Need for Cognition Scale

What it measures

One of the most widely used individual-difference measures in consumer and persuasion research. High-NFC individuals process persuasive messages more carefully, are more influenced by argument quality than peripheral cues (e.g., endorser attractiveness), and are less susceptible to promotion signals without actual price reductions. The 18-item short form (Cacioppo, Petty & Kao 1984) is recommended for survey research; a 5-item version (Wood & Swait 2002) exists for severely constrained contexts. NFC is conceptually related to but distinct from need for affect and rational processing style (REI). Widely used as a moderator of persuasion, message framing, and information processing in marketing experiments.

Response format

9-point scale: –4 (very strong disagreement) to +4 (very strong agreement) through 0 (neither); scores summed. 18-item short form uses same format (Cacioppo et al. 1984). Some items reverse-scored.

Scale items

• I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with solutions to problems. (b)
• I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is somewhat important but does not require much thought. (b)
• I tend to set goals that can be accomplished only by expending considerable mental effort.
• I am usually tempted to put more thought into a task than the job minimally requires.
• Learning new ways to think doesn't excite me very much. (a, b)
• I am hesitant about making important decisions after thinking about them. (a)
• I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally. (b)
• I prefer to let things happen rather than try to understand why they turned out that way. (a)
• I have difficulty in thinking in new and unfamiliar situations. (a)
• The idea of relying on thought to get my way to the top does not appeal to me. (a, b)
• The notion of thinking abstractly is not appealing to me. (a, b)
• I am an intellectual.
• I only think as hard as I have to. (a, b)
• I don't reason well under pressure. (a)
• I like tasks that require little thought once I've learned them. (a, b)
• I prefer to think about small daily projects to long-term ones. (a, b)
• I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities. (b)
• I find little satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours. (a, b)
• I more often talk with other people about the reasons for and possible solutions to international problems than about gossip or tidbits of what famous people are doing.
• These days, I see little chance for performing well, even in 'intellectual' jobs, unless one knows the right people. (a)
• More often than not, more thinking just leads to more errors. (a)
• I don't like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking. (a, b)
• I appreciate opportunities to discover the strengths and weaknesses of my own reasoning.
• I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort. (a, b)
• Thinking is not my idea of fun. (a, b)
• I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is a likely chance I'll have to think in depth about something. (a, b)
• I prefer watching educational to entertainment programs.
• I think best when those around me are very intelligent.
• I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve. (b)
• I would prefer complex to simple problems. (b)
• Simply knowing the answer rather than understanding the reasons for the answer to a problem is fine with me. (a)
• It's enough for me that something gets the job done; I don't care how or why it works. (a, b)
• Ignorance is bliss. (a)
• I enjoy thinking about an issue even when the results of my thoughts will have no outcome on the issue.

Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.

Usage notes & scoring

'(a)' = reverse-scored items; '(b)' = items included in the 18-item short form (Cacioppo et al. 1984). Items are scored on a –4 to +4 scale and summed (not averaged). Coefficient alpha for the 18-item version is 0.90 and for the 34-item version is 0.91. High-NFC individuals are more influenced by argument quality; low-NFC individuals by peripheral cues such as endorser attractiveness or price signals. Validated against intelligence (r=0.39), social desirability (r=0.08), and dogmatism (r=–0.27). Wood & Swait (2002) 5-item version available for very short surveys.

Recommended companion scales

Citation

Cacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.

Keywords