Overview of the Reflective Judgment Model's Three Developmental Periods

The conceptual framework for reflective judgment is that of a stage model characterized by seven distinct but developmentally related sets of assumptions about the process of knowing ( view of knowledge ) and how it isacquired ( justification of beliefs ). Each successive set of epistemological assumptions is characterized by a more complex and effective form of justification. The seven developmental stages of the Reflective Judgment Model may be broadly summarized into three levels: prereflective ( Stages 1-3 ), quasi-reflective ( Stages 4 and 5 ), and reflective (Stages 6 and 7) thinking.

Prereflective Reasoning (Stages 1-3): Belief that "knowledge is gained through the word of an authority figure or through firsthand observation, rather than, for example, through the evaluation of evidence. [People who hold these assumptions] believe that what they know is absolutely correct, and that they know with complete certainty. People who hold these assumptions treat all problems as though they were well-structured" (King and Kitchener*, 2002, p. 39).

Quasi-Reflective Reasoning (Stages 4 and 5): Recognition "that knowledge-or more accurately, knowledge claims-contain elements of uncertainty, which [people who hold these assumptions] attribute to missing information or to methods of obtaining the evidence. Although they use evidence, they do not understand how evidence entails a conclusion (especially in light of the acknowledged uncertainty), and thus tend to view judgments as highly idiosyncratic" ( King and Kitchener *, 2002, p. 40).

Reflective Reasoning (Stages 6 and 7): People who hold these assumptions accept "that knowledge claims cannot be made with certainty, but [they] are not immobilized by it; rather, [they] make judgments that are "most reasonable" and about which they are "relatively certain," based on their evaluation of available data. They believe they must actively construct their decisions, and that knowledge claims must be evaluated in relationship to the context in which they were generated to determine their validity. They also readily admit their willingness to reevaluate the adequacy of their judgments as new data or new methodologies become available" ( King and Kitchener *, 2002, p. 40).

Allow me to humbley and indiscriminately apply this to advertising in general. I truly believe that the distinction some make between left and right-brain thinkers is a little gray. ( sorry, bad pun )

Prereflective Reasoning We are given a problem to solve. The solution being communication in one form or another about an idea, product or service ( ips ). First we evaluate the ips. Clients provide their R&D as well as existing data about related ips's, their respective companies and it's consumers. We've received the creative brief. So, we have this information, or epistemological assumptions, about the ips. Let's enter Prereflective Reasoning, or in our industry; Conceptual Thinking. Let's combined the information from the brief ( knowledge gained through the word of an authority figure or through firsthand observation ) along with our own practical experience along side the objectives of the client ( communicating the ips ) making our assumptions. The basis of any conceptual work requires the thinking to treat all problems as though they were well-structured assumptions through a linear process of assumed certainty. We've combined information that was previously considered unrelated--we generated a concept. We've accepted that the information we have is factual and concise. This is our justification of beliefs. Hopefully everyone in the room has agreed that these beliefs are accurate.

Quasi-Reflective Reasoning, or Client submission and review. Knowledge claims-contain elements of uncertainty, which [people who hold these assumptions] attribute to missing information or to the methods of obtaining the evidence. Some think the concept doesn't communicate the ips accurately enough. Some get it, some don't, budget constraints or re-allocation of budgets are needed. How can we make sure the largest set of narrowed perspectives understand the communication? This is where our idiosyncratic minds come into play. We've made this ips peculiarly ( idiosyncratically ) related to the client and the consumer. Although they use evidence, they do not understand how evidence entails a conclusion they see their ips in the communication or media plan but feel, because they can't, no one else will understand it. Through Prereflective Reasoning we revisit the concept and modify based on more epistemological assumptions.

Reflective Reasoning, or The client and consumer get it. The campaign is a success. People who hold these assumptions accept "that knowledge claims cannot be made with certainty, but [they] are not immobilized by it; rather, [they] make judgments that are "most reasonable" and about which they are "relatively certain," based on their evaluation of available data. They understand the communication. They believe they must actively construct their decisions, and Prereflective Reason that knowledge claims must be evaluated in relationship to the context in which they were generated to determine their validity. They also readily admit their willingness to reevaluate the adequacy of their judgments as new data or new methodologies become available." The market emerges new and improved ips's while understanding the existing idiosyncrasies of the ips's they're about to purchase ( knowledge claims-contain elements of uncertainty ) are infact Prereflectively Reasoning that a relationship to the context in which they were generated to determine their validity is needed first--Reflective Judgment.

*This references the material and it's creators fairly well.