IMPLICIT PERSONALITY:
THEORY &
MEASUREMENT
James M. LeBreton
Purdue University
Presentation at the Georgia Tech/CARMA
Webcast
Honoring the Career Contributions of
Professor Larry James
April 26, 2013
1
OVERVIEW
• Discuss Larry’s Contributions in the area of Personality
Theory & Measurement.
• I will review the implicit and explicit component of
personality
• Explain how Larry developed conditional reasoning to
address the limitations of these traditional measurement
systems
• Summarize his nearly 20 year research program involving
conditional reasoning
• I will also try to integrate a few of the “lessons from
Larry” that I acquired over the last 15 years of working
with him
April 26, 2013
2
LESSON # 1
Read big. Think big. Write big.
There are 134,000 members of APA
Maybe 4,000 are members of Division 14
Be well-read…
Scientifically
Practically
April 26, 2013
3
IMPACT IS THE YARDSTICK OF SCIENCE
Total Citations – 14,394
H-Index – 45
Citation Classics –
4 papers cited over 1,000 times
15 papers cited over 200 times
26 papers cited over 100 times
4/13/2015
4
LESSON #2
Only conduct research on topics you
find absolutely fascinating.
Research should be fun, not work.
Persistence is as important as creativity.
Spend time each day just thinking.
Don’t try to force creativity, let it occur
naturally.
April 26, 2013
5
ORIGINS OF CONDITIONAL REASONING
After studying work environments for 20
years, Larry concluded the action is with
people not situations.
After studying people in those work
environments, Larry concluded people
often lack insight into what motivates their
behaviors, thoughts, and emotions.
April 26, 2013
6
ORIGINS OF CONDITIONAL REASONING
Individuals often provide motivated or
biased accounts of their behavior; motivated
reasoning
 Political debates & the checklist of biases
 We are typically oblivious to our own biased
reasoning
 Yet, we want to believe we are rational; thus we
have great confidence in the correctness of our
positions, beliefs, conclusions, etc.
April 26, 2013
7
EXPLICIT PERSONALIT Y
That part of personality about which we
are conscious or aware (i.e., about which
we can introspect)
That part of personality that lends itself to
self-descriptions concerning
characteristics ways of thinking, feeling,
and behaving
Measured directly via self-report
questionnaires or interviews
April 26, 2013
8
IMPLICIT PERSONALIT Y
That part of personality which is hidden
and operating outside of conscious
awareness
By definition, the part of personality which
is not accessible via introspective selfdescription
Measured indirectly via projective tests or
response latency tests
April 26, 2013
9
PERSONALIT Y &
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
 The overwhelming majority of organizational
research has examined the role of the explicit
personality.
 Well-Developed Understanding of Key Traits




Big Five Traits
Core Self-Evaluations
Dark Triad
Positive & Negative Affect
 Well-Developed Measurement Technologies
 Self-Report Questionnaires
 Structure Interviews
April 26, 2013
10
PERSONALIT Y &
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
 Scant research has examined how the implicit
personality influences behavior in organizations.
 More rudimentary understanding of Implicit
Motives and Implicit Processes
 Murray’s Needs
 Freud’s defense mechanisms
 Measurement technologies with a history of
psychometric and practical problems
 Projective Tests
 Response Latency Tests
April 26, 2013
11
PROJECTIVE TESTS: LIMITATIONS
Concerns related to:
Time and cost of test administration and
scoring
Limited normative data
Lack of standardization in administration,
scoring, and interpretation
Weak evidence of interrater reliability and
inconsistent validity evidence
April 26, 2013
12
LESSON #3
It is easy to point out the limitations or
problems with a particular area of
research.
It is much more difficult to offer a
potential solution to those problems.
April 26, 2013
13
LESSON #4
Set high standards for your research
program. You will rise to the challenge.
April 26, 2013
14
LARRY’S SELF-IMPOSED STANDARDS FOR
TESTS OF IMPLICIT PERSONALIT Y
 Maintain or enhance the indirect nature of assessment
 Maintain the use of diverse, evocative stimuli as part of
the assessment process
 Maintain the independence from explicit measures
 Maintain a relative immunity to test faking/distortion
 Must be amenable to the development of non -arbitrary
metrics
 Must be amenable to standardization of administration,
scoring, and interpretation
 Must be able to predict real-world behaviors; test scores
must yield evidence of criterion-related validity
April 26, 2013
15
LESSON 5
Always let your theory guide your method.
April 26, 2013
16
COGNITIVE BIASES AS A WINDOW INTO THE
IMPLICIT PERSONALIT Y
 James (1998) introduced a psychometrically rigorous
and efficient system for measuring aspects of the
psychological unconscious.
 His approach was based on the principle that
systematic biases in what people regard as rational
analyses open a window into the operation of their
implicit minds.
April 26, 2013
17
THE THEORY: RATIONAL ANALYSIS &
THE MOTIVE TO AGGRESS
 Individuals want to believe that their behavior is
rational, reasonable, logical, and appropriate.
 These qualities are relative to one’s favored standards,
beliefs, and reasoning processes; and, the favored
standards, beliefs, and reasoning processes of highly
aggressive individuals are often far from rational,
reasonable, logical, and appropriate relative to general
conceptions of socially acceptable conduct.
 Instead, society often views aggressive behavior as
unwarranted, too severe, irrational, overstated, and simply
inappropriate.
April 26, 2013
18
THE THEORY: RATIONAL ANALYSIS &
THE MOTIVE TO AGGRESS
 Highly aggressive individuals see their
behaviors as reasonable and justifiable:
 as responses by oppressed persons acting
in self-defense, or
 appropriate means of seeking retaliation
or retribution for past wrongs.
April 26, 2013
19
THE THEORY: RATIONAL ANALYSIS &
THE MOTIVE TO AGGRESS
 James (1998) argued that in order to
maintain the sense of rationality, aggressive
individuals rely on implicit cognitive biases to
enhance the logical appeal of their
aggressive behavior.
 He referred to these implicit biases as
justification mechanisms (JMs) to emphasize
the critical role they play in justifying
aggressive behavior.
April 26, 2013
20
JUSTIFICATION MECHANISMS
JMs impact how a person:
 Perceive, thinks, and analyzes situations.
JMs impact cognitive processes such as:
 Perception (e.g., selective attention)
 Information search strategies (e.g., confirmatory
biases)
 Reasoning
 Causal inference
April 26, 2013
21
JUSTIFYING THE MOTIVE TO AGGRESS
The Hostile Attribution Bias consists of an
implicit predilection to assume that
malevolent purpose or harmful intent is the
primary motivation underlying the behaviors
of others.
April 26, 2013
22
JMS SHAPE REASONING
Example: Hostile Attribution Bias
 Individuals selectively attend to information that
indicates others should not be trusted.
 They engage in reasoning strategies that seek to
confirm this initial impression and thus justify
aggressive behavior against this untrustworthy
person.
 They may over-emphasize irrelevant information
supporting their perception and discount salient
information that might disconfirm this perception.
April 26, 2013
23
JUSTIFYING THE MOTIVE TO AGGRESS
 The Potency Bias involves an implicit proclivity to
frame interactions with others as contests to
establish dominance versus submissiveness.
 The Retribution Bias involves an unconscious
tendency to confer logical priority to retaliation
over reconciliation.
 The Victimization by Powerful Others Bias is an
implicit tendency to see everyday people
(including oneself) as victims of inequity,
exploitation, injustice, or oppression by powerful
others.
April 26, 2013
24
JUSTIFYING THE MOTIVE TO AGGRESS
 The Derogation of Target Bias is based on an
implicit tendency to characterize those one
wishes to make (or has made) targets of
aggression as evil, immoral, or untrustworthy.
To infer or associate such traits with a target
makes the target more deserving of
aggression.
 The Social Discounting Bias is based on the
implicit assumption that social norms and
customs restrict free will and the right to
satisfy needs. Reasoning shaped by this bias
reflects disdain for traditional ideals and
conventional beliefs.
April 26, 2013
25
THE METHOD: CONDITIONAL REASONING
• James (1998; James et al., 2004; James et
al., 2005) introduced a new measurement
system called conditional reasoning which
he designed to assess justification
mechanisms.
• The new measurement system is:
• Indirect – asks respondents to solve inductive
reasoning problems
• Objective – responses are objectively scored
without the need for a subjective or clinical
analysis or interpretation
April 26, 2013
26
LESSON #6
There are two fundamental rules for the
study of personality (implicit or explicit):
Study of personality must occur in contexts that
are relevant/evocative to the trait/motive of
interest.
Individuals must have degrees of freedom
available in those contexts – that is, the study
of personality must occur in weak situations.
April 26, 2013
27
ITEM STEM
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.
April 26, 2013
28
ITEM RESPONSES
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.
c. It can only be used at certain times of the year.
d. People have to wait until they are attacked before
they can strike.
April 26, 2013
29
D.
PEOPLE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY ARE
ATTACKED BEFORE THEY CAN STRIKE.
 This alternative tacitly promotes retribution as being
logically preferable to reconciliation (Retribution
Bias) is founded on the unstated assumption that the
powerful will inflict harm on the less powerful unless
the less powerful strike first (Victimization & Potency
Biases)
April 26, 2013
30
B.
IT OFFERS NO WAY TO SETTLE A
CONFLICT IN A FRIENDLY MANNER.
 This alternative was designed to be logically
attractive to prosocial individuals because it
promotes a prosocial counterbalance to the
antagonistic and provocative tenor of the aggression
alternative, and is grounded in the unstated
assumption that conflict is logically less reasonable
than compromise and cooperation.
April 26, 2013
31
ANSWERS A & C
 These two alternatives are included to enhance the
face validity of the task and to protect the indirect
nature of measurement.
 Alternatives a and c are meant to be clearly illogical
and rejected by respondents (which is usually the
case).
April 26, 2013
32
JMS & CONDITIONAL REASONING
• James (1998; James et al., 2005; James & LeBreton,
2012) noted that reasoning which varies among
individuals with contrasting motives and justification
mechanisms is referred to as "conditional
reasoning.“
• The previous item is a conditional reasoning
problem; the likelihood that a respondent selects the
aggressive response is conditional on the extent to
which JMs for aggression versus prosocial values and
ideologies are instrumental in shaping his or her
reasoning.
April 26, 2013
33
CONDITIONAL REASONING
TESTS OF AGGRESSION
CRT-A: 22 conditional reasoning (CR)
problems and three inductive reasoning
problems.
 Scored"+1" for aggression (AG) alternative
 “0” for every logically incorrect alternative and for
each prosocial or non-aggressive (NA) alternative
Total scores are positively skewed
 8-10% of respondents considered highly aggressive
April 26, 2013
34
LESSON #7
Science is a marathon, not a sprint.
April 26, 2013
35
CONDITIONAL REASONING












Larry started working on CR ~1994
I arrived at the University of Tennessee in 1997
James (1998)
I graduated in 2002
James et al., 2004
James et al., 2005
Bing et al, 2007a
Bing et al., 2007b
Frost et al., 2007
LeBreton et al., 2007
James & LeBreton, 2010
James & LeBreton, 2012
4/13/2015
36
LESSON # 8
Cross Validate
And then, cross-validate some more.
April 26, 2013
37
LESSON # 9
The true test of any criterion-related
validity effort is whether the test
predicts actual behavior.
April 26, 2013
38
LESSON # 10
 Construct validity evidence used to support
the use of a particular criterion is every bit as
important as construct validity evidence used
to support the use of a particular predictor.
 Work forward from psychology, not backward
from behavior—all behavior is multiply
determined.
April 26, 2013
39
EVIDENCE OF
CRITERION-RELATED VALIDIT Y
Criterion
Version
Validity
140 Patrol
Officers
CRT
-.49
2. Absences from
Class
188 Undergrads
CRT
.37
3. Lack of
Truthfulness about
Extra Credit
60 Undergrads
VCRT
.49
CRT
.42
VCRT
.55
1. Performance Ratings
4. Absences from
Work
5. Conduct Violations
Sample
97 Nuclear
Facility Operators
225 Undergrads
40
EVIDENCE OF
CRITERION-RELATED VALIDIT Y
Criterion
Sample
Version
Validity
CRT
.32
105 Package
Handlers
CRT-A
.34
8. Work Unreliability
111 Temporary
Employees
CRT-A
.43
9. Theft
95 Undergrads
CRT-A
.64
191 Undergrads
CRT-A
.38
6. Attrition
135 Restaurant
Employees
7. Absences from
Work
10. Hard Fouls &
Fights in Intramural
Basketball
November 13, 2012
41
EVIDENCE OF
CRITERION-RELATED VALIDIT Y
Criterion
Sample
Version
Validity
11. Lying & Cheating
in Internet-Based
Simulation
191 Undergraduates
CRT-A
.40
12. Overt Aggression
in Intramural
Basketball
183 Undergraduate
& Graduate Students
CRT-A
.54
13. Traffic Violations
225 Undergraduates
V-CRT
.22
184 Hospital
Employees
CRT-A
.11
14. Active Deviance
November 13, 2012
42
EVIDENCE OF
CRITERION-RELATED VALIDIT Y
15. Leaders’ Destructive
Goals
16. Negative SocioEmotional Behaviors
November 13, 2012
103 SupervisorSubordinate Pairs
CRT-A
.23
77 Student Problem
Solving Teams
CRT-A
.23
43
LESSON # 11
 Reliability is one of the most important
concepts in psychology.
 And, there is WAY more to reliability than
alpha.
April 26, 2013
44
EVIDENCE OF RELIABILIT Y
Factorial (n = 4772)
Factor 1
.87
Factor 2
.82
Factor 3
.81
Internal Consistency
CRT
.76 (n = 5238)
VCRT
.78 (n = 225)
Alternative Form
CRT/VCRT .82 (n = 276)
April 26, 2013
45
LESSON # 12
Meta-analysis tells you what’s out
there, not what’s possible.
Papers end up in the “file drawer” for a
number of valid reasons, not simply because
they might have null findings.
Peer review serves a valuable role in
science.
April 26, 2013
46
META - ANALYSIS OF CRT- A:
EVIDENCE OF CRITERION RELATED VALIDIT Y
K = 20 in final analysis
Omnibus uncorrected mean validity = .28
 “Negative” Criteria (Aggression & CWB) uncorrected
mean validity = .28
 “Positive” Criteria (Job performance & OCB)
uncorrected mean validity = -.17
 “Best Indicators” Criteria (predictive studies that used
objective criteria) uncorrected mean validity = .41
(k=9, N=1,254).
April 26, 2013
47
LESSON # 13
There is not a National Institutes of I/O
Psychology
If you want to be funded:
Think creatively
Think collaboratively
Think practically
April 26, 2013
48
GETTING FUNDED
Climate – NIDA; ONR; NIMH
Scientifically – interested in how
perceptions of work environments influence
behavior (performance, motivation, etc.)
Practically – addressed problems
associated with job attitudes in the military
or counselor attrition in drug treatment
centers
4/13/2015
49
GETTING FUNDED
Personality – ONR; DOD
Scientifically – interested in how the
implicit personality influences behavior
Practically – addressed the implicit motives
that contributed to a Navy SEAL quitting
basic training (BUDS training); addressed
how implicit motives influence who
succeeds in Ranger School for the Army
4/13/2015
50
LESSON #14
Always, support your students.
4/13/2015
51
THANK YOU
Thank you Drs. Kanfer & Weiss
Thank you Dr. Williams
Most importantly, thank you Dr.
James
4/13/2015
52