Democratic Public Justification

Democratic institutions are appealing means of making publicly justified social choices. By allowing participation by all citizens, democracy can accommodate diversity among citizens, and by considering the perspectives of all, via ballots or debate, democratic results can approximate what the balance of reasons favors. I consider whether, and under what conditions, democratic institutions might reliably make publicly justified social decisions. I argue that conventional accounts of democracy, constituted by voting or deliberation, are unlikely to be effective public justification mechanisms. I conclude that the limitations of conventional mechanisms can be ameliorated through the use of lotteries instead of elections.

Identifying, Defining, and Measuring Justification Mechanisms: The Implicit Biases Underlying Individual Differences

Twenty years ago, conditional reasoning (CR) was presented as a technology for assessing the implicit aspects of personality. Although this assessment method has been lauded as an advance for organizational scholarship, relatively few CR tests have been developed and validated. We argue that a major impediment to the broader implementation of this technique has been the disproportional emphasis by researchers on measurement-related issues at the expense of better describing the core theoretical processes that underlie CR—namely, justification mechanisms (JMs). In an effort to rectify this problem we (a) explain the differences between implicit and explicit individual differences, (b) introduce the key psychological mechanism associated with these implicit individual differences as conceptualized through CR (JMs), (c) describe how researchers can identify JMs, and (d) discuss how JMs may be measured with CR items. Our work is intended to serve as a catalyst for future CR initiatives by refocusing the attention of researchers on the theoretical underpinnings of CR, thus enabling researchers to build more theoretically sound tests.

Conditional Reasoning

Conditional reasoning refers to both a general theory of personality and an indirect measurement system used to assess personality. The basic tenets of the conditional reasoning theory of personality include: a) individuals’ wish to maintain a self-perception that their behavior is reasonable, logical, rational, and appropriate (versus unreasonable, illogical, irrational, and inappropriate); b) individuals with a strong implicit motive (desire or need) to pursue a behavior will develop biased patterns of reasoning that facilitates the conclusion that their behavior was indeed reasonable (i.e., logical, rational, appropriate); c) biases that serve to enhance the logical appeal of motive-based behaviors may be referred to as “justification mechanisms”; and d) distinct clusters or sets of justification mechanisms will be associated with each implicit motive. The basic tenets of the conditional reasoning measurement system include: a) it is possible to measure the extent to which justification mechanisms influence (i.e., bias) reasoning by asking individuals to solve inductive reasoning problems; b) individuals with stronger levels of the implicit motive (e.g., motive to aggress) will be more likely to select solutions to reasoning problems that are derived from the motive-relevant justification mechanisms (e.g., hostile attribution bias, retribution bias, derogation of target bias); and c) conditional reasoning is said to occur when the likelihood of judging a solution to an inductive reasoning problem as “correct” depends on the personality (i.e., the implicit motives and accompanying justification mechanisms) of the respondent.

Conditional Reasoning Test for Creative Personality: Rationale, Theoretical Development, and Validation

The innovations of creative individuals are regarded as vital for business functioning and survival. To this end, efforts have been made to design measures of creative personality in hopes of predicting creative performance. Current measures of creative personality all reside at the explicit level, yet theory and research both suggest that a large proportion of personality can also be conceptualized at the implicit level. We address this issue by presenting a theoretical basis for creative personality that operates on an implicit level. Using conditional reasoning methodology, we describe five cognitive biases that serve as justification mechanisms for creative personality. Next, we link implicit creative personality to creative abilities through a developmental process. We then test this model and our new measure of creative personality in five different studies. Our results provide evidence in support of an implicit component of creative personality and suggest that it is a substantial predictor of creative performance. Finally, we describe the management and human resources implications of the conceptualization of creative personality as an implicit construct.