Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Organizational Research Methods
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (12)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by James, L. R.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, L. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Conditional Reasoning Measure for Aggression

Lawrence R. James

Michael D. McIntyre

Charles A. Glisson

Phillip D. Green

Timothy W. Patton

James M. LeBreton

Brian C. Frost

Sara M. Russell

University of Tennessee

Chris J. Sablynski

Terence R. Mitchell

University of Washington

Larry J. Williams

Virginia Commonwealth University

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).

Key Words: aggression • conditional reasoning • personality • measurement

Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 8, No. 1, 69-99 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1094428104272182


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of ManagementHome page
M. A. Korsgaard, S. Soyoung Jeong, D. M. Mahony, and A. H. Pitariu
A Multilevel View of Intragroup Conflict
Journal of Management, December 1, 2008; 34(6): 1222 - 1252.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organizational Research MethodsHome page
M. N. Bing, J. M. LeBreton, H. K. Davison, D. Z. Migetz, and L. R. James
Integrating Implicit and Explicit Social Cognitions for Enhanced Personality Assessment: A General Framework for Choosing Measurement and Statistical Methods
Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2007; 10(2): 346 - 389.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organizational Research MethodsHome page
M. N. Bing, J. M. LeBreton, H. K. Davison, D. Z. Migetz, and L. R. James
Integrating Implicit and Explicit Social Cognitions for Enhanced Personality Assessment: A General Framework for Choosing Measurement and Statistical Methods
Organizational Research Methods, January 1, 2007; 10(1): 136 - 179.
[Abstract] [PDF]