Literature Review

Need for Cognitive Closure (NCC) is “individuals’ desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity” (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). The word

“need” refers to the tendency or the inclination that consumers are likely to have (Kruglanski

& Webster, 1996). NCC comprises five dimensions – order and structure, predictability, decisiveness, ambiguity and closed-mind. The essence of NCC is the perceived benefit versus the perceived cost of cognitive closure. Situations that lead to perceived benefit include fatigue, illness, boredom from performing the task, as well as noise and time limit (Mannetti, Pierro, Kruglanski, Taris, & Bezinovic, 2002; Webster & Kruglanski, 1997).

Perceived benefits lead to high NCC. On the other hand, when consumers are accountable for the answer (Mannetti et al., 2002; Webster & Kruglanski, 1997), or are concerned that arriving at the answer limits them from other solutions (Webster & Kruglanski, 1997), they will tend to perceive the cost from the closure, and therefore have low NCC. NCC is very important because it possibly sheds light on unexplained phenomena in consumer behavior (Mikulincer, 1997). For example, when consumers have high NCC, they will have the need for an answer. If marketers can supply them with a satisfactory answer in a short time, they should be inclined to make a purchase as soon as they can. On the other hand, when they have low need for cognitive closure, they do not need to have the answer right away.

Marketers will have to assure them about the accuracy and comprehensiveness of their

decision, so that they are not worried about being accountable for the answer or whether there might be a better solution elsewhere.

Since NCC occurs in decision situations, scholars should pay attention to the factors affecting the situations. Paas and colleagues propose that cognitive variables are a function of task factors and subject factors (Paas, Merrienboer, & Adam, 1994). The task factors incorporated into this research are option alignability and time availability. The subject factor incorporated into the current research is the consumers’ regulatory focus type.

The first task factor, option alignability, concerns the difference among choice attributes, whether they differ in the same dimension (alignable) or different dimensions (nonalignable) (Gourville & Soman, 2005). Choosing from alignable options are easier and faster compared to choosing from nonalignable options (Boatwright & Nunes, 2001;

Herrmann, Heitmann, Morgan, Henneberg, & Landwehr, 2009). Option alignability is

important because its essence – the ease versus the complexity of the information – should directly impact NCC. Prior research found that option alignability is related to NCC (Zhang, Kardes, & Cronley, 2002). When the option is alignable, its ease will not be a threat to consumers and therefore should lead to low NCC. On the other hand, when the option is nonalignable, its complexity could lead consumers to fatigue and worry, and therefore should lead to high NCC.

The second task factor, time availability, is how much time consumers have for a particular task. Time availability is very important because most consumers now live in a fast-paced world where they have to make a decision under a time constraint (Ahituv, Igbaria,

& Sella, 1998). Suri and Moroe categorized time availability into three levels – time abundance, moderate time limit, and severe time limit (Suri & Monroe, 2003). The key difference between moderate and severe time limits is that in the latter case, consumers could change their information-processing strategy from using the central route to using the

peripheral route (Payne, Bettman, Coupey, & Johnson, 1992). A time limit leads to worry (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992) and stress (Maule & Hockey, 1993). As a result, a time limit also leads to high NCC (Kruglanski, 1989; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996), while consumers should have low NCC when there is no time limit.

The subject factor in this research, regulatory focus, is the tendency of how consumers regulate themselves in response to external stimuli (Crowe & Higgins, 1997;

Pham & Higgins, 2005). The two types of regulatory focus are promotion and prevention focus. Promotion (prevention)-focused consumers focus on their wish (duty) (Higgins, 1997;

Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997), and are concerned with the positive (negative) outcome (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Promotion (prevention)-focused consumers tend to have approach (avoidance) orientation (Higgins, 1997; Pham & Higgins, 2005) and tend to be risk taking (risk averse) (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Pham & Avnet, 2004).

Regulatory focus is very important because it governs how consumers live their lives.

It should also influence how they feel about their decision situations and whether they have the need to close the cognitive task or not. Promotion-focused consumers tend to be positive and open to new things; therefore, they should tend to have low NCC because their desire to explore impels them to keep considering options. On the other hand, prevention-focused consumers tend to be cautious and want to get the task done. Finishing the cognitive task takes away their concerns, and therefore they should tend to have high NCC.

From the literature above, we could predict how each factor influences NCC.

However, real-life situations usually involve more than one factor. Therefore, the interesting research question is how the combination of the situation factors impacts NCC.

3. Methodology

An experiment using a 2 (alignable versus nonalignable option) x 2 (time abundance versus moderate time limit) x 2 (promotion versus prevention focus) between-subject design was employed to study the impact of different situations on NCC level. The two levels of the three factors result in eight test situations as shown in Table 1. For example, promotion- focused consumers process alignable option information with no time limit in Situation 1.

Table 1

Company Selection Situation

Situation 1

Situation 2

Situation 3

Situation 4

Situation 5

Situation 6

Situation 7

Situation 8 Option

Align- ability

Alignable Alignable Non- alignable

Non- alignable

Alignable Alignable Non- alignable

Non- alignable

Time Avail- ability

Time abun- dance

Moderate time limit

Time abun- dance

Moderate time limit

Time abun- dance

Moderate time limit

Time abun- dance

Moderate time limit

Regulatory Focus

Promo- tion

Promo- tion

Promo- tion

Promo- tion

Preven- tion

Preven- tion

Preven- tion

Preven- tion

Using an undergraduate student sample is appropriate for the company selection domain because it fulfills two requirements. First, respondents have to be highly involved in the domain, so that they will process the information via the central route processing. Second, respondents must be unfamiliar with the domain, so that they will rely on short-term memory, not long-term memory.

A total of 1,116 undergraduate students were approached. Because of manipulation doubts, 55 observations were dropped, resulting in 1,061 usable observations. Seventy-five percent of the respondents were female with an average age of 20. This demographic is in line with the universities’ social science studies populations as a whole.

Prior to the main experiment, the option alignability stimulus was developed based on the attributes generated from 30 respondents. The alignable (nonalignable) option differs in one same (different) dimension(s). Regulatory focus priming was based on prior literature.

Promotion (prevention)-primed respondents were asked to write down two examples of aspirations (tasks) (Chernev, 2004; Liberman, Molden, Idson, & Higgins, 2001), and two strategies to achieve success (avoid failure) (Chang & Chou, 2008; Lockwood, Jordan, &

Kunda, 2002; Pham & Avnet, 2004). The moderate time limit was determined based on the average time used in the pretest (Ahituv et al., 1998; Chien-Huang & Wu, 2005; Dhar &

Nowlis, 1999; Higgins, 1999; Payne et al., 1992; Svenson, Edland, & Slovic, 1990). The manipulation checks for option alignability (Zhang & Fitzsimons, 1999), time availability (Suri & Monroe, 2003), and regulatory focus (Ouschan, Boldero, Kashima, Wakomoto, &

Kashima, 2007) were based on the prior literature. Qualitative and quantitative pretests were conducted to ensure that the experiment met the research requirements.

The main experiment started with an introduction, the regulatory focus priming, and the career selection task. The option alignability and time availability were manipulated during the career selection task. NCC levels were then measured based on the prior literature (Roets & Hiel, 2011). The researcher thanked the respondents and snack bars were given to them as a token of appreciation.