IMPROVING APPLICANTS' REACTIONS TO REJECTION LETTERS: AN APPLICATION OF FAIRNESS THEORY

Explanations in the context of employment rejection letters were studied from the perspective of fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). In 2 scenario-based studies and 1 field experiment, Would Reducing explanations (i.e., explanations detailing qualifications of the individual who received the job), Should Reducing explanations (i.e., explanations of the appropriateness of the selection process), and Could Reducing explanations (i.e., explanations of external conditions that led to a hiring freeze) were systematically manipulated in communicating negative hiring decisions. Applicants' perceptions of fairness, recommendation intentions, and reapplication behavior were assessed. Results demonstrate strong support for the effectiveness of Would and Could Reducing explanations at reducing perceptions of unfairness and increasing recommendation intentions. In addition, applicants who received the Could Reducing explanation were more than twice as likely to reapply for a future position with the organization than those who received a standard rejection letter. A 3-way interaction among the 3 explanations suggests that 2 explanations may need to be combined in a rejection letter to generate the most positive effects. Findings are discussed from the perspective of fairness theory and practical implications are identified.     

CATECHIZING THE HEAD AND THE HEART: AN INTEGRATED MODEL FOR CONFIRMATION MINISTRY

In catechesis for adolescents seeking confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church, a dualistic bias unconsciously dichotomizes objective doctrine and subjective psychology. This is problematic because if a catechist does not communicate mind‐independent truth, no seed of Catholic faith will have been planted in a student. At the same time, if a catechist does not affirm a student's subjectivity, the seed cannot find receptive soil. I believe the key to integrating these intellectual and affective elements – the head and the heart – lies in the link between what Bernard Lonergan calls authentic subjectivity and objectivity. Catechists can appeal to this link by embracing the moral responsibility to ‘know our knowing,’ becoming aware of our dualistic bias and judging our faith experiences according to objective standards of knowledge.     

The Ontological Status of Persons*

Chisholm held that persons are essentially persons. The Constitution View affords a non‐Chisholmian way m defend the thesis that persons are essentially persons. The Constitution View shows how persons are constituted by‐but not identical to‐human animals. On the Constitution View, being a person determines a person's persistence conditions. On the Animalist View, being an animal determines a person's persistence conditions. Things of kind K have ontological significance if their persistence conditions are determined by their being members of K. On Chisholm's view, persons have ontological significance, but animals do not. On Animalism, animals have ontological significance, but persons do not. After explaining the notion of ontological significance, this article argues that persons do have ontological significance, and hence that Animalism is not true