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).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
We use the concept of working memory as it has been defined in the literature over the past two decades (for overview see: Feldman-Barrett, Tugade, & Engle, 2004). In fact, there is no universally agreed upon definition of WM. There are several aspects or components to working memory as resource allocation, buffer size, or processing capacity, and individual differences in working memory function could presumably result from each of them and from their interaction.
- 2.
Note that need for closure is not an explicit index of cognitive resource usage, nor it is necessarily related to diminishing resources. As indicated by research involving this construct, however, high need for closure does appear to reflect a preference for relatively simple, routinized cognitive operations. Up to this point, there has been little work regarding factors responsible for determining one’s need for closure. One potential way that such preference may be developed is through diminution of resources.
- 3.
Span task or operational span task – the task is to solve simple math equations while simultaneously remembering unrelated words.
- 4.
The question could arise if it might be a case that there is a ‘third party’ factor accounting for the results of our studies. The obvious candidate could be a level of intelligence. Individuals high in need for closure often limit their information processing activities. This may suggest a negative relationship between need for closure and intelligence. Empirically, the relationship between need for closure and intelligence is nonsignificant (see Webster & Kruglanski, 1994; Kossowska, 2003).
References
Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 5–28.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
Daneman, M., & Merike, P. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: a meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422–433.
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.
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.
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.
Embretson, S. E. (1995). The role of working memory capacity and general control processes in intelligence. Intelligence, 20, 169–189.
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.
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.
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.
Folkard, S., & Monk, T. (1980). Circadian rhythms in human memory. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 295–309.
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.
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.
Harris, M., & Tetrick, L. (1993). Cognitive ability and motivational interventions: their effects on performance outcomes. Current Psychology, 12, 57–79.
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.
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.
Hunt, E., & Lansman, M. (1986). Unified model of attention and problem solving. Psychological Review, 93, 446–461.
Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sullaway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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.
Kossowska, M. (2003). Różnice indywidualne w potrzebie poznawczego domknięcia. [Individual differences in need for cognitive closure]. Przeglad Psychologiczny, 46, 355–375.
Kossowska, M. (2005). Umysł Niezmienny Poznawcze Mechanizmy Sztywnosci [Unchangeable mind Cognitive mechanisms of rigidity]. Cracow: WUJ.
Kossowska, M. (2007a). Motivation toward closure and cognitive processes: an individual differences approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2149–2158.
Kossowska, M. (2007b). The role of cognitive inhibition in motivation toward closure. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1117–1126.
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.
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.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge. New York: Plenum Press.
Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.
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.
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.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Mayseless, O. (1988). Contextual effects in hypothesis testing: the role of competing alternatives and epistemic motivations. Social Cognition, 6, 1–20.
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.
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.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: seizing and freezing. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.
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.
Kyllonen, P., & Christal, R. (1990). The theory of comprehension: new frontiers of evidence and arguments. Psychological Review, 103, 389–433.
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.
Legierski, J., & Kossowska, M. (2008). Epistemic motivation, working memory and diagnostic information search. Unpublished manuscript.
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.
Mayseless, O. & Kruglanski, A. W. (1987). Accuracy of estimates in the social comparison of abilities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 217–229.
Miller, L. & Vernon, P. (1992). The general factor in short-term memory, intelligence, and reaction time. Intelligence, 16, 5–29.
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.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory. Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Muraven, M., & Slessareva, E. (2003). Mechanism of self-control failure: motivation and limited resources. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 894–906.
Necka, E. (1992). Cognitive analysis of intelligence: the significance of working memory processes. Personality & Individual Differences, 13, 1031–1046.
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.
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.
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.
Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. J. (1975). On data-limited and resources-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.
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.
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.
Rapoport, A., & Budescu, D. (1997). Randomization in individual choice behavior. Psychological Review, 104, 603–617.
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.
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.
Salthouse, T. A. (1990). Working memory as a processing resource in cognitive aging. Developmental Review, 10, 101–124.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stankov, L. (1988). Single tests, competing tasks, and their relationship to the broad factors of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 25–33.
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.
Tetlock, P. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.
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.
Trope, Y., & Bassok, M. (1983). Information-gathering strategies in hypothesis-testing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 560–576.
Vandierendonck, A. (2000). Analyzing human random time generation behavior: a methodology and a computer program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 32, 555–566.
Wagenaar, W. A. (1970). Subjective randomness and the capacity to generate information. Acta Psychologica, 32, 233–242.
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.
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.
Webster, D. & Kruglanski, A. W. (1998). Cognitive and social consequences of the need for cognitive closure. European Review of Social Psychology, 8, 133–173.
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.
Acknowledgments
Research was supported by grant MNiSW PB 3557/32 (grant acknowledged to the first author).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kossowska, M., Orehek, E., Kruglanski, A.W. (2010). Motivation Towards Closure and Cognitive Resources: An Individual Differences Approach. In: Gruszka, A., Matthews, G., Szymura, B. (eds) Handbook of Individual Differences in Cognition. The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1210-7_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1210-7_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1209-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1210-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)