Rethinking the need and ability to achieve cognitive structure: Measurement and theory issues
Abstract
Quantifying individual differences in clients' needs and abilities to implement cognitive structure might be beneficial for clinicians working within a cognitive behavioral perspective. Although there is a substantial body of literature on epistemic processes, a general agreement about the best measures is lacking. A primary purpose of Study One was to simultaneously evaluate pertinent measures in an effort to determine best items and to create a combined instrument. Psychometric analyses were carried out on three measures of the need for cognitive structure—the Personal Need for Structure scale (PNS; Thompson et al., 1992), Need for Cognitive Structure scale (NCS; Bar-Tal, 1994), and Need for Closure Scale (NFCS; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994)—and two measures of the ability to achieve cognitive structure—the Ability to Achieve Cognitive Structure scale (ARCS; Bar-Tal, 1994) and Personal Fear of Invalidity scale (PFI; Thompson et al., 1992). These measures were then combined into a new measure called the Cognitive Processing Styles Inventory (CPSI) and a large-scale factor analysis was performed. The results only partially supported Webster and Kruglanski's (1994) proposed facets of the need for closure: Preference for Order, Preference for Predictability, Decisiveness, Discomfort with Ambiguity, and Closed-Mindedness but their proposed pattern of item loadings on these factors was not supported. Using the NCS, AACS, and CPSI scales, Study Two evaluated Kruglanski and Bar-Tal's theories on the influence of need and ability to achieve structure on stereotype use, vigilance, hypervigilance, functional and dysfunctional impulsivity, impressional primacy effects, decisional certainty, and effortful processing. Overall, Bar-Tal's theory on the moderating effects of AACS on NCS was poorly supported. Additionally, no support was found for the influence of need or ability to achieve structure on stereotype use. In many cases, AACS alone did better than NCS or the NCS x AACS interaction in accounting for the variance in the dependent variables. On average, the CPSI scales did as well or better than the NCS and AACS scales in accounting for variance in the dependent variables of interest. Theoretical implications of this research are discussed and recommendations are provided for use of the CPSI.
Degree
Ph.D.
Advisors
Merritt, Purdue University.
Subject Area
Psychotherapy|Social psychology|Cognitive therapy
Off-Campus Purdue Users:
To access this dissertation, please log in to our
proxy server.