Association for Behavior Analysis International

Researchers have begun to investigate the effects that training in arbitrarily applicable relational responding has on performance on IQ tests (Cassidy, Roche, and Hayes, 2011) and shown that such training can influence such scores. This paper will discuss further directions for this research. We will present a methodology that extends on this research in two ways. First, this study incorporates methods taken from the precision teaching literature. Participants in the present study progressed through training conditions after meeting accuracy and rate requirements during brief, timed training sessions. Second, the method presented here does not require unreinforced test trials as are typically used in equivalence and Relational Frame Theory literature. We suggest that, as an instructional tool, this has a marked advantage. Data from a pilot study incorporating some of these recommendations will be presented and discussed. Limitations of the present study will be highlighted with recommendations for addressing them, and future directions will be discussed.

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is used to assess the relationship between stimuli using a simple computer based presentation of both words and pictures. The ability to assess the relationship between stimuli is important to Relational Frame Theory (RFT) based verbal interventions. We will discuss how the IRAP uses latency measures to assess relationships between stimuli. We will also discuss the what exactly the IRAP is theorized to work. The Relational Elaboration and Coherence model will be briefly discussed to aid in understanding the potential depth of analysis of the IRAP. And lastly, we will discuss how the IRAP may be applied in current behavioral interventions and populations and with individual clients as well as future research that will aid in the adaptation of the IRAP to clinical settings.

Stigma and prejudice are human behaviors that have a long-standing history of being studied at the macro level, particularly in field of social psychology. Relational Frame theory (RFT) is concerned with providing a behavioral analytic account of how these processes can occur at the individual level. The RFT tradition contends that prejudice can arise out of relational responding to others based on their membership to a conceptualized group (Roche, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes & Hayes, 2001). This talk aims to broadly discuss the RFT stance on the formation of conceptualized groups, in-group preference and stigmatizing attitudes of out-groups. Past research has shown that directly attacking stigmatizing attitudes has failed to change such beliefs and often results in increased behavioral rigidity. In response to this research, we will conceptually discuss a current study being conducted on weight bias that emphasizes the use of Perspective-Taking (PT) interventions that attempt to loosen these verbal networks and result in more malleable implicit attitudes as measured by the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP).

Individuals with mental illness in our society face many challenges as a result of stigmatization. In examining strategies to reduce stigma, researchers have largely relied on self-report measures that are vulnerable to a variety of confounding effects. The aim of the current study was to assess the feasibility of utilizing the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a tool to assess for and shape implicit bias towards individuals with mental illness. The mental illness IRAP contained stimuli that were deemed consistent and negative towards individuals with mental illness and was administered before and after an intervention designed to modify implicit bias. Three different intervention conditions were implemented - one that refuted, one that intensified, and one designed to be an analog of defusion, a contemporary strategy for disrupting verbal stimulus control. The results indicated a negative bias towards people with mental illness as measured by IRAP performance at pre-intervention. IRAP performance did not correlate with explicit attitudes toward individuals with mental illness. Furthermore, comparison analyses between pre- and post-intervention IRAPs indicated systematic but non-significant differences between conditions. The potential of this paradigm for future research will be discussed.