Need for closure

Overview

Need for closure reflects an aversion to ambiguity and uncertainty as well as a preference towards firm, definitive answers to questions (e.g., Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). Interestingly, individuals who prefer firm, definitive answers and seek clarity are more inclined to follow rules and accept authoritarian leaders, but less inclined to embrace diversity.

Consequences of need for closure

Attitudes towards diversity

Empirical evidence indicates that need for closure, sometimes called need for cognitive closure, might diminish receptivity to diversity. Individuals with a strong need for closure prefer teams or workgroups with homogenous-rather than diverse-values, attitudes, and demographic characteristics (e.g., Kruglanski, Shah, Pierro, & Mannetti, 2002) and thus reject unique perspectives. That is, Kruglanski, Shah, Pierro, and Mannetti (2002) showed that time pressure, which tends to amplify need for closure, increases the probability that participates liked only the individuals with whom they shared similar values and characteristics. Thus, compared to their counterparts who embrace ambiguity, these individuals are more likely to demonstrate a bias towards their own work, social, or ethnic groups (Shah, Kruglanski, & Thompson, 1998), sometimes manifested as prejudice and racism (e.g., Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez, 2004).

Individuals who experience a need for closure feel that other ethnicities or creeds merely compromise the sense of clarity of clarity they seek. These individuals feel uneasy, or even incensed, by divergent attitudes or distinct values (Shah, Kruglanski, & Thompson, 1998). They feel disdain towards other creeds, religions, and cultures

Attitudes towards rules

Because of this preference towards homogenous values and attitudes, they seek autocratic leaders, who they feel could cultivate their desired uniformity and clarity (Pierro, Mannetti, De Grada, Livi, & Kruglanski, 2003). That is, when need for closure is elevated, individuals seek a sense of clarity-an understanding of how they should behave. Because they eschew careful contemplation, they seek someone to impose this understanding and clarity. Autocratic leaders often fulfill this role.

Similarly, need for closure also reduces the likelihood that individuals would manipulate anyone else or violate societal regulations (Van Kenhove, Vermeir & Verniers, 2001). Because they prefer clarity and certainty, they would like society to follow rules and conventions. As a consequence, they tend to comply with all regulations and traditions themselves. In other words, they tend to adopt traditional, conservative beliefs - such as "People should be treated with respect" and "Rules should not be broken." They are also more inclined to return money when they receive more change from a shop assistant than perhaps they deserve.

Conflict

Need for closure has also been shown to be associated with a combative and competitive orientation during conflicts (Golec & Federico, 2004). That is, a need for closure is associated with a preference for competitive, rather than cooperative, responses to political disputes (Golec & Federico, 2004). If individuals identify with a hostile collective, such as an extremist political party, this relationship between need for closure and preference for competition is especially pronounced.

In short, when individuals report a need for closure, their prevailing orientations are most likely to dictate their behavior, especially during stressful contexts. If they identify with a hostile collective, these distrusting perceptions will be activated during conflicts, compromising their capacity to cooperate (Golec & Federico, 2004).

Performance

Need for closure tends to curb flexibility, reducing the likelihood of compromise, during negotiations (DeDreu, Koole, & Oldersma, 1999). This rigidity is especially pronounced if these individuals perceive their opponent to be experienced in business and competitive in nature.

That is, because need for closure curbs careful analysis, these individuals do not consider their opponent carefully. Instead, they tend to apply stereotypes to judge other individuals. If someone else seems experienced in business, they will apply the stereotype that commercial employees tend to be competitive. They will, therefore, themselves act competitively rather than cooperatively (DeDreu, Koole, & Oldersma, 1999).

Need for closure can also compromise the capacity of individuals to adapt effectively when they move to another country, particularly if they arrive or live with someone from their own nation. That is, these individuals, because they do not think as carefully, adopt the same perspective as anyone in their immediate environment. If they live with someone from their own culture, they will tend to adopt the same values and perspectives of this person, and hence will not embrace the attitudes and rituals of their host country (Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2004).

Fundamental attribution error

Several studies have examined whether need for closure amplifies or inhibits the fundamental attribution error. The fundamental attribution error represents an inclination, prevalent throughout society, to ascribe behavior to characteristics of the person rather than features of the situation (Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Jones, 1979; Ross, 1977). When someone commits an error at work, colleagues might assume the person is incompetent, overlooking other factors such as defects in their equipment or mistakes in the instructions.

The relationship between need for closure and this fundamental attribution error has generated considerable controversy. Webster (1993) pioneered this exploration, showing that need for closure is indeed positively associated with the fundamental attribution error. In this study, a person read an essay, presented over video. This person, apparently, had been instructed to espouse the opinion they championed--an opinion that contradicted the attitudes of most participants. Participants were then instructed to express their impressions of this person.

Participants tended to rate this person as undesirable, overlooking the constraints that were imposed on this individual, especially if they reported an elevated need for closure. In other words, if individuals like to form opinions rapidly and maintain these attitudes, they tend to ascribe behavior to dispositions of the person rather than features of the context.

Nevertheless, several limitations might compromise the validity of this study. The instruction to form "impressions" of the reader, according to Stelder (2009), might have oriented attention towards the person instead of the situation. Second, the study did not entail a condition in which a person presented an essay that aligned with the opinions of participants. Hence, whether the essay or some other factor governed the ratings cannot be established. Indeed, a few subsequent studies failed to replicate this finding (e.g., Chiu, Morris, Hong, & Menon, 2000).

Stalder (2009) conducted a study that resolved these inconsistencies. In particular, Stalder argued that one facet of need for closure, need for structure, which comprises discomfort with ambiguity, preference for order, and preference for predictability, is positively related to the fundamental attribution error. In contrast, another facet, decisiveness, is negatively related to this error.

Specifically, in this study, the question-contestant paradigm (e.g., Ross, Amabile, & Steinmetz, 1977) was utilized to establish the fundamental attribution error (for critiques, see Gawronski, 2003). Participants observe two individuals. One individual constructs, and then asks, questions that assess general knowledge. The other individual, the contestant, attempts to answer these questions. This person, however, can answer only 3 of the 10 questions correctly. Typically, participants assume the person who constructed the questions must be more knowledgeable, disregarding the unfair advantage that is afforded to this person.

In this study, individuals who reported a high, rather than low, need for structure were more inclined to perceive the contestant as less knowledgeable than was the person who constructed and asked the questions. Individuals who reported high, rather than low, decisiveness were, in contrast, more inclined to perceive the contestant as knowledgeable (Stalder, 2009).

According to Stalder (2009), need for structure increases the inclination of participants to accept the conclusions they have formed rather than challenge their assumptions, called freezing. Individuals who exhibit need for structure, therefore, will rapidly ascribe the deficient performance to the limited knowledge of this contestant--and then fail to consider alternative perspectives.

In contrast, decisive individuals form very rapid conclusions or judgments, called seizing. In contrast, indecisive individuals ruminate over the information extensively. As they ruminate, they become more inclined to consider extraneous information. This extraneous information might actually divert their attention from the actual state of affairs--the advantage that was afforded to the person who constructed the questions. Indecisive individuals might, therefore, become more inclined to exhibit the fundamental attribution error.

Determinants of need for closure

Previous research has uncovered several contextual factors that mitigate this need for closure. Specifically, factors that diminish the costs, or amplify the benefits, of additional deliberation and analysis will tend to temper this need for closure (for a review, see Kruglanski & Webster, 1996).

Time pressure, for example, increases the cost of reflection and analysis (e.g., Kruglanski & Freund, 1983). That is, when individuals feel they must complete a task, or form a judgment, within a limited duration, they recognize they must reach a decision before the deadline has elapsed. Careful deliberation, therefore, could incur a steep cost, and thus time pressure augments the need for closure (for a review of evidence, see Kruglanski, 2004;; Kruglanski, Pierro, Mannetti, & De Grada, 2006;; Pierro, Mannetti, De Grada, Livi, & Kruglanski, 2003).

In addition to time pressure, events that underscore the mortality of individuals could also augment the costs that accrue from deliberation and analysis. Graphic depictions of fatal accidents and similar images, for example, highlight this mortality. According to terror management theory, when individuals contemplate their own mortality, they experience an existential anxiety (see Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, Rosenblatt, Veeder, Kirkland, & Lyon, 1990). To alleviate this affective experience, they strive to integrate themselves with an enduring entity, such as a broader social collective, to cultivate a form of immortality.

Two processes facilitate this integration with this immortal entity (see also Pyszczynksi, Greenberg, & Solomon, 1999). First, they attempt to perceive this social collective as uniform and predictable in which all members share the same values and principles. Second, they strive to fulfill these values, conceptualizing themselves as a model member of this social collective (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991). Careful deliberation of issues could uncover discrepancies between their own attitudes and the opinions of this broader society. After mortality is contemplated, therefore, need for closure tends to increase (see also Schimel, Simon, Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, Wazmonsky, & Arndt, 1999).

Furthermore, noise (e.g., Kruglanski & Webster, 1991), fatigue (Nelson, Klein, & Irvin, 2003), and inebriation (see Kruglanski et al., 2006) have been shown to attenuate the benefits of reflection and analysis. Both noise and inebriation retard or hinder analytic processes, detracting from the benefits of deliberation and consideration. As these benefits decline, individuals become more likely to eschew careful analysis, and the need for closure thus escalates.

Dimensions of need for closure

In particular, as posited by Webster and Kruglanski (1994), individuals who experience a need for closure demonstrate five distinct, but related, tendencies. First, they exhibit discomfort with ambiguity and they feel uneasy when uncertain about some event or issue-an emotion that dissipates once they receive clarity. Second, to ensure clarity, they demonstrate a preference for predictability and prefer settings in which they can anticipate the events that are likely to unfold. Third, because of this preference, they report a preference for order and seek environments that are organized and ordered, governed by consistent rules, policies, and practices. Fourth, because of their aversion to ambiguity, they reach decisions rapidly, without deliberation or delay, referred to as decisiveness. Finally, to fulfill this goal, they seldom consider other sources of information, such as the advice of experts, before they reach these decisions, designated as close mindedness. Some researchers, however, exclude decisiveness, because this subscale does not correlate positively with the other dimensions (e.g., Pierro, Mannetti, De Grada, Livi, & Kruglanski, 2003).

According to other researchers (e.g., Moneta & Yip, 2004; Stalder, 2009), need for closure entails two distinct dimensions. The first dimension, need for structure, comprises three factors: discomfort with ambiguity, preference for order, and preference for predictability. Need for structure mainly relates to the freezing process--the inclination of individuals to accept the judgments they form rather than evaluate alternatives. When this conceptualization is applied, close mindedness tends to be excluded (ow correlations with other facets (e.g., Neuberg, West, Judice, & Thompson, 1997; Stalder, 2007; Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez, 2004).

The second dimension relates to only one of the factors that underpins need for closure: decisiveness. Decisiveness mainly relates to the seizing process--the inclination of individuals to form rapid decisions or judgments.

Implications of need for closure

Attention residue

The discovery that time pressure increase the need to reach cognitive closure has advanced the research into attention residue. Specifically, at work, individuals tend to undertake a series of tasks. They might first need to perform some accounting task and then evaluate a series of job applicants, for example. Unfortunately, when individuals proceed to the second activity, such as the evaluation of job applicants, some of their attention and thoughts still revolve around the first task--called attention residue.

Attention residue might include ruminations about the previous activity, which are critical, repetitive thoughts that individuals entertain about themselves, evoked by failure or other problems (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991). Attention residue, however, also comprises a broader array of reflections, such as alternative solutions (Leroy, 2009).

Leroy (2009) uncovered two factors that diminish this attention residue. First, and most obviously, when individuals feel they have completed some task--that is, when they feel their goals or targets have been fulfilled--they are less distracted on subsequent tasks. The level of attention residue declines. Specifically, incomplete goals tend to remain salient or activated (Klinger, 1975). The level of activation is not appreciably related to the cues or signals in the environment (Martin & Tesser, 1996). As a consequence, even when individuals shift to another activity, in a different environment, the goals that are related to the previous task might remain salient.

To substantiate this possibility, Leroy (2009) conducted a pair of studies in which participants undertook two consecutive tasks: a verbal activity, which lasted five minutes, and then an evaluation of resumes. Some of the participants were assigned very steep targets on the verbal activity. These participants did not usually fulfill these targets when they proceeded to the next activity. Other participants were assigned modest targets on the verbal activity and thus satisfied these goals.

Compared to participants who had fulfilled their targets, participants who had not fulfilled their targets were more likely to entertain thoughts about the verbal activity while completing the subsequent task. That is, immediately after completing the verbal activity, they recognized words associated with this task, such as solve or finish, more rapidly than did other participants on a lexical decision task (Leroy, 2009). That is, they could rapidly ascertain whether or not these items were indeed legitimate words--a procedure that is often used to evaluate the accessibility of some concept (e.g., Moskowitz, 2002). Furthermore, if participants had fulfilled their targets, their performance on a subsequent activity was more proficient. They could remember the contents of each resume more effectively.

Nevertheless, as Leroy (2009) emphasized, even after individuals complete some activity, and feel like they have fulfilled some goal, they still occasionally contemplate this task. Leroy (2009) applied some of the insights of cognitive closure to uncover another factor that might curb attention residue. Specifically, Leroy (2009) recognized that time pressure tends to promote a need to reach cognitive closure, which could thus temper attention residue. That is, when participants experience a sense of time pressure or haste, they consider only the primary alternatives rather than deliberate over every possible course of action. Because they confine their attention to a limited array of alternatives, they are less inclined to experience a sense of regret (Iyengar, 2000)--that is, they do not feel as attached to the courses of action they rejected. Accordingly, a sense of confidence ensues (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000)--which enables individuals to orient their attention to other activities.

To examine this proposition, Leroy (2009) manipulated the level of time pressure that individuals experienced. Some participants were informed that most individuals feel the target is difficult to reach in the allotted time--to evoke a sense of time pressure. Other participants were informed the target is manageable. Time pressure did indeed curb attention residue. Participants were less inclined to reflect upon the previous activity, as gauged by a lexical decision task. They also felt more confident about their performance on this activity.

Related constructs

Personal need for structure

Personal need for structure is highly related to need for closure. Like need for closure, personal need for structure represents a preference towards clear, stable, and unambiguous knowledge rather than novelty and change (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993).

Low need for closure, however, differs marginally from low need for structure. That is, low need for closure, but not low need for structure, tends to reflect a preference to engage in careful thought and analysis--something akin to need for cognition.

Both personal need for structure, as measured by the instrument developed by Thompson, Naccarato, Parker, and Moskowitz (2001) and need for closure are positively related to dogmatism, authoritarianism, and intolerance towards ambiguity--but inversely associated with openness to experience (see Neuberg & Newsom, 1993). Personal need for structure and need for closure also predicts the reliance on stereotyping (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993) as well as formation of spontaneous inferences of traits from limited information (Moskowitz, 1993). Hence, they overlap empirically.

Indeed, some researches maintain that need for closure entails two main facets: need for structure and decisiveness (e.g., Moneta & Yip, 2004; Stalder, 2009). Conceivably, the facet called need for structure and the scale called personal need for structure might be equivalent.

References

Chirumbolo, A., Areni, A., & Sensales, G. (2004). Need for cognitive closure and politics: Voting, political attitudes and attributional style. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 245-253.

Chiu, C., Morris, M. W., Hong, Y., & Menon, 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.

De Dreu, C. K. V., Koole, S. L., & Oldersma, F. L. (1999). On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the use of heuristics in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 348-362.

Fein, S. (2001). Beyond the fundamental attribution era? Psychology Inquiry, 12, 16-21.

Gawronski, B. (2003). On difficult questions and evident answers: Dispositional inference from role-constrained behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1459-1475.

Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38.

Golec, A., & Federico, C. M. (2004). Understanding responses to political conflict: Interactive effects of the need for closure and salient conflict schemas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 750-762.

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 995-1006.

Iyengar, S., Wells, R., & Schwartz, B. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse: Looking for the "best" job undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17, 143-150.

Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives. Psychological Review, 82, 1-25.

Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2004). Social cognition of immigrants' acculturation: Effects of the need for closure and the reference group at entry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 1-18.

Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed-mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay inferences: Effects of impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448-468

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1991). Group members' reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and of environmental noise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 212-225.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing." Psychological Review, 103, 263-283.

Kruglanski, A. W., Atash, M. N., De Grada, E., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Webster, D. M. (1997). Psychological theory testing versus psychometric nay-saying: Comment on Neuberg et al.'s (1997) critique of the need for closure scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1005-1016.

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.

Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2002). When similarity breeds content: Need for closure and the allure of homogenous and self-resembling groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 648-662.

Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 168-181.

Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Ruminative thoughts. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.). Advances in social cognition (Vol. 9, pp. 1-47). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Moskowitz, G. B. (1993). Individual differences in social categorization: The influence of personal need for structure on spontaneous trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 132-142.

Moskowitz, G. B. (2002). Preconscious effects of temporary goals on attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 397-404.

Nelson, D. W., Klein, C. T. F., & Irvin, J. E. (2003). Motivational antecedents of empathy: Inhibiting effects of fatigue. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 37-50.

Neuberg, S. L., Judice, T. N., & West, S. G. (1997). What the need for closure scale measures and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1396-1412.

Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113-131.

Neuberg, S. L., West, S. G., Judice, T. N., & Thompson, M. M. (1997). On dimensionality, discriminant validity, and the role of psychometric analyses in personality theory and measurement: Reply to Kruglanski et al.'s (1997) defense of the need for closure scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1017-1029.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 569-582.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1996). Chewing the cud and other ruminations. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in Social Cognition (pp. 135-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., De Grada, E., Livi, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Autocracy bias in informal groups under need for closure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 405-417.

Pyszczynksi, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1999). A dual-process model of defence against conscious and unconscious death-related thoughts: An extension of terror management theory. Psychological Review, 106, 835-845.

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.

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.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). New York: Academic Press.

Ross, L. D., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485-494.

Schimel, J., Simon, L., Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Wazmonsky, J., & Arndt, J. (1999). Stereotypes and terror management: Evidence that mortality salience enhances stereotypic thinking and preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 905-926

Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 383-393.

Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 91-159). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Stalder, D. R. (2007). Need for closure, the Big Five, and public self-consciousness. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 91-94.

Stalder, D. R. (2009). Competing roles for the subfactors of need for closure in committing the fundamental attribution error. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 701-705.

Thompson, M. M., Naccarato, M. E., Parker, K. C. H., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2001). The personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity measures: Historical perspectives, current applications, and future directions. In G. B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition (pp. 19-39). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Van Hiel, A., Pandelaere, M., & Duriez, B. (2004). The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 824-837.

Van Kenhove, P., Vermeir I., & Verniers, S. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationships between ethical beliefs, ethical ideology, political preference and need for closure. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 347-361.

Webster, D. M. (1993). Motivated augmentation and reduction of the overattribution bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 261-271.

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.

Wright, E. F., & Wells, G. L. (1988). Is the attitude-attribution paradigm suitable for investigating the dispositional bias? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 183-190.

Created by Dr Simon Moss on 19/11/2008

Free Personality Tests : Relationships - Personality - Beliefs - Wellbeing - Attitudes - Behaviour - Cognitive Abilities