Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP)

Background

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is a behavior-analytic measurement tool of implicit bias and attitudes. It was developed by Dermot Barnes-Holmes and colleagues in 2010 as an alternative to the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Like the IAT, the IRAP uses response speed under pressure to find hidden biases. But while the IAT measures the memory strength of concept associations relative to each other (e.g. 'do you prefer flowers over insects?'), the IRAP, based on the idea that the human mind functions through active rules and relationships, measures the positive or negative relational strength of a concept (e.g. 'do you agree that flowers are pleasant?').

The classic IRAP procedure asks participants to quickly categorize pairs of stimuli according to pre-determined rules. The rules are either hypothesis-consistent (e.g. 'Flowers are pleasant; Insects are unpleasant') or hypothesis-inconsistent (e.g. 'Insects are pleasant, Flowers are unpleasant'). From one block to the next, the rule flips from being hypothesis-consistent to hypothesis-inconsistent. The IRAP assumes that participants are faster to categorize item pairs (e.g. the positive word 'beautiful' paired with the flower 'daisy') when the categorization rule coincides with the participant's implicit attitudes towards the targets (e.g. "I find flowers pleasant") and slower when the categorization rule works against the participant's implicit attitude.

The difference in mean response time btw. hypothesis-consistent and hypothesis-inconsistent trials are computed and captured in several D-IRAP scores which can be used to assess implicit attitudes, separately for different target categories (e.g. flowers and insects). In general, positive D-IRAP scores suggest implicit attitudes in line with the hypothesis-consistent categorization rule. Negative D-IRAP scores suggest implicit attitudes in line with the hypothesis-inconsistent categorization rule.

A mixed trial variant of the basic IRAP procedure, the Mixed Trial IRAP or MT-IRAP, was proposed by Michael E. Levin and colleagues in 2010 with the goal to shorten the IRAP administration time. The mixed trial IRAP presents consistent and inconsistent trials in the same block, and participants are given the cue to 'lie' or 'tell the truth' before each pair of stimuli is presented. Instead of using pre-determined rules and thus predetermined error response (like in the classic IRAP procedure), the MT-IRAP uses the participant's response pattern to determine correct and incorrect responses for each stimulus. For example, a participant who responds 95% of the time 'yes' to 'daffodils-good' under the Truth-condition and 40% of the time 'yes' to 'daffodils-good' under the Lie-condition, shows more frequent 'yes' responses under the Truth condition. Thus, for this participant, saying 'Yes' in the Lie condition is coded as an error response as is saying 'No' in the truth condition. This error pattern would be consistent with a positive attitude towards flowers.

The Inquisit IRAP scripts provides a generic template to run the IRAP (MT-IRAP) procedure either with words or images. The template scripts use the classic flower-insect categories as well as positive and negative attributes but these categories can easily be customized.

Task Procedure

The basic IRAP procedure starts out with a practice phase to practice the 'consistent' and 'inconsistent' rules. The consistent practice block asks participants to evaluate pairings of targets (e.g. flowers/insects) and attributes (e.g. beautiful/ugly) such as 'daisy-beautiful' under the the assumptions 'flowers are good, insects are bad'. The basic task is to press one response key as fast as possible if the pairs are 'similar', and a different response key if the pairs are 'dissimilar'. The inconsistent practice block asks participants to evaluate the same pairings under the opposite assumption 'flowers are bad, insects are good'. Each block presents 32 trials total, repeating four trial types ('AA = pleasant attributes paired with flowers', 'AB = pleasant attributes paired with insects', 'BA = unpleasant attributes paired with flowers', 'BB = unpleasant attributes paired with insects') eight times each. The trial order is randomized. At the end of the second practice block, participants' accuracy performance determines if the practice phase is repeated. If practice performance in both blocks is 80% or higher AND the median response latency in both blocks is 2000ms or lower (=mastery criteria), participants move on the test phase. Otherwise, the practice phase is repeated up to three times.

The test phase runs 3 rounds (one round = one hypothesis-consistent and one hypothesis-inconsistent block). Like the practice blocks, each test block runs 32 trials total, repeating four trial types ('AA', 'AB', 'BA', 'BB') eight times each. The trial order is randomized. Each target and attribute category runs 4 exemplars that are selected randomly without replacement. Each trial presents the target-attribute until a response is made (similar or dissimilar?). If an error is made, a red X appears and the response has to be corrected. By default, location of the 'similar'/'different' response keys changes randomly. A blank screen for 400ms separates each trial from the next.

What it Measures

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) measures implicit attitudes

Psychological domains

• Implicit Cognition: Cognitive Processes not under conscious control
• Social Cognition: People's thoughts and perceptions of themselves and others in the social world

Main Performance Metrics

• **dIRAP scores: IRAP scores for each of the two target categories; main measures for implicit attitudes towards the target categories

Psychiatric Conditions

The IRAP has been used with the following patient groups

• Depression
• Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)
• Substance Abuse

Test Variations

References

Search Google Scholar for peer-reviewed, published research using the Inquisit Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP).

---

Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Power, P., Hayden, E., Milne, R., & Stewart, I. (2006). Do you know what you really believe? Developing the Implicit Relational Evaluation Procedure (IRAP) as a direct measure of implicit beliefs. The Irish Psychologist, 32(7), 169–177.

Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Stewart, I., & Boles, S. (2010A). A sketch of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the relational elaboration and coherence (REC) model. The Psychological Record, 60(3), 527.

Barnes-Holmes, D., Murtagh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2010B). Using the Implicit Association Test and the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure to measure attitudes towards meat and vegetables in vegetarians and meat-eaters. The Psychological Record, 60, 287-306.

Hussey, I., Mhaoileoin, D. N., Barnes-Holmes, D., Ohtsuki, T., Kishita, N., Hughes, S., & Murphy, C. (2016). The IRAP Is Nonrelative but notAcontextual: Changes to the Contrast Category Influence Men’s Dehumanization of Women. The Psychological Record, 66(2), 291– 299.