IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0146002.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Need for Cognitive Closure Modulates How Perceptual Decisions Are Affected by Task Difficulty and Outcome Relevance

Author

Listed:
  • Vanda Viola
  • Annalisa Tosoni
  • Ambra Brizi
  • Ilaria Salvato
  • Arie W Kruglanski
  • Gaspare Galati
  • Lucia Mannetti

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which Need for Cognitive Closure (NCC), an individual-level epistemic motivation, can explain inter-individual variability in the cognitive effort invested on a perceptual decision making task (the random motion task). High levels of NCC are manifested in a preference for clarity, order and structure and a desire for firm and stable knowledge. The study evaluated how NCC moderates the impact of two variables known to increase the amount of cognitive effort invested on a task, namely task ambiguity (i.e., the difficulty of the perceptual discrimination) and outcome relevance (i.e., the monetary gain associated with a correct discrimination). Based on previous work and current design, we assumed that reaction times (RTs) on our motion discrimination task represent a valid index of effort investment. Task ambiguity was associated with increased cognitive effort in participants with low or medium NCC but, interestingly, it did not affect the RTs of participants with high NCC. A different pattern of association was observed for outcome relevance; high outcome relevance increased cognitive effort in participants with moderate or high NCC, but did not affect the performance of low NCC participants. In summary, the performance of individuals with low NCC was affected by task difficulty but not by outcome relevance, whereas individuals with high NCC were influenced by outcome relevance but not by task difficulty; only participants with medium NCC were affected by both task difficulty and outcome relevance. These results suggest that perceptual decision making is influenced by the interaction between context and NCC.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanda Viola & Annalisa Tosoni & Ambra Brizi & Ilaria Salvato & Arie W Kruglanski & Gaspare Galati & Lucia Mannetti, 2015. "Need for Cognitive Closure Modulates How Perceptual Decisions Are Affected by Task Difficulty and Outcome Relevance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146002
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146002
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146002&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0146002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Westbrook & Daria Kester & Todd S Braver, 2013. "What Is the Subjective Cost of Cognitive Effort? Load, Trait, and Aging Effects Revealed by Economic Preference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-8, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julia Grass & Florian Krieger & Philipp Paulus & Samuel Greiff & Anja Strobel & Alexander Strobel, 2019. "Thinking in action: Need for Cognition predicts Self-Control together with Action Orientation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Wouter Kool & Fiery A Cushman & Samuel J Gershman, 2016. "When Does Model-Based Control Pay Off?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-34, August.
    3. Elizabeth A. Kensinger & Angela H. Gutchess, 2017. "Cognitive Aging in a Social and Affective Context: Advances Over the Past 50 Years," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 72(1), pages 61-70.
    4. Zohar Rusou & Moty Amar & Shahar Ayal, 2020. "The psychology of task management: The smaller tasks trap," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 586-599, July.
    5. Arian Aflaki & Pnina Feldman & Robert Swinney, 2019. "Becoming Strategic: Endogenous Consumer Time Preferences and Multiperiod Pricing," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 1116-1131, July.
    6. Oberholzer, Yvonne & Olschewski, Sebastian & Scheibehenne, Benjamin, 2024. "Complexity aversion in risky choices and valuations: Moderators and possible causes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:4:p:586-599 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.