Factor Structure and Internal Consistency on a Reduced Version of the Revised Test of Need for Cognitive Closure

The need for cognitive closure is a construct postulated by Kruglanski that explains the motivational aspects which influence decision-making and its impact on the social environment. Initially, it was assessed through a unidimensional scale, later criticized for its poor satisfactory reliability and validity. Regarding these criticisms, Pierro and Kruglanski developed a new 14-item scale to measure two dimensions, which were not previously evaluated: urgency tendency and permanence tendency. Although the Revised Test of Need for Cognitive Closure is more economical in terms of assessment time, it would be optimal to develop a reduced test that can assess faster while maintaining validity and reliability. The present research aims to reduce the Revised Test of Need for Cognitive Closure scale to the Argentinian context. To this end, we worked on a non-experimental design, assessing this scale within a sample of 690 Argentinian university students (Women = 81.16%, Men = 18.84%), and proceeded to perform reliability, as well as confirmatory factor analysis, convergent validity, and factorial invariance analysis. The results indicate a bi-factorial structure of a Need for Cognitive Closure instrument with eight items and two dimensions: urgency tendency (α = 0.76) and permanence tendency (α = 0.64), suggesting good reliability in both of them. In addition, well convergent validity was checked with other validated instruments, and finally, the factor loadings were shown to be invariant. In conclusion, it was demonstrated the reliability and validity of reducing the Revised Test of Need for Cognitive Closure in our social environment.

Why postmortems fail

Most high-profile disasters are followed by demands for an investigation into what went wrong. Even before they start, calls for finding the missed warning signs and an explanation for why people did not “connect the dots” will be common. Unfortunately, however, the same combination of political pressures and the failure to adopt good social science methods that contributed to the initial failure usually lead to postmortems that are badly flawed. The high stakes mean that powerful actors will have strong incentives to see that certain conclusions are—and are not—drawn. Most postmortems also are marred by strong psychological biases, especially the assumption that incorrect inferences must have been the product of wrong ways of thinking, premature cognitive closure, the naive use of hindsight, and the neglect of the comparative method. Given this experience, I predict that the forthcoming inquiries into the January 6, 2021, storming of the US Capitol and the abrupt end to the Afghan government will stumble in many ways.

One Recommender Fits All? An Exploration of User Satisfaction With Text-Based News Recommender Systems

Journalistic media increasingly address changing user behaviour online by implementing algorithmic recommendations on their pages. While social media extensively rely on user data for personalized recommendations, journalistic media may choose to aim to improve the user experience based on textual features such as thematic similarity. From a societal viewpoint, these recommendations should be as diverse as possible. Users, however, tend to prefer recommendations that enable “serendipity”—the perception of an item as a welcome surprise that strikes just the right balance between more similarly useful but still novel content. By conducting a representative online survey with n = 588 respondents, we investigate how users evaluate algorithmic news recommendations (recommendation satisfaction, as well as perceived novelty and unexpectedness) based on different similarity settings and how individual dispositions (news interest, civic information norm, need for cognitive closure, etc.) may affect these evaluations. The core piece of our survey is a self-programmed recommendation system that accesses a database of vectorized news articles. Respondents search for a personally relevant keyword and select a suitable article, after which another article is recommended automatically, at random, using one of three similarity settings. Our findings show that users prefer recommendations of the most similar articles, which are at the same time perceived as novel, but not necessarily unexpected. However, user evaluations will differ depending on personal characteristics such as formal education, the civic information norm, and the need for cognitive closure.

EXPRESS: Dispositional and Situational Predictors of Coping with Violated Achievement Expectations

Most students experience expectation violations during their academic career, such as unexpected failed tests. However, contradictory evidence does not always result in expectation change (accommodation). Expectations often persist through stronger efforts to fulfil the expectation (assimilation) or ignoring the discrepancy (immunization). Our study addresses possible situational and dispositional predictors that may be decisive influences on the use of the three coping strategies. We conducted an experimental study with n = 439 students who experienced an expectation violation in an achievement test. Dispositional coping tendencies, valence of expectation violation, and the interaction of valence and degree of expectation violation were found to predict situational coping. Furthermore, higher need for cognitive closure predicted stronger accommodation, and a large degree of expectation violation predicted stronger immunization. Thus, our study provides initial evidence on which situational and dispositional factors predict coping with expectation violations in an educational context. Expectation violation in a performance context mainly resulted in stronger efforts to protect positive achievement expectations.