Reply to Barnes-Holmes & Harte (2022) “The IRAP as a Measure of Implicit Cognition: A Case of Frankenstein’s Monster”

Resumen

Barnes-Holmes & Harte (2022) recently provided an account of the history of the development and use of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP), and used this account as a springboard for suggestions for future research. Unfortunately, their core assertions are at odds with the published scientific record. This raises questions about the reliability of their recommendations. This reply uses the publications found by an existing systematic review of the published IRAP literature to show that, contrary to Barnes-Holmes & Harte’s (2022) account, (1) Barnes-Holmes repeatedly and explicitly stated that the IRAP is an implicit measure, and (2) Barnes- Holmes did not “lose control” of the task. Rather, he and his research group have produced the majority of all IRAP publications. The credibility of Barnes-Holmes & Harte’s (2022) suggestions regarding the future of the IRAP is undermined by their inaccurate account of its past. However, their analogy with Frankenstein’s monster still holds, albeit under an alternative and correct reading of Shelly’s novel as a cautionary tale about scientific recklessness.

Áreas y palabras clave

Cómo citar (APA 7)

Hussey, I. (2022). Reply to Barnes-Holmes & Harte (2022) “The IRAP as a Measure of Implicit Cognition: A Case of Frankenstein’s Monster”. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qmg6s