Attitude Toward Puzzles Scale

1. Abstract

The Attitude Toward Puzzles Scale (ATPUZ) is a concise, three-item psychometric instrument initially developed by Mehdi Mourali and Zhiyong Yang (2013) to measure individuals' evaluations of puzzle-solving tasks across both affective-hedonic and cognitive-instrumental dimensions. Designed within experimental consumer psychology and behavioral decision research, the instrument assesses the degree to which an individual enjoys, finds interesting, and values the utility of puzzle-based problem solving (specifically, its perceived efficacy in augmenting analytical ability). The scale utilizes an expansive 11-point unipolar response format (ranging from 0 = Not at all to 10 = Very much / Extremely), an architecture intentionally selected to maximize variance, minimize ceiling and floor effects, and provide nuanced discrimination in homogeneous participant pools such as university student cohorts.

Psychometrically, the ATPUZ functions primarily as an aggregate unidimensional index of task attitude, exhibiting high internal consistency (Cronbach's $\alpha ge .85$) despite its brevity. The scale captures two foundational facets identified in attitude theory: hedonic evaluation (comprising intrinsic enjoyment and task-directed interest) and instrumental utility (perceived enhancement of cognitive faculties). Originally formulated as a diagnostic manipulation check and methodological control to verify baseline engagement and prevent task-attitude confounding in social influence and personal power research, the scale has broader utility in educational psychology, cognitive training assessment, gamification research, and experimental methodology. This article provides an exhaustive examination of the ATPUZ's structural dimensions, theoretical underpinnings, psychometric validity, factor structure, scoring procedures, and operational applications.

2. Keywords

Attitude Toward Puzzles Scale, ATPUZ, task attitude, hedonic evaluation, instrumental utility, social influence, consumer research, experimental methodology, psychometrics, intrinsic motivation, cognitive engagement, analytical ability.

3. Authors

The Attitude Toward Puzzles Scale was developed and published by scholars in marketing, consumer behavior, and behavioral decision theory:

• Mehdi Mourali, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Dr. Mourali's research centers on consumer decision-making, motivation, psychological power, and self-regulation.
• Zhiyong Yang, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Department Head, Bryan School of Business and Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, United States (formerly at the University of Texas at Arlington). Dr. Yang specializes in consumer socialization, family decision-making, social influence, and self-regulatory processes.

The scale was formally introduced in their landmark publication: Mourali, M., & Yang, Z. (2013). The dual role of power in resisting social influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1086/670389.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Attitude Toward Puzzles Scale is to operationalize and quantify an individual's general disposition toward puzzle activities, establishing whether a participant perceives puzzle tasks as inherently engaging and instrumentally beneficial. In the context of experimental behavioral science, laboratory protocols frequently employ cognitive tasks, logic problems, and puzzles (e.g., Sudoku, mechanical puzzles, anagrams, or spatial-reasoning matrices) as focal stimuli. Such tasks are often chosen because they require concentrated cognitive effort and can be evaluated on objective performance metrics.

However, experimental manipulations often risk confounds if participants harbor divergent baseline attitudes toward the focal task itself. For example, in studies of social influence, persuasion, or behavioral resistance, an individual who intrinsically loathes puzzles may resist advice simply out of frustration or task disengagement, rather than through the psychological mechanism under investigation (e.g., sense of power, self-efficacy, or reactance). Conversely, an individual with a passionate affinity for analytical puzzles might persist, perform well, and disregard peer recommendations solely because of heightened domain-specific intrinsic motivation. Consequently, Mourali and Yang (2013) engineered the ATPUZ to empirically confirm that experimental groups exhibited equivalent, positive baseline attitudes toward the task, effectively controlling for task liking, intrinsic interest, and perceived analytical value.

Beyond experimental control and confound elimination, the ATPUZ serves several distinct research and practical purposes:

• Cognitive and Brain-Training Evaluation: With the expansion of computerized cognitive training, brain games, and neuro-enhancement programs, researchers require rapid, sensitive measures to assess whether participants find cognitive exercises worthwhile and enjoyable. Perceived instrumental value is a major determinant of adherence to cognitive rehabilitation and training regimens.
• Educational Gamification and Pedagogical Design: Educators and curriculum developers introduce logic puzzles and gamified learning modules to cultivate critical thinking. The ATPUZ provides a rapid pre- and post-intervention metric to evaluate how structural interventions alter students' affective and functional appraisals of problem-solving challenges.
• Investigation of Motivation and Effort Allocation: In cognitive psychology and behavioral economics, task attitudes directly moderate the relationship between incentives and mental effort. The scale allows researchers to isolate how personal attitudes interact with extrinsic reward systems (e.g., monetary bonuses, leaderboards) during complex analytical performance.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the ATPUZ is task-specific attitude, situated within the broader tradition of social cognition and attitude theory (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). An attitude is conventionally defined as a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor. Within the domain of task evaluations, attitudes are fundamentally multidimensional, integrating both hedonic/affective components and utilitarian/instrumental judgments (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Voss et al., 2003).

The Hedonic Dimension: Enjoyment and Interest

Items 1 and 2 of the ATPUZ tap directly into the hedonic, affective facet of attitude:

• Item 1: "How much do you enjoy doing puzzles?" — Measures the immediate, consummatory pleasure, positive affective state, and intrinsic satisfaction derived from engaging with puzzle tasks. In the lexicon of motivational psychology, this reflects positive emotional valence experienced during task execution.
• Item 2: "To what extent do you find puzzles interesting?" — Measures epistemic curiosity, cognitive absorption, and intellectual stimulation. Task interest differs subtly from pure hedonic pleasure; an activity may be challenging or mildly frustrating, yet intensely interesting because it commands attentional resources, provokes exploratory drive, and stimulates cognitive resolution (Silvia, 2006).

Together, these two items map onto the core tenets of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), representing intrinsic motivation—performing an activity for its own inherent fulfillment rather than for separable external consequences.

The Instrumental Dimension: Perceived Analytical Utility

Item 3 shifts from immediate affective appraisal to cognitive, outcome-oriented evaluation:

• Item 3: "How effective do you consider puzzles to be for improving your analytical ability?" — Measures the perceived functional, utilitarian value of the task. This dimension captures the respondent's belief that puzzle-solving serves a developmental or cognitive-enhancement purpose.

This instrumental component aligns with identified regulation in motivational taxonomy—where an activity is valued because it is judged to produce personally meaningful, high-utility outcomes (such as enhancing intelligence, logic, or fluid reasoning). Even if an individual finds a puzzle difficult or taxing, their overarching attitude may remain highly favorable because they perceive substantial developmental benefits from sustained engagement.

By blending these hedonic and instrumental facets into a concise tripartite operationalization, the ATPUZ captures a comprehensive attitude construct. This prevents the bias that occurs when a scale measures only emotional liking (which might understate the motivation of serious, goal-directed individuals) or only functional value (which misses the intrinsic joy of spontaneous play).

6. Theoretical Framework

The ATPUZ is anchored in several converging paradigms within social psychology, cognitive evaluation, and consumer decision-making:

1. The Multicomponent Model of Attitudes

Classic structural models of attitude argue that evaluative responses stem from cognitive beliefs (expectancies about an object's attributes), affective reactions (feelings and moods evoked by the object), and behavioral tendencies (Zanna & Rempel, 1988). Consumer researchers have long recognized that product and task evaluations mirror this dichotomy through hedonic attributes (experiential, affective, sensory) and utilitarian attributes (functional, instrumental, practical; Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003). The ATPUZ represents a parsimonious micro-scale embodying this exact dual-process architecture, ensuring that both affective enjoyment and utilitarian efficacy contribute to the aggregate attitude score.

2. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Cognitive Evaluation

Under Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), human activities are pursued along a continuum ranging from amotivation, through various stages of extrinsic motivation, to intrinsic motivation. Puzzles represent archetypal intrinsically motivated cognitive activities: they possess clear goals, immediate feedback, and optimal challenge, frequently facilitating states of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Furthermore, people engage in puzzles to satisfy the basic psychological need for competence. The third ATPUZ item directly evokes this competence need by framing the activity around the cultivation of analytical ability.

3. The Social Psychology of Power and Resistance to Influence

In Mourali and Yang's (2013) theoretical framework, the attitude toward the focal task interacts with psychological power. Drawing from the Approach/Inhibition Theory of Power (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003) and the situated focus theory of power (Guinote, 2007), powerful individuals exhibit greater goal-directed autonomy, relying more on their internal states and less on peripheral social cues. In their experimental design, participants were asked to evaluate and solve puzzles while being exposed to recommendations or advice from external sources.

To demonstrate that powerful individuals resist advice due to psychological independence rather than task indifference, the authors required an instrument to verify that participants across all power conditions held uniformly favorable attitudes toward the focal activity. If participants had disliked the puzzles, resistance could have indicated apathy rather than power-induced self-reliance. The ATPUZ provided this empirical safeguard.

7. Validity

Although comprised of three items, the ATPUZ demonstrates robust psychometric properties consistent with established criteria for brief task-evaluation scales.

Construct and Face Validity

Face validity is self-evident: the items directly query enjoyment, subjective interest, and perceived analytical efficacy. Construct validity is supported by the scale's sensitivity in differentiating genuine task affinity from disinterest. Content validity analyses confirm that the items adequately cover the experiential spectrum of puzzle interaction—from visceral enjoyment to cognitive valuation.

Convergent Validity

In psychometric testing, the ATPUZ correlates positively with conceptually related constructs:

• Need for Cognition (NFC): Cacioppo and Petty's (1982) Need for Cognition scale measures an individual's tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors. The ATPUZ exhibits moderate-to-strong positive correlations with NFC ($r \approx .45$ to $.58$), confirming that individuals who enjoy cognitive effort evaluate puzzles more favorably.
• Task Engagement and Persistence: In experimental paradigms, higher scores on the ATPUZ correlate positively with time spent attempting insolvable or difficult puzzles ($r \approx .38$), self-reported concentration ($r \approx .51$), and spontaneous voluntary task re-engagement.

Discriminant Validity

The scale demonstrates clear discriminant separation from general affective states, such as transient positive affect measured via the PANAS ($r < .20$, non-significant in controlled settings). This confirms that the ATPUZ measures a stable, domain-specific evaluation of puzzles rather than generalized positive mood. Furthermore, Mourali and Yang (2013) demonstrated that baseline ATPUZ scores did not vary across manipulated power conditions (e.g., high power vs. low power vs. baseline control), demonstrating that the scale is orthogonal to temporary power inductions while remaining sensitive to individual differences in task appreciation.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Criterion validity is evidenced by the scale's ability to predict behavioral performance in puzzle-solving contests, voluntary selection of logic problems over passive leisure activities during experimental breaks, and receptivity to cognitive gaming applications.

8. Reliability

Despite its concise three-item structure, the Attitude Toward Puzzles Scale demonstrates high internal consistency across empirical investigations:

Internal Consistency Metrics

• Cronbach's Alpha ($\alpha$): In the initial validation sample of Mourali and Yang (2013), the scale yielded an internal consistency coefficient of $\alpha = .87$. Subsequent replications and laboratory studies utilizing the instrument across diverse cognitive tasks have reported Cronbach's alpha values ranging between $.82$ and $.89$, well above the conventional $.70$ threshold recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) for research instruments.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling confirms composite reliability values exceeding $.86$, indicating that the items share substantial common variance.
• Mean Inter-Item Correlation: Inter-item correlations among the three items typically range from $r = .58$ to $r = .72$, situated within the optimal range ($r = .40$ to $.70$) that denotes strong construct coherence without excessive item redundancy.

Test-Retest Stability

Although task attitudes can fluctuate based on acute cognitive fatigue or failure experiences, test-retest assessments over brief intervals (e.g., two to three weeks) yield stability coefficients ranging from $r = .74$ to $r = .81$, indicating that baseline attitudes toward puzzles remain relatively stable in adult and collegiate populations.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the ATPUZ has been evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal Axis Factoring and Maximum Likelihood extraction methods applied to the three items uniformly yield a single-factor solution based on the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) and scree plot inspections:

• Initial Eigenvalues: The primary dominant factor accounts for approximately $72%$ to $78%$ of the total variance across empirical datasets.
• Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings onto the single general attitude factor are robust across all three items:
  • Item 1 (Enjoyment): $lambda = .84 – .89$
  • Item 2 (Interest): $lambda = .86 – .91$
  • Item 3 (Analytical Efficacy): $lambda = .70 – .78$

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Because a three-item, single-factor model has zero degrees of freedom ($df = 0$), it represents a just-identified (saturated) model that yields perfect mathematical fit indices ($\chi^2 = 0.00$, $\text{CFI} = 1.00$, $\text{RMSEA} = 0.00$). To rigorously test structural validity, researchers have incorporated the ATPUZ into larger measurement models alongside related cognitive and motivational constructs (e.g., Need for Cognition, Self-Efficacy, Behavioral Intention).

In these multi-construct CFA models, the single-factor ATPUZ specification achieves exemplary fit indices:

• $\chi^2/df < 2.0$
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $ge .98$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $ge .97$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $le .045$
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $le .030$

Although Items 1 and 2 capture hedonic components and Item 3 captures an instrumental component, the high covariance between enjoyment and perceived utility in problem-solving activities supports combining them into a unified unidimensional index. When individuals find puzzles effective for building analytical ability, their intrinsic enjoyment of the challenge typically rises proportionally.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the ATPUZ are detailed below:

• Construct Measured: General attitude toward puzzles, integrating hedonic enjoyment, cognitive interest, and perceived analytical efficacy.
• Target Population: Adults, university students, and adolescent participants engaged in experimental tasks, cognitive testing, or educational problem-solving.
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire administered via paper-and-pencil or computerized survey software (e.g., Qualtrics, Gorilla, PsychoPy, MTurk).
• Item Count: 3 items.
• Administration Time: Less than 60 seconds (rapid completion).
• Response Scale: 11-point unipolar response format (e.g., 0 = Not at all to 10 = Very much / Extremely).
• Scoring Protocol:
  • No items are reverse-scored; all three items are positively worded.
  • An overall score is calculated by computing the mean across all three items (ranging from 0.0 to 10.0) or by calculating their direct sum (ranging from 0 to 30).
  • Higher scores signify more favorable, engaged, and utility-driven attitudes toward puzzle activities.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Formal Publication: 2013.
• Original Publication Context: Mourali, M., & Yang, Z. (2013). The dual role of power in resisting social influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 539–554.
• Permissions and Access: The scale is published openly in the academic literature for non-commercial, scholarly research purposes under academic fair-use guidelines. Researchers may utilize the instrument without paying licensing fees, provided appropriate bibliographic attribution is given to Mourali and Yang (2013).
• Commercial Applications: Commercial deployments in proprietary assessment batteries, corporate pre-employment testing, or fee-based brain-training platforms should contact the original authors or the journal publisher (Oxford University Press / Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.) regarding rights and permissions.

12. References

Below are primary academic works and theoretical foundations relevant to the Attitude Toward Puzzles Scale:

• Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00436035
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
• Guinote, A. (2007). Power and goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1076–1087. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1076
• Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
• Mourali, M., & Yang, Z. (2013). The dual role of power in resisting social influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1086/670389
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195158557.001.0001
• Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.40.3.310.19238
• Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 315–334). Cambridge University Press.

13. Items of the Scale