Some theoretical questions and question-hypotheses concerning the IRAP and RFT:
The IRAP seems to be a measure of implicit preferences, in contrast with the explicit preferences. Explicit preferences are more influenced by social control (eg political correctness).
1. Does relational framing influence the more implicit preferences as well as the explicit? And if yes, how?
2. Can we say it’s good to be aware of our implicit preferences (as revealed by the IRAP) and make choices without bringing them into account? The implicit is good to know, to realize it’s there. But the explicit is the more important? We can learn to live our life in the direction of our explicit preferences. E.g.: ‘Muslims are terrorists’ vs ‘I want to live with all kinds of people. Not all Muslims are equal. I do respect them.’ IRAP might reveal the first relation, but the second could be more important.
3. When existing relational networks are extended with new S, will these S influence the implicit functions or the explicit or both (depending on context)?
4. when the implicit preferences and the explicit preferences are different, contextual influences are responsible for these differences? Experiential avoidance, political correctness, … If these contextual S are not present, the implicit and explicit preferences are growing more toward each other?
5. cognitive therapy is working on the explicit relations by social control? After cognitive therapy the implicit positions might stay unchanged?
6. when the social pressure is very high (IRAP on ‘Muslims are terrorists’ taken by a clearly Muslim researcher and without anonymity) even the implicit measures could be influenced? (contextual cues are stronger).
7. explicit, but perhaps also implicit preferences can reverse? E.g. the Muslim-experiment described above: when after a while the apparently-Muslim researcher says he’s anti-Muslim (eg political refugee) – after this the IRAP-scores might reverse?
Francis De Groot
francis.de.groot@fracarita.org