Scholarlink

<p>The development of procedures to assess the psychological functions of stimuli has long been a prevalent endeavor in psychological science. It can be argued that one of the most influential of such procedures is the implicit association test (IAT), which was conceived as a measure of implicit attitudes within social-cognitive psychology. Two other procedures, developed within a behavior-analytic theoretical framework, were inspired by the IAT: the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the function acquisition speed test (FAST). The current article aims to thoroughly describe and compare the IAT, the IRAP and the FAST, focusing on their procedural characteristics and theoretical backgrounds, before then considering theoretical implications specific to each procedure. Finally, we briefly reflect on a number of theoretical implications that arose from the foregoing comparisons. In so doing, several points of contact and departure are highlighted. We conclude by advocating for an equitable and comprehensive evaluation of these methodologies when considering their use within the experimental analysis of human behavior.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Reflecting upon Similarities and Differences among the IAT, the IRAP, and the FAST: Searching for Clarity

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月9日

查看全文
  • Alceu Regaço,
  • Colin Harte,
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes,
  • Julio C. de Rose

摘要

The development of procedures to assess the psychological functions of stimuli has long been a prevalent endeavor in psychological science. It can be argued that one of the most influential of such procedures is the implicit association test (IAT), which was conceived as a measure of implicit attitudes within social-cognitive psychology. Two other procedures, developed within a behavior-analytic theoretical framework, were inspired by the IAT: the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the function acquisition speed test (FAST). The current article aims to thoroughly describe and compare the IAT, the IRAP and the FAST, focusing on their procedural characteristics and theoretical backgrounds, before then considering theoretical implications specific to each procedure. Finally, we briefly reflect on a number of theoretical implications that arose from the foregoing comparisons. In so doing, several points of contact and departure are highlighted. We conclude by advocating for an equitable and comprehensive evaluation of these methodologies when considering their use within the experimental analysis of human behavior.