickly to pairings that reflect well-established beliefs than to those that do not, and the IRAP assesses the response latency differences between these. Numerous published studies attest to the utility of this measure for the study of socially sensitive attitudes, including teachers' attitudes to pupils, preference for social groups (Power et al 2009), attitudes to body image (Roddy, Stewart, and Barnes-Holmes 2010) and ageism (Cullen et al 2009). The research by Scanlon et al (submitted) employed an IRAP that juxtaposed TEACHER and EBD PUPIL, in conjunction with positive and negative terms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing attitudes: supporting teachers in effectively including students with emotional and behavioural difficulties in mainstream education

Scanlon

Barnes‐Holmes

2013

Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) are often considered the most challenging group to manage within mainstream education. The challenges perceived by teachers may be due, in part, to negative attitudes towards this cohort of pupils, which may exacerbate feelings of inadequacy and impact negatively upon direct interactions with pupils. The current study comprised a combination of implicit (i.e. the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure, IRAP) and explicit (The Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale, ORMS) technologies to assess the attitudes of teachers (N = 25) and teachers in training (N = 20) towards pupils with EBD. When these attitudes proved to be negative (relative to typically developing pupils), the utility of a combined behaviour intervention (BI) and stress-management intervention (SMI), in conjunction with a series of pre and post measures, was examined. The IRAP results for teachers indicated that the SMI enhanced their implicit positivity towards pupils with EBD (EBD PUPIL) to a considerable extent (0.025-0.175), and this was greater than the impact recorded with the BI. The teachers in training showed implicit negativity towards EBD PUPIL (0.13) and this decreased, albeit marginally, at post-BI (0.05) and post-SMI (0.06). Significant differences were recorded in teachers' general attitudes towards inclusion (p < 0.001) and efficacy (p < 0.008). Significant effects were recorded for teachers in training in relation to their attitudes towards having a child with EBD and having a previously excluded child with EBD in their classrooms (all ps < 0.001). For this latter group, reductions were also recorded in their levels of depression, anxiety and stress (p < 0.001) and there was an increase in their psychological flexibility (p < 0.001). The current results indicate that a range of positive implicit and explicit outcomes was associated with the current BI and SMI package in terms of fostering more effective inclusion of pupils with EBD in mainstream education.

show abstract

“…Evidence for discriminant validity may further be inferred from studies that have shown differential effects of an intervention on IRAP versus explicit measures of the same target (Cullen et al, 2009;Hooper et al, 2010;Scheel, Fischer, McMahon, Mena, & Wolf, 2011 Two further articles report significant correlations between IRAP and explicit indices of the same targets Timko, England, Herbert, & Forman, 2010). However, these studies examined many relationships (e.g., 100 correlations across two studies in Timko et al, 2010) without adjusting for multiple testing and findings could partially reflect an inflated Type I error-rate.…”

Section: Experimental Experimental Validity Ismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: Emerging reliability and validity data

Moghaddam

Hart

Dawson

2013

Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is a measure of 'implicit cognition' developed on the basis of a contemporary behavioural analysis of language and cognition. The IRAP has now been applied to a range of foci over five years of published research. A frequently-cited caveat in publications to date is the need for further research to gauge the reliability and validity of the IRAP as an implicit measure. This review paper will provide a critical synthesis of available evidence for reliability and validity. The review applies a multifaceted test-theory approach to validity, and reliability is assessed through meta-analysis of published data. The discussion critically considers reviewed IRAP evidence with reference to the extant literature on alternative implicit measures, limitations of studies to date, and consideration of broader conceptual issues.Keywords: Implicit; Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure; Relational Frame Theory; validity; reliability Over the last two decades increasing attention has been given to the concept of 'implicit cognition' within psychological research (Greenwald et al., 2002). Although there remains a lack of consensus regarding the definition and operationalisation of this concept, reflecting broader differences in the theoretical and epistemological orientation of researchers in this area, a number of measures of 'implicit cognition' have been developed. The most commonly used and extensively discussed of these measures is the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The IAT was designed to measure the relative strength of pairs of associations (e.g., insects-disgust vs. flowers-disgust) in a computerised categorisation task. As an example, relatively rapid responding to insects-disgust (in comparison with flowers-disgust) would be considered indicative that insects and disgust are more strongly associated in memory.Much of the evidence-base for implicit cognition has been developed through applications of the IAT and this measure has formed a prototype for subsequent developments in implicit measurement (Nosek, Hawkins, & Frazier, 2011). Most implicit measures have thus been designed to target a basic association between stimulus-pairs under conditions of time pressure. This operationalisation promotes the assumption that implicit cognition reflects the activation of an underlying associative-memory network -an assumption that is evinced in the representational models outlined by key researchers in the cognitively-aligned fields. However, it is important to distinguish the associative procedures of implicit measures from inferences about underlying processes or representations (Hughes, Barnes-Holmes, & De Houwer, 2010). The Implicit Relational Assessment ProcedureThe Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP; Barnes-Holmes et al., 2006) represents an alternative measure of implicit responding, developed from the perspective of From an RFT perspective it is not the extent to which two stimuli are 'associated in memory' that is...

show abstract

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP ) and the Malleability of Ageist Attitudes

Abstract: The current study examined the malleability of implicit attitudes using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP)

Cited by 59 publications

References 35 publications

Using the Implicit Association Test and the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure to Measure Attitudes Toward Meat and Vegetables in Vegetarians and Meat-Eaters

Using the Implicit Association Test and the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure to Measure Attitudes Toward Meat and Vegetables in Vegetarians and Meat-Eaters

Changing attitudes: supporting teachers in effectively including students with emotional and behavioural difficulties in mainstream education

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: Emerging reliability and validity data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About