Kruglanski, Pierro, Manetti, Higgins & Capoza (2007) "On the move", or "staying put" - Locomotion,...

“On the Move” or “Staying Put”: Locomotion, Need forClosure, and Reactions to Organizational Change1

Arie W. Kruglanski2

University of Maryland, College ParkAntonio Pierro

University of Rome “La Sapienza”

E. Tory HigginsColumbia University

Dora CapozzaUniversity of Padova

Four studies conducted in various organizations in Italy, employing contemporane-ous and longitudinal designs, tested hypotheses relating 2 personality constructs—need for cognitive closure (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996) and locomotion tendency(Higgins, Kruglanski, & Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000)—to individuals’ability to successfully cope with organizational change. Across diverse organiza-tional settings, populations studied, types of organizational change implemented,and measures of coping with change, we found that need for closure was negativelyrelated, and locomotion tendency was positively related, to coping with change. Wealso found that the negative relation between need for closure and coping wasattenuated where organizational climate is supportive of change, and that degree ofsuccessful coping with change determines post-change work attitudes.

Planned or episodic organizational change has been of longstanding inter-est to social and industrial psychologists, and it continues to be so, perhapsmore so now than ever (Porras & Silver, 1991; Wamberg & Banas, 2000;Weick & Quinn, 1999). According to Weick and Quinn, such change tends tobe “infrequent, discontinuous, and intentional (and to occur as) . . . the resultof a growing misalignment between an inertial deep structure and perceivedenvironmental demands” (p. 365). With recent surges in technologicaldevelopments, increased channeling of venture capital into a plethora ofnew projects, globalization trends, and companies’ attempts to retain theircompetitive edge through mergers, downsizing, and restructuring schemes,episodic organizational change is ubiquitous, paradoxically becoming thenearly only stable fixture of organizational reality.

From the employees’ perspective, episodic organizational change incorpo-rates threat, as well as challenge. The threat arises from the fact that changeoften upsets employees’ understanding of how things work, or what they mean

1The present research was supported by NSF Grant SBR-9417422.2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Arie W. Kruglanski,

Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. E-mail: [email protected]

1305

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2007, 37, 6, pp. 1305–1340.© 2007 Copyright the AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing, Inc.

in a given organizational context. New skills might be needed to tackle newtasks: Workers who possess them go up in demand, while those who lack themmay face demotion, if not dismissal. These organizational vicissitudes oftenbring in their wake extensive personnel shuffles or alteration of administrativestructure. The result often is a ubiquitous lack of predictability, an atmosphereof flux, and a general sense of transience. These, in turn, may usher a sense ofanxious malaise (cf. Ashford, 1988; Lewin, 1947) among employees for whomsecurity, stability, and permanence are at a particular premium.

But there is more to organizational change than hardship and stress(Lawrence, 1969; Stone, Kemmerer & Gueutal, 1984). Change also poseschallenge and affords opportunity. It does away with boring routines,enabling advancement and exploration. It shakes away stagnation and that“business-as-usual” feeling. It generates dynamism and the potential forprogress. It breeds excitement and a sense of going places. In short, it has asignificant bright side, alongside its darker, duress-inducing aspects.

As with most psychological situations, change may elicit differentreactions from different people. Persons who crave permanence and stabilitymay dread change. Others who loathe the rut of everyday monotony maywelcome change and relish the psychological mobility it offers. Understand-ing the psychological background of such diverse reactions is important forseveral reasons. First, it may afford the identification of individuals who feelparticularly comfortable or particularly uncomfortable in quickly changingwork environments. Second, it may allow the location of individuals who arelikely to facilitate or to obstruct change in their organizations. Third, it maypromote an understanding of the psychological dynamics of resistance to andacceptance of change and, hence, allow organizations to design interventionsaimed at promoting the appropriate reactions to change in various settings.Research reported in the pages that follow represents a step toward therealization of these objectives.

We approach this issue from the standpoint of two individual-differenceconstructs that relate respectively to the two contrasting reactions to orga-nizational change. These constructs are (a) need for cognitive closure (e.g.,Kruglanski & Webster, 1996); and (b) locomotion (Higgins, Kruglanski, &Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000).

With this approach, the present research constitutes a contribution to agrowing number of studies relating individual-level variables to reactions toorganizational change (cf. Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999;Rascle, 2000; Wamberg & Banas, 2000). Such studies have obtained evidencethat acceptance of organizational change is positively related to locus ofcontrol, self efficacy, self-esteem, positive affectivity, optimism, perceivedcontrol, and openness to experience; and is negatively related to risk aversion(cf. Judge et al., 1999; Wamberg & Banas, 2000).

1306 KRUGLANSKI ET AL.

In what follows, we briefly describe two individual-difference constructsthat, even though conceptually related to each other, may have contrastingrelation to the acceptance of organizational change. These concepts are needfor cognitive closure and locomotion.

Need for Cognitive Closure

The need for (nonspecific) cognitive closure has been defined as a desire fora definite answer to a question: any firm answer, rather than uncertainty,confusion, or ambiguity (Kruglanski, 1989). The strength of this desire is afunction of the benefits conferred by possessing closure and the costs asso-ciated with lacking it. According to need for closure theory may vary acrossindividuals as well as situations. An individual-difference measure of need forclosure was developed by Webster and Kruglanski (1994), who depict itsconceptual and empirical relations to several kindred notions (see De Grada,Kruglanski, Mannetti, Pierro, & Webster, 1996; Kruglanski, Atash, DeGrada, Mannetti, Pierro, & Webster, 1997; Mannetti, Pierro, Kruglanski,Taris, & Bezinovic, 2002). The scale has been extensively used in research (forreviews, see Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Webster & Kruglanski, 1998) andhas been translated into several languages (Mannetti et al., 2002).

In accordance with its conceptual definition, the need for closure has beenshown to rise in conditions that render information processing difficult orunpleasant (hence increasing the perceived benefits of closure or the costsof lacking closure), such as time pressure (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983;Kruglanski & Webster, 1991), noise (Kruglanski, Webster, & Klem, 1993),and mental fatigue (Webster, Richter, & Kruglanski, 1996). Once aroused, theneed for closure evokes a tendency to seek answers that are immediate as wellas permanent. That is, individuals with high need for closure seek closureurgently, yet they also strive for relatively stable, rather than transient closurethat forestalls the necessity of future revisions and the attendant uncertaintyand ambiguity that these entail (for reviews of the empirical evidence, seeKruglanski, 2004; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Webster & Kruglanski, 1998).

Because of their desire for stability and permanence, individuals with highneed for closure may feel uncomfortable with change and may be limited intheir capacity to cope with change. For instance, Kruglanski et al. (1993)found that individuals with a stable, high need for closure—or ones in whomthe need for closure was momentarily aroused via ambient noise—were moreresistant to changing their minds and yielding to persuasion attempts by aconfederate. Other research has found that need for closure is significantlyrelated to political conservatism (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway,2003a, 2003b; Jost, Kruglanski, & Simon, 1999; Kemmelmeier, 1997); that is,

LOCOMOTION, CLOSURE, AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 1307

to an ideology whose core definition involves resistance to change. Therefore,we predict that need for closure will be positively related to experiencingdifficulty in coping with change. Furthermore, because individuals with high(vs. low) need for closure tend particularly to adhere to (i.e., “seize andfreeze”) on situational norms (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Livi, 2002), theirresistance to change should be reduced where the normative climate in anorganization supports change.

Locomotion

Whereas need for closure fosters resistance to change and lends an aver-sive quality to the experience of change, a tendency toward locomotion(Kruglanski et al., 2000) may foster the very opposite effects. The locomotiontendency is defined as a propensity toward action. According to Kruglanskiet al., it is “the aspect of self-regulation concerned with movement from stateto state and with committing the psychological resources that will initiate andmaintain movement in a straightforward and direct manner, without unduedistractions or delays” (p. 793). Whereas all goal pursuit involves locomo-tion, it is not assumed that locomotion involves goal pursuit in the classicsense of having a destination in mind that is the cause of one’s movement.For high locomotors, it is enough to be moving away from one’s current statebecause such movement would involve a change of state. In other words,from the perspective of the locomotion tendency, a change of state consti-tutes its own reward (cf. Higgins et al., 2003).

Like need for closure, locomotion tendency also is conceived of as both anindividual-difference construct assessed by a specific personality scale(Kruglanski et al., 2000) and a situationally inducible state invoked, forexample, by success experiences or the recall of prior regulatory attainments(Higgins et al., 2003). As an individual-difference dimension, measured by a12-item scale, locomotion has been found to exhibit considerable convergentand discriminant validity (Kruglanski et al., 2000). Among others, locomo-tion has shown moderate associations—attesting to convergent validity—with measures of commitment to prompt action, ability to stay focused on atask, psychological vitality or energy, Type A behavior pattern, achievementorientation, conscientiousness, extraversion, action control, functionalimpulsivity, and decisiveness. Locomotion has exhibited no systematicrelations—attesting to discriminant validity—with political orientation,social dominance orientation, in-group favoritism, age, and gender. Alsorelevant to discriminant validity of the locomotion scale, the relation oflocomotion to any of the variables studied has remained unchanged whilecontrolling for the Big Five personality factors (Costa & McCrae, 1992).


Beyond its relation to other personality measures, locomotion tendencyhas been found to predict behavior. Specifically, locomotion was positivelyrelated to completion speed in a proofreading task (Kruglanski et al., 2000,Study 9) and to speed of choosing the (subjectively) best means to the goal(Kruglanski et al., 2000, Study 10). Locomotion also was positively related tocollege students’ grade point averages (controlling for Scholastic AptitudeTest scores; Kruglanski et al., 2000, Study 7) and to successful completion ofelite military training (Kruglanski et al., 2000, Study 8), and it moderated therelation between intention and overt behavior (Higgins et al., 2003).

Finally, locomotion tendency can be situationally induced with theappropriate consequences for behavior. In this vein, Avnet and Higgins(2003) induced locomotion orientation experimentally by having partici-pants provide an example for each of three types of behavior taken fromKruglanski et al.’s (2000) locomotion scale, such as “Think back to thetimes when you decided to do something and you couldn’t wait to getstarted.” Participants then were given a decision-making task in which theychose among different brands of reading lights. They were assigned either afull-evaluation strategy wherein one considers all of the alternatives and allof the attribute values for each alternative, or a progressive-eliminationstrategy that looks at the first evaluative attribute and eliminates whicheverbrand has the worst value for that attribute. Avnet and Higgins predictedthat the progressive-elimination strategy would give the decision maker astronger sense of movement; hence, the preference for it would be positivelycorrelated with locomotion tendency. This is precisely what was found,even though the same brand of light was clearly the superior one and,hence, was chosen in both cases. In summary, then, growing evidenceattests that locomotion represents a reliable and valid psychological con-struct that figures as a dimension of individual differences, as well as asituationally inducible state, and is connected in systematic ways to otherrelevant traits and behaviors.

Relevant to our present concerns, high locomotors should find change apositive experience, for change signifies dynamic movement from state tostate, which they should find appealing. As the essential motivations oflocomotion consist of the propensity to remain in motion, selection of newgoals, and confrontation of new experiences, locomotion-oriented individu-als should be particularly attracted to organizational change. It has beenfound that high (vs. low) locomotors are characterized by a greater degree ofpositive affect, optimism, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation(Kruglanski et al., 2000), all of which often are associated with proclivitytoward change (Judge et al., 1999; Robey & Bakr, 1978; Wamberg & Banas,2000). It follows, therefore, that in organizational contexts, individuals high(vs. low) on the locomotion dimension should have a more positive experi-


ence vis-à-vis episodic change and should demonstrate superior coping withchallenges that change evokes.

Unlike need for closure, which is assumed to induce enhanced sensitivityto situational norms, locomotion tendency may be thought to induce a kindof oblivion to the normative context (Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al.,2000). Thus, whereas we expect the relation between need for closure andcoping with change to be moderated by organizational climate, we do notexpect the relation between locomotion and coping to be subject to suchmoderation. These theoretical notions are examined in the present research.

Study 1

Method

Study 1 was conducted in the context of a role redesign effort within anItalian work organization. Research participants were nurses in a hospital inRome, a population that in recent years has been subjected to several rolechanges related to new rules (viz. Law 42, passed on February 26, 1999)regarding the exercise of their profession. The new regulations alter theconcept of the nurse’s role, and transform it from the auxiliary one per-formed according to scrupulously fixed job descriptions and under tightsupervision by a responsible physician to one of an active, autonomous, andresponsible healthcare professional. Though generally perceived as a positivedevelopment, this role redesign constitutes a rather drastic change from theway the nursing profession had been practiced heretofore, confronting itsmembers with considerable threats and challenges.

Participants

Participants were 110 nurses (26 men, 84 women) who participated in thestudy on a voluntary basis. Their mean age was 35.02 years (SD = 7.06).

Procedure

Participants completed the Locomotion Scale and the Need for CognitiveClosure Scale (described in the following section). They then responded to anumber of questionnaires, including items about the organizational changethat they have recently experienced. Finally, participants completed a scale ofcoping with organizational change, which was developed by Judge et al.(1999).


Locomotion Scale. Like the original locomotion scale that was developedby Kruglanski et al. (2000), the Italian version is a 12-item instrumentdesigned to measure individual differences in tendency toward locomotion.The scale requires respondents to rate the extent to which they agree withstatements reflecting their proclivity toward movement and dynamism (e.g.,“By the time I accomplish a task, I already have the next one in mind”).Participants rated the items on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 6 (strongly agree). We computed a composite score by summingacross responses to each item.

Prior studies including Italian samples (Kruglanski et al., 2000) haveshown that the Locomotion Scale has satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’sa = .82) and is a valid measure as well (operationally defined in terms ofdiscriminant, convergent, known groups, and predictive validities). In thepresent sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the Locomotion Scale was .76.

Need for Cognitive Closure Scale (NFCS). Participants responded to theItalian version (De Grada et al., 1996; Mannetti et al., 2002; Pierro, Mannettiet al., 1995) of the NFCS (Kruglanski et al., 1997; Webster & Kruglanski,1994). The original 42-item scale consists of five subscales that measure thefollowing dimensions: preference for order, intolerance of ambiguity, prefer-ence for predictability, closed-mindedness, and decisiveness.

Recent studies assessing the structure of the scale tested different confir-matory factor models. Results of this research indicated that even thoughdata from different samples fit both a second-order, two-factor model and asecond-order, one-factor model equally well, the decisiveness dimension wasnot significantly related to the other dimensions (Kruglanski et al., 1997;Mannetti et al., 2002). Therefore, in the present study, we use only the 35items belonging to the four subscales with significant structural coefficientson the second-order factor representing general need for closure; namely,preference for order, intolerance for ambiguity, preference for predictability,and closed-mindedness.

Participants rated the items on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 6 (strongly agree). We computed a composite need for closurescore by summing across responses to each item (after appropriately reverse-scoring those items that reflected a preference to avoid closure). Previousstudies (De Grada et al., 1996; Pierro, Mannetti et al., 1995; Mannetti et al.,2002) have shown that the Italian version of the NFCS has satisfactoryreliability (a = .86). In the present research, Cronbach’s alpha of the scalewas .75.

Coping With Organizational Change Scale. The central interest in thepresent study is in the way change is experienced subjectively and reacted toas a function of individuals’ standing on the need for closure and locomotiondimensions. In the organizational change literature, such experiences and


reactions often are tapped via measures of coping with change. In the presentstudy, we used a 12-item scale of coping with organizational change that wasdeveloped by Judge et al. (1999).3

This scale considers both reactance to change (e.g., “The changes in thisorganization cause me stress,” reverse-scored) and facility of adaptation tochange, which is referred to as leading change (e.g., “When dramatic changeshappen in this organization, I feel I handle them with ease”). Participantsrated the items on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6(strongly agree). We computed an overall measure of coping with change bysumming across responses to each item. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was.66. High scores on the scale indicate subjective facility of handling organi-zational change (i.e., leading change).

Results

Impact of Change

To assess the degree to which participants were impacted by organiza-tional change, we asked them “To what extent did the changes introduced inyour workplace affect your everyday activities?” Answers were recorded on a7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Participants’ meanresponse to the question was 4.34 (SD = 1.62). It seems fair to conclude, then,that participants in this research perceived themselves to be affected generallyby the change introduced in their organizations. No significant relations wereobtained between locomotion or need for closure and responses to the impactitem.

Locomotion, Need for Closure, and Coping With Organizational Change

Locomotion and need for closure were not significantly related to eachother (r = .10, p > .28). Our predictions were tested by means of a multipleregression analysis wherein we regressed participants’ coping with changescores on locomotion and need for closure. Also, the effects of impact ofchange, gender, and age were entered as control variables in the regressionequation. Results of this analysis are summarized in Table 1.

As can be seen in Table 1, the results show that, as predicted, coping withchange was related significantly and positively to locomotion (b = .36,

3The Coping with Organizational Change Scale was used with permission from Timothy A.Judge.


p < .000), and significantly and negatively to need for cognitive closure(b = -.23, p < .01). To provide better understanding of the effects of these twoconstructs on coping behavior, we calculated the effect size for each variable,using the most popular index of effect size recommended in discussions ofmultiple regression analysis (see Cohen, 1988): the f 2 index, which is repre-sented by the ratio between the semipartial correlation coefficient for thespecific variable and 1 - R2. Cohen defined small, medium, and large effectsizes as corresponding to f 2 values of .02, .15, and .35, respectively. In thepresent study, the f 2 effect size for locomotion was .16, and for need forcognitive closure was .06.

Study 2

Method

Study 2 was conducted to replicate Study 1 in a substantially differentorganizational context. If our theory is correct, the negative relation betweenneed for closure and coping with change, and the positive relation betweenlocomotion and coping should hold, irrespective of the organization studied,type of change, geographic location, and population studied. These all con-stitute theoretically irrelevant specifics that should not obscure the funda-mental association patterns among our constructs.

Accordingly, we conducted our study at a Postal Service Center in aprovince (Campobasso, Italy) that is located in a region of central Italy

Table 1

Coping With Change as a Function of Need for Cog-nitive Closure and Locomotion Orientation: Resultsof Multiple Regression Analysis (Study 1)

Beta p

Need for cognitive closure -.23 .012Locomotion .36 .000Control variables

Impact of change .06 nsGender .06 nsAge .12 ns


(Molise). Because of privatization of this sector, the Postal Service recentlywas subjected to far-reaching changes, including a revamping of the com-puter system and organizational shifts that have considerably modified oldhabits and conventions of postal workers (“Poste, uscita morbida,” 2001).Such organizational shifts include downsizing, increased flexibility of jobdescriptions, personnel reduction, and incentives for transfer to alternativesectors. In Study 2, we also examine the effect of locomotion tendency andneed for closure on coping with change, controlling for participants’ intrinsicmotivation, which characterizes locomotors (Kruglanski et al., 2000) andoften is associated with proclivity toward change (Pierro, 2000; Robey &Bakr, 1978).

Participants

Participants in Study 2 were 105 (52 men, 53 women) postal employees inCampobasso, Italy. Their mean age was 46.39 years (SD = 8.04). Partici-pants’ educational levels were as follows: 15 persons with an elementaryschool background (i.e., a total of 8 years of schooling), 83 persons with ahigh school education (i.e., 13 years), and 7 persons with a college education(i.e., 17–19 total years).

Procedure

Participants completed the same scales that we used in Study 1; that is, theLocomotion Scale (a = .81), the NFCS (a = .75), and the Coping with Orga-nizational Change Scale (a = .77). To assess intrinsic motivation, partici-pants also responded to 12 items (e.g., “I want my work to provide me withopportunities for increasing my knowledge and skills”) that were derivedfrom the Work Preference Inventory developed by Amabile, Hill, Hennessy,and Tighe (1994) as a measure of intrinsic motivation. Ratings were made ona 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never true for me) to 4 (alwaysor almost always true for me). In the present sample, Cronbach’s alpha for theIntrinsic Motivation scale was .73.

Results

Impact of Change

Participants in Study 2 responded to the question “To what extent did thechanges introduced in your workplace affect your everyday activities?” using


the same 7-point scale that was described in Study 1. Participants’ meanresponse to that question was 5.68 (SD = 1.38), suggesting that the organi-zational change introduced in the Postal Service was perceived by theemployees to have had quite an impact. Replicating Study 1, there were nosignificant relations between locomotion or need for closure and responses tothe impact item.

Locomotion, Need for Closure, and Coping With Organizational Change

As in Study 1, locomotion and need for closure were not significantlyinterrelated (r = -.06, p < .54). Intrinsic motivation was significantly andpositively related to locomotion (r = .49, p < .001), confirming the results ofKruglanski et al. (2000). Intrinsic motivation and need for closure were notsignificantly interrelated (r = -.15, p < .12). Again, as in Study 1, we regressedparticipants’ coping with change scores on their need for closure and loco-motion scores. The effects of intrinsic motivation, impact of change, gender,age, and educational level were entered as control variables in the regressionequation. Results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2.

Replicating Study 1, we found that coping with change was significantlyand positively related to locomotion (b = .38, p < .000) and significantly andnegatively related to need for closure (b = -.20, p < .027). In this study, the f 2

effect size for locomotion was .14 and for need for cognitive closure it was .05.

Table 2

Coping With Change as a Function of Need for Cog-nitive Closure and Locomotion Orientation: Resultsof Multiple Regression Analysis (Study 2)

Beta p

Need for cognitive closure -.20 .027Locomotion .38 .000Control variables

Intrinsic motivation .21 .041Impact of change .01 nsGender -.03 nsAge .01 nsEducation .14 ns


Discussion

The results of our first two studies corroborate our theoretical expecta-tions about the relations between coping with change and the constructs oflocomotion and need for closure. Despite considerable differences in theprofessional populations and organizations studied, as well as in the geo-graphic locations and types of change, both of our studies yielded the same,theoretically predicted patterns of association between our constructs. Thesefindings inspire a measure of confidence in our analysis. Nonetheless, ourtheory has further implications that remain to be explored.

One such implication, already alluded to in the introduction, concerns theeffect of organizational climate on the way need for closure and locomotionmay relate to coping with change. Organizational climate has been concep-tualized in terms of prevailing norms, feelings, attitudes, and expectanciesshared in a given work setting (cf. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick,1970; Payne & Pugh, 1976; Schneider, 1975, 1990; Schneider, Wheeler, &Cox, 1992). Early climate studies have identified a limited number of dimen-sions by which social environments could be characterized. For example,Campbell et al. described four dimensions: individual autonomy; degree ofstructure imposed on the situation; reward orientation; and consideration,including warmth and support. James and James (1989) identified four dif-ferent dimensions: role stress and lack of harmony; job challenge andautonomy; leadership facilitation and support; and work group cooperation,friendliness, and warmth.

Over the years, the number of climate dimensions has proliferated. Forexample, Glick’s (1985) review reported a list of climate dimensions, includ-ing leaders’ psychological distance, managerial trust and consideration, com-munication flow, open-mindedness, risk orientation, service quality, equity,and centrality. Recently, Patterson et al. (2005), selecting those dimensionsthat were used most frequently in climate research studies from 1960 to 2000,developed a multidimensional measure of organizational climate containing17 subscales (e.g., integration, formalization, pressure to produce).

According to Schneider and Gunnarson (1990), different climates referalso to different organizational goals and imperatives, such as safety, inno-vation, service, and productivity (cf. Abbey & Dickson, 1983; Schneider &Gunnarson, 1990; Zohar, 1980). Schneider (1975) referred to these types ofclimate as climates for something. Whereas early climate research did nothave a specific focus, subsequent studies (e.g., Schneider & Bowen, 1985)have suggested that focused climate measures produce a stronger relationshipwith specific organizational outcomes than do less focused measures.Schneider (1975, 1990) eschewed the use of general multidimensional mea-sures of climate and argued for a facet-specific climate approach in which


climate has a focus and is tied to a particular phenomenon of interest. Thisline of argument has encouraged the development of focused climate mea-sures reflecting, for instance, a climate of innovation (Anderson & West,1998; Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1978).

Similarly, in the present study, we focused on a particular organiza-tional climate relating to innovation and change. To measure it, we usedthe Italian version (Pierro, 1994) of the 20-item Support of Creativitydimension of Siegel and Kaemmerer’s (1978) Scale of Perceived Support forInnovation (SSI). The Support of Creativity dimension assesses (a) theextent to which members of an organization perceive it as supportive ofmembers’ independent functioning and of their pursuit of novel ideas; (b)the extent to which members perceive the organization as open to change;and (c) the extent to which the organization’s leadership supports creativefunctioning.

From the present theoretical perspective, the concept of organizationalclimate is important because it further differentiates the effects of need forclosure versus those of locomotion in regard to organizational change. Asnoted earlier, need for closure theory (Kruglanski, 2004; Kruglanski &Webster, 1996) and related empirical evidence (De Grada, Kruglanski,Mannetti, & Pierro, 1999; Kruglanski, Shah, Pierro, & Mannetti, 2002;Pierro, De Grada, Mannetti, Livi, & Kruglanski, 2004) suggest thatindividuals under high need for cognitive closure tend to be sensitive tosituational norms and to prevailing social reality (Festinger, 1954), a devia-tion from which is likely to jeopardize their sense of stable closure. As aconsequence, such individuals’ natural tendency to resist, and experiencedifficulty with, change may be mitigated by a normative climate in an orga-nization that supports change.

By contrast, the locomotion tendency is unlikely to be affected by orga-nizational climate. Locomotors’ main concern is psychological movement,and they are typically insensitive to situational norms and standards ofappropriateness, and are unlikely to engage in their assessment in givencontexts (Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000).

In accordance with the aforementioned analysis, we predict the following:(a) The locomotion dimension and organizational support for innovation (asmeasured by the Support of Creativity scale) will be positively related tocoping with change; (b) the need for closure dimension will be negativelyrelated to coping with change; (c) the relation between need for closure andcoping with change will be moderated by organizational climate such that thegreater the organizational support for change, the weaker will be the negativerelation between need for closure and coping with change; and (d) organiza-tional climate will not moderate the positive relation between locomotionand coping with change.


Study 3

Method

The organizational context of the present study is the municipality (orcommune) of the City of Rome. Along with other parts of the Italian PublicAdministration System, Rome has been undergoing far-reaching reformsrecently having to do with integration of various sectors and a reorganizationof incentive systems.

Participants

Participants were 69 employees (14 men, 55 women) of two sections (backoffice, n = 20; front office, n = 40) of a district within the municipality(commune) of Rome who participated in the study on a voluntary basis.Participants’ mean age was 44.54 years (SD = 4.96). Of these participants, 6had an elementary school education (i.e., 8 years of schooling), 50 had a highschool education (i.e., 13 years), and 13 had a college education (i.e., 17–19years).

Procedure

Participants completed a number of questionnaires, including the Loco-motion Scale (a = .73) and the Need for Closure Scale (a = .80). In addition,participants responded to the Support of Creativity subscale of Siegel andKaemmerer’s (1978) SSI, which was mentioned previously. As noted earlier,this subscale is comprised of 20 items, such as “Creativity is encouraged here”and “This organization can be described as flexible and continually adaptingto change.” Participants rated the items on a 6-point scale ranging from1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

Previous studies (Pierro, 1994) have shown that the Italian version of theSupport of Creativity subscale has satisfactory reliability (a = .93). In thepresent sample, Cronbach’s alpha was .91. A one-way ANOVA performedon the Support of Creativity scores indicates that this particular dimension oforganizational climate was perceived as significantly higher (indicatinggreater perceived support for creativity) by the back-office employees(M = 4.35), as compared to the front-office employees (M = 3.84), F(1,67) = 5.92, p < .018.

Coping with change. In Study 3, we utilized a different measure of copingwith change than in the previous two studies. In particular, participants were


explicitly asked to characterize their reactions to the organizational changethey have undergone by responding to a list of 15 self-descriptive adjectives.The list contains six items reflecting reactance to change (insecure, worried,overwhelmed, pessimistic, perplexed, suspicious), and nine items reflectingacceptance of or leading change (involved, active, committed, enterprising,trusting, favorable, collaborative, enthusiastic, stimulated). Participants’answers were recorded on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (doesn’t describe meat all) to 7 (describes me completely). In another study, Pierro (2000) foundthat this particular measure was highly correlated with the Coping withChange scale that was used in Studies 1 and 2. Cronbach’s alpha for thepresent scale was .84.

Results

Perceived Impact of the Organizational Change

Participants’ answers to the question about the impact of the organiza-tional change on their everyday activities were measured on a 7-point scaleranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The mean of participants’responses was 4.54 (SD = 1.53). As in our previous studies, it appears, then,that the organizational change in this case had a substantial impact on ourrespondents. Also as in our previous studies, there were no significant relationsbetween locomotion or need for closure and responses to the impact question.

Coping With Organizational Change

Our hypotheses regarding main effects of locomotion, need for cognitiveclosure, and organizational climate on coping, and the hypothesis regardingthe moderating effect of organizational climate on the relationship betweenthe need for cognitive closure and coping were tested by means of a moder-ated multiple regression analysis (using the product variable approachsuggested by Baron & Kenny, 1986; see also Cohen & Cohen, 1983). In thismoderated multiple regression, we entered the main effects of locomotion,need for cognitive closure, support of innovation (our measure of organiza-tional climate), the two 2-way interactions between locomotion and supportof innovation, and the need for cognitive closure and support of innovation.Also, the effects of the impact of change, gender, age, educational level, andorganizational section (i.e., back office vs. front office) were entered ascontrol variables in the regression equation. Results of this analysis aresummarized in Table 3.


As shown in Table 3, all main effects were significant in this analysis.Replicating Studies 1 and 2, coping with change was significantly and posi-tively related to locomotion (b = .25, p < .006) and significantly and negativelyrelated to the need for cognitive closure (b = -.27, p < .004). In the presentstudy, the f 2 effect size for locomotion was .14 and for need for cognitiveclosure it was .15. Furthermore, coping with change was significantly andpositively related to support for innovation (b = .51, p < .000), a finding thatvalidates our support for the innovation measure in the present organizationalcontext.

Of particular importance, the only significant interaction effect was thatbetween need for cognitive closure and support of innovation (b = .21,p < .018). The positive sign of the beta weight suggests that the relationbetween need for closure and coping with change was less negative whenperceived support of innovation was high, rather than low. These findings areillustrated via the predicted mean values exhibited in Figure 1. Following thesuggestion of Aiken and West (1991), these were values 1 standard deviationabove and below the means of the relevant variables in the regression equa-tion (for a more elaborate discussion of simple slope analysis, see Aiken &West, 1991). Finally, as in our previous studies in this series, the need forclosure and locomotion tendencies were not significantly interrelated in thepresent research (r = -.01, ns).

Table 3

Coping With Change as a Function of Need for Cognitive Closure, LocomotionOrientation, and Support for Innovation: Summary of Moderated MultipleRegression Analysis (Study 3)

Beta p

Need for cognitive closure (NCC) -.27 .004Locomotion .25 .006Support for innovation (SI) .51 .000NCC ¥ SI .21 .018Locomotion ¥ SI .08 nsControl variables

Impact of change .04 nsGender -.04 nsAge .01 nsEducation -.13 nsOrganizational section (back vs. front office) -.01 ns


Discussion

The present findings are in accord with our theoretical analysis. To beginwith, we replicated the negative relation between need for closure and copingwith change, and the positive relation between locomotion and coping withchange. This replication pertains to a novel organizational context, involvinga different type of change, different employee population, different geo-graphic location, and a different measure of coping with organizationalchange.

No less important is the fact that the data of the present study support ourprediction regarding the moderating effect of an organizational climate onthe relation between need for closure and coping with change. Even thoughindividuals with high need for closure are generally averse to change—whichhandicaps their ability to cope with change—they are also generally support-ive of the social reality of their particular organization. To the extent thatsuch reality contains norms that encourage change and innovation, the ten-dency toward normative conformity of individuals high in need for closureshould mitigate their general resistance to and difficulty with, change. Thesignificant interaction between need for closure and support for innovation isconsistent with this interpretation. Finally, it is noteworthy that no interac-tion was predicted theoretically, and none was obtained between locomotionand organizational support for innovation. As already stated, locomotionrefers to the tendency toward movement, and it is unrelated to normativesensitivity or conformity to expectations inherent in a given organizationalclimate.

0,005

0,573

-0,931

0,449

-1,2

-1

-0,8

-0,6

-0,4

-0,2

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

Low SIS High SIS

Co

pin

g w

ith

Org

aniz

atio

nal

ch

ang

e

Low NCC

High NCC

Figure 1. Coping with organizational change as a function of need for cognitive closure (NCC)and perceived support for innovation (SIS): Predicted mean value.


Study 4

Method

Although the findings of Studies 1, 2, and 3 are encouraging, they sufferfrom a major limitation owing to their correlational nature obscuring thecausal direction of the observed effects. Theoretically, we assumed that indi-vidual differences in locomotion and need for closure (partially) determineemployees’ success in coping with change. However, our prior data areconsistent with the interpretation that the degree of successful coping affectsparticipants’ responses to the locomotion and need for closure scales,perhaps through an inference as to what one’s locomotion or need for closuretendencies must have been like, given one’s observed data pattern of copingwith change. To overcome this interpretative difficulty, in the present study,we employ a longitudinal design wherein individual differences in locomotionand need for closure were assessed an entire month prior to measuringparticipants’ ability to cope with change. In addition, we measured partici-pants’ expectancies regarding change and the actual shift in work attitudesover time as a consequence of the organizational change that took place, andas a function of our individual-difference constructs of primary interest;namely, locomotion and need for closure.

We basically expect that locomotion and need for closure will determine(the first positively, the second negatively) participants’ expectanciesabout what change will bring and their self-ascribed ability to cope withchange. Ability to cope with change, in turn, should determine the shiftin participants’ work attitudes attendant upon the change: Individuals whoperceive themselves as successful “copers” should evince a more positiveshift in work attitudes than ones who regard themselves as relativelyunsuccessful.

The population studied is similar to the one we investigated in Study 2;namely, employees of the National Postal Service. This time, participants inour research were workers from three different geographic areas ofItaly—specifically Rome, Reggio Calabria, and Naples—who came to anewly established institute for professional retraining, located in Naples. Asnoted earlier, the Italian Postal Service is undergoing extensive changesassociated with its privatization. Among the various changes that havebeen instituted, employees were requested to participate in a job-mobilityinitiative whereby they underwent a period of retraining, lasting 1 month ina new professional function, which consisted of the provision of directoryassistance.

Our research unfolded in two phases, the first occurring 1 day into theircourse of professional retraining, and the second occurring 1 month after the


termination of the course; that is, 1 month into the new job for whichparticipants were retrained. A detailed description of our participants andprocedure follows.

Participants

Participants were 93 employees (48 men, 45 women) of the Italian PostalService who served as participants on a voluntary basis. Participants’ meanage was 41.87 years (SD = 4,89). The educational level of the participants wasas follows: 11 had an elementary education (i.e., 8 years of schooling), 75 hada high school education (i.e., 13 years), and 7 had a college education (i.e.,17–19 years).

First Research Phase

As noted previously, Study 4 unfolded in two phases taking place prior toand following the implementation of the organizational change. In the firstphase, which was conducted at the retraining center (1 day following thetrainees’ arrival), participants completed the Locomotion and Need forClosure scales that were previously described. Cronbach’s alpha for the Needfor Closure Scale was .75, whereas that for the Locomotion scale was .72.Participants then responded to measures of expectancy with regard to orga-nizational change, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction.

Expectancies about organizational change. To assess participants’ expect-ancies about change, we used nine items (validated by Mannetti & Pierro,1998), each with three alternatives (1 = will be worse off, 2 = no change, or3 = will be better off). These items pertained to various aspects of their pre-vious job, relative to their future job. Among others, these questions referredto quality of the work, physical environment, relations with coworkers,economic conditions, career opportunities, opportunities for further educa-tion and professional development, autonomy and independence at work,and job-related pressures. In the present sample, Cronbach’s alpha of thisexpectancies measure was .65.

Job attitudes: Organizational commitment. Participants completed thefour-item Italian version (Pierro, Lombardo, Fabbri, & Di Spirito, 1995) ofthe Organizational Commitment Scale (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). Thespecific items in this scale are “I would be very happy to spend the rest of mycareer with this organization,” “I really feel as if this organization’s problemsare my own,” “I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization”(reverse-scored), and “I do not feel like part of the family at my organization”


(reverse-scored). Ratings were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We computed a composite organi-zational commitment score by summing across responses to the differentitems (a = .66).

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was assessed by means of the followingitems: “I receive a great satisfaction from my job” and “It is hard to imaginea person that could be satisfied by the type of work I do” (reverse-scored).Ratings were recorded on the same, already familiar 7-point scale (usedthroughout this research) ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (stronglyagree). Responses to the two items proved to be positively correlated(a = .61), and we averaged them to form a combined index of job satisfaction.

Second Research Phase

The second research phase took place approximately 2 months aftercommencement of the first phase, and close to 1 month from the conclusionof the retraining course and into the new job. There were 47 participants (24men, 23 women) from the original sample who took part in this phase of thestudy. Of these participants, 15 were from Rome, 22 were from Naples, and10 were from Reggio Calabria. All 47 participants in the second phase of theresearch responded to the same organizational commitment and job satisfac-tion measures that were used in the first phase. They also completed the same12-item Coping with Organizational Change scale that was used in Studies1 and 2, and responded to the control item inquiring as to the extent to whichtheir everyday activities were impacted by the organizational change.

Results

Attrition Check

Since in this study the dropout rate between the two research phases wasquite substantial (50%), we must report some information about possibleattrition or mortality-rate effects on our dependent measure. Following therecommendation of Goodman and Blum (1996), we assessed the possiblepresence of a nonrandom sampling bias using multiple logistic regressionanalysis. This analysis is recommended because it models the probability ofbeing included in one of two response categories (e.g., remaining in or leavinga sample) and because it takes into account the relationship among thevariables (Goodman & Blum, 1996).

In this analysis, we used a dichotomous variable distinguishing partici-pants who remained in the second research phase from those who dropped


out as the dependent variables, and all of the variables of interest to theresearch measured at the first phase (i.e., locomotion, need for closure,expectancies, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, gender, age, andeducation) as the independent variables. Results of this analysis do not showany significant effect of our independent variables (locomotion, b = -.01,p = .99; need for closure, b = .19, p = .10; expectancies, b = .06, p = .61; orga-nizational commitment, b = .24, p = .07; job satisfaction, b = -.06, p = .69;gender, b = .01, p = .99; age, b = .18, p = .09; education, b = .05, p = .61),counterindicating the presence of nonrandom sampling (i.e., indicating thatthe data are missing at random). Thus, as suggested by Goodman and Blum(1996), we can be reasonably confident that attrition will not bias subsequentlongitudinal data analyses of our variables.

Perceived Impact of Organizational Change

Participants’ answers to the question about the impact of the organiza-tional change on their everyday activities were measured on a 7-point scaleranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The mean of participants’responses to this item was 6.32 (SD = .93). As in our previous studies, itappears that the organizational change in this case had a substantial impacton our respondents. None of the present independent variables entered intosignificant relations with responses to the impact item.

Expectancies About Change

Need for closure and locomotion were not correlated significantly in thisresearch (r = .01, ns). Relations between locomotion, need for cognitiveclosure, and expectancies toward change were analyzed on the total sample ofparticipants in the first phase of our research (N = 93). Regressing expectan-cies toward change on locomotion and need for closure (controlling forgender, age, and education) reveals that (positive) expectancies were relatedsignificantly and positively to locomotion (b = .28, p < .005) and significantlyand negatively to need for closure (b = -.22, p < .024).

Coping With Organizational Change

Our analysis of the relations between locomotion, need for closure, andcoping with organizational change was based on the 47 participants in thesecond phase of the research. We regressed coping with change on locomo-


tion and need for closure, controlling for expectancies toward change, impactof change, gender, age, and education. As expected, coping with change wassignificantly and positively related to locomotion (b = .50, p < .003), andsignificantly and negatively to need for closure (b = -.49, p < .002). In thepresent study, the f 2 effect size for locomotion was .25, and for need forcognitive closure it was .29. Somewhat surprisingly, coping and expectanciestoward change were not correlated significantly with each other (b = -.17,ns). Also, the bivariate correlation coefficient indicates that coping andexpectancies toward change were not correlated significantly (r = .06, ns).

Shifts in Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction

As a first step in our data analysis, we examined the direction of change inwork attitudes from before to after the organizational change. To that end,we performed ANOVAs with repeated measures (reflecting before and afterphases) on both organizational commitment and job satisfaction scores.Furthermore, as in both the before phase and the after phase the organiza-tional commitment and job satisfaction scores were positively and signifi-cantly correlated (before, r = .39, p < .007; after, r = .37, p < .01), we createdtwo combined indexes of work attitudes—one for the before phase and thesecond for the after phase—and submitted them to ANOVAs with repeatedmeasures.

The means relevant to these analyses are displayed in Table 4. As can beseen in the table, our participants reported feeling more organizationallycommitted, F(1, 46) = 7.27, p < .01; and more satisfied with their jobs,

Table 4

Results of ANOVA With Repeated Measures on Organizational Commitment,Job Satisfaction, and General Work Attitudes Index: First and Second Phases(Study 4)

Variable First phase Second phase F(1, 46)

Organizational commitment 5.86 6.30 7.27, p = .01Job satisfaction 4.66 5.35 10.11, p = .003General work attitudes 5.45 5.98 12.93, p = .001


F(1, 46) = 10.11, p < .003, after versus before the implementation of the orga-nizational change. As a consequence, their index of overall work attitudeswas significantly more positive in the after phase, as compared to the beforephase, F(1, 46) = 12.93, p < .001. The foregoing effect could be interpreted asa substantively successful change or, alternatively, as a species of Hawthorneeffect (Mayo, 1933; Whitehead, 1938) whereby employees report greatersatisfaction following any kind of intervention.

Data reported subsequently, however, attest that the Hawthorne artifactcould not be telling the entire story in this case. Specifically, there is no reasonto expect that the Hawthorne effect would be sensitive to employees’ level ofneed for closure or to their locomotion tendency. Our theory, however,suggests that the latter variables will affect employees’ successful coping withorganizational change, and that coping in turn will mediate the shift in workattitudes. In what follows, we consider first the relations between need forclosure, locomotion, and work attitudes, and, subsequently, the mediationalrole of coping in those particular relations.

Locomotion, Need for Closure, and Work Attitudes

In order to analyze the relations among locomotion, need for closure, andadaptation to organizational change, we performed three different multipleregression analyses: one for each index of work attitudes measured in thesecond phase of the research (i.e., organizational commitment, job satisfac-tion, and general work attitudes). Specifically, we regressed each of the threeindexes on need for closure and locomotion. As control variables, we enteredthe effects of expectancies toward change, impact of change, gender, age, andeducation. Finally, for each of the three indexes, we entered the effect of thecorresponding index of work attitudes measured in the first phase of theresearch, and this also provided information about stability of work attitudesin reference to effects of the predictors. The results of this analysis aresummarized in Table 5.

As expected, locomotion was significantly and positively related to Time2 measures of organizational commitment (b = .39, p < .022), job satisfaction(b = .42, p = .012), and, as a consequence, our combined index of generalwork attitudes (b = .48, p = .003). By contrast, need for cognitive closure wassignificantly and negatively related to Time 2 measures of organizationalcommitment (b = -.42, p = .008), job satisfaction (b = -.29, p = .058), and, asa consequence, general work attitudes (b = -.42, p = .005). In contrast tothese effects, expectancies about change were not related significantly to anyof our three attitudinal indexes.


Tab

le5

Wor

kA

ttit

udes

(at

Sec

ond

Pha

se)

asa

Fun

ctio

nof

Nee

dfo

rC

ogni

tive

Clo

sure

and

Loc

omot

ion:

Sum

mar

yof

Mul

tipl

eR

egre

ssio

nA

naly

sis

(Stu

dy4)

Org

aniz

atio

nalc

omm

itm

ent

(2nd

phas

e)Jo

bsa

tisf

acti

on(2

ndph

ase)

Gen

eral

wor

kat

titu

des

(2nd

phas

e)

Bet

ap

Bet

ap

Bet

ap

Nee

dfo

rco

gnit

ive

clos

ure

-.42

.008

-.29

.058

-.42

.005

Loc

omot

ion

.39

.022

.42

.012

.48

.003

Con

trol

vari

able

sE

xpec

tanc

ies

-.18

ns.0

8ns

-.11

nsIm

pact

ofch

ange

.30

.045

.30

.038

.36

.011

Gen

der

.23

ns.1

2ns

.21

nsA

ge.0

2ns

.18

ns.1

0ns

Edu

cati

on.1

5ns

.03

ns.1

2ns

Org

aniz

atio

nalc

omm

itm

ent

(1st

phas

e).3

2.0

33—

——

—Jo

bsa

tisf

acti

on(1

stph

ase)

——

.11

ns—

—G

ener

alw

ork

atti

tude

s(1

stph

ase)

——

——

.29

.035


Mediational Role of Coping

Why should attitude toward the new job be more positive for high (vs.low) locomotors, and be less positive for individuals high (vs. low) on needfor closure? A plausible answer is suggested by the findings of our threepreceding studies demonstrating a positive relation between locomotion andsuccessful coping with organizational change, and a negative relationbetween need for closure and coping. It is reasonable to assume that theexperience (or perception) of successful coping will induce positivity towardthe new job, whereas the experience of relatively unsuccessful coping willreduce the amount of positivity. In other words, we predict that the copingwith change variable, shown in our prior studies to relate in contrasting waysto need for closure and locomotion constructs, will in the present researchmediate the previously reported relations linking them with work attitudes.

If coping mediates the relation between need for closure and locomotionon the one hand and work attitudes on the other, three conditions must bemet (Baron & Kenny, 1986). First, need for closure—as well as locomotion—must be related to work attitudes. The results presented in Table 5 attest thatthis, indeed, is the case. Second, coping must be related to work attitudes. Toexamine this issue, we regressed each of the three Time 2 indexes of workattitudes (i.e., organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and the generalwork attitudes index) on coping scores. As can be seen in Table 6, coping waspositively and significantly related to organizational commitment (b = .54,p < .001), positively and significantly to job satisfaction (b = .39, p < .007),and positively and significantly to our general index (b = .58, p < .001).

Third, the effects of locomotion and need for closure on work attitudesshould be attenuated when the effect of the hypothesized mediator (i.e.,coping, in this case) is controlled for. To see whether this is the case, wefollowed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommendation and performed threeseparate multiple regression analyses; one for each index of work attitudesthat we regressed on locomotion, need for closure, and coping, as well as onthe familiar control variables (expectancies, impact of change, gender, age,education, and correspondent Time 1 measure of attitudes). The relevantresults are summarized in Table 6.

Looking first at organizational commitment, it can be seen that the effectof locomotion is attenuated and becomes nonsignificant (b = .18, p < .288)once coping is controlled for. Using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) modificationof the Sobel test (see Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998), this effect is marginallysignificant (Z = 1.79, p < .07), which is consistent with the mediational role ofcoping in this case. Similarly, the effect of need for closure on organizationalcommitment is attenuated and becomes nonsignificant (b = -.22, p < .181)once coping is controlled for. Again, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) modification


Tab

le6

Sum

mar

yof

Med

iati

onal

Mul

tipl

eR

egre

ssio

nA

naly

sis

onW

ork

Att

itud

es(S

tudy

4)

Org

aniz

atio

nalc

omm

itm

ent

(2nd

phas

e)Jo

bsa

tisf

acti

on(2

ndph

ase)

Gen

eral

wor

kat

titu

des

(2nd

phas

e)

Bet

ap

Bet

ap

Bet

ap

Cop

ing

only

.54

.000

.39

.007

.58

.000

Cop

ing

and

othe

rva

riab

les

Nee

dfo

rco

gnit

ive

clos

ure

-.22

ns-.

17ns

-.22

nsL

ocom

otio

n.1

8ns

.30

.095

.27

.088

Con

trol

vari

able

sE

xpec

tanc

ies

-.10

ns.1

2ns

-.03

nsIm

pact

ofch

ange

.22

ns.2

6ns

.28

.029

Gen

der

.15

ns.0

8ns

.14

nsA

ge.0

4ns

.19

ns.1

2ns

Edu

cati

on.0

9ns

-.01

ns.0

6ns

Org

aniz

atio

nalc

omm

itm

ent

(1st

phas

e).3

0.0

3—

——

—Jo

bsa

tisf

acti

on(1

stph

ase)

——

.10

ns—

—G

ener

alw

ork

atti

tude

s(1

stph

ase)

——

——

.27

.031

Cop

ing

.41

.011

.24

.128

.41

.006


of the Sobel test is significant (Z = 2.10, p < .03) in line with the mediationalrole of coping.

Looking now at job satisfaction, the effect of locomotion is attenuatedand becomes nonsignificant (b = .30, p < .095) once coping is controlled for,yet this reduction in significance is not itself statistically significant (Z = 1.40,p = .16). Similarly, the effect of need for closure on job satisfaction is attenu-ated (b = -.17, p = .298) once coping is controlled for, but this reduction insignificance is not itself statistically significant (Z = 1.41, p = .16).

Finally, turning to the general index of work attitudes, the effect oflocomotion is attenuated and becomes nonsignificant (b = .27, p < .088)once coping is controlled for. The reduction is significant (Z = 2.15,p = .03). Also, the need for closure effect on general work attitudes isattenuated and becomes nonsignificant (b = -.22, p = .138) once coping iscontrolled for. Using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) modified version of theSobel test, this reduction in significance proves to be significant (Z = 2.21,p < .02) In summary, the foregoing data patterns are supportive of ourhypothesis that the degree of successful coping mediates the relationbetween need for closure and locomotion on the one hand, and work atti-tudes measured after the implementation of the organizational change onthe other hand.

General Discussion

The four studies described in the present paper yielded consistentresults. In all four studies, locomotion tendency was related positively tosuccessful coping with change, whereas need for closure was relatednegatively to successful coping. It is noteworthy that our studies differedin numerous details, including the populations studied (nurses, postalworkers, municipal workers), types of organizational change implemented(increased responsibility and independence for nurses, job change andincreased task flexibility for postal workers, procedural and organizationalchanges for municipal workers, etc.). That the same, theoretically predictedrelations between our variables obtained despite this considerable variabil-ity on theoretically irrelevant dimensions inspires confidence in their valid-ity and robustness. Moreover, whereas Studies 1, 2, and 3 employedcorrelational designs, leaving uncertainty about the causal relationsbetween our constructs, Study 4 employed a longitudinal design, support-ing the prediction that the individual-difference variables of locomotionand need for closure partially determine employees’ coping with organiza-tional change.

To examine further the effects of these two constructs on coping behavior,we conducted a meta-analysis across all four of our studies using the Meta


program developed by Kenny (2003), which is designed to (a) compute aneffect size for each study; (b) pool these effect sizes; and (c) test them forhomogeneity. As a basic measure of effect size in the meta-analysis, we usedthe semipartial correlations (the Meta program computes these basic mea-sures, weighting them for squared root of sample size).

Results of the meta-analysis show for locomotion an effect size rangingbetween .23 (Study 3) and .44 (Study 4), with a mean effect size of .34(SD = .09); t(3) = 7.13, p < .007; c2(3, N = 331) = 1.43, p = .69. For need forclosure, effect sizes ranged between -.19 (Study 2) and -.47 (Study 4), with amean effect size of -.27 (SD = .07); t(3) = 7.98, p < .005; c2(3, N = 331) = 2.61,p = .46. These results suggest that the effects of locomotion and need forclosure on coping behavior were homogeneous across all four of our studies.

Our theory is supported also by the predicted interaction between needfor closure and an organizational climate supportive of openness to change.Whereas need for closure generally induces resistance to change and under-mines successful coping with change, it also fosters adherence to prevalentsituational norms defining the social reality governing a given situation (Fes-tinger, 1954; Kruglanski and Webster, 1991; Kruglanski et al., 1993; Pierroet al., 2004). In a situation in which such norms support innovation (andhence change), the need-for-closure-based tendency to resist change is miti-gated, therefore, and the attendant ability to cope with change is augmented(Study 3). Finally, coping with change was shown to mediate the relationshipbetween locomotion or need for closure and work attitudes after the occur-rence of organizational change, such that the more successful the coping, themore positive the attitude (Study 4).

An objection might be raised that both our independent variables(namely, locomotion tendency and need for cognitive closure) and the phe-nomenon they were assumed to determine were assessed via self-report mea-sures. Arguably, then, our results could reflect an artificial method variance,rather than a true relation between psychological constructs. A moment’sreflection, however, will suggest that the foregoing consideration is not par-ticularly compelling. First, our extensive validation of the locomotion(Kruglanski et al., 2000) and need for closure scales (Kruglanski et al., 1997;Mannetti et al., 2002; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) attests to their consider-able convergent and discriminant validity. Thus, it is not that the locomotionand need for closure variables are indiscriminately correlated with all self-report measures, but that correlation patterns are consistent with the under-lying theory behind these constructs, and that our measures selectivelycorrelate only with such variables that they should be expected, theoretically,to do so.

Second, it is not the case that locomotion and need for closure tendenciescorrelate exclusively with self-report measures. Research on locomotion ten-


dency (Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000) indeed attests to effects ofthe locomotion tendency on speed of performance, means generation, andperformance outcomes. Similarly, a decade of research on need for closurereveals a plethora of behavioral effects that this construct has (e.g., asymme-try of conversational patterns, communicative acts in a group; cf. Pierro,Mannetti, De Grada, Livi, & Kruglanski, 2003), or the use of linguisticabstraction (Rubini & Kruglanski, 1997).

Moreover, note that the focus of the present investigation was on thesubjective experience and reactions to episodic organizational change. Thus,our use of self-report measures was driven by our theoretical interests andconstituted a major accepted methodology for getting at such interests,rather than representing a problematic method of convenience.

Finally, it is important to note that while common method/source biasmay inflate the observed relationship between variables, it actually leads toan understimation of possible interaction effects (Evans, 1985; McClelland &Judd, 1993). The common method variance concerns thus are less when amoderator effect is predicted and found. At least the interaction betweenneed for closure and organizational climate in Study 3 cannot be attributed topotential biases as a result of common method variance shared by ourmeasures.

The present results cast light on the complex set of determinants affectingemployees’ reactions to change. Personality characteristics are important,especially if their essence—like that of the need for closure and locomotionconstructs—has direct implications regarding change. Some persons, morethan others, react to the threat inherent in change and the epistemic turmoilthat change typically introduces. As our findings indicate, individuals with ahigh need for closure represent such persons.

Likewise, some persons, more than others, react to the opportunitiesafforded by change, such as the opportunity for psychological movement thatchange intrinsically enables. Our findings indicate that individuals with a highlocomotion tendency represent such a class of individuals. Thus, the presentresearch constitutes a contribution to a small, albeit growing literature con-cerning individual-level variables relevant to reactions to organizationalchange (cf. Judge et al., 1999; Rascle, 2000; Wamberg & Banas, 2000), a topicthat has been analyzed predominantly by reference to macro-level phenom-ena, rather than in terms of individual differences (Judge et al., 1999).

Other individual-difference variables could determine workers’ attitudesand reactions to organizational change. A recently investigated pair ofsuch relevant variables is promotion focus and prevention focus, which wereinvestigated in a set of five studies by Liberman, Chen-Idson, Camacho, andHiggins (1999). Based on Higgins (1997, 1998), these authors hypothesizedthat promotion focus—associated as it is with advancement, growth, and


accomplishment—will be positively related to the embracement of change.By contrast, prevention focus—which is concerned with security, safety, andresponsibility—will be negatively related to the acceptance of change. Thesepredictions received consistent support across Liberman et al.’s studies.Thus, in two of the experiments, individuals high in a prevention focus weremore inclined than were individuals in a promotion focus to resume aninterrupted task, rather than engage in a substitute task. Furthermore, in thesubsequent three studies, individuals in a prevention focus more so thanthose in a promotion focus tended to exhibit the endowment effect, througha reluctance to exchange currently possessed objects or previously possessedobjects.

Our findings implicate other, extra-individual variables affecting reac-tions to change. Organizational climate (e.g., Schneider, 1975, 1990) is onesuch variable, and our results indicate that a positive organizational climateindeed positively affects employees’ successful coping with change (Study 3).Our results also intimate that a specific preparation for change (in the formof a change-relevant retraining) effects a positive shift in organizationalcommitment and job satisfaction on the part of the employees who areinvolved (Study 4).

It is possible that such preparation is interpreted as evidence that theorganization values its employees and cares about their welfare. It is alsopossible that the retraining removes some of the aversive uncertainty associ-ated with change and produces clarity. This would suggest that individualshigh in need for closure would benefit more from preparation for change thanwould their counterparts who are low in need for closure. This suggestioncould be followed up profitably in subsequent research.

A final note is in order regarding the need for closure and locomotionvariables. Though in the present work these have been operationalized asindividual-difference constructs, theoretically they constitute general psycho-logical states that are inducible via the appropriate situational conditions(Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996).For instance, need for closure was previously induced via time pressure,noise, mental fatigue, or instructions stressing the value of closure (for areview, see Kruglanski & Webster, 1996).

Similarly, locomotion tendency may vary as a function of the mentalaccessibility of past instances of having locomoted or the experience ofsuccess, which may enhance one’s sense of competence and may induce thedesire to move on to further successes. This suggests possible novel means ofaffecting individuals’ reactions to organizational change, this time by creat-ing the appropriate situational conditions affecting the employees’ motiva-tional states related to their need for closure and locomotion tendencies.These notions seem worthy of pursuit in future studies.


On the operational level, our findings have potential implications forcoping with workers’ possible resistance to organizational change. First, inorganizations in which continuous change is the rule, rather than the excep-tion, personnel selection processes may factor in the dimensions of closureand locomotion in order to ensure that, all else being equal, the individualswho are hired are low on need for closure and high on locomotion ten-dency. Second, before an organizational change is implemented, it shouldbe possible to conduct workshops in which need for closure would belowered (e.g., by an emphasis on openness and concern for quality andaccuracy of performance), and locomotion tendency would be augmented(e.g., by success and esteem-enhancing experiences). Such intervention pos-sibilities could constitute a fruitful avenue of translating the present find-ings into useful techniques designed to improve organizations’ capability ofreducing the trials and tribulations that often are associated with organi-zational change.

References

Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. W. (1983). R & D work climate and innovation insemi-conductors. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 362–368.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpret-ing interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessy, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). TheWork Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivationalorientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950–967.

Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work groupinnovation: Development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258.

Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress duringorganizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24,19–36.

Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment, and regulatoryfit: Value transfer from “how” to “what.” Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 39, 525–530.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variabledistinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173–1182.

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E.(1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York:McGraw-Hill.


Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysisfor the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory(NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professionalmanual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

De Grada, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A. (1999). Moti-vated cognition and group interaction: Need for closure affects the con-tents and processes of collective negotiations. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 35, 346–365.

De Grada, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Webster, D. M.(1996). Un’analisi strutturale comparativa della version, USA e italianadella scala di “Bisogno di chiusura cognitiva” di Webster & Kruglanski[Webster & Kruglanski’s scale of Need for Cognitive Closure]. Testing,Psicometria, Metodologia, 3, 5–18.

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlatedmethod variance in moderated regression analysis. Organizational Behav-ior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Rela-tions, 7, 117–140.

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational andpsychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Man-agement Review, 10, 601–616.

Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. (1996). Assessing the non-random samplingeffects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of Manage-ment, 22, 627–652.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52,1280–1300.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus asa motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experi-mental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). New York: AcademicPress.

Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode:Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol., 35, pp. 294–345). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment percep-tions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 74, 739–751.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003a). Excep-tions that prove the rule: Using a theory of motivated social cognition to


account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 129, 383–393.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003b). Politicalconservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129,339–375.

Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Simon, L. (1999). Effects of epistemicmotivation on conservatism, intolerance, and other system-justifying atti-tudes. In L. Thompson, D. M. Messick, & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Sharedcognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 91–116).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Mana-gerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.

Kemmelmeier, M. (1997). Need for closure and political orientation amongGerman university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 787–789.

Kenny, D. A. (2003). Meta-analysis: Easy to answer (Version III). Storrs, CT:University of Connecticut.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in socialpsychology. In D. A. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Thehandbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 227–276). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitiveand motivational bases. New York: Plenum.

Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York:Psychology Press.

Kruglanski, A. W., Atash, M. N., De Grada, E., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., &Webster, D. M (1997). Psychological theory testing versus psychometricnay saying: Need for Closure Scale and the Neuberg et al. critique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1005–1016.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and un-freezing of layinferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, andnumerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448–468.

Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2002). Whensimilarity breeds content: Need for closure and the allure of homogeneousand self-resembling groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83, 642–662.

Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A.,Shah, J. Y., et al. (2000). To “Do the right thing” or to “Just do it”:Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793–815.


Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1991). Group members’ reactions toopinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to deci-sion deadline and of environmental noise. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 61, 212–225.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind:“Seizing” and “freezing.” Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.

Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistanceand openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior informa-tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 861–876.

Lawrence, P. R. (1969). How to deal with resistance to change. HarvardBusiness Review, 47, 4–13.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5–41.Law No. 42, February 26, 1999. (1999, March 2). Disposizioni in materia

di professioni sanitarie [Dispositions for health professions]. GazzettaUfficiale.

Liberman, N., Chen-Idson, L., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999).Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1135–1145.

Livi, S. (2002). Il bisogno di chiusura cognitiva e la transmissione delle normenei piccoli gruppi [The need for cognitive closure and norm transmission insmall groups]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Rome, “LaSapienza.”

Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A. (1998). Atteggiamenti e reazioni verso il cambia-mento organizzativo [Attitudes and reactions to organizational change].In A. M. Ajello & S. Meghnagi (Eds.), La competenza fra flessibilità especializzazione (pp. 129–150). Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli.

Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Taris, T. & Bezinovic, P. (2002).A cross-cultural study of the Need for Cognitive Closure Scale: Compar-ing its structure in Croatia, Italy, the USA, and The Netherlands. BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 41, 139–156.

Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detectinginteractions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organiza-tions and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component concep-tualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551.

Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom,R., Maitlis, S., et al. (2005). Validating the organizational climatemeasure: Links to managerial practices, productivity, and innovation.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379–408.


Payne, R. L., & Pugh, D. S. (1976). Organizational structure and climate. InM. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol-ogy (pp. 1125–1173). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.

Pierro, A. (1994). Percezione del supporto per le innovazioni nelle organiz-zazioni e reazioni al cambiamento: Contributo allo sviluppo e allavalidazione di una misura di clima organizzativo [Perceived support forinnovation in organizations and reactions to change: Contributionregarding the development and validation of a measure of organizationalclimate]. Psicologia e Lavoro, 95, 17–24.

Pierro, A. (2000). Motivazione intrinseca e reazioni al cambiamento organiz-zativo [Intrinsic motivation and reactions to organizational change].Unpublished data.

Pierro, A., De Grada, E., Mannetti, L., Livi, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2004).Bisogno di chiusura cognitiva e risposta a violazioni normative di carat-tere quotidiano [Need for cognitiva closure and response to everydaynormative violations]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 1, 129–140.

Pierro, A., Lombardo, I., Fabbri, S., & Di Spirito, A. (1995). Evidenzaempirica della validità discriminante delle misure di Job Involvement eOrganizational Commitment [Structural characteristics of the Italianversion of the Need for Closure Scale (by Webster & Kruglanski)]. TestingPsicometria Metodologia, 2, 5–18.

Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Converso, D., Garsia, V., MigliEtta, A., Ravenna,M., et al. (1995). Caratteristiche srutturali della versione italiana dellaScala Di Bisogno di Chiusura Cognitiva (di Webster e Kruglanski) [Struc-tural characteristics of the Italian version of the Need for CognitiveClosure Scale (by Webster & Kruglanski)]. Testing, Psicometria Metodo-logia, 3–4, 125–141.

Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., De Grada, E., Livi, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003).Autocracy bias in informal groups under need for closure. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 29, 405–417.

Porras, J. I., & Silvers, R. C. (1991). Organizational development and trans-formation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 51–78.

Poste, uscita morbida per 10 mila dipendenti [Postal Service: A gradualexit for 10 thousand dependents]. (2001, June 4). Il Messaggero, p. 18.

Rascle, N. (2000). Testing the mediating role of appraised stress and copingstrategies on employee adjustment in a context of job mobility. EuropeanReview of Applied Psychology, 50, 301–307.

Robey, D., & Bakr, M. M. (1978). Task redesign: Individual moderating andnovelty effects. Human Relations, 3, 689–701.

Rubini, M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1997). Brief encounters ending in estrange-ment: Motivated language use and interpersonal rapport. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 12, 1047–1060.


Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climate: An essay. Personnel Psychology,28, 447–479.

Schneider, B. (Ed.). (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions ofservice in banks: Replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 70, 423–433.

Schneider, B., & Gunnarson, S. (1990). Organizational climate and culture:The psychology of the workplace. In J. W. Jones, B. D. Steffy, & D. Bray(Eds.), Applying psychology in business: The manager’s handbook (pp.542–551). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Schneider, B., Wheeler, J. K., & Cox, J. F. (1992). A passion for service:Using content analysis to explicate service climate themes. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77, 705–716.

Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived supportfor innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 553–562.

Stone, D. L., Kemmerer, B., & Gueutal, H. G. (1984). Relationship betweenrigidity, self-esteem, and attitudes about computer-based informationsystems. Psychological Reports, 55, 991–998.

Wamberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of opennessto changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology,85, 132–142.

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in needfor cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,1049–1062.

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1998). Cognitive and social conse-quences of the need for cognitive closure. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 133–141).London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Webster, D. M., Richter, L., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). On leaping toconclusions when feeling tired: Mental fatigue effects on impressionalprimacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 181–195.

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and develop-ment. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.

Whitehead, T. N. (1938). The industrial worker. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical andapplied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96–102.


Kruglanski, Pierro, Manetti, Higgins & Capoza (2007) "On the move", or "staying put" - Locomotion,...

Documents

Transcript of Kruglanski, Pierro, Manetti, Higgins & Capoza (2007) "On the move", or "staying put" - Locomotion,...