The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Individual differences in need for cognitive closure.
Abstract
This article introduces an individual-difference measure of the need for cognitive closure. As a dispositional construct, the need for cognitive closure is presently treated as a latent variable manifested through several different aspects, namely, desire for predictability, preference for order and structure, discomfort with ambiguity, decisiveness, and close-mindedness. This article presents psychometric work on the measure as well as several validation studies including (a) a "known-groups" discrimination between populations assumed to differ in their need for closure, (b) discriminant and convergent validation with respect to related personality measures, and (c) replication of effects obtained with situational inductions of the need for closure. The present findings suggest that the Need for Closure Scale is a reliable and valid instrument of considerable potential utility in future "motivated social cognition" research.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“High need for cognitive closure manifests as a desire for predictability, preference for order and structure, discomfort with ambiguity, decisiveness, and close-mindedness (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994).”
From Collective Narcissism: Political Consequences of Investing Self‐Worth in the Ingroup’s Image (2019) · cites this paper as Webster & Kruglanski, 1994
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904
Self-citationCacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 · Cited by 2,517
Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.2.263 · Cited by 2,379
Self-citationPetty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.609 · Cited by 2,290
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001 · Cited by 1,011
Metadata
- Authors
- Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- ORCID
- Kruglanski, Arie W.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1049-1062
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W4236213745
- Cited by
- 2,494
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 98 · 2025: 145 · 2024: 128 · 2023: 117 · 2022: 141 · 2021: 146 · 2020: 154 · 2019: 175 · 2018: 144 · 2017: 125 · 2016: 105 · 2015: 106 · 2014: 105 · 2013: 87 · 2012: 84
- FWCI
- 55.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (5R01MH 4612-02)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Keywords
- need for cognitive closure, individual differences, personality traits, cognitive closure, decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Social Behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
