It is common for people to hold attitudes toward various objects. However, some people are more likely to engage in evaluation than others. This is assessed with the need to evaluate scale (NE; Jarvis & Petty, 1996). Research examining the motivational bases served by the NE scale is rare. One exception is Wright's (2014) dissertation which developing the two NE sub-scales (i.e. NE-expressing and NE-learning). These two NE sub-scales tap into the underlying motivational bases of the overall need to evaluate. The NE-expressing sub-scales taps most clearly into the value-expressive function of attitudes and the NE-learning sub-scales taps most clearly into the knowledge function. The goal of the current research is to explore people's need to evaluate further by providing evidence for differential predictive abilities of the two NE sub-scales.
In Study 1, the ability of the scales to predict whether people prefer actions that are linked to their sub-scale scores over actions that are not was investigated. More specifically, we examined people's preference for different roles in an impending group discussion. The results showed that people who were higher on NE-expressing showed a higher preference for expressor role categories whereas people who were higher on NE-learning preferred learner roles more.
In Studies 2 and 3, the link between the two sub-scales and the classic persuasion role-playing paradigm was examined. In this paradigm, people are assigned the role of generating arguments on a topic or receiving arguments generated by others. Two possible outcomes were explored. The matching hypothesis holds that as people's NE-expressing scores increase, they would prefer situations that allow them to express themselves, so would be more influenced when asked to generate persuasive messages than receive them. The opposite would hold as people's NE-learning scores increase. The mismatching hypothesis holds that as the NE-expressing scores increase, the opportunity for people to learn from others' opinions could be more novel for them and therefore require more effort. In addition, if it is a topic that people do not have opinions on, they will need to form an opinion first, which is easier when learning from others. Therefore, as NE-expressing scores increase, people would be more influenced when they receive persuasive messages generated by other people rather than generating them. This would be opposite as people's NE-learning scores increase.
In Study 2, which used a novel and counter-attitudinal topic, regression analysis showed that as people's NE-expressing scores increased, they had less favorable attitudes when generating than when receiving arguments, and this was especially true when people were lower on the NE-learning scale. This finding was more consistent with the mismatching hypothesis. In Study 3, which used a familiar and pro-attitudinal topic, regression analysis showed that as people's NE-expressing scores increased, they rated the arguments as more persuasive when generating than when receiving them, consistent with the matching hypothesis. The potential moderating roles of attitude position and topic novelty among other future directions are discussed.