Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, Vol. 77, No. 1, 33-51 Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/99/$3.00 The Need and Ability to Achieve Cognitive Structuring: Individual Differences That Moderate the Effect of Stress on Information Processing Yoram Bar-Tal and Amiram Raviv Tel Aviv University Ada Spitzer Haifa University The authors examined the hypothesis that the interaction between the need for cognitive structure (NCS) and the ability to achieve cognitive structure (AACS) moderates the effect of stress on information processing. NCS is the preference for using cognitive structuring, as opposed to piecemeal processes, as a means to achieve certainty. AACS is the extent to which individuals are able to apply information processes that are consistent with their levels of NCS. The hypothesis was validated in 4 studies, which showed that stress increased high-AACS participants' use of cognitive structuring if they had high NCS and reduced it if they had low NCS. An opposite effect was found for low-AACS participants. The implications of these results for the understanding of the mechanisms responsible for the effect of stress on information processing are discussed. There is much research showing a strong covariation between the level of stress and a reduction in cognitive performance. This is usually manifested in phenomena such as premature reaction and closure, restricted use of relevant cues, use of cruder catego- ries, more errors on cognitive tasks, and increased use of schematic or stereotyped judgments (Eysenck, 1982; Hamilton, 1982; Han- cock, 1986b, Jamieson & Zanna, 1989; Keinan, 1987; Leon & Revelle, 1985; Miller, 1960; Svenson & Maule, 1993). The above phenomena relate closely to the more general con- cept of cognitive structuring. Indeed, according to Kruglanski and Webster (1996), stress leads to an increase in cognitive structuring (for empirical support, see Keinan, Friedland, & Arad, 1991; Smock, 1955). Neuberg and Newsom (1993) defined cognitive structuring as: "the creation and use of abstract mental represen- tations (e.g., schema prototypes, scripts, attitudes, and stereo- types)—representations that are simplified generalizations of pre- vious experience" (p. 113). Cognitive structuring, being relatively automatic, effort free, allows one to attain certainty as efficiently as possible, and faster than with piecemeal processing, which consists of a systematic and effortful search for relevant informa- tion and its evaluation and unbiased assimilation (Fiske & Pavel- chak, 1986). In addition, cognitive structuring facilitates the achievement of certainty by filtering out inconsistent or irrelevant information (Fiske & Linville, 1980; Koriat, Lichtenstein, & Yoram Bar-Tal, Department of Nursing, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; Amiram Raviv, Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University; Ada Spitzer, Department of Nursing, Haifa University, Haifa, Israel. A portion of this article was presented at the 15th biannual conference on Subjective Probability, Utility and Decision Making, Jerusalem, August 1995. We thank Anat Sarid, Haya Merton, and Eilon Noiman for their help in the data collection and Alona Raviv for her help in the data analysis. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yoram Bar-Tal, Department of Nursing, School of Health Professions, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel 69978. Electronic mail may be sent to yoramb@post.tau.ac.il. Fischhoff, 1980). It may also add previously stored information necessary to attain certainty concerning the validity of the infer- ence (Fiske & Linville, 1980). Even when a person uses piecemeal processing, the information has to be assimilated into his or her knowledge structures in order to become useful. Thus, cognitive structuring is essential in achieving certainty regardless of the stage of the epistemic process at which it is applied. In this vein, Bunder (1962) postulated that uncertainty is caused by an individ- ual's inability to adequately structure or categorize information. The maximal use of existing cognitive schemas is, therefore, an efficient method because it requires the fewest cognitive resources. Neuberg and Newsom (1993) suggested that the use of cognitive structures is a means of understanding one's world with a rela- tively minimal expenditure of cognitive resources. Because they are simple, relatively effortless, and automatic, such structures are best able to reduce an individual's cognitive load. There is a variety of explanations for the increased cognitive structuring under stress. Some of them emphasize the role of arousal (Easterbrook, 1959; Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). Easterbrook (1959), for example, proposed that emotional arousal acts consis- tently to reduce the range of cues that an organism uses, where the range of cue use is the "total number of environmental cues in any situation that an organism observes, maintains an orientation to- wards, responds to or associates with a response" (p. 183). Other researchers have emphasized the role of one's limited cognitive or attentional resources (Broadbent, 1958, 1971; J. A. Deutsch & Deutsch, 1963; Eysenck, 1982; Hamilton, 1982; Wyer & Srull, 1986). According to this approach, the effect of stress on cognition may be explained by the assumption that stress results in auto- nomic reactions that are attention demanding (Pratto & John, 1991). To the extent that individuals devote part of their limited attentional resources (Hasher & Zacks, 1979; Kahneman, 1973) to these autonomic reactions, they will have less capacity to cope with the task at hand (Hamilton, 1982). Therefore, individuals who are under stress tend to use more cognitive structuring, which is an 33 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.