Talk:Need for cognition

external link for test

the external test referenced doesn't seem to be reversing the scores for the negatively phrased questions, or does something else wrong when it comes to computing the score.. filling it in in such a way that you would expect to get the maximal 'need' score only gets you a score of around 50-55, while choosing the opposite answers will get you almost the same score—Preceding unsigned comment added by Boombaard (talk • contribs)

You're right. I compared the scores for "Thinking is not my idea of fun" and the result was clearly incorrect by giving me a higher score for "extremely characteristic of you". I will change the link to one that explicitly states which items must be reverse scored in order to get the correct result.—αrgumziω ϝ 20:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFC and life satisfaction

The reference regarding NFC and life satisfaction specifies that the two were positively correlated among college students specifically. It does not say anything about the general population. This seems an important point, as students high in NFC are more likely to enjoy studying for its own sake compared to those low in NFC, and this probably contributes to their sense of life satisfaction. Among non-students, NFC might be less relevant to life satisfaction generally, as those who are not interested in learning may derive satisfaction from sources unrelated to NFC. Therefore, I have changed the wording of the statement to specify college students rather than 'individuals' as the latter implies people generally. Smcg8374 03:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

needs copy edit

The citation style is inconsistent and many citations are incomplete. There are too many quotations. It's confusing to read because of this. The article needs to be edited to follow the style guide for wikipedia. Too much use of primary sources, see WP:MEDRS for sources appropriate to this article. It is rather a mess right now. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

still needs a copy edit

This article reads less like an encyclopedia entry and more like a scholarly journal article. And there is no Simple English version. It really could use more explanations of these concepts that a layperson could understand. I'm not saying to remove the dense and scholarly sections, but adding a few analogies, more context, and some simpler verbiage would go a long way towards improving it. I would do it, but I don't think I understand the topic well enough to! Cainxinth (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]