Competing roles for the subfactors of need for closure in committing the fundamental attribution error

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 47, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 701-705

  Stalder, Daniel R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN WHITEWATER   (United States)

Author keywords

Correspondence bias; Decisiveness; Fundamental attribution error; Need for closure; Need for structure

Indexed keywords

EID: 67849121299     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.005     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Block J., and Funder D.C. Social roles and social perception: Individual differences in attribution and error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (1986) 1200-1207
2. Budesheim, T. L., Anderson, E. N., & Jordan, J. (2008). Forming and changing impressions in an enduring relationship. In Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Chicago.
3. Chirumbolo A., Areni A., and Sensales G. Need for cognitive closure and politics: Voting, political attitudes and attributional style. International Journal of Psychology 39 (2004) 245-253
4. Chiu C., Morris M.W., Hong Y., and Menon T. 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 (2000) 247-259
5. Davies M.F. Social roles and social perception biases: The questioner superiority effect revisited. British Journal of Social Psychology 24 (1985) 239-248
6. de Dreu C.K.W., Koole S.L., and Oldersma F.L. On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the use of heuristics in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 (1999) 348-362
7. Fein S. Beyond the fundamental attribution era?. Psychology Inquiry 12 (2001) 16-21
8. Fletcher G.J.O., Danilovics P., Fernandez G., Peterson D., and Reeder G.D. Attributional complexity: An individual difference measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (1986) 875-884
9. Fletcher G.J.O., Reeder G., and Bull V. Bias and accuracy in attitude attribution: The role of attributional complexity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 26 (1990) 275-288
10. Funder D.C. Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin 101 (1987) 75-90
11. Gawronski B. On difficult questions and evident answers: Dispositional inference from role-constrained behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29 (2003) 1459-1475
12. Gilbert D.T., and Malone P.S. The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin 117 (1995) 21-38
13. Hirt E.R., Kardes F.R., and Markman K.D. Activating a mental simulation mind-set through generation of alternatives: Implications for debiasing in related and unrelated domains. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 374-383
14. Johnson J.T., Jemmott J.B., and Pettigrew T.F. Causal attribution and dispositional inference: Evidence of inconsistent judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 20 (1984) 567-585
15. Jones E.E. The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist 34 (1979) 107-117
16. Kruglanski A.W., Atash M.N., De Grada E., Mannetti L., Pierro A., and Webster D.M. 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 (1997) 1005-1016
17. Kruglanski A.W., and Webster D.M. Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing". Psychological Review 103 (1996) 263-283
18. Lord C.G., Scott K.O., Pugh M.A., and Desforges D.M. Leakage beliefs and the correspondence bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 (1997) 824-836
19. Miller A.G., Ashton W., and Mishal M. Beliefs concerning the features of constrained behavior: A basis for the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (1990) 635-650
20. Miller A.G., Schmidt D., Meyer C., and Colella A. The perceived value of constrained behavior: Pressures toward biased inference in the attitude attribution paradigm. Social Psychology Quarterly 47 (1984) 160-171
21. Moneta G.B., and Yip P.P.Y. Construct validity of the scores of the Chinese version of the need for closure scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement 64 (2004) 531-548
22. Neuberg S.L., Judice T.N., and West S.G. What the need for closure scale measures and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (1997) 1396-1412
23. Neuberg S.L., West S.G., Judice T.N., and Thompson M.M. On dimensionality, discriminant validity, and the role of psychometric analyses in personality theory and measurement: Reply to Kruglanski et al.'s (1997) defense of the need for closure scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (1997) 1017-1029
24. Roets A., and Van Hiel A. Separating ability from need: Clarifying the dimensional structure of the need for closure scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (2007) 266-280
25. Roets A., Van Hiel A., and Cornelis I. The dimensional structure of the need for cognitive closure scale: Relationships with "seizing" and "freezing" processes. Social Cognition 24 (2006) 22-45
26. Ross L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In: Berkowitz L. (Ed). Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 10 (1977), Academic Press, New York 173-220
27. Ross L.D., Amabile T.M., and Steinmetz J.L. Social roles, social control, and biases in social perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (1977) 485-494
28. Stalder, D. R. (1998). Surprising moderations of the fundamental attribution error. In Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
29. Stalder D.R. Need for closure, the Big Five, and public self-consciousness. Journal of Social Psychology 147 (2007) 91-94
30. Stalder, D. R., & Kozel, T. (2002). The need for closure trait: Its moderations and subfactors. In Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.
31. Thompson M.M., and Zanna M.P. The conflicted individual: Personality-based and domain-specific antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes. Journal of Personality 63 (1995) 259-288
32. Van Hiel A., Pandelaere M., and Duriez B. The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (2004) 824-837
33. Webster D.M. Motivated augmentation and reduction of the overattribution bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (1993) 261-271
34. Webster D.M., and Kruglanski A.W. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (1994) 1049-1062
35. Wright E.F., and Wells G.L. Is the attitude-attribution paradigm suitable for investigating the dispositional bias?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 14 (1988) 183-190