Conditional Reasoning Tests:
A Novel Type of Test Derived from
A Novel Theory of Personality

Conditional reasoning theory is based on the fact that individuals with strong personality traits develop a unique biases that serve to justify or rationalize behaviors that are consistent with their personality traits.

For example, an individual with a strong motive to aggress (i.e., to harm others) develops biases such as the hostile attribution bias (i.e., others can not be trusted) or retribution bias (i.e., retaliation is preferable to reconciliation). These biases are used to justify actions of aggression (e.g., gossiping about coworkers behind their backs; "getting even" with one's boss theft or sabotage). These sets of biases represent the "cognitive fingerprint" and require a new form of measurement.

Conditional Reasoning: A New Form of Measurement

Below are two examples of Conditional Reasoning Test items. The first item is designed to measure the Retribution Bias which is associated with the Motive to Aggress. The second item is designed to measure the Positive Connotation of Achieving Bias associated with the Motive to Achieve and the its competitor the Negative Connotation of Achieving Bias, associated with the Motive to Avoid Failure (or Fear of Failure).

These items are referred to as conditional reasoning items, because the extent to which the solution to a problem is judged to be reasonable depends on (i.e., is conditional on) the strong of the individual's personality traits.

Conditional Reasoning Test Item for the Motive to Aggress

The old saying, “an eye for an eye,” means that if someone hurts you, then you should hurt that person back. If you are hit, then you should hit back. If someone burns your house, then you should burn that person’s house.

Which of the following is the biggest problem with the “eye for an eye” plan?

a. It tells people to “turn the other cheek.”
b. It offers no way to settle a conflict in a friendly manner. (Prosocial)
c. It can be used only at certain times of the year.
d. People have to wait until they are attacked before they can strike. (Aggression)

Conditional Reasoning Test Item for the Relative Strength of the Motives to Achieve and to Avoid Failure

Burnout is a problem experienced by many professionals who work in intense jobs that require dedication and many hours of work. It consists of feelings of being stressed, tired, unable to perform at peak levels, and lack of ability to control events. It seems that people who dedicate themselves to difficult, intense jobs are opening themselves up to burnout.

Which one of the following would most weaken this conclusion?

a. People in non-stressful jobs have little trouble with burnout. (Fear of Failure)
b. People who are the most likely to suffer burnout are highly obsessive and compulsive about their work. (Fear of Failure)
c. Not all professionals develop burnout. (Motive to Achieve)
d. Professionals tend to make more money than non-professionals.

Conditional Reasoning: A New Theory of Personality

Conditional Reasoning: Tests Anchored in Science

Conditional Reasoning Test for Aggression (CRT-A)

LeBreton, J. M., Reichin, S. L., te Nijenhuis, J., Cremers, M., & van der Heijden-Lek, K. (in press). Validity evidence and measurement equivalence for a Dutch version of the conditional reasoning test for aggression. Applied Psychology: An International Review.

Davison, H. K., LeBreton, J. M., Stewart, S. M., & Bing, M. N. (2020). Investigating curvilinear relationships of explicit and implicit aggression with work outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(4), 501-0514.

Shiverdecker, L. K., & LeBreton, J. M. (2019). Antagonism and work functioning: Implicit and explicit considerations. In J. D. Miller & D. R. Lynam (Eds.), The handbook of antagonism: Conceptualizations, assessment, consequences, and treatment of the low end of agreeableness (pp. 281-295). Elsevier.

Gadelrab, H. F. (2018). An investigation of differential relationships of implicit and explicit aggression: Validation of an Arabic version of the conditional reasoning test for aggression. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(6), 609-620. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2018.1501695

Galic, Z., Ruzojcic, M., Jerneic, Z., & Grabovac, M. T. (2018). Disentangling the relationship between implicit aggressiveness and counterproductive work behaviors: The role of job attitudes. Human Performance, 31(2), 77-96. DOI: 10.1080/08959285.2018.1455686

Galic, Z., & Ruzojcic, M. (2017). Interaction between implicit aggression and dispositional self-control in explaining counterproductive work behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 111-117. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.046

Galic, Z. (2016). Conditional reasoning test for aggression: Further evidence about incremental validity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 24(1), 24-33.

Harris, D. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2015). Fast and furious: The influence of implicit aggression, premeditation, and provoking situations on malevolent creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 54-64. DOI: 10.1037/a0038499

Taylor, J. M., Bailey, S. F., & Barber, L. K. (2015). Academic entitlement and counterproductive research behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 13-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.024

Baysinger, M., Scherer, K. T., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). Exploring the disruptive effects of psychopathy and aggression on group processes and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 48-65. DOI: 10.1037/a0034317

Galic, Z., Scherer, K. T., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). Examining the measurement equivalence of the conditional reasoning test for aggression across U.S. and Croatian samples. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 56, 195-216.

Galic, Z., Scherer, K.T., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). Validity evidence for a Croatian version of the conditional reasoning test for aggression. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(4), 343-354.

Bowler, M. C., Woehr, D. J., Bowler, J. L., Wuensch, K. L., & McIntyre, M. D. (2011). The impact of interpersonal aggression on performance attributions. Group & Organizational Management, 36(4), 427-465. DOI: 10.1177/1059601111408897

Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Tobares, V. (2010). A meta-analysis of conditional reasoning tests of aggression. Personnel Psychology, 63, 361-384.

Bowler, M. C., Woehr, D. J., Rentsch, J. R., & Bowler, J. L. (2010). The impact of aggressive indivduals on team training. Personality and Individual Differences, 49 (2), 88-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.003

James, L. R., & LeBreton, J. M. (2010). Assessing aggression using conditional reasoning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 30-35. DOI: 10.1177/0963721409359279

Bing, M. N., Stewart, S. M., Davison, H. K., Green, P. D., McIntyre, M. D., & James, L. R. (2007). An integrative typology of personality assessment for aggression: Implications for predicting counterproductive workplace behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 722-744. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.722

Frost, B. C., Ko, C. E., & James, L. R. (2007). Implicit and explicit personality: A test of a channeling hypothesis for aggressive behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1299-13-19. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1299

Russell, S. M., & James, L. R. (2008). Recording lying, cheating, and defiance in an internet based simulated environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2014-2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.09.003

James, L. R., McIntyre, M. D., Glisson, C. A., Green, P. D., Patton, T. W., LeBreton, J. M., Frost, B. C., Russell, C. M., Sablynski, C. J., Mitchell, T. R., & Williams, L. J. (2005). A conditional reasoning measure for aggression. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 69-99.

James, L. R. McInytre, M. D., Glisson, C. D., Bowler, J. L., & Mitchell, T. R. (2004). The conditional reasoning measurement system for aggression: An overview. Human Performance, 17(3), 271-295.

Conditional Reasoning Test for Relative Motive Strength (CRT-RMS)

Schoen, J. L. (2015). Effects of implicit achievement motivation, expected evaluations, and domain knowledge on creative performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(3), 319-338. DOI: 10.1002/job.1982

Bing, M. N., LeBreton, J. M., Davison, H. K., Migetz, D. Z, & James, L. R. (2007). Integrating implicit and explicit social cognitions for enhanced personality assessment: A general framework for choosing measurement and statistical methods. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 346-389. DOI: 10.1177/1094428107301148

James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1(2), 131-163. DOI: 10.1177/109442819812001

Research on the Conditional Reasoning Test for Power (CRT-P)

Galic, Z., Ruzojcic, M., Bubic, A., Trojak, N., Zeljko, L., & LeBreton, J. M. (in press). Measuring the power motive using conditional reasoning: Some preliminary findings. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.

James, L. R., LeBreton, J. M., Mitchell, T. R., Smith, D. R., Desimone, J. A., Cookson, R., & Lee, H. J. (2013). Use of conditional reasoning to measure the power motive. In J. M. Cortina & R. S. Landis (Eds.), Modern research methods for the study of behavior in organizations (pp. 233-263). New York: Routledge.

The Basic Theory and Measurement Principles of Conditional Reasoning

Schoen, J. L., DeSimone, J. A., Meyer, R. D., Schnure, K. A., & LeBreton, J. M. (in press). Identifying, defining, and measuring justification mechanisms: The implicit biases underlying individual differences. Journal of Management.

LeBreton, J. M., Grimaldi, E. M., & Schoen, J. (2020). Conditional reasoning: Suggestions for test and development and validation. Organizational Research Methods, 23(1), 65-95. DOI: 10.1177/1094428118816366

Smith, D., Hoffman, M. E., & LeBreton, J. M. (2020). Conditional reasoning: An integrated approach to item analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 23(1), 124-153. DOI: 10.1177/1094428119879756l

DeSimone, J. A., & James, L. R. (2015). An item analysis of the conditional reasoning test of aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1872-1886. DOI: 10.1037/apl0000026

Conditional Reasoning Tests: A Novel Type of Test Derived from A Novel Theory of Personality