A META-ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONAL REASONING TESTS OF AGGRESSION

James et al. (2005) reported an estimate of criterion-related validity (corrected only for dichotomization of criteria) of r = .44 across 11 conditional reasoning test of aggression (CRT-Aggression) validity studies. This meta-analysis incorporated a total sample size more than twice that of James et al. Our comparable validity estimate for CRT-Aggression scales predicting counterproductive work behaviors was r = .16. Validity for the current, commercially marketed test version (CRT-A) was lower (r = .10). These validity estimates increased somewhat (into the .24–.26 range) if studies using dichotomous criteria with low base rates were excluded from the meta-analysis. CRT-Aggression scales were correlated r = .14 with measures of job performance. As we differed with James et al. in some of our coding decisions, we reran all analyses using James et al.'s coding decisions and arrived at extremely similar results.     

THE RATCHETING‐UP EFFECT

I argue for the existence of a ‘ratcheting‐up effect’: the behavior of moral saints serves to increase the level of moral obligation the rest of us face. What we are morally obligated to do is constrained by what it would be reasonable for us to believe we are morally obligated to do. Moral saints provide us with a special kind of evidence that bears on what we can reasonably believe about our obligations. They do this by modeling the level of sacrifice a person can realistically bear. Exposure to moral saints thus ‘ratchets‐up’ our obligations by combating a type of ignorance that would otherwise defeat those obligations.