A Conditional Reasoning Measure for Aggression

Abstract

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).

Sleep and its association with aggression among prisoners: Quantity or quality?

“…Todorov & Bargh, 2002;James et al, 2005;Ireland & Birch, 2013;Bluemke, Friedrich & Zumbach, 2009;Frost, Ko & James, 2007). The findings have also extended to prison samples where the more impulsive implicit processing, rather than the more cognitively effortful processing, is thought to relate to increased aggression tendencies (Ireland & Adams, 2015).…”

Successful Psychopaths: Are They Unethical Decision-Makers and Why?

“…We argue that the balance between psychopathic tendencies and the drive hold a positive view of the self as a successful individual may be maintained through ''defense mechanisms'' (Cramer 1998(Cramer , 2000 that allow the simultaneous expression of negative and positive aspects of the self. This approach has previously been used in the context of aggressive individuals, who must similarly balance negative drives (i.e., aggression) with the drive for positive self-worth (see James et al 2005). As it pertains to psychopathy, such defense mechanisms, in the form of moral disengagement, may allow psychopaths to simultaneously satisfy their drive for normviolating behavior, while maintaining a positive view of the self as a successful individual.…”

Impact of situational framing and complexity on charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders: Investigation using a computer simulation

“…The measure is based on a variation of procedures suggested by James (2005), LeBreton, Barksdale, Robin, and James (2007), and Mumford, Connelly, Helton, Van Doorn, and Osborn (2002). These studies indicated that personality may be determined via examination of complex problems that allow for expression of differential beliefs.…”