Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Open AccessSystematic Review

Short-Scale Construction Using Meta-Analytic Ant Colony Optimization

A Demonstration With the Need for Cognition Scale

Published Online:March 25, 2024https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000818

Abstract

Abstract: The Need for Cognition Scale (NCS) is a self-report scale measuring individual differences in the tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking. The shortened version with 18 items (NCS-18; Cacioppo et al., 1984) has widely been administered in research on persuasion, critical thinking, and educational achievement. Whereas most studies advocated for essential uni-dimensionality, the question remains which psychometric model yields the best representation of the NCS-18. In the present study, we compared six competing measurement models for the NCS-18 with meta-analytic structural equation models using summary data of 87 samples (N = 90,215). Results demonstrated that the negatively worded items introduced considerable measurement bias that was best accounted for with an acquiescence model. In a further analytical step, we showcased how the pooled correlation matrix can be used to compile short versions of the NCS-18 via Ant Colony Optimization. We examined model fit and reliability of short scales with varying item numbers (between 4 and 15) and a balanced ratio of positively and negatively worded items. We discuss the potentials and limits of the newly proposed method.

References References marked with * were included in the meta-analysis.

  • Aichholzer, J. (2014). Random intercept EFA of personality scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Alarcon, G. M., & Lee, M. A. (2022). The relationship of insufficient effort responding and response styles: An online experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 784375. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.784375 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Auerswald, M., & Moshagen, M. (2019). How to determine the number of factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis: A comparison of extraction methods under realistic conditions. Psychological Methods, 24(4), 468–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000200 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bader, M., & Moshagen, M. (2022). Assessing the fitting propensity of factor models. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000529 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Bakker, B. N., Lelkes, Y., & Malka, A. (2020). Understanding partisan cue receptivity: Tests of predictions from the bounded rationality and expressive utility perspectives. The Journal of Politics, 82(3), 1061–1077. https://doi.org/10.1086/707616 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Barceló, J. (2023). Need for affect, need for cognition, and the desire for independence. PLoS One, 18(2), Article e0280457. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280457 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(4), 608–628. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0704_5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bless, H., Wänke, M., Bohner, G., Fellhauer, R. F., & Schwarz, N. (1994). Need for Cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben [Need for Cognition: A scale measuring engagement and happiness in cognitive tasks]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 147–154. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bors, D. A., Vigneau, F., & Lalande, F. (2006). Measuring the need for cognition: Item polarity, dimensionality, and the relation with ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 819–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.007 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Braeken, J., & van Assen, M. A. (2017). An empirical Kaiser criterion. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000074 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Broniatowski, D., Hosseini, P., Porter, E., & Wood, T. J. (2023). The role of mental representation in sharing misinformation online. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/htkr7 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bruinsma, J., & Crutzen, R. (2018). A longitudinal study on the stability of the need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Burchert, S., Kerber, A., Zimmermann, J., & Knaevelsrud, C. (2021). Screening accuracy of a 14-day smartphone ambulatory assessment of depression symptoms and mood dynamics in a general population sample: Comparison with the PHQ-9 depression screening. PLoS One, 16(1), Article e0244955. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244955 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Calloway, R. C., Helder, A., & Perfetti, C. A. (2023). A measure of individual differences in readers’ approaches to text and its relation to reading experience and reading comprehension. Behavior Research Methods, 55(2), 899–931. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01852-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Cartwright, K. B., Galupo, M. P., Tyree, S., & Jennings, J. L. (2009). Reliability and validity of the complex postformal thought questionnaire: Assessing adults’ cognitive development. Journal of Adult Development, 16(3), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9055-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Cazan, A. M. (2016). The factor structure of the short Need for Cognition Scale. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, 9(58), 19–28. https://webbut.unitbv.ro/index.php/Series_VII/article/view/3757 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Cheung, M. W.-L. (2013). Multivariate meta-analysis as structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 20(3), 429–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.797827 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cheung, M. W.-L. (2014). Fixed- and random-effects meta-analytic structural equation modeling: examples and analyses in R. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0361-y First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cheung, M. W.-L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 40–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.40 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cheung, M. W.-L., & Cheung, S. F. (2016). Random-effects models for meta-analytic structural equation modeling: Review, issues, and illustrations. Research Synthesis Methods, 7(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1166 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chiesi, F., Morsanyi, K., Donati, M. A., & Primi, C. (2018). Applying item response theory to develop a shortened version of the Need for Cognition Scale. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 14(3), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0240-z First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Clay, G., Dumitrescu, C., Habenicht, J., Kmiecik, I., Musetti, M., & Domachowska, I. (2022). Who is satisfied with effort? Individual differences as determinants of satisfaction with effort and reward. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(6), 452–462. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000742 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042761 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Colling, J., Wollschläger, R., Keller, U., Preckel, F., & Fischbach, A. (2022). Need for cognition and its relation to academic achievement in different learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 93, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102110 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Conway, J. F., Lievens, F., Scullen, S. E., & Lance, C. E. (2004). Bias in the correlated uniqueness model for MTMM data. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(4), 535–559. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1104_3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Culhane, S. E., Morera, O. F., & Hosch, H. M. (2004). The factor structure of the need for cognition short form in a Hispanic sample. The Journal of Psychology, 138(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.3200/jrlp.138.1.77-90 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Culhane, S. E., Morera, O. F., & Watson, P. J. (2006). The assessment of factorial invariance in need for cognition using Hispanic and Anglo samples. The Journal of Psychology, 140(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.3200/jrlp.140.1.53-67 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Damer, E., Webb, T. L., & Crisp, R. J. (2019). Diversity may help the uninterested: Evidence that exposure to counter-stereotypes promotes cognitive reflection for people low (but not high) in need for cognition. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(8), 1079–1093. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218811250 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *DeMarree, K. G., Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Xia, J. (2020). Documenting individual differences in the propensity to hold attitudes with certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(6), 1239–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000241 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Deneubourg, J. L., Pasteels, J. M., & Verhaeghe, J. C. (1983). Probabilistic behaviour in ants: A strategy of errors? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 105(2), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(83)80007-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Deneubourg, J.-L., Aron, S., Goss, S., & Pasteels, J. M. (1990). The self-organizing exploratory pattern of the argentine ant. Journal of Insect Behavior, 3(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01417909 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Dennin, A., Furman, K., Pretz, J. E., & Roy, M. J. (2022). The relationship of types of intuition to thinking styles, beliefs, and cognitions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(5), Article e2283. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2283 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • DeSteno, D., Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., Wegener, D. T., & Braverman, J. (2004). Discrete emotions and persuasion: The role of emotion-induced expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.43 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2006). Further investigating method effects associated with negatively worded items on self-report surveys. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(3), 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1303_6 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dörendahl, J., & Greiff, S. (2020). Are the machines taking over? Benefits and challenges of using algorithms in (short) scale construction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(2), 217–219. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000597 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Dorigo, M., & Stützle, T. (2010). Ant colony optimization: Overview and recent advances. In M. GendreauJ.-Y. PotvinEds., Handbook of metaheuristics (pp. 227–263). Springer. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Douglas, B. D., Ewell, P. J., & Brauer, M. (2023). Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA. PLoS One, 18(3), Article e0279720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279720 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Ebersole, C. R., Alaei, R., Atherton, O. E., Bernstein, M. S., Brown, M., Chartier, C. R., Chung, L., Hermann, A. D., Joy-Gaba, J. A., Line, M. J., Rule, N. O., Sacco, D. F., Vaughn, L. A., & Nosek, B. A. (2017). Observe, hypothesize, test, repeat: Luttrell, Petty and Xu (2017) demonstrate good science. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 184–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.12.005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Eck, J., & Gebauer, J. E. (2022). A sociocultural norm perspective on Big Five prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(3), 554–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000387 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Edwards, M. C. (2009). An introduction to item response theory using the Need for Cognition Scale. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 507–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00194.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eid, M., Geiser, C., Koch, T., & Heene, M. (2017). Anomalous results in G-factor models: Explanations and alternatives. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 541–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000083 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2002). Utilizing need for cognition and perceived self-efficacy to predict academic performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(8), 1687–1702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02770.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2010). Acquiescence as a source of bias and model and person misfit: A theoretical and empirical analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(2), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711009X470740 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Flora, D. B. (2020). Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using r to obtain better reliability estimates. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920951747 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Forsterlee, R., & Ho, R. (1999). An examination of the short form of the Need for Cognition Scale applied in an Australian sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(3), 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131649921969983 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Garrido, L. E., Abad, F. J., & Ponsoda, V. (2013). A new look at Horn’s parallel analysis with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 18(4), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Georgiou, Y., & Kyza, E. A. (2017). Translation, adaptation, and validation of the Need for Cognition Scale – short form in the Greek language for secondary school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(5), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916686005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ginet, A., & Py, J. (2000). Le besoin de cognition: Une échelle française pour enfants et ses conséquences au plan sociocognitif [Need for cognition: A French scale for children and its consequences on a sociocognitive level]. L’Année Psychologique, 100(4), 585–628. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2000.28665 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gnambs, T., & Schroeders, U. (2020). Cognitive abilities explain wording effects in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Assessment, 27(2), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117746503 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gnambs, T., & Schroeders, U. (2024). Reliability and factorial validity of the Core Self-Evaluations Scale: A meta-analytic investigation of wording effects. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000783 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Gnambs, T., & Sengewald, M.-A. (2023). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling with fallible measurements. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 231(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000511 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Gnambs, T., & Staufenbiel, T. (2016). Parameter accuracy in meta-analyses of factor structures. Research Synthesis Methods, 7(2), 168–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1190 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Gomes, A., Santos, J. D., Gonçalves, G., Orgambídez-Ramos, A., & Giger, J. (2013). Estudo de validação da Escala de Necessidade de Cognição com amostra portuguesa [Validation study of the Need for Cognition Scale with a Portuguese sample]. Avaliação Psicológica, 12(2), 179–192. https://doaj.org/article/24e07dd2537f4cf085d8adf614482701 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Gouveia, V. V., Mendes, L. A. D. C., Soares, A. K. S., Monteiro, R. P., & Santos, L. C. d. O. (2015). Escala de Necessidade de Cognição (NCS-18): Efeito de itens negativos em sua estrutura fatorial [Need for Cognition Scale (NCS-18): Effect of negative items in its factorial structure]. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 28(3), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7153.201528301 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Grădinaru, D., Constantin, T., & Sorin, C. (2023). Psychometric properties of the Romanian version of the borderline personality questionnaire in a sample of nonclinical adults. Psihologija. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.2298/psi210624033 g First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Grass, J., Strobel, A., & Strobel, A. (2017). Cognitive investments in academic success: The role of need for cognition at university. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 790. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00790 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gülgöz, S., & Sadowski, C. J. (1995). Turkish adaptation of the Need for Cognition Scale and its correlation with academic performance measures. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 10(35), 15–24. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Gústavsson, M. F., Ólafsdóttir, R. Ó., & Holm, Þ. G. (2020). Próffræðilegir eiginleikar Þankaþarfakvarðans í nýrri íslenskri þýðingu [Psychometric properties of the Need for Cognition Scale in a new Icelandic translation] [Bachelor’s thesis]. Skemman, University of Akureyri. http://hdl.handle.net/1946/36222 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Hallahan, K. (2009). Need for cognition as motivation to process publicity and advertising. Journal of Promotion Management, 14(3–4), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496490802353790 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Hanel, P. H. P., & Wolf, L. J. (2020). Leavers and Remainers after the Brexit referendum: More united than divided after all? British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(2), 470–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12359 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hardwicke, T. E., Thibault, R. T., Kosie, J. E., Wallach, J. D., Kidwell, M. C., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2021). Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014–2017). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620979806 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Heene, M., Hilbert, S., Draxler, C., Ziegler, M., & Bühner, M. (2011). Masking misfit in confirmatory factor analysis by increasing unique variances: A cautionary note on the usefulness of cutoff values of fit indices. Psychological Methods, 16(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024917 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hevey, D., Thomas, K., Pertl, M., Maher, L., Craig, A., & Chuinneagain, S. N. (2012). Method effects and the Need for Cognition Scale. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 20–33. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hildebrandt, A., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Sommer, C., & Wilhelm, O. (2016). Exploring factor model parameters across continuous variables with local structural equation models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(2–3), 257–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1142856 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Hussey, I., & Hughes, S. (2020). Hidden invalidity among 15 commonly used measures in social and personality psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(2), 166–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919882903 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jak, S. (2015). Meta-analytic structural equation modelling. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-319–27174-3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jak, S., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2020). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling with moderating effects on SEM parameters. Psychological Methods, 25(4), 430–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000245 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jak, S., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2023). Can findings from meta-analytic structural equation modeling in management and organizational psychology be trusted? PsyArxiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/b3qvn First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jankowsky, K., Olaru, G., & Schroeders, U. (2020). Compiling measurement invariant short scales in cross-cultural personality assessment using Ant Colony Optimization. European Journal of Personality, 34(3), 470–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2260 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Janssen, A. B., Schultze, M., & Grötsch, A. (2017). Following the ants: Development of short scales for proactive personality and supervisor support by ant colony optimization. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(6), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000299 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • *Janssen, E., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Heijltjes, A., Mainhard, T., Van Peppen, L. M., & Van Gog, T. (2020). Psychometric properties of the Actively Open-minded Thinking scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, Article 100659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100659 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jebb, A. T., Saef, R., Parrigon, S., & Woo, S. E. (2016). The need for cognition: Key concepts, assessment, and role in educational outcomes. In A. A. LipnevichF. PreckelR. D. RobertsEds., Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 115–132). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28606-8_5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Jin, C. H. (2016). The effects of mental simulations, innovativeness on intention to adopt brand application. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 682–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.013 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jin, K.-Y., Chen, H.-F., & Wang, W.-C. (2017). Mixture item response models for inattentive responding behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 21(1), 197–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117725792 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kam, C. C. S., & Zhou, M. (2015). Does acquiescence affect individual items consistently? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(5), 764–784. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414560817 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kam, C. C. S., & Fan, X. (2020). Investigating response heterogeneity in the context of positively and negatively worded items by using factor mixture modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 23(2), 322–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118790371 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kao, C. (1994). The concept and measurement of need for cognition: The concept and measurement of need for cognition. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 36, 1–20. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Karagiannopoulou, E., Milienos, F. S., & Rentzios, C. (2020). Grouping learning approaches and emotional factors to predict students’ academic progress. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 10(2), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2020.1832941 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kardash, C. M., & Noel, L. K. (2000). How organizational signals, need for cognition, and verbal ability affect text recall and recognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1011 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Keller, U., Strobel, A., Wollschläger, R., Greiff, S., Martin, R., Vainikainen, M., & Preckel, F. (2019). A need for cognition scale for children and adolescents. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000370 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Kennedy, R., Clifford, S., Burleigh, T., Waggoner, P. D., Jewell, R., & Winter, N. J. G. (2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(4), 614–629. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.6 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.165 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Koutsogiorgi, C. C. (2020). Responding to positively and negatively worded items: Correlational and experimental evidence in conceptually distinct areas [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Cyprus. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H. M., & Sijtsma, K. (2013). On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. International Journal of Testing, 13(3), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2012.703734 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lance, C. E., Noble, C. L., & Scullen, S. E. (2002). A critique of the correlated trait-correlated method and correlated uniqueness models for multitrait-multimethod data. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 228–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.228 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Lantos, D., & Harris, L. T. (2021). The humanity inventory: Developing and validating an individual difference measure of dehumanization propensity. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 5(4), 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.114 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Laroche, M., Tomiuk, M. A., Toffoli, R., & Richard, M. (2009). Analyses traditionnelles et FDI des échelles de mesure: application à l’échelle de l’intensité du raisonnement cognitif [Traditional and DIF analyses of measurement scales: Application to the Need for Cognition Scale]. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 21(4), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2004.tb00350.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Lee, K. Y., Reis, H. T., & Rogge, R. D. (2020). Seeing the world in pink and blue: Developing and exploring a new measure of essentialistic thinking about gender. Sex Roles, 83(11–12), 685–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01141-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Leite, W. L., Huang, I.-C., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). Item selection for the development of short forms of scales using an Ant Colony Optimization algorithm. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43(3), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170802285743 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. E., & Jasper, J. D. (2000). Information processing at successive stages of decision making: Need for cognition and inclusion–exclusion effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2881 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Lins de Holanda Coelho, G., Hanel, P. H. P., & Wolf, L. J. (2020). The very efficient assessment of need for cognition: Developing a six-item version. Assessment, 27(8), 1870–1885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118793208 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Loose, T., Vásquez-Echeverría, A., & Alvarez-Nuñez, L. (2023). Spanish version of Need for Cognition Scale: Evidence of reliability, validity and factorial invariance of the very efficient short-form. Current Psychology, 42(17), 14440–14451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02739-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lord, K. A., & Putrevu, S. (2006). Exploring the dimensionality of the Need for Cognition Scale. Psychology & Marketing, 23(1), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20108 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lorenzo-Seva, U., Timmerman, M. E., & Kiers, H. A. (2011). The Hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(2), 340–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.564527 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Ludwig, R. M., Srivastava, S. K., & Berkman, E. T. (2018). Planfulness: A process-focused construct of individual differences in goal achievement. Collabra, 4(1), Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.136 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Luong, C., Strobel, A., Wollschläger, R., Greiff, S., Vainikainen, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Need for cognition in children and adolescents: Behavioral correlates and relations to academic achievement and potential. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.019 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Luong, R., & Lomanowska, A. M. (2022). Evaluating Reddit as a crowdsourcing platform for psychology research projects. Teaching of Psychology, 49(4), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283211020739 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong, S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 611–637. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3604_06 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Maldonado, J. C., García, M. L. S., Sintas, F., & Amat, M. E. (1993). Evaluación de la tendencia al esfuerzo cognitivo [Evaluation of the tendency to cognitive effort]. Anuario De Psicología, 58, 53–68. http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/98931/1/103240.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Malmberg, J. (2010). Pleasure & duty: Are there differences to store choice criteria between hedonic and functional stores? [Master’s thesis]. University of Rotterdam. https://hdl.handle.net/2105/8563 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Marsh, H. W. (1989). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait-multimethod data: Many problems and a few solutions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13(4), 335–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168901300402 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, H. W., & Bailey, M. (1991). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait-multimethod data: A comparison of alternative models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169101500106 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Menendez, D., Brown, S. A., & Alibali, M. W. (2023). Some correct strategies are better than others: Individual differences in strategy evaluations are related to strategy adoption. Cognitive Science, 47(3), Article e13269. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13269 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Minson, J. A., Chen, F. S., & Tinsley, C. H. (2020). Why won’t you listen to me? Measuring receptiveness to opposing views. Management Science, 66(7), 3069–3094. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3362 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mussel, P. (2013). Intellect: A theoretical framework for personality traits related to intellectual achievements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 885–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031918 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nair, K. U., & Ramnarayan, S. (2000). Individual differences in need for cognition and complex problem solving. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(3), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2274 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Newman, E. J., Jalbert, M., Schwarz, N., & Ly, D. P. (2020). Truthiness, the illusory truth effect, and the role of need for cognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 78, Article 102866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.102866 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Struhl, M. K., Nuijten, M. B., Rohrer, J. M., Romero, F., Scheel, A. M., Scherer, L. D., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nudelman, G., & Otto, K. (2020). The development of a new generic risk-of-bias measure for systematic reviews of surveys. Methodology, 16(4), 278–298. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.4329 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Olaru, G., Schroeders, U., Hartung, J., & Wilhelm, O. (2019). Ant Colony Optimization and local weighted structural equation modeling. A tutorial on novel item and person sampling procedures for personality research. European Journal of Personality, 33(3), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2195 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Olaru, G., Witthöft, M., & Wilhelm, O. (2015). Methods matter: Testing competing models for designing short-scale Big-Five assessments. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.09.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Park, J. S. (2012). Effects of online consumer reviews on attitudes and behavioral intentions toward products and retailers [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Tennessee. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1552/ First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Perri, M., & Wolfgang, A. P. (1988). A modified measure of need for cognition. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 955–957. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.955 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Petrović, M. B., & Žeželj, I. (2022). Thinking inconsistently: Development and validation of an instrument for assessing proneness to doublethink. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(6), 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000645 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Loersch, C., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). The need for cognition. In M. R. LearyR. H. HoyleEds., Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 318–329). Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., DeMarree, K. G., Briñol, P., Horcajo, J., & Strathman, A. (2008). Need for cognition can magnify or attenuate priming effects in social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 900–912. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316692 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high- and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pieters, R. G. M., Verplanken, B., & Modde, J. M. (1987). “Neiging tot nadenken”: Samenhang met beredeneerd gedrag [“Need for cognition”: Relationship with reasoned action]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psycholoy, 42, 62–70. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Pilli, L. E., & Mazzon, J. A. (2016). Information overload, choice deferral, and moderating role of need for cognition: Empirical evidence. Revista De Administração, 51(1), 036–055. https://doi.org/10.5700/rausp1222 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Powell, C. F., Nettelbeck, T., & Burns, N. R. (2016). Deconstructing intellectual curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.037 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Preckel, F. (2014). Assessing need for cognition in early adolescence. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000170 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • *Pryor, P. L., McGahan, J. R., McDougal, B., Haire, S. M., & Marashi, H. (2000). Association of need for cognition with judgments of height, weight, and body fat covariation. Psychological Reports, 87(3 suppl), 1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2000.87.3 f.1147 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ruscio, J., & Roche, B. (2012). Determining the number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis using comparison data of known factorial structure. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025697 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sadowski, C. J. (1993). An examination of the short Need for Cognition Scale. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 127(4), 451–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1993.9915581 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Salama-Younes, M., Guingouain, G., Le Floch, V., & Somat, A. (2014). Besoin de cognition, besoin d’évaluer, besoin de clôture: Proposition d’échelles en langue Française et approche socio-normative des besoins dits fondamentaux [Need for cognition, need for closing, need to evaluate: Proposal of scales in French and socio-normative approach of fundamental needs]. European Review of Applied Psychology/Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 64(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.01.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Scherpenzeel, A. C., & Das, M. (2010). “True” longitudinal and probability-based internet panels: Evidence from the Netherlands. In M. DasP. EsterL. KaczmirekEds., Social and Behavioral Research and the Internet: Advances in Applied Methods and Research Strategies (pp. 77–104). Taylor & Francis. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schoeni, R. F., Stafford, F. P., McGonagle, K. A., & Andreski, P. (2012). Response rates in national panel surveys. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(1), 60–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212456363 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schroeders, U., Morgenstern, M., Jankowsky, K., & Gnambs, T. (2024). Short-scale construction using meta-analytic Ant Colony Optimization: A demonstration with the Need for Cognition Scale [Data, Materials]. https://osf.io/tbrdv First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schroeders, U., Scharf, F., & Olaru, G. (2023). Model specification searches in structural equation modeling using Bee Swarm Optimization. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 84(1), 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231160552 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schroeders, U., Wilhelm, O., & Olaru, G. (2016a). Meta-heuristics in short scale construction: Ant Colony Optimization and Genetic Algorithm. PLoS One, 11(11), Article e0167110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167110 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schroeders, U., Wilhelm, O., & Olaru, G. (2016b). The influence of item sampling on sex differences in knowledge tests. Intelligence, 58(3), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.06.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Shchebetenko, S. A. (2011). Psihometrika russkoj versii Škaly potrebnosti v poznanii. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta [Russian version of 18-item Need for Cognition Scale]. Filosofija. Psihologija. Sociologija, 2(6), 87–100. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Sousa, C., Palácios, H., Gonçalves, C., Santana Fernandes, J., & Gonçalves, G. (2018). Need for cognition in a Portuguese managers sample: Invariance across gender and professional activity. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 21(4), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000077 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(3), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600780796 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Steger, D., Jankowsky, K., Schroeders, U., & Wilhelm, O. (2023). The road to hell is paved with good intentions: How common practices in scale construction hurt validity. Assessment, 30(6), 1811–1824. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221124846 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tanaka, J. S., Panter, A. T., & Winborne, W. C. (1988). Dimensions of the need for cognition: Subscales and gender differences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2301_2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tanaś, Ł. (2021). Curiosity in children and adolescents: Data from the Polish adaptation of the Need for Cognition Scale. Psychological Test Adaptation and Development, 2(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1027/2698-1866/a000007 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • *Tobin, S. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (2022). Why people listen: Motivations and outcomes of podcast listening. PLoS One, 17(4), Article e0265806. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265806 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Türker, A., İşçi, C., & Özaltın Türker, G. (2015). Biliş ihtiyacının satış performansı üzerine etkisi: acente temsilcileri üzerine bir uygulama [The effect of need for cognition on sales performance: An application on agency representatives]. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 47, 108–125. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Van Tilburg, W. A. P., Igou, E. R., Maher, P. J., Moynihan, A. B., & Martin, D. G. (2019). Bored like hell: Religiosity reduces boredom and tempers the quest for meaning. Emotion, 19(2), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000439 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Vaughan-Johnston, T. I., & Jacobson, J. A. (2020). “Need” personality constructs and preferences for different types of self-relevant feedback. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, Article 109671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109671 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293557 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Waters, L. K., & Zakrajsek, T. D. (1990). Correlates of need for cognition total and subscale scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50(1), 213–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164490501026 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Weigold, A., & Weigold, I. K. (2022). Traditional and modern convenience samples: An investigation of college student, Mechanical Turk, and Mechanical Turk college student samples. Social Science Computer Review, 40(5), 1302–1322. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211006847 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Weng, J., & DeMarree, K. G. (2019). An examination of whether mindfulness can predict the relationship between objective and subjective attitudinal ambivalence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 854. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00854 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • West, R. G., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012842 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Yamamoto, S., & Maeder, E. M. (2019). Creating the punishment orientation questionnaire: An item response theory approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(8), 1283–1294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218818485 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Zhang, X., Noor, R., & Savalei, V. (2016). Examining the effect of reverse worded items on the factor structure of the Need for Cognition Scale. PLoS One, 11(6), Article e0157795. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157795 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar