Information to Users
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter frice, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each orignal is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 NEED FOR COGNITION IS MORE THAN “THEY THINK”: REPRESENTATION AND STRUCTURE OF COGNITIVE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE SELF-CONCEPT DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jefifrey Allen Feinstein, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1996 Dissertation Examination Committee: Dr. John Cacioppo, Adviser Approved by Dr. Richard Petty Dr. Robert Arkin Dr. Curt Haugtvedt Department of Psychology UMI Number; 9710561 UMI Microform 9710561 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT Need for cognition refers to the predisposition to engage in efifortfiii cognitive activity, to enjoy engaging in efifortfiii cognitive activity, and to seek out cognitive tasks. Research on the need for cognition suggests that it is a stable personality variable, which loads on a single factor, and predicts behavior on cognitive tasks. Need for cognition has been conceptualized as a process variable which predicts interindividual variations in the way one acquires and processes information from the social world. The present study extended this corpus of research by examining the representation of need for cognition in the self-concept of individuals differing in need for cognition. In Study 1, need for cognition was conceptualized within the broader scope of personality description by examining the structure of need for cognition within the Big 5 Factor Structure. Studies 2, 3, and 4 further examined the need for cognition by examining if it satisfies the criteria of a self-schema (Study 2), influences information processing about the self as would a self-schema dimension (Study 3), and influences information processing in relatively more social contexts as self-schema have in prior research (Study 4). Results of these studies confirm that need for cognition is a distinct process variable which is not entirely accounted for by the Big Five personality descriptors, that individuals high in need for cognition are self-schematic on engaging in cognitive acts and consequently information processing of information related to cognitive endeavors is facilitated relative to individuals low in need for cognition, and individual differences in need for cognition have distinct personological outcomes which are limited to cognitive attributes, but not social and emotional attributes. Ill ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to John Cacioppo for whose advice, mentoring, and collaborative wisdom this project would not have been possible. I would also like to extend my sincerest thanks to members of my family, Amy Harasty, Anita Feinstein, and Mel Feinstein, whose loving support was necessary for me to complete this document and whose intellects were necessary to help further my thinking about need for cognition. Special thanks to Amy, Anita, and Mel whose persistence and diligence were necessary in helping to code the behavioral listing data in Study 3. Thanks also to members of John Cacioppo’s Neuroscience Research Group, in particular Kirsten Poehlmann, Dave Klein, and Wendi Gardner; and members of Richard Petty’s Group for Attitudes and Persuasion, in particular Richard Petty, Monique Fleming, Joseph Priester, and John Downing, for providing helpful suggestions to my program of research on the personology of need for cognition. Thanks to David Lozano for providing technical expertise and programming skill in the development of the response time software used in Study 3, Oliver John for insightful comments on an earlier draft of Study 1, and Michael Browne for helpful guidance in the analyses of Study 1. IV VITA April 3, 1969 .......................................... Bom - New York City, New York 1991 ...................................................... B.A. Psychology, State University of New York at BufiTalo 1994 ...................................................... M.A. Psychology, The Ohio State University 1991 - 1992 ........................................... Research Associate, Social Neuroscience Lab, The Ohio State University 1992 - 1996 ........................................... Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. B. N. Major, J. A. Feinstein, & J. Crocker, The attributional ambiguity of affirmative diC(\on. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 113-142. (1994). 2. J. T. Cacioppo, R. E. Petty, J. A. Feinstein, & W. Jarvis, Dispositional differences in cognition motivation: The life and times of individuals differing in the need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253, (1996). FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Psychology Minor Field: Quantitative Psychology Minor Field: Psychobiology VI TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract........................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... iv V ita ............................................................................................................... V Table of contents ........................................................................................... vii List of tables.................................................................................................. ix List of figures................................................................................................ x Chapters; 1. Personology of need for cognition ...................................................... 1 Study 1 ............................................................................................. 5 M ethod ......................................................................................... 11 Results........................................................................................... 14 Discussion..................................................................................... 34 2. Representation of cognitive acts in the self-concept as a function of need for cognition ......................................................................... 36 Pilot Studies ....................................................................................... 37 Study 2 ............................................................................................. 51 M ethod ......................................................................................... 50 R esults......................................................................................... 52 Discussion..................................................................................... 61 Vll 3. Need for cognition and processing information; A self-schema approach ........................................................................................ 64 Study 3 .............................................................................................. 65 Method and Design ....................................................................... 69 Results.......................................................................................... 73 Discussion...................................................................................... 93 Study 4 .............................................................................................. 98 M ethod .......................................................................................... 101 Results.......................................................................................... 104 Discussion and general discussion ...................................................... 110 List of References .......................................................................................... 121 Appendices A: 18 item need for cognition scale (Cacioppo, Petty & Kao, 1984)... 129 B: Script for ambiguous target in experiment 4.................................... 130 C: List of 24 Questions used in experiment 4 ...................................... 132 D: Analyses of Study 4 data