This study examines the simultaneous effects of need for closure (NFC) and relative cognitive capacity on invested effort and task performance within the integrative analysis framework using behavioral data. Two main results were obtained. First, the authors revealed a significant interaction effect between relative cognitive capacity (manipulated through task difficulty) and NFC (manipulated through time pressure, noise, and fear of invalidity as well as assessed by an individual differences measure) on effort investment. Second, contrary to dispositional NFC, manipulations yielded a “dual effect” because they negatively affected task performance as well as invested effort. The latter result was interpreted as an indication that noise and time pressure manipulations also tax cognitive resources. The two main findings are discussed and the authors go further into the divergences between dispositional and manipulated NFC.
Bar-Tal, Y., Kishon-Rabin, L., & Tabak, N. (1997). The effect of need and ability to achieve cognitive structuring on cognitive structuring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1158-1176.
2.
Brehm, J.W., & Self, E. (1989). The intensity of motivation. In M. R. Rozenweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (pp. 109-131). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
3.
Chiu, C., Morris, M.W., Hong, Y., & Melon, T. (2000). Motivated cultural cognition: The impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78, 247-259.
4.
Cratylus. (1995). Een Nederlandse Need for Closure-vragenlijst [Need for closure: Dutch version]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 50, 231-232.
5.
Eubanks, L., Wright, R.A., & Williams, B.J. (2002). Reward influence on the heart: Cardiovascular response as a function of incentive value at five levels of task demand. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 139-152.
6.
Gonzalez, C. (2005). Workload and cognitive abilities in dynamic decision making. Human Factors, 47, 92-101.
7.
Kruglanski, A.W. (1989). Lay epistemic and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. New York: Plenum .
8.
Kruglanski, A.W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.
9.
Kruglanski, A.W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and un-freezing of lay-inferences: Effects of impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448-468.
10.
Kruglanski, A.W., Peri, N., & Zakai, D. (1991). Interactive effects of need for closure and initial confidence on social information seeking. Social Cognition , 9, 127-148.
11.
Kruglanski, A.W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & De Grada, E. (2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review , 113, 84-100.
12.
Kruglanski, A.W., & Webster, D.M. (1991). Group members' reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and environmental noise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 212-225.
13.
Kruglanski, A.W., & Webster, D.M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing ." Psychological Review, 103, 263-283.
14.
Luchins, A.S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 54, No. 6 (Whole No. 248).
15.
Ludbrook, J. (2000). Multiple inferences using confidence intervals . Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 27, 212-215.
16.
Maynard, D.C., & Hakel, M.D. (1997). Effects of objective and subjective task complexity on task performance. Human Performance, 10, 303-330.
17.
Mayseless, O., & Kruglanski, A.W. (1987). What makes you so sure? Effects of epistemic motivations on judgmental confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 162-183.
18.
Obrist, P.A. (1976). The cardiovascular-behavioral interaction as it appears today. Psychophysiology, 13, 95-107.
19.
Pelham, B.W., & Neter, E. (1995). The effect of motivation of judgment depends, on the difficulty of the judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 581-594.
20.
Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., De Grada, E., Livi, S., & Kruglanski, A. (2003). Autocracy bias in informal groups under need for closure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 405-417.
21.
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2006). Need for closure relations with authoritarianism, conservative beliefs and racism: The impact of Urgency and permanence tendencies . Psychologica Belgica, 46, 235-252.
22.
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2007). Separating ability from need: Clarifying the dimensional structure of the need for closure scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 266-280.
23.
Roets, A., Van Hiel, A., & Cornelis, I. (2006). The dimensional structure of the need for cognitive closure scale: Relationships with "seizing" and "freezing" processes. Social Cognition, 24, 22-45.
24.
Schultz, P.W., & Searleman, A. (1998). Personal need for structure, the Einstellung task, and the effects of stress. Personality and Individual Differences , 20, 305-310.
25.
Staal, M.A. (2004). Stress, cognition, and human performance: A literature review and conceptual framework (NASA Technical Memorandum 212824). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
26.
Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Effects of ambiguity and need for closure on the acquisition of information. Social Cognition, 20, 380-408.
27.
Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2007). The search for complex problem-solving strategies in the presence of stressors. Human Factors, 49, 1072-1082.
28.
Webster, D.M., & Kruglanski, A.W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.
29.
Wright, R.A., & Kirby, L.D. (2001). Effort determination of cardiovascular response: An integrative analysis with applications in social psychology. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (vol. 33, 255-307). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
