The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”
Abstract
A theoretical framework is outlined in which the key construct is the need for (nonspecific) cognitive closure. The need for closure is a desire for definite knowledge on some issue. It represents a dimension of stable individual differences as well as a situationally evocable state. The need for closure has widely ramifying consequences for social-cognitive phenomena at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and group levels of analysis. Those consequences derive from 2 general tendencies, those of urgency and performance. The urgency tendency represents an individual's inclination to attain closure as soon as possible, and the permanence tendency represents an individual's inclination to maintain it for as long as possible. Empirical evidence for present theory attests to diverse need for closure effects on fundamental social psychological phenomena, including impression formation, stereotyping, attribution, persuasion, group decision making, and language use in intergroup contexts.
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
“the default mindset of most adults is a relatively inactive state where the past unduly influences the present (e.g., Hart et al., 2009; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996).”
From Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health (2010) · cites this paper as Kruglanski & Webster, 1996
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7 · Cited by 26,772
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Morvan, C., & O’Connor, A. (2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912282432 · Cited by 18,284
The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud
Freud, S. (1953) · Cited by 17,730
The psychology of interpersonal relations
Heider, F. (1958) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089062 · Cited by 17,189
Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior
Miller, K. A. J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1988) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2070638 · Cited by 15,406
Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.
Sorge, A. M., & Hofstede, G. (1983) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393017 · Cited by 15,195
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
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
“…following and negative affect (Tomkins, 1963, 1965), uncertainty avoidance (Sorrentino & Roney, 1986; Wilson, 1973b), need for cognitive closure (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996), personal need for structure (Altemeyer , 1998; Schaller, Boyd, Yohannes, & O'Brien, 1995; Smith & Gordon, 1998), need…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationMotivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · Cited by 4,344
“Partisan goals, which motivate them to apply their reasoning powers in defense of a prior, specific conclusion (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996).”
BackgroundIndividual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00003435 · Cited by 4,481
On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 · Cited by 4,069
“The need for closure (e.g., Dittes, 1961; Kruglanski & Mayseless , 1988; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996) indexes stable individual differences in the extent to which a person desires " an answer on a given topic . . . compared to confusion and ambiguity " (Kruglanski , 1990, p. 337; Kruglanski &…”
BackgroundHeuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment
Bottom, W. P., Gilovich, T. D., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. J. (2004) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/20159081 · Cited by 3,583
Metadata
- Authors
- Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- ORCID
- Kruglanski, Arie W.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 1996-04
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 263-283
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W1994106556
- Cited by
- 2,379
- References
- 87
- Citations by year
- 2026: 105 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 110 · 2021: 130 · 2020: 150 · 2019: 96 · 2018: 135 · 2017: 107 · 2016: 98 · 2015: 92 · 2014: 107 · 2013: 88 · 2012: 108
- FWCI
- 80.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01mh052578-05, 5k05mh001213-03)
- National Institute of Mental Health (1R01 MH 52578, KO5/MH01213)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychology of Social Influence
- Keywords
- need for closure, cognitive closure, impression formation, stereotyping, attribution, persuasion, group decision making, individual differences, social cognition
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Decision Making, Humans, Intelligence, Language, Personality
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
