This study evaluated the construct validity of the scores of the Chinese version of the Need for Closure Scale (NFCS) as administered to a sample of Hong Kong college students who also completed the Personal Need for Structure Scale (PNS) and the Personal Fear of Invalidity Scale (PFI). The scale-scale and scale-facet correlations were similar to those of the original English versions. Factor analyses confirmed that the scores of the Chinese NFCS have a bidimensional structure in which the facets preference for order, preference for predictability, and discomfort with ambiguity constitute a factor together with the PNS and the facet decisiveness and the reverse-scored PFI constitute another orthogonal factor. The facet closed mindedness, however, needs further development. The two factors showed satisfactory internal consistency and divergent validity.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effect of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 449-455.
2.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 197, 238-246.
3.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternativeways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Burger, J. M. (1992). Desire for control: Personality, social, clinical perspectives. New York: Plenum.
5.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
6.
Chiu, C. Y., Morris, M. W, Hong, Y. Y., & Menon, T. (2000). Motivated cultural cognition: The impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 247-259.
7.
De Grada, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A. (1999). Motivated cognition and group interaction: Need for closure affects the contents and processes of collective negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 346-365.
8.
De Grada, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Un’ analisi strutturale comparativa delle versioni USA e italiana della scala di “Bisogno di Chiusura Cognitiva” diWebster & Kruglanski [A comparative structural analysis of the U.S. and Italian versions of the “Need for Cognitive Closure” Scale of Webster & Kruglanski]. TPM: Testing, Psicometria, Metodologia, 3, 5-18.
9.
Dijksterhuis, A. P., Van Knippenberg, A. D., Kruglanski, A. W., & Schaper, C. (1996). Motivated social cognition: Need for closure effects on memoryand judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 254-270.
10.
Hoyle, R. H., & Lennox, R. D. (1991). Latent structure of self-monitoring. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 511-540.
11.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.
12.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
13.
Kivimäki, M., Elovainio, M., & Nord, J. (1996). Personal need for structure and occupational strain: An investigation of structural models and interaction with job complexity. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 209-222.
14.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. New York: Plenum.
15.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins& R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition(Vol. 2, pp. 333-368). New York: Guilford.
16.
Kruglanski, A. W., Atash, M. N., De Grada, E., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Webster, D. M. (1997). Psychological theory testing versus psychometric nay-saying: Comment on Neuberg et al.’s (1997) critique of the Need for Closure Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1005-1016.
17.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448-468.
18.
Kruglanski, A. W. & Mayseless, O. (1987). Motivational effects in the social comparison of opinions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 834-842.
19.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Mayseless, O. (1988). Contextual effects in the hypothesis testing: The role of competing alternatives and epistemic motivations. Social Cognition, 6, 1-21.
20.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: Seizing and freezing. Psychological Review, 103, 263-283.
21.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.
22.
Moskowitz, G. B. (1993). Individual differences in social categorization: The influence of personal need for structure on spontaneous trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 132-142.
23.
Neuberg, S. L., Judice T. N., & West, S. G. (1997). What the need for closure scale measure and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1396-1412.
24.
Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simpler structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113-131.
25.
Neuberg, S. L., West, S. G., Judice, T. N., & Thompson, M. M. (1997). On dimensionality, discriminant validity, and the role of psychometric analyses in personality theory and measurement: Reply to Kruglanski et al.’s defense of the need for closure scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1017-1029.
26.
Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Converso, D., Garsia, V., Miglietta, A., Ravenna, M., et al. (1995). Caratteristiche strutturali della versione italiana di Bisogno di Chiusura Cognitiva (di Webster & Kruglanski) [Structural characteristics of the Italian version of the Need for Cognitive Closure Scale (of Webster & Kruglanski)]. TPM: Testing, Psicometria, Metodologia, 2, 125-142.
27.
Roman, R. J., Moskowitz, G. B., Stein, M. I., & Eisenberg, R. F. (1995). Individual differences in experiment participation: Structure, autonomy, and the time of the semester. Journal of Personality, 63, 113-138.
28.
Shiloh, S., Koren, S., & Zakay, D. (2001). Individual differences in compensatory decisionmaking style and need for closure as correlates of subjective decision complexity and difficulty. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 699-710.
29.
Shotter, J. (1970). Men, and man-makers: George Kelly and the psychology of personal constructs. In D. Bannister (Ed.), Perspectives in personal construct theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30.
Smith, M. R., & Gordon, R. A. (1998). Personal need for structure and attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 83-87.
31.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances / private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.
32.
Thompson, M. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1995). The conflict individual: Personality-based and domain-specific antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes. Journal of Personality, 63, 259-288.
33.
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.
34.
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1998). Cognitive and social consequences of the need for cognitive closure. European Review of Social Psychology, 8, 133-173.
35.
Weinberg, D. C. (1999). The effect of personality upon judicial attitudes and decision-making in contested custody cases. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section-B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60(1-B), 0404-0404.
