Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Need for cognition
The need for cognition (NFC), in psychology, is a personality variable reflecting the extent to which individuals are inclined towards effortful cognitive activities.
Need for cognition has been variously defined as "a need to structure relevant situations in meaningful, integrated ways" and "a need to understand and make reasonable the experiential world". Higher NFC is associated with increased appreciation of debate, idea evaluation, and problem solving. Those with a high need for cognition may be inclined towards high elaboration. Those with a lower need for cognition may display the opposite tendencies, and may process information more heuristically, often through low elaboration.
Need for cognition is closely related to the five factor model domain openness to experience, typical intellectual engagement, and epistemic curiosity (see below).
Cohen, Stotland and Wolfe (1955), in their work on individual differences in cognitive motivation, identified a "need for cognition" which they defined as "the individual's need to organize his experience meaningfully", the "need to structure relevant situations in meaningful, integrated ways", and "need to understand and make reasonable the experiential world" (p. 291). They argued that, if this "need" were frustrated, it would generate "feelings of tension and deprivation" that would instigate "active efforts to structure the situation and increase understanding" (p. 291), though the particular situations arousing and satisfying the need may vary (p. 291). Cohen argued that even in structured situations, people high in NFC see ambiguity and strive for higher standards of cognitive clarity.
Cohen and colleagues themselves identified multiple prior identifications of need for cognition, citing works by Murphy, Maslow, Katz, Harlow and Asch. They distinguished their concept from the apparently similar "intolerance of ambiguity" proposed by Frenkel-Brunswik, arguing that NFC does not reflect the need to experience an integrated and meaningful world. Contemporary research suggests that Cohen's conception of need is, however, closer to tolerance of ambiguity, need for structure, or need for cognitive closure than to current ideas of need for cognition. For instance, studies using Cohen's measures indicated avoidance of ambiguity and a need to get "meaning" even if this meant relying on heuristics or expert advice rather than careful scrutiny of incoming information.
Building on this work, Cacioppo therefore moved away from drive-reduction toward measuring individual differences in the self-reward potential of cognitive activity, stressing (p. 118) that they were using the word need in the statistical sense of a "likelihood or tendency", rather than in the rudimentary biological sense of "tissue deprivation", they defined the need for cognition as an individual's tendency to "engage in and enjoy thinking" (p. 116) and the tendency to "organize, abstract, and evaluate information" (p. 124)—or, variously, as a stable, but individually different "tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors", or an "intrinsic motivation to engage in effortful cognitive endeavors... and exercise their mental faculties", or an "intrinsic motivation for effortful thought".
Cacioppo and Petty (1982) created their own 34-item scale to measure the need for cognition. Two years later, an 18-item version was published and in most of the cases reported in the subsequent literature it is this amended scale that is administered. Recently, a 6-item version of the need for cognition scale was proposed that is comparable to the 18-item scale in terms of validity and reliability.
People high in the need for cognition are more likely to form their attitudes by paying close attention to relevant arguments (i.e., via the central route to persuasion), whereas people low in the need for cognition are more likely to rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is. People low in need for cognition are also more likely to rely on stereotypes alone in judging other people than those high in need for cognition.
Hub AI
Need for cognition AI simulator
(@Need for cognition_simulator)
Need for cognition
The need for cognition (NFC), in psychology, is a personality variable reflecting the extent to which individuals are inclined towards effortful cognitive activities.
Need for cognition has been variously defined as "a need to structure relevant situations in meaningful, integrated ways" and "a need to understand and make reasonable the experiential world". Higher NFC is associated with increased appreciation of debate, idea evaluation, and problem solving. Those with a high need for cognition may be inclined towards high elaboration. Those with a lower need for cognition may display the opposite tendencies, and may process information more heuristically, often through low elaboration.
Need for cognition is closely related to the five factor model domain openness to experience, typical intellectual engagement, and epistemic curiosity (see below).
Cohen, Stotland and Wolfe (1955), in their work on individual differences in cognitive motivation, identified a "need for cognition" which they defined as "the individual's need to organize his experience meaningfully", the "need to structure relevant situations in meaningful, integrated ways", and "need to understand and make reasonable the experiential world" (p. 291). They argued that, if this "need" were frustrated, it would generate "feelings of tension and deprivation" that would instigate "active efforts to structure the situation and increase understanding" (p. 291), though the particular situations arousing and satisfying the need may vary (p. 291). Cohen argued that even in structured situations, people high in NFC see ambiguity and strive for higher standards of cognitive clarity.
Cohen and colleagues themselves identified multiple prior identifications of need for cognition, citing works by Murphy, Maslow, Katz, Harlow and Asch. They distinguished their concept from the apparently similar "intolerance of ambiguity" proposed by Frenkel-Brunswik, arguing that NFC does not reflect the need to experience an integrated and meaningful world. Contemporary research suggests that Cohen's conception of need is, however, closer to tolerance of ambiguity, need for structure, or need for cognitive closure than to current ideas of need for cognition. For instance, studies using Cohen's measures indicated avoidance of ambiguity and a need to get "meaning" even if this meant relying on heuristics or expert advice rather than careful scrutiny of incoming information.
Building on this work, Cacioppo therefore moved away from drive-reduction toward measuring individual differences in the self-reward potential of cognitive activity, stressing (p. 118) that they were using the word need in the statistical sense of a "likelihood or tendency", rather than in the rudimentary biological sense of "tissue deprivation", they defined the need for cognition as an individual's tendency to "engage in and enjoy thinking" (p. 116) and the tendency to "organize, abstract, and evaluate information" (p. 124)—or, variously, as a stable, but individually different "tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors", or an "intrinsic motivation to engage in effortful cognitive endeavors... and exercise their mental faculties", or an "intrinsic motivation for effortful thought".
Cacioppo and Petty (1982) created their own 34-item scale to measure the need for cognition. Two years later, an 18-item version was published and in most of the cases reported in the subsequent literature it is this amended scale that is administered. Recently, a 6-item version of the need for cognition scale was proposed that is comparable to the 18-item scale in terms of validity and reliability.
People high in the need for cognition are more likely to form their attitudes by paying close attention to relevant arguments (i.e., via the central route to persuasion), whereas people low in the need for cognition are more likely to rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is. People low in need for cognition are also more likely to rely on stereotypes alone in judging other people than those high in need for cognition.