This thesis extends a view of human reasoning which emphasises a theory of interpretation in conditional reasoning. It extends work on Wason’s (1968) ‘selection task’, using novel rules and contexts to explore the factors that control subject interpretations, which in turn is reflected in their performance. After reviewing the work on conditional reasoning and particularly the interpretative framework of Stenning & van Lambalgen (2004), the thesis explores subjects’ reasoning with rules that describe processes extended in time in two experiments. The most striking finding is that many subjects exhibit an unusual constant anaphor reading, even though the anaphors involved are tenses rather than pronouns. Results are explained in terms of the temporal constraints involved in the situation described. The thesis then uses novel ‘information packaging’ manipulations which use colour to emphasise different distinctions in Wason’s original task. This manipulation provides evidence of where subjects’ attention already rests. This is combined with a task that gathers data of subjects’ interpretation of negation. Results are consistent with the idea that although subjects in the standard task are focussed on the distinction between cases that fit the rule and ones that do not, there is evidence that emphasising the mapping of the antecedent/consequent onto back/front of the cards is sensitive to these manipulations. The negation interpretation task reveals striking divergences between subjects’ interpretations and the classical model assumed in the literature, and these differences are interpretable in terms of default logic. A few conditions were originally designed as controls only to end up generating striking results of their own. Colour is used in the truth conditional semantics of the rules (black/white replaces number/letter or vowel/consonant) instead of being used as mere information packaging. Sizable increases in ‘classical competence’ responses are observed and this is interpreted in terms of the non-hierarchical structure of the properties used. Studies using LSA and a novel tensor network operating on a database of rules gathered from selection task literature show conclusively that higher frequencies of function words appear in descriptive rules than they do in deontic rules. This thesis concludes that it is possible to direct subjects towards various interpretations on the task through the use of semantic manipulations that include but are not restricted to the ones observed in this work. Issues that include resolving the anaphora in the problem, the hierarchy of the structure of properties and the negation of clauses clearly influence the interpretation subjects arrive at which in turn affects their reasoning and responses. Results indicate that subject assumptions concerning negatives are different from those made by experimenters which inform all major theories including Mental Models, Information Gain and those based on mental logic. In particular, subjects’ most frequent selections indicate that they are selecting an implicit negative which is the opposite of what is expected by the principle of truth of Mental Models.

This thesis reports the results of both normative and empirical investigations into human conditional reasoning, i.e. reasoning using if ... then and related constructions. Previous empirical investigations have concentrated on experimental paradigms like Wason's Selection Task, where subjects must assess evidence relevant to the truth or falsity of a conditional rule. Popperian falsification provided the normative theory by which to assess errorful behaviour on these tasks. However, it is doubtful whether this is an appropriate normative theory from which to derive a competence model of human reasoning abilities. The relationship between normative theory and competence model need not be direct, no more than the relationship between competence model and performance needs to be. However, research in this area has imported a theory directly into individual psychology from the philosophy of science. On the apparently orthodox assumption of directness, continued adherence to this import may stand in need of re-assessment in the light of the quite radical descriptive inadequacy of falsification as a model of rational scientific inquiry. However, this model also possesses the virtue of relating the interpretation of the rule directly to the normative task strategy. Hence, this thesis has two aims: first, to retain the virtue of a direct relation between normative task strategy and interpretation while simultaneously offering a competence model which is consistent with more recent and descriptively adequate accounts of the process of scientific inquiry. In Part I, this will involve introducing a semantic theory (situation semantics) and showing that the process of inquiry implicit in this semantic theory is consistent with recent normative conceptions in the philosophy of science. The second aim is to show that the competence model derived in Part I can provide a sound rational basis for subjects' observed patterns of reasoning in conditional reasoning tasks. In Part II, chapter 5, the data obtained from the Wason Selection Task using only affirmative rules is discussed and the behaviour observed rationally reconstructed in terms of the competence model of Part I. A central concept of that model is partial interpretation (motivated by concerns of context sensitivity). Prima facie evidence for partial interpretation is provided by the observation of defective truth tables. However, in conditional reasoning experiments using negated constituents, this evidence has been interpreted differently. A subsidiary aim of Part II (which will constitute the largest section of this thesis) therefore concerns the empirical demonstration of the consistency of this data with the competence model.

The purpose of this study is to re-analyze existing findings in order to demonstrate and summarize relationships between criteria and the sub-scales/dimensions of the Conditional Reasoning Test for Aggression (CRT-A): Externalizing, Internalizing, and Powerlessness. A CRT-A sub-scale was expected to relate more strongly with criteria categorized as being more relevant to the dimension that is represented by that sub-scale. For criteria that were categorized as relevant to only a subset of the dimensions represented by CRT-A sub-scales, the regression of a criterion on all three sub-scales was expected to create a better fitting model than the regression of a criterion on the CRT-A total score alone. Scales were also expected to interact to predict criteria. This was expected to be most likely when multiple dimensions of implicit aggression were activated by environmental factors to influence specific behaviors. Support was found for all expectations

There have been a number of studies showing that the Conditional Reasoning Test for Aggression (CRT-A) is a valid measure of one's implicit preparedness to engage in activities that are intended to harm others. Few studies have examined the predictive power of subscales of the CRT-A. The purpose of this project is to examine the validity of the CRT-A and its subscales for predicting unnecessary corrective action requests filed in a sample of employees working in a nuclear power plant. Results indicate that the Powerlessness subscale differentiates employees who file unnecessary reports from employees who do not.

Previous research has indicated that aggression is generally detrimental to performance in the occupational domain (Campbell, 1990; James et al., 2005; Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). In certain athletic contexts, however, aggression may serve to enhance performance at the team level. For this analysis, team-level aggression is hypothesized to be positively related to team performance in basketball. Aggression in this context is defined as "the desire to inflict harm on another individual, group, or entity" (James, 2005, p.71). Both implicit (CRT-A) and explicit (NEO-PI-R) aggression were measured, and team performance was represented primarily by team scores. The data demonstrate that team-level implicit aggression is significantly and positively related to team performance, however team-level explicit aggression does not have a significant relationship with team performance.

Because of the outcomes associated with employee turnover, few areas have been researched as extensively in the field of Industrial/Organizational Psychology (Cotton&Tuttle, 1986). Correlates and consequences of employee turnover have been widely examined, though less expansive research has been dedicated to identifying (and potentially screening) turnover prone candidates. To address this concern, the comparative utility of three personality measures for predicting voluntary turnover in law enforcement was assessed. Self-report predictor measures consisted of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2, the most widely used instrument in this industry, and the Personality Research Form-E. The implicit personality measure for this investigation was the Conditional Reasoning Test for Aggression (James, 1998). In line with previous research (e.g., Hough, 1998), self-report job applicant scores indicated a defensive or self-presentation bias, whereas the CRT-A did not. Normative and comparative data for all predictor measures are presented to further knowledge for the researcher and practitioner. The importance of context, in this case the influence of the economy on attrition rates, is also discussed.

Differential framing occurs when individuals with different latent motives assign qualitatively different meanings to the same attributes or events in the environment (James&Mazerolle, 2002; James&McIntyre, 1996). The implications of this phenomenon for the explanation and prediction of behavior are substantial: In perfectly logical fashions, individuals in exactly the same situation have qualitatively different experiences. In this way, differential framing mediates the relationship between motives and the behaviors that comprise traits. This dissertation tested several propositions associated with this phenomenon, and the results tentatively suggest that individuals with contrasting motives form qualitatively distinct impressions of the same organizational cultures.

Several decades of leadership research have failed to yield a personality measure that accurately predicts successful leaders (Bernus&Manis, 1985; Stogdill, 1974; Vroom&Yago, 2007; Yukl, 1989). A new implicit measure of personality, the Conditional Reasoning Test for Leadership (CRT-L), shows promise in this endeavor. This project investigated the construct and criterion-related validities of this measure. Previous research on implicit personality measures, and specifically conditional reasoning measures, has demonstrated that their relationship to their explicit measure counterparts tends to be modest or nonexistent. This was the case for the CRT-L, which had no relationship to the NEO Hostility Scale or the Motivation to Lead (MTL) Scale. As expected, the two explicit measures did have a significant and positive relationship (r = .42). The CRT-L was also effective at predicting leadership and power criteria. It had positive and significant relationships with Leadership Peer Nominations (r = .25) and Power Peer Nominations (r = .21) and was more successful in these predictions than either of the explicit measures. The results of this research provide evidence for the effectiveness of the CRT-L as a leadership measure and further validation work is encouraged.

This study tested a dissociative model of aggression measurement. Aggression is construed as having two components, each of which is associated more strongly with either implicit or explicit measures of aggression. A videogame based frustration manipulation was used to elicit hostile aggressive responses in the form of hard force applied to buttons. Instrumental aggression criteria were also assessed in the form of honesty in reporting game outcomes, willingness to pause games while believing that pausing could damage the study results, and willingness to use unfair strategies that are also described as damaging to study results. Differential prediction of these behaviors by implicit and explicit measures of aggression supported a dissociative model of aggression measurement.

This study explored the relationship between a new self-report measure built from justification mechanisms of aggression (i.e., the basis of conditional reasoning; James, 1998) with a traditional explicit measure and an implicit conditional reasoning measure of aggression. The construct validity and generalizability of the new measure were investigated by using non-work related criteria (violent acts, traffic violations, alcohol use, competitiveness, and agreeableness) in an undergraduate student sample. Correlations and moderated hierarchical multiple regressions were used to assess the relationships between variables. The results support the literature in that both explicit and implicit components of personality need to be examined. In conclusion, the newly developed measure fills a gap in the literature by operationalizing aggression as reasons for behaving aggressively. It is similar to the explicit aggression measure in that it is a self-report; however, the moderate correlation between the two suggests that each is measuring slightly different aspects of aggression.