Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP): An Examination of the Impact of Response Options Theoretically Deemed as Contextual Relations versus Relational Coherence Indicators

The aims of the current research programme were to investigate the use of different response options (e.g., contextually cued relational responding (Crels) or relational coherence indicators (RCIs)) in the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP). In each of the four studies, participants (total N=124) completed two Pleasant-Unpleasant IRAPs in varying order and Consistent relations ('Pleasant-Positive') were contrasted with Inconsistent relations ('Unpleasant-Positive'). Study 1 (N=40) employed the response options “Same”/“Opposite” (Crels) versus “Accurate”/ “Inaccurate” (RCIs). The results of both IRAPs in this study indicated an ‘IRAP effect’ (bias) favouring 'Consistent' verbal relations, as expected. There was a statistically significant difference when data from both IRAPs were compared, indicating an effect for type of response option used. That is, the overall D-IRAP score for the Crel-IRAP was significantly greater than that of the RCI-IRAP. A significant interaction effect between the type of response option employed, order of congruent/incongruent blocks, and order of completion was also revealed. Study 2 (N=40) was similar to Study 1 except that the RCI response options employed on this occasion were “Right”/“Wrong”. Results revealed that responding across both IRAPs was mediated by a congruent bias and that there was a significant difference between participant data for the two IRAPs, with the Crel-IRAP producing a greater overall D-IRAP score. The sole difference between Study 3 (N=24) and the preceding studies, was the use of “True”/”False” as RCI response options. Again, the results indicated that responding was mediated by a congruent bias in both IRAPs. The findings also revealed that the overall D-IRAP score of the Crel-IRAP was significantly greater than that of the RCI-IRAP. Given the findings in studies 1, 2, and 3, in which there was a significant between the two IRAPs, Study 4 (N=20) attempted to clarify if completing two immediately successive IRAPs would in itself impact participant data. To this end, the response options were held constant across both IRAPs on this study (i.e. both used Crel response options; “Same”/ “Opposite”). Participant data in both IRAPs showed an IRAP effect which was ‘consistent’ with natural verbal relations. There was no significant difference between participant data from both IRAPs and analyses did not indicate that completing two successive IRAPs in one sitting impacted participant data. Taken overall, these exploratory research studies provide support for the effect of type of response options used on IRAP outcomes, and tentatively corroborate the proposal that RCIs may have a distinct function from Crels under certain circumstances