Predicting Work Activities with Divergent Thinking Tests: A Longitudinal Study

This study examined whether divergent thinking test scores obtained from engineering students during college predicted creative work activities fifteen years later. Results showed that a subscore of the Owens Creativity Test, which assesses divergent thinking about mechanical objects, correlated significantly with self‐ratings of creative work activities and number of patent submissions. An overall divergent thinking score obtained from the Structure of the Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI‐ELCT), however, did not correlate significantly with either creative work activities or patent submissions. Practical and theoretical implications of the results are discussed.     

WORK VALUE CONGRUENCE AND INTRINSIC CAREER SUCCESS: THE COMPENSATORY ROLES OF LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT

We hypothesized that leader-member exchange (LMX) and perceived organizational support (POS) would each interact with work value congruence in relation to intrinsic career success. In a sample of 520 teachers from 30 high schools in Turkey, we found that work value congruence was positively related to job and career satisfaction when POS was low but not related to job and career satisfaction when POS was high. Similarly, work value congruence was positively related to career satisfaction when LMX was low but not related when LMX was high. The results contribute to the POS, LMX, and person-organization fit literatures by demonstrating the compensatory nature of LMX and POS for low value congruence in its relation to job and career satisfaction.     

Torture, Terrorism and the State: a Refutation of the Ticking-Bomb Argument

abstract   Much of the literature on torture in recent years takes the position of denouncing the barbarity of torture, while allowing for exceptions to this veto in extreme circumstances. The ticking-bomb argument, where a terrorist is tortured in order to extract information of a primed bomb located in a civilian area, is often invoked as one of those extreme circumstances where torture becomes justified. As the War on Terrorism intensifies, the ticking-bomb argument has become the dominant line of reasoning used by both academics and policy advisers to justify a legalized, state-sponsored program of torture.
This paper argues for the unconditional refutation of any attempt to justify torture, without exceptions. We argue against the consequentialist reasoning of the ticking-bomb argument not from a deontological position, but on consequentialist grounds. Empirical evidence suggests that the institutionalization of torture practices creates serious problems. Torture interrogation fails to fulfil its initial purpose as a low-cost life saver, while its long-term potential is the devastation of democratic institutions.