Advertisement

Motivation Towards Closure and Cognitive Resources: An Individual Differences Approach

  • Małgorzata Kossowska
  • Edward Orehek
  • Arie W. Kruglanski
Chapter
Part of the The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality book series (SSHE)

Abstract

Motivation and cognitive ability represent two basic determinants of information processing, influencing the ability to learn new knowledge and to carry out judgment and decision making tasks. However, cognitive and motivational influences on the results of information processing and performance are usually studied separately. On the one hand, numerous studies have investigated the role of cognitive-intellectual abilities in predicting individual differences in task performance. On the other hand, incentives, goal assignments, achievement motivation, expectancies, subjective valuation of outcomes, self-efficacy expectations, and a host of other motivational factors have been shown to influence goal choice, intended effort, task behavior, and mental performance. While the body of literature examining the role of cognitive ability and motivation in task performance is growing (e.g., Mitchell & Silver, 1990; Harris & Tetrick, 1993; Thompson, Roman, Moskowitz, Chaiken, & Bargh, 1994; Muraven & Slessareva, 2003), little research has been conducted on the cognitive processes involved in, and affected by, motivation (but see Kossowska, 2007a, b).

Keywords

Cognitive Ability Cognitive Load Work Memory Capacity Cognitive Resource Span Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research was supported by grant MNiSW PB 3557/32 (grant acknowledged to the first author).

References

  1. Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 5–28.Google Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A., Emslie, H., Kolodny, J., & Duncan, J. (1998). Random generation and the executive control of working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Experimental Psychology, 51A, 819–852.Google Scholar
  3. Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: progress and problems. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 1–40). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Berti, S., & Schroger, E. (2003). Die Bedeutung sensorischer Verarbeitung und Aufmerksamkeitssteuerung für Arbeitsgedächtnisfunktionen [Sensory memory and attentional control as a pre-requisite for working memory processes]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. Uleman & J. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended Thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  6. Chajut, E., & Algom, D. (2003). Selective attention improves under stress: implications for theories of social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 231–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daneman, M., & Merike, P. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: a meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Grada, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A. (1999). Motivated cognition and group interaction: need for closure affects the contents and processes of collective negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Jong, R., Berendsen, E., & Cools, R. (1999). Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations. Acta Psychologica, 101, 379–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijksterhuis, A., van Knippenberg, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Schaper, C. (1996). Motivated social cognition: need for closure effects on memory and judgment. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 32, 254–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Embretson, S. E. (1995). The role of working memory capacity and general control processes in intelligence. Intelligence, 20, 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engle, R., Kane, M., & Tuholski, S. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engle, R., Tuholski, S., Laughlin, J., & Conway, N. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 128, 309–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feldman-Barrett, L., Tugade, M., & Engle, R. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-processes theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Folkard, S., & Monk, T. (1980). Circadian rhythms in human memory. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, T. E., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1995). Effects of epistemic motivations on the use of accessible constructs in social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 950–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halford, G., Wilson, W., & Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 803–864.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris, M., & Tetrick, L. (1993). Cognitive ability and motivational interventions: their effects on performance outcomes. Current Psychology, 12, 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hess, T. (2002). Age-releated constraints and adaptations in social information processing. In U. von Hecker, S. Dutke, & G. Sędek (Eds.), Generative mental processes and cognitive resources (pp. 129–156). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  22. Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 77, 1011–1025.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hunt, E., & Lansman, M. (1986). Unified model of attention and problem solving. Psychological Review, 93, 446–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sullaway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Kane, M., Bleckley, K., Conway, A., & Engle, R. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130, 169–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kossowska, M. (2003). Różnice indywidualne w potrzebie poznawczego domknięcia. [Individual differences in need for cognitive closure]. Przeglad Psychologiczny, 46, 355–375.Google Scholar
  29. Kossowska, M. (2005). Umysł Niezmienny Poznawcze Mechanizmy Sztywnosci [Unchangeable mind Cognitive mechanisms of rigidity]. Cracow: WUJ.Google Scholar
  30. Kossowska, M. (2007a). Motivation toward closure and cognitive processes: an individual differences approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2149–2158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kossowska, M. (2007b). The role of cognitive inhibition in motivation toward closure. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1117–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kossowska, M., & Van Hiel, A. (2003). The relationship between need for closure and conservative beliefs in Western and Eastern Europe. Political Psychology, 24, 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kossowska, M., Van Hiel, A., Chun, W. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). The need for cognitive closure scale: structure, cross-cultural invariance, and comparison of mean ratings between European–American and East Asian samples. Psychologica Belgica, 42, 276–286.Google Scholar
  34. Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kruglanski, A. W., DeGrada, E., Mannetti, L., Atash, M. N., & 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay interferences: the effect of impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kruglanski, A. W., & Mayseless, O. (1988). Contextual effects in hypothesis testing: the role of competing alternatives and epistemic motivations. Social Cognition, 6, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2002). When similarity breeds content: need for closure and the allure of homogeneous and self-resembling groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 648–662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. (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, 215–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: seizing and freezing. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 861–877.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kyllonen, P., & Christal, R. (1990). The theory of comprehension: new frontiers of evidence and arguments. Psychological Review, 103, 389–433.Google Scholar
  44. La Pointe, L., & Engle, R. (1990). Simple and complex word spans as measures of working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 1118–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Legierski, J., & Kossowska, M. (2008). Epistemic motivation, working memory and diagnostic information search. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  46. Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A., Taris, T., & Bezinovic, P. (2002). A cross-cultural study in the need for cognitive closure scale: comparing its structure in Croatia, Italy, USA and the Netherlands. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 139–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mayseless, O. & Kruglanski, A. W. (1987). Accuracy of estimates in the social comparison of abilities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller, L. & Vernon, P. (1992). The general factor in short-term memory, intelligence, and reaction time. Intelligence, 16, 5–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mitchell, T., & Silver, W. (1990). Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: effects on task strategies and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory. Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Muraven, M., & Slessareva, E. (2003). Mechanism of self-control failure: motivation and limited resources. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 894–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Necka, E. (1992). Cognitive analysis of intelligence: the significance of working memory processes. Personality & Individual Differences, 13, 1031–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Necka, E. (1997). Attention, working memory and arousal: concept apt to account for “the process of intelligence”. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Cognitive science perspective on personality and emotion (pp. 503–554). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Necka, E. (1999). Learning, automaticity, and attention: an individual-differences approach. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 161–184). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Neuberg, S., & Fiske, S. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431–444.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. J. (1975). On data-limited and resources-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Oberauer, K., Suss, H., Wilhelm, O., & Wittmann, W. (2000). Working memory capacity – facets of a cognitive ability construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1017–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Payne, J., Bettman, J., & Johnson, E. (1993). The use of multiple strategies in judgment and choice. In N. J. Castellan Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: current issues (pp. 19–39). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  59. Rapoport, A., & Budescu, D. (1997). Randomization in individual choice behavior. Psychological Review, 104, 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roediger, H., Marsh, E., & Lee, S. (2002). Kinds of memory. In H. Pashler & D. Medin (Eds.), Steven’s handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed.), Vol. 2: Memory and cognitive processes (pp. 1–41). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Salthouse, T. A. (1988). The complexity of age × the complexity of functions: comment on Charness and Campbell (1988). Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 117, 425–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Salthouse, T. A. (1990). Working memory as a processing resource in cognitive aging. Developmental Review, 10, 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Salthouse, T. A., Hambrick, D., & Lukas, K. (1996). Determinants of adult age differences on synthetic work performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 2, 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shah, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 383–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith, E., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sperling, G., & Speelman, R. (1970). Acoustic similarity and auditory short-term memory experiments and a model. In D. A. Norman (Ed.), Models of human memory. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  67. Stankov, L. (1988). Single tests, competing tasks, and their relationship to the broad factors of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tetlock, P. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thompson, E., Roman, R., Moskowitz, G., Chaiken, S., & Bargh, J. (1994). Accuracy motivation attenuates covert priming: the systematic reprocessing of social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 474–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Trope, Y., & Bassok, M. (1983). Information-gathering strategies in hypothesis-testing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 560–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vandierendonck, A. (2000). Analyzing human random time generation behavior: a methodology and a computer program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 32, 555–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wagenaar, W. A. (1970). Subjective randomness and the capacity to generate information. Acta Psychologica, 32, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wang, M. & Chen Y. (2006). Age Differences in Attitude Change: Influences of Cognitive Resources and Motivation on Responses to Argument Quantity. Psychology & Aging, 21, 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Webster, D. M. (1993). Motivated augmentation and reduction of the overattribution bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 261–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Webster, D. & Kruglanski, A. W. (1998). Cognitive and social consequences of the need for cognitive closure. European Review of Social Psychology, 8, 133–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Webster, D., Richter, L., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1995). On leaping to conclusions when feeling tired: mental fatigue effects on impression primacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Małgorzata Kossowska
    • 1
  • Edward Orehek
    • 2
  • Arie W. Kruglanski
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian UniversityCracowPoland
  2. 2.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations