Self-Assessment
Need for Closure Scale
How do you handle uncertainty? This 15-question assessment measures your need for cognitive closure across five dimensions, based on research by Kruglanski, Roets, and Van Hiel.
Your Results
Need for Closure Scale
Your Five Dimensions
Scores are shown as percentages of each facet's maximum, so they're comparable despite different numbers of items.
What this means in practice
Related Assessments
The Five Dimensions of Need for Closure
Need for closure is not a single trait. It breaks down into five related but distinct facets, each capturing a different aspect of how you respond to uncertainty.
Order
A preference for structure and organization. People high in this facet like predictable routines and feel uneasy when things are disorganized.
Predictability
A preference for the familiar over the novel. High scores indicate discomfort with surprises and unexpected changes to plans.
Ambiguity
Discomfort with uncertain or unclear situations. High scores reflect a strong need for clear answers and explanations.
Decisiveness
The urgency to reach decisions quickly. High scores indicate a desire to resolve open questions rather than let them linger.
Closed-mindedness
Resistance to reconsidering settled opinions. High scores suggest a preference for maintaining existing conclusions over reopening debate.
The Research Behind This Assessment
Need for cognitive closure (NFC) is a motivational construct introduced by social psychologist Arie Kruglanski in 1989. It describes the desire for a definite answer on a topic, as opposed to confusion and uncertainty. The construct was first measured with a validated scale by Webster and Kruglanski in 1994.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994
"Need for closure refers to individuals' desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity."
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1062. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049
Seizing and Freezing
Kruglanski's theory describes two mechanisms behind closure-seeking. Seizing is the tendency to latch onto the first available answer when facing uncertainty. Freezing is the tendency to hold onto that answer and resist new information that might reopen the question. Together, these explain why high-NFC individuals can make faster decisions but may also overlook contradicting evidence.
The original NFCS contained 42 items across five subscales. In 1997, Neuberg, Judice, and West raised concerns that the Decisiveness subscale measured cognitive ability rather than motivation. Roets and Van Hiel addressed this critique in 2007 by rewriting the Decisiveness items, and in 2011 they published a streamlined 15-item version that maintained the factor structure of the original while being substantially shorter.
Kruglanski introduces need for cognitive closure as a theoretical construct
Webster & Kruglanski publish the 42-item NFCS with five subscales
Neuberg et al. critique the Decisiveness subscale for measuring ability, not motivation
Roets & Van Hiel revise Decisiveness items to address the ability/motivation confound
Roets & Van Hiel publish the 15-item short form, widely adopted in research
This assessment is a research-inspired adaptation. It is not the original copyrighted NFCS. Our items are written to capture the same five facets measured by the validated instrument while using accessible, everyday language.
Methodological choices
- 15 items covering all five original facets: Order (2 items), Predictability (3), Ambiguity (4), Decisiveness (3), and Closed-mindedness (3)
- 6-point scale with no neutral midpoint. This forces a genuine lean toward agreement or disagreement, avoiding noncommittal responses
- 4 reverse-scored items (questions 5, 8, 12, and 14) to reduce acquiescence bias, where people tend to agree with any statement regardless of content
- Normalized facet scores shown as percentages of each facet's maximum. Because facets have different numbers of items, raw totals would not be comparable. Percentages make the five dimensions directly comparable
Adaptation Note
Our 15-item format mirrors the structure of the Roets and Van Hiel (2011) short form. Wording has been adapted for clarity and accessibility. This tool is designed for self-reflection and education, not clinical diagnosis.
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004
Three decades of research have connected need for closure to a wide range of outcomes in decision-making, group behavior, and everyday life.
NFC rises under time pressure, mental fatigue, and environmental noise. In these states, people are more likely to seize on early information and freeze on first impressions. Kruglanski and Webster (1996) showed that even temporarily induced cognitive load can shift someone toward higher closure-seeking behavior.
While individuals differ in their baseline NFC, the same person's closure needs fluctuate with context. A calm afternoon and a stressful deadline produce different closure behaviors in the same individual. This means NFC scores reflect a tendency, not a fixed personality ceiling.
In groups, high-NFC members tend to push for consensus and resist reopening settled decisions. Research by Kruglanski, Shah, and others (1997) found that high-NFC groups are more likely to reject deviant opinions and prefer authoritative leadership structures. This can speed up decisions but may reduce the quality of group deliberation.
Key References
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing." Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283.
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2007). Separating ability from need: Clarifying the dimensional structure of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 266–280.
Neuberg, S. L., Judice, T. N., & West, S. G. (1997). What the Need for Closure Scale measures and what it does not. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1396–1412.
This assessment is for educational and self-reflection purposes. It is not a clinical diagnostic tool and should not replace professional psychological evaluation. Your results describe tendencies, not fixed traits.
The questions in this assessment are inspired by published research on need for cognitive closure. They are not the original validated NFCS items developed by Webster and Kruglanski (1994) or Roets and Van Hiel (2011). Our wording is adapted for accessibility and clarity.
If you experience persistent distress related to decision-making, uncertainty, or rigid thinking patterns, consider speaking with a qualified mental health professional. A licensed psychologist or therapist can provide personalized guidance.