Contents.Introduction The need for closure is the motivation to find an answer to an ambiguous situation. This motivation is enhanced by the perceived benefits of obtaining closure, such as the increased ability to predict the world and a stronger basis for action. This motivation is also enhanced by the perceived costs of lacking closure, such as missing deadlines.According to Kruglanski et al., need for closure exerts its effects via two general tendencies: the urgency tendency (the inclination to attain closure as quickly as possible) and the permanence tendency (the tendency to maintain it for as long as possible). Together, these tendencies may produce the inclinations to seize and then freeze on early judgmental cues, reducing the extent of information processing and hypothesis generation and introducing biases in thinking.The level of the need for cognitive closure is a fairly stable individual characteristic. It can affect what information individuals seek out and how they process it.

However, this need can be affected by situational factors like time constraints. For example, in the presence of a high need for closure (induced using time constraints), individuals are more likely to use simple cognitive structures to process information. Need for Closure Scale The need for closure in is thought to be a fairly stable dispositional characteristic that can, nonetheless, be affected by situational factors. The Need for Closure Scale (NFCS) was developed by, Donna Webster, and Adena Klem in 1993 and is designed to operationalize this construct and is presented as a unidimensional instrument possessing strong discriminant and predictive validity.People who score high on the need for closure scale are more likely to exhibit impression to correspondence bias, make stereotypical judgments, assimilate new information to existing, active beliefs, and, in the presence of prior information, resist persuasion. Someone rating low on need for closure will express more ideational fluidity and creative acts. Items on the scale include statements such as 'I think that having clear rules and order at work is essential to success,' and 'I do not like situations that are uncertain.'

Items such as 'Even after I've made up my mind about something, I am always eager to consider a different opinion,' and 'I like to have friends who are unpredictable' are reverse scored.Composed of 42 items, the scale has been used in numerous research studies and has been translated into multiple languages. Although Webster and Kruglanski (1994) treated the Need for Closure Scale as unidimensional (i.e., as measuring a single factor), the scale actually contains two orthogonal factors, decisiveness and need for structure. Thus, using a total scale score can overlook effects for each factor and complicate interpretations. In 2007, Roets and Van Hiel tried to resolve this issue by revising the scale so it would measure only one thing.

From Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English closure clo‧sure / ˈkləʊʒə $ ˈkloʊʒər / noun 1 SHUT/CLOSE countable, uncountable when a factory, school, hospital etc has to close permanently Several military bases are threatened with closure. Factory/hospital/school etc closure the problem of school closures closure of the closure. Define CLOSURE (noun) and get synonyms. What is CLOSURE (noun)? CLOSURE (noun) meaning, pronunciation and more by Macmillan Dictionary.

They came up with a set of new decisiveness items that provided a viable alternative for the old Decisiveness subscale of the NFCS, which was poorly related to the other NFCS facet scales and had questionable validity. The new items were developed with explicit reference to decisiveness but formulated in such a way that they relate to the need rather than to the ability to decide. In 2011, Roets and Van Hiel created an abridged and empirically validated NFC scale consisting of only 15 items from the original NFC.NFCS items correlate positively with, intolerance of ambiguity, need for order and and negatively with cognitive complexity and, among several other cognitive tools and personality traits.High NFC scores consistently correlate with items on the C-Scale (conservatism) as well as other measures of political and social conservatism. Need to avoid. Main article:Functionally opposite to the need for closure is the need to avoid closure. Need to avoid closure reflects the desire to suspend judgmental commitment. It also contains the subcategories specific and non-specific need to avoid closure.

Avoidance of specific closure reflects the desire to avoid specific answers to one's questions. The non-specific need to avoid closure is much like the need for closure irrespective of whether or not this new knowledge points to a conclusion having positive or negative implications for them.The need to avoid closure may stem from the perceived costs of possessing closure (e.g., envisioned penalties for an erroneous closure or perceived drawbacks of actions implied by closure) and the perceived benefits of lacking closure (e.g., immunity from possible criticism of any given closure). The need to avoid closure is controlled by the desire to avoid negative consequences of achieving closure of a situation or to continue the benefits of not closing but elongating a situation.The need and avoidance of closure are conceptualized as ends of a continuum ranging from strong strivings for closure to strong resistance of closure. This is applied in the NFC Scale.Lack of The lack of closure leaves a situation in ambiguity. People high in need for closure seek to avoid this ambiguity at all costs where people high in need to avoid closure strive to make situations more ambiguous. Some perceived benefits of cognitive closure may relate to predictability, the basis for action, or social status accorded the possessors of knowledge (i.e., 'experts').

Similarly, some perceived costs of lacking closure may relate to the additional time and effort required to attain closure, or the unpleasantness of process whereby closure must be reached. Occasionally, however, lack of closure maybe perceived to offer various advantages such as freedom from a constraining commitment, neutrality in an acrimonious dispute, the maintenance of a romantic mystery and so on. Though lack of closure is generally thought of as being negative, it is clear that closure and lack of closure have positive or negative implications depending on the person and situation surrounding them.Implications A need for cognitive closure may occur while engaged in goal-driven or goal-motivated cognitive functions (e.g., attention control, memory recall, information selection and processing, etc.). Ideally, people should attempt to acquire new knowledge to satisfy questions regarding particular issues (specific cognitive closure) irrespective of whether that knowledge points to a conclusion having positive or negative implications for them (non-specific cognitive closure). ^ Kruglanski, A.

W.; Webster, D. (April 1996). 'Motivated closing of the mind: 'Seizing' and 'freezing '.

Psychological Review. 103 (2): 263–83. ^ Webster, D.; Kruglanski, A (December 1994). 'Individual differences in need for cognitive closure'.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67 (6): 1049–62. Lego island xtreme stunts. Van Hiel, A.; Mervielde, I.

'The Need for Closure and the Spontaneous Use of Complex and Simple Cognitive Structures'. The Journal of Social Psychology. 143 (5): 559–68. Neuberg, S. L.; Judice, T.; West, S. 'What the Need for Closure Scale measures and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives'.

Cities in motion 3 5. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72 (6): 1396–1412.

Cite error: The named reference Neuberg 1997 was invoked but never defined (see the ). ^ Chirumbolo, A.; Livi, S.; Mannetti, L.; Pierro, A.; Kruglanski, A.

'Effects of Need for Closure on Creativity in Small Group Interactions'. European Journal of Personality. 18 (4): 265–78. Kruglanski, A. W.; Webster, D. M.; Klem, A (November 1993). 'Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information'.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65 (5): 861–76.

Stalder, D. R (April 2012). 'Investigation of the two-factor model for the English version of the Need for Closure Scale'.

Psychological Reports. 110 (2): 598–606. Roets, A.; Van Hiel, A (February 2007). 'Separating ability from need: Clarifying the dimensional structure of the need for closure scale'.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 33 (2): 266–80. Jost, Kruglanski et al 2003, Political Conservatism As Motivated Social Cognition.

Mayseless, O.; Kruglanski, A. Psychological Bulletin. 108 (2): 195–208.

Kruglanski, A. 'Lay Epistemic Theory in Social-Cognitive Psychology'. Psychological Inquiry. 1 (3): 181–197. Webster, Donna M.; Kruglanski, Arie W (1997). 'Cognitive and Social Consequences of the Need for Cognitive Closure'.

European Review of Social Psychology. 8 (1): 133–173. Choi, J.; Koo, M.; Choi, I.; Auh, S.

(November 2008). 'Need for cognitive closure and information search strategy'.

Psychology & Marketing. 25 (11): 1027–1042.

Roets, Arne; Van Hiel, Alain (December 2011). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 20 (6): 349–354.

Pierro, A.; Kruglanski, A. W.; Raven, B. (February 2012).

'Motivational underpinnings of social influence in work settings: Bases of social power and the need for cognitive closure'. European Journal of Social Psychology. 42 (1): 41–52. DeBacker, T. K.; Crowson, H. (September 2006).

'Influences on cognitive engagement: epistemological beliefs and need for closure'. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 76 (535–551): 535–551. Harlow, L.; Debacker, T. K.; Crowson, M. 'Need for Closure, Achievement Goals, and Cognitive Engagement in High School Students'.

The Journal of Educational Research. 104 (2): 110–119. DeBacker, T. K.; Crowson, H (October 2008). 'Measuring need for closure in classroom learners'.

33 (4): 711–732. Bransford, J. D.; Brown, A. L.; Cocking, R. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Rubin, M.; Paolini, S; Crisp, R.

International Journal of Psychology. 46 (3): 206–213. Bandes, Susan A.

(Spring 2009). Law and Contemporary Problems. 72 (1): 1–26. Kanwar, Vik (2001–2002).

New York University Review of Law and Social Change. 27.External links. Closure in:.

• What is Closed-End Lease
• How Closed-End Leases Are Structured

What is Closed-End Lease

A closed-end lease is a rental agreement that puts no obligation on the lessee (the person making periodic lease payments) to purchase the leased asset at the end of the agreement. Also called a 'true lease,' 'walkaway lease,' or 'net lease.'

Key Takeaways

• A closed-end lease is a rental agreement that puts no obligation on the lessee to purchase the leased asset at the end of the agreement.
• The lessee does not have to worry about whether the asset will depreciate more than expected throughout the course of the lease.
• Typically, a closed-end lease comes with a fixed rate and a term that may run 12 to 48 months.

Understanding Closed-End Lease

Since the lessee has no obligation to purchase the leased asset upon lease expiration, that person does not have to worry about whether the asset will depreciate more than expected throughout the course of the lease. Thus, it is argued that the closed-end leases are better for the average person.

Since the lessee has no obligation to purchase the leased asset upon lease expiration, that person does not have to worry about whether the asset will depreciate more than expected throughout the course of the lease.

For example, suppose your lease payments are based on the assumption that the $20,000 new car that you are leasing will be worth only $10,000 at the end of your lease agreement. If the car turns out to be worth only $4,000, you must compensate the lessor (the company who leased the car to you) for the lost $6,000 since your lease payment was calculated on the basis of the car having a salvage value of $10,000. Basically, since you are buying the car, you must bear the loss of that extra depreciation. But if you have a closed-end lease, you do not have to buy the car so you do not bear the risk of depreciation.

How Closed-End Leases Are Structured

Typically, a closed-end lease comes with a fixed rate and a term that may run 12 to 48 months. The lessee might want to terminate the agreement early – a move that often incurs additional fees for the early exit. For vehicles procured through such an agreement, there are often annual mileage limits that tend to range from 12,000 miles to 15,000 miles. If the use of the vehicle exceeds those limits, the lessee is then responsible to pay additional fees. Those fees can be based on a set cents-per-mile penalty over the limit.

Such fees may also be tiered or structured on a graduated scale where the lessee pays one lump charge that covers the first few hundred miles beyond the limit, then a cents-per-mile fee beyond that. Furthermore, the lessee is responsible for any excess wear and tear that occurs with the asset.

At the conclusion of a closed-end lease, the lessor might look to sell the asset at its depreciated value. It is possible that the lessee might still seek to purchase the asset at that this new rate, and there may even be incentives offered to complete such a deal at a reduced price compared with other potential buyers.