Transformation of Meaning Through Relations of Sameness and Opposition

The IRAP as a Measure of Implicit Cognition: A Case of Frankenstein’s Monster

The implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) was initially developed as a way to assess the strength and probability of natural verbal relations, as defined within relational frame theory (RFT), and was conceptually rooted within the behavior-analytic tradition. However, the IRAP quickly became employed primarily as a measure of implicit cognition, more in line with mainstream psychology than behavior analysis. In doing so, research using the IRAP increasingly employed ill-defined mainstream psychological terms, focused on correlational analyses with traditional psychometry, and thus emphasized prediction over the prediction-and-influence of behavior. Although perhaps beneficial to the study of implicit cognition, this approach could be argued to have limited the IRAP's utility in behavior analyses of human language and cognition. In the current article we will reflect on this suggestion, on the IRAPs place and current use in the field of behavior analysis, and on its potential future within behavioral psychology in light of recent conceptual and empirical advances in RFT. In doing so, it is hoped that the measure may be refined into a better understood, more precise, functional-analytic tool.

Equivalence class analysis of responding consistent with the relational frame of opposition

We replicated and extended studies showing that contextual cues for matching stimuli from 2 separate equivalence classes control the same derived relations as contextual cues for opposition frames in RFT studies. We conducted 2 experiments with 6 college students. In Phase 1, they received training in a conditional discrimination AB. Then, they received training for maintaining AB with X1 as context, and for reversing the sample-comparison relations of AB, with X2. In Phase 2, X1 functioned as context for matching same-class stimuli, and X2 functioned as context for matching separate-class stimuli. In Phase 3, X2 controlled the same derived arbitrary relations as cues for opposition frames in RFT studies. This functional equivalence may suggest that X2 functioned as a cue for opposition frames. In Phase 4, participants matched different stimuli with X2 as context, instead of matching most different (opposite) stimuli. In addition, Different, a cue for matching different stimuli, controlled the same derived arbitrary relations as X2. These results are incompatible with X2 being a cue for opposition frames. Contextual control over equivalence and responding by exclusion can explain these outcomes. The implications of these findings for RFT studies on opposition frames are discussed.