Need for Cognition

Definition

Need for cognition refers to an individual's tendency to engage in and enjoy activities that require thinking (e.g., brainstorming puzzles). Some individuals have relatively little motivation for cognitively complex tasks. These individuals are described as being low in need for cognition. Other individuals consistently engage in and enjoy cognitively challenging activities and are referred to as being high in need for cognition. An individual may fall at any point in the distribution, however.

Background and History

The term need for cognition was originally introduced by Arthur Cohen and his colleagues in the 1950s and was brought back into popularity by John Cacioppo and Richard Petty in the 1980s. In Cohen's original work, need for cognition was defined as the need to make sense of the world. Therefore, greater need for cognition was associated with preference for structure and clarity in one's surroundings. That approach emphasized intolerance for ambiguity and thus appears closer to contemporary scales that measure need for structure or need for closure than to the current definition of need for cognition. However, Cacioppo and Petty retained the term need for cognition in acknowledgment of Cohen and his colleagues' early work.

Cacioppo and Petty conceptualized need for cognition as a stable individual difference (i.e., a personality trait) in the tendency to engage in and enjoy cognitively effortful tasks across a wide variety of domains (e.g., math, verbal, spatial). Need for cognition is assumed to reflect a stable intrinsic motivation that can be developed over time. In the modern way of thinking about need for cognition, the emphasis is on cognitive processing (i.e., the activity of engaging in mentally challenging tasks) rather than on cognitive outcomes (e.g., a structured knowledge of the world). Importantly, need for cognition taps into differences in motivation rather than ability. This is supported by research showing that need for cognition is only moderately related to measures of ability such as verbal intelligence, ACT scores, and high school and college GPA, and continues to predict relevant outcomes after cognitive ability is controlled. It is a matter of whether one likes to think, not whether one is good at thinking.

Measurement

Although the Need for Cognition scale was originally developed as a 34-item inventory, the most commonly used version contains 18 items that people rate on 5-point scales as being characteristic of themselves (or not). Some examples of scale items are “I prefer complex to simple tasks,” “The notion of thinking abstractly appeals to me,” and “I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve.” The scale has been established to have high internal consistency, suggesting that the individual scale items tap into the same construct. The scale also demonstrates good validity. That is, the scale correlates with other scales that measure individual differences that should be independent of but related to need for cognition. For instance, the scale correlates positively with other scales that measure the tendency to make complex attributions and the tendency to seek relevant information for decision making and problem solving.

Enjoyment of Cognitive Challenges

Consistent with the definition of need for cognition (NC), research indicates that high NC individuals spontaneously engage in a variety of mentally effortful tasks, whereas low NC individuals will participate in such activities only when there are external incentives to do so. For example, high NC individuals distinguished between strong and weak messages in a persuasive communication. This occurred regardless of whether the message came from a trustworthy or untrustworthy source or took a surprising position or not. Low NC individuals, on the other hand, distinguished between strong and weak arguments only when the arguments came from an untrustworthy source or took a surprising position. This means that low NC [Page 612]individuals scrutinized the message only when there were other motivations to do so (e.g., to check on an untrustworthy source). Other special circumstances that motivate low NC individuals to think include unexpected arguments, an approaching deadline, and a personally relevant topic.

...