Need for closure and compensatory rule‐based perception: The role of information consistency

Abstract

When making comparisons, people tend to use routinized standards, rules, and knowledge structures. Compensatory rules (e.g., “if competent, then cold”, “if incompetent, then warm”) allow for the quick and easy evaluation of groups when they are compared. We claim that the application of these rules is especially attractive for people who are motivated to seek quick and firm answers (people high in the need for closure—NFC). However, we assume that when people are confronted with expectancy‐inconsistent information, higher levels of NFC lead to a lower reliance on these rules. This is because the inconsistency may serve as a signal that the rules no longer provide guidance on how to act. We demonstrated these effects in three studies set in different group contexts, where we manipulated expectancy‐consistent and expectancy‐inconsistent information. These findings allow for a more comprehensive view of the dynamic and diverse effects of NFC.

Knowledge Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments

“…In this study, the researchers demonstrated that low trust in one's own capacity to achieve certainty may lead to cognition that is typically associated with openness, such as reduced bias in the formulation of impressions of others, the taking of complex decisions rather than simple ones, and reduced stereotyping. In addition, studies in which one's confidence in the previously obtained knowledge was experimentally undermined, these open-minded effects were also found (Dragon & Kossowska, 2019). In these situations, individuals lost faith in themselves and their knowledge, which, in turn, resulted in this knowledge (i.e.…”