↓ Skip to main content

The closed-mindedness that wasn’t: need for structure and expectancy-inconsistent information

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The closed-mindedness that wasn’t: need for structure and expectancy-inconsistent information
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00896
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Kemmelmeier

Abstract

Social-cognitive researchers have typically assumed that individuals high in need for structure or need for closure tend to be closed-minded: they are motivated to resist or ignore information that is inconsistent with existing beliefs but instead they rely on category-based expectancies. The present paper argues that this conclusion is not necessarily warranted because previous studies did not allow individual differences in categorical processing to emerge and did not consider different distributions of category-relevant information. Using a person memory paradigm, Experiments 1 and 2 shows that, when categorical processing is optional, high need-for-structure individuals are especially likely to use this type processing to reduce uncertainty, which results in superior recall for expectancy-inconsistent information. Experiment 2 demonstrates that such information is also more likely to be used in judgment making, leading to judgmental moderation among high need-for-structure individuals. Experiments 3 and 4 used a person memory paradigm which requires categorical processing regardless of levels of need for structure. Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrate that, whether expectancy-consistent or -inconsistent information is recalled better is a function of whether the majority of available information is compatible or incompatible with an initial category-based expectancy. Experiment 4 confirmed that the extent to which high need-for-structure individuals attend to different types of information varies with their distribution. The discussion highlights that task affordances have a critical influence on the consequences of categorical processing for memory and social judgment. Thus, high need for structure does not necessarily equate closed-mindedness.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Hong Kong 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 30 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Other 10 29%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 54%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2023.
All research outputs
#6,513,494
of 23,505,669 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,417
of 31,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,021
of 264,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#210
of 562 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,505,669 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,795 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 562 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.