1. Use of the IRAP in measuring
Changes in Stigma Following a
Brief Defusion Exercise
Jon P. Emory, Fawna Stockwell, & Scott Herbst

2. Overview
 Background on measurement of attitudes
 Rationale and methodology of study
 Results and Implications

3. Introduction
 Greenwald and Banaji (1995) defined implicit attitudes as
“introspectively undefined (or inaccurately identified)
traces of past experience that mediate favorable or
unfavorable feelings, thought, or action toward social
objects (p. 8).”
 The problem with this definition is that is that it is too vague and
mentalistic
 The problem with implicit attitudes such as stigma is that
people are often unaware that they exist
 Explicit measures, such as interviews and questionnaires, may
not be valid measures of implicit attitudes because deception
and self-presentational strategies can affect responses.

4. Introduction
 One tool used to assess specific relations between stimuli,
or implicit attitudes, is the Implicit Relational Assessment
Procedure (IRAP) (Greenwald, McGee, & Schwartz, 1998).
 The IRAP is a latency-based computer task developed
from the principles of Relational Frame Theory (RFT) that
measures participants’ specific verbal relations between a
presented target stimulus and relational term (Barnes-
Holmes et al., 2006).

5. Introduction
 Thus, it is a more direct behavioral measure of one’s
implicit attitudes than other procedures because it
measures response latencies.
 The IRAP measures relations, not just associations
between stimuli.
 Participant’s latencies are typically shorter on consistent
trials, which reflect their implicit attitudes, than on
inconsistent trials.

6. Introduction
 One way of addressing stigma is through Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy (ACT), which makes use of
mindfulness exercises such as cognitive defusion.
 The methods employed in a cognitive defusion exercise
generally attempt to manipulate aversive functions of
private events, such as those involved in attitudes, rather
than attempting to change their topography,
rate/frequency, or severity (Lillis & Hayes, 2007).

7. Introduction – Previous Research
 Cullen and Barnes-Holmes (2008) employed the IRAP to
examine implicit attitudes toward homosexuals in both
heterosexual and homosexual participants.
 Both groups confirmed ‘straight-positive’ and ‘gay
positive’ belief-statements
 Heterosexual participants confirmed ‘gay-negative’
statements more quickly than homosexuals.

8. Introduction – Previous Research
 Cullen, Barnes-Homes, & Barnes-Holmes (2009) presented
the IRAP using the relational terms “Similar” and
“Opposite” as response options with the sample terms
“Old People” and “Young People.”
 Participants were exposed to a cognitive defusion
procedure that involved pictures of pro-old exemplars
(e.g., Mother Teresa).
 The authors found that participants response latency was
shorter on a IRAP post-test after exemplar exposure.

9. Introduction – Rationale and Design
 The present study investigated whether a pro-LGBT
defusion exercise would impact participants’ implicit
attitudes toward Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
(LGBT) terms, as measured by the IRAP.
 This study also compared participants’ implicit attitudes
to their explicit attitudes (as measured by a likert
questionnaire).
 Experimental Design: A repeated-measures, between
participants design examined effects of defusion
procedure by comparing pre- and post-test scores

10. Method – Overview

11. Participants
 22 females and 2 males (range 22-41 yeas old, mean = 25)
 All participants were enrolled in either a master’s- or
doctoral-level program at The Chicago School of
Professional Psychology (TCS).
Heterosexual Lesbian Gay Bisexual Hetero + Bi Queer
16 3 1 2 1 1

12. Setting, Apparatus, and Materials
Setting
 Small meeting room or classroom at TCS
 Apparatus
 HP Notebook PC (primary investigator’s laptop) or a Lenovo
Desktop PC (TCS’s computer)
 IRAP task accessed via the http://rft.ori.org website
 Materials
 Informed Consent & Demographics Form
 Explicit Attitudes Questionnaire & VAS
 Exemplar Packet & Response Sheet
 12 in. Ruler

13. Dependent Variables and Response
Measurement
 Dependent Variable:
 Explicit Likert Questionnaire and VAS responses
 Average DIRAP scores – derived from the latencies and ranges of
each participant’s response.
 Data collection
 Permanent product recording of individual attitudes toward
LGBT terms using the Explicit Questionnaire and VAS
 Website automatically collected real-time data, in milliseconds,
on Pre- and Post-Test IRAP tasks

14. Interobserver Agreement
 Both the primary investigator and a second observer
measured VAS values.
 102/108 agreements within 1 mm
 6 disagreements (more than 1 mm) were remeasured,
primary investigator’s values were used.

15. Procedures
1. Informed Consent
2. Demographics Form
 Assessed participants’ age, biological sex (at birth), sexual
orientation, relationship status, sexual identity, race, and level
of education.
1. Explicit Questionnaire
 62 likert scale questions regarding participant’s explicit
attitudes towards the LGBT population. (Adapted from the
Community Attitudes Toward the Mentally Ill Scale and
modified to assess LGBT attitudes) (Minett, 2008).

16. Procedures
4. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
 120 mm line directly below each term: Straight, Heterosexual,
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
 The word “Bad” was printed to the left of the line and the word
“Good” on the right.
 Participants rated each term by drawing a vertical line
GAY
Bad Good

17. Procedures
5. IRAP Pre-Test
 After 2 consecutive practice blocks at 80% accuracy and a
latency of 3 s or less, participants advanced to the test blocks.
 During each trial, the top portion of the screen displayed either
“Good” or “Bad,” the middle displayed one of the target terms
(e.g., Heterosexual, Bisexual, etc.), and the bottom displayed the
two response options “True” and “False” (“D” or “K”).
 3 pro-Heterosexual and 3 pro-LGBT test blocks alternated, and
the order of test block presentation was counterbalanced
across participants.
 Participants read instructions on the screen before starting the
first block, and viewed feedback regarding their performance

18. Procedures –Screen Shots from Each Block Type
Sample Pro-Heterosexual Trials Sample Pro-LGBT Trials

19. Procedures
6. Defusion Procedure
 Exemplar packet of 44 people who identify as LGBT - each page
included a picture, name, and corresponding sexual identity
(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender).
 Participants were asked to read two descriptions for each
person below each picture and circle whichever answer they
believed to be correct on a separate sheet
 One response option was true, one was false; both response
options were positive and pro-social.
 To increase treatment integrity, the primary researcher
verified that all participants circled either A or B on the
response sheet for all individuals in the defusion packet.

20. Procedures – Sample Defusion Page
Samantha Adams
Transgender
A B
Celebrity hair-stylist and owner Successful attorney who works
of the Tony & Guy chain of hair salons with people who have mental retardation.

21. Procedures
7. IRAP Post-Test
 Second IRAP task identical to the pre-test, except no practice
trials were presented.
 Again, participants completed 6 test blocks
 3 pro-heterosexual and 3 pro-LGBT test blocks
8. Debriefing

22. Results
 Of the 24 participants, 18 successfully completed the IRAP
practice blocks with 80% accuracy or higher (16 females
and 2 males, range 22-28 yeas old, mean = 24).
Heterosexual Lesbian Gay Bisexual Queer
13 2 1 1 1

23. Results
 Explicit Attitudes Questionnaire
 1 = strong positive attitude toward LGBT-identified individuals
 5 = strong negative attitude
 3 = neutral or unsure attitude
 The group average was 1.54 (range 1.16 to 2.26)

24. Results – Visual Analog Scale
 Participant’s average ratings for each sexual identity term
on the VAS.

25. Results – Average DIRAP Scores
 The IRAP program generated a DIRAP score for each individual
participant, which was calculated based on the participant’s
latency range during both Pro-Heterosexual and Pro-LGBT test
blocks.
 Score of 0 = Neutral Attitudes
 Score >0 = Pro-Heterosexual Attitudes
 Score <0 = Pro-LGBT Attitudes
 Overall, participants demonstrated more favorable
implicit attitudes toward LGBT terms than they did
toward Heterosexual terms

26. Results – Average DIRAP Scores
 A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA showed that the
effect was not significant at the group level (df=1, F=3.234,
p =.090).

27. Results – Individual DIRAP Scores
 8 participants scored greater than 0 (pro-Heterosexual) on
the IRAP pre-test
 7 heterosexual females
 1 gay male
 10 participants scored less than 0 (pro-LGBT) on the IRAP
pre-test
 6 heterosexual females
 1 heterosexual male
 2 bisexual females
 1 lesbian female

28. Results – Individual DIRAP Scores
 Of the 18 participants, 12 showed a decrease in IRAP scores from pre-
to post-test, indicating their implicit attitudes toward LGBT terms
became more favorable following the defusion exercise.
Pro-LGBT
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18

29. Results – Correlation Between Implicit and
Explicit Measures
 Correlation between questionnaire and IRAP pre-test
scores was not statistically significant
 [r2
= .353; n = 18; Fisher’s p = .151].
 Correlation between VAS and IRAP pre-test scores was not
statistically significant
 [r2
= .373; n = 18; Fisher’s p = .128].

30. Discussion
 This study extended Cullen et al.’s (2008) research by
demonstrating a slight increase in positive implicit
attitudes in college graduate students toward LGBT terms.
 Exposure to pro-LGBT exemplars can increase favorable implicit
attitudes toward LGBT terms for some individuals.
 A simple paper and pencil task led to changes for 12 out of
18 participants, even those who already showed favorable
implicit attitudes toward LGBT terms.
 Implicit and explicit measures did not significantly
correlate, which has been shown to be true with socially
sensitive attitudes in previous IRAP studies.

31. Limitations
 Psychology graduate students may display more positive
attitudes toward LGBT terms than the general population.
 Participants who responded may have been more likely to
have more positive attitudes toward LGBT terms.
 More heterosexual participants than LGBT participants
limited group comparisons
 Small sample size, non-rural, no transgender participants
 Did all participants attend to the defusion exercise?

32. Future Research
 More detailed instructions and more practice trials to
decrease attrition during IRAP task
 Longer / shorter IRAP latency requirements
 One week or one month follow-up session
 Larger sample size, outside of psychology programs, with
more males and transgender participants
 Effects of defusion exercise on implicit attitudes toward
specific terms (e.g., Gay versus Transgender)
 Do implicit attitudes predict overt social behavior?

33. References
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Power, P., Hayden, E., Milne, R., & Stewart, E. (2006). Do
You Really Know What You Believe? Developing the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure
(IRAP) as a direct measure of implicit beliefs. The Irish Psychologist, Volume 32, Number 7,
169-177.
Cullen, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2009). The implicit relational assessment
procedure (IRAP) and the malleability of ageist attitudes. The Psychological Record, 59(4),
591-620.
Cullen, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2008). Implicit pride and prejudice: A heterosexual
phenomenon? In T. G. Morrison & M. A. Morrison (Eds.), Modern Prejudice. New York: Nova
Science.
Greenwald, A.G., McGee, D.E., & Schwartz, J.L.K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in
implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 1464 – 1480.
Lillis, J., & Hayes, S. C. (2007). Applying acceptance, mindfulness, and values to the reduction of
prejudice: A pilot study. Behavior Modification, 31(4), 389-411.
Minett, S. (2008). Comparing information versus empathy in decreasing homophobic attitudes: An
intervention study. Retrieved from
http://psych.hanover.edu/Research/Thesis08/Minett2008.pdf