This article describes a new approach for assessing cognitive precursors to aggression. Referred to as the Conditional Reasoning Measurement System, this procedure focuses on how people solve what on the surface appear to be traditional inductive reasoning problems. The true intent of the problems is to determine if solutions based on implicit biases (i.e., biases that operate below the surface of consciousness) are logically attractive to a respondent. The authors focus on the types of implicit biases that underlie aggressive individuals’attempts to justify aggressive behavior. People who consistently select solutions based on these types of biases are scored as being potentially aggressive because they are cognitively prepared to rationalize aggression. Empirical tests of the conditional reasoning system are interpreted in terms of Ozer’s criteria for ideal personality instruments. Noteworthy findings are that the system has acceptable psychometric properties and an average, uncorrected empirical validity of 0.44 against behavioral indicators of aggression (based on 11 studies).

Because employees may be reluctant to admit to performing deviant acts, the authors of this study reexamined the commonly used self-report measure of workplace deviance developed by R. J. Bennett and S. L. Robinson (2000). Specifically, the self-report measure was modified into a non-self-report measure based on multiple other-reported assessments to address methodological concerns with self-reported information regarding deviant workplace behaviors. The authors assessed the psychometric properties of this new measure by first conducting an exploratory factor analysis, which indicated a 3-factor structure (production deviance, property deviance, and personal aggression). Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis on a different sample verified these findings. Taken together, the results suggest that the content and psychometric qualities of this non-self-report measure of workplace deviance closely represent S. L. Robinson and R. J. Bennett's (1995) original typology of workplace deviance. The potential usefulness of this measure in organizational studies is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

This study presents an integrative typology of personality assessment for aggression. In this typology, self-report and conditional reasoning (L. R. James, 1998) methodologies are used to assess 2 separate, yet often congruent, components of aggressive personalities. Specifically, self-report is used to assess explicit components of aggressive tendencies, such as self-perceived aggression, whereas conditional reasoning is used to assess implicit components, in particular, the unconscious biases in reasoning that are used to justify aggressive acts. These 2 separate components are then integrated to form a new theoretical typology of personality assessment for aggression. Empirical tests of the typology were subsequently conducted using data gathered across 3 samples in laboratory and field settings and reveal that explicit and implicit components of aggression can interact in the prediction of counterproductive, deviant, and prosocial behaviors. These empirical tests also reveal that when either the self-report or conditional reasoning methodology is used in isolation, the resulting assessment of aggression may be incomplete. Implications for personnel selection, team composition, and executive coaching are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract