Integrative complexity

Overview

Integrative complexity refers to the extent to which individuals demonstrate two inclinations when they consider events and issues. The first dimension, differentiation, relates to the capacity of individuals to adopt and to apply a variety of perspectives to appreciate an issue. The second dimension, integration, refers to the capacity of individuals to recognize connections and similarities across divergent perspectives. Hence, when integrative complexity is low, individuals tend to form simple and rigid attitudes and perceptions (Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Streufert, 1992).

Complex thinkers tend to consider an extensive range of issues, attempting to reconcile contradictory implications (Winter, 1996). As a consequence, they enjoy many benefits. First, their performance, in many domains, tends to be more proficient. Their capacity to accommodate stress tends to improve (Suedfeld & Piedrahita, 1984). Their attitudes and beliefs are less susceptible to isolated events or persuasive attempts. Their ability to predict the behavior of other individuals also improves. Nevertheless, some limitations of integrative complexity have been observed as well (for a summary of this literature, see Lee & Peterson, 1997).

Correlates and consequences of integrative complexity

Aggression

In general, when integrative complexity is low, aggression and hostility often prevail (Bruch, McCann, & Harvey, 1991; Winter. 1993). As Winter (1993) showed, for example, if police officers do not exhibit integrative complexity, they are more inclined to act violently in stressful contexts. Conceivably, when integrative complexity is low, other options to solve problems are less likely to be considered.

Political preferences

Many studies in this literature have examined the relationship between political preferences and integrative complexity (Tetlock, 1983, 1984; Tetlock, Hannum, & Micheletti, 1984). In general, these studies show that liberal or moderate politicians exhibit complex rather than simple thinking styles. That is, their integrative complexity is elevated, relative to their more conservative and extreme counterparts.

To explain this pattern of observations, Tetlock (1983, 1986) argues that individuals who do not engage in complex thinking feel threatened by the prospect of a dynamic, changing, and chaotic society. They will, therefore, espouse political principles that attempt to stifle this change.

Gruenfeld (1995), however, highlighted a problem in many previous studies. To illustrate, some of these studies examined the discourse of justices in the Supreme Court. In this context, political persuasion is often conflated with whether the individual represent a majority or minority position. Minorities, because of their limited power, might experience a diminution in their integrative complexity as a consequence--as shown by Tetlock, Bernzweig, and Gallant (1985). Political persuasion per se might not affect integrative complexity.

Indeed, several accounts are consistent with the proposition that individuals who adopt a majority position might show an increase in integrative complexity. First, individuals who espouse the majority position often attempt to reconceptualize their perspective to accommodate, trivialize, or nullify the minority position (Nemeth, 1986)--a process that necessitates the consideration and integration of other dimensions or factors and fosters creativity (see also Nemeth & Wachtler, 1983).

In contrast, individuals who adopt a minority position often focus most of their attention to attempts to comply with the majority position, which can limit the breadth of issues that are examined. In addition, other mental states, such as self awareness or threat, can also compromise this flexibility (see Gibbons, 1990; Lord & Saenz, 1985).

In addition, individuals who adopt a majority position often feel the need, at least, to communicate and accommodate many perspectives. Politicians in minor parties, for example, only feel the need to represent their own constituency or platform. Large parties, however, feel the need to accommodate the needs many constituencies (see Tetlock, 1981; Tetlock, Hannum, & Micheletti, 1984).

Consistent with these accounts, Gruenfeld (1995) showed that whether individuals belonged to a majority, rather than political persuasion, determined integrative complexity.

Performance

Many practitioners and researchers assume that integrative complexity should coincide with proficient performance. Indeed, difficult activities, in which many individuals must collaborate to solve some intellectual problems, do demand this form of thinking (Gruenfeld & Hollingshead, 1993).

Feist (1994) showed that scientists who demonstrated integrative complexity in their research were often cited more frequently--and were perceived as eminent by peers but hostile by other individuals. Nevertheless, integrative complexity in their teaching was not associated with citations, but was related to favorable ratings of warmth.

Indeed, on numerous tasks, complexity is not beneficial. Indeed, when the task demands rapid decisions, or when individuals could be exploited, low complexity might be preferable. Indeed, as research has shown, low complexity is associated with proficient performance in some negotiation tasks (Gruenfeld & Hollingshead, 1993).

Determinants of integrative complexity

Stress

Several studies have shown how life events, especially stressful episodes, can affect the integrative complexity of individuals. Porter and Suedfeld (1981), for example, examined the integrative complexity of five novelists over the course of their lives. This study showed that stressful life events can reduce integrative complexity.

Indeed, many studies have shown that stressful events can undermine integrative complexity. Events such as war, economic decline, impending death, and international tension can reduce this form of complexity (Porter & Suedfeld, 1981; Suedfeld, Corteen, & McCormick, 1986; Suedfeld & Garanstein, 1995).

Personality

Tetlock, Peterson, and Berry (1993) examined the association between personality and integrative complexity. As self report measures indicated, complex individuals report elevated scores on openness, but low scores on compliance and conscientiousness. However, as ratings of observers indicated, these individuals also seemed antagonistic and even narcissistic. Nevertheless, they also showed more initiative, as rated by managers, and more motivation to seek power, as gauged by a projective test called the PSE (see also Coren & Suedfeld, 1995).

Measurement of integrative complexity

Source of data

Originally, the paragraph completion test was utilized to measure integrative complexity, as recommended by Suedfeld, Tetlock, and Streufert (1992). First, participants were instructed to complete phrases, such as "When I am confused..." or "When a friend acts differently...". Next, trained judges rate the integrative complexity of these responses.

Tetlock, Peterson, and Berry (1993), instead, instructed participants to write descriptions about ambiguous pictures, called the picture story exercise. Again, expert judges rated the integrative complexity of these responses.

In most studies, however, integrative complexity is derived from archival data--usually from justifications of policies, positions, preferences, and attitudes. Examples include personal letters (Suedfeld & Bluck, 1993), policy statements (Tetlock & Boettger, 1989), diplomatic documents (Suedfeld & Tetlock, 1977), and speeches (Tetlock, 1983). This source of data primarily reflects the literature in which integrative complexity is most often considered: political psychology.

Rating of data

To measure integrative complexity, the data are divided into units. Units, which are typically paragraphs, are defined as segments of text that relate to one idea. Judges then use a rating scheme to evaluate the integrative complexity of each unit on a seven point scale. For example, 1 represents low differentiation and low integration; 7 represents high differentiation and high integration--as defined by various principles (for more information, see Baker-Brown, Ballard, Bluck, de Vries, Suedfeld, & Tetlock, 1992).

More specifically, 1 to 3 represent increasing levels of differentiation, with no integration. In contrast, 4 to 7 represent reasonably levels of differentiation, with increasing levels of integration.

Usually, judges receive appreciable training to gauge integrating complexity. Judges receive eight sets of paragraphs, on a diverse array of topics. They would attempt to evaluate the integrative complexity of each paragraph, after differentiation and integration are defined and the coding scheme is delineated. These judges would be deemed to be reliable once the correlation between their own ratings and the accepted ratings of these paragraphs exceeded some criterion, such as .80 (e.g., Feist, 1994.

Unit of analysis

Most researchers examine the integrative complexity of individuals. Some researchers, however, focus on the integrative complexity of groups (Gruenfeld & Hollingshead, 1993; Suedfeld & Tetlock, 1977; Tetlock & Boettger, 1989; Walker & Watson, 1994). That is, they evaluate the integrative complexity of texts that represent broader collectives, such as political platforms.

Often, as shown by Gruenfeld and Hollingshead (1993), integrative complexity is more pronounced in groups than alone. Gruenfeld and Hollingshead (1993), for example, showed that integrative complexity was higher in group essays than individual essays. In the group context, presumably, individuals are exposed to diverse perspective and learn to integrate these stances in this setting.

Variations across contexts

In many studies, integrative complexity is assumed to be trait, relatively constant across time. Some research, such as Feist (1994), has shown that integrative complexity also varies across contexts.

Related concepts

Integrative complexity is comparable to many other concepts, such as flexibility, wisdom, and rationality--all of which are related to psychological wellbeing and health (e.g., Meichenbaum, 1985; Millon, 1981; Rogers & Wright, 1975; Ruderman, 1986, Shapiro, 1965, Vaillant, 1977). These concepts share the proposition that individuals should be able to reflect upon issues from multiple perspectives and then assimilate these insights.

Need for closure is also related to integrative complexity (see need for closure). Nevertheless, Suedfeld and Tetlock (2001) argue these concepts, although related, are distinct.

Practical implications

Some tasks demand integrative complexity. In particular, complex activities that demand joint collaboration across individuals to solve some intellectual problems, with no pressing time constraints, demand this form of thinking (Gruenfeld & Hollingshead, 1993).

To foster this thinking style, managers should ensure that many of the individuals in a workgroup or team feel they espouse the same opinion or attitude towards some issue. Two or three individuals, however, should be chosen to express divergent perspectives. This configuration ensures the majority of individuals will exhibit more integrative complexity, ultimately fostering creative and novel perspectives.

References

Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E. J., Bluck, S., de Vries, B., Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. (1992). The integrative complexity coding manual. In C. Smith (Ed.), Handbook of thematic analysis (pp. 605-611). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bieri, J. (1955). Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 263-268.

Bruch, M. A., Juster, H. R., & Kuethe, M. (1985). Conceptual complexity as a mediator of negative thoughts and affect in socially anxious individuals. British Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 3, 59-69.

Bruch, M. A., McCann, M., & Harvey, C. (1991). Type A behavior and processing of social conflict information. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 434-444.

Coren, S., & Suedfeld, P. (1995). Personality correlates of conceptual complexity. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 229-242.

Feist, G. J. (1994). Personality and working style predictors of integrative complexity: A study of scientists' thinking about research and teaching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 474-484.

Gibbons, F. X. (1990). Self-attention and behavior: A review and theoretical update. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 249-303.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 5-20.

Gruenfeld, D. H., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1993). Sociocognition in work groups: The evolution of group integrative complexity and its relation to task performance. Small Group Research, 24, 383-405.

Hunsberger, B., Lea, J., Pancer, S. M., & Pratt, M. W. (1992). Making life complicated: Prompting the use of integratively complex thinking. Journal of Personality, 60, 95-114.

Karlins, M. (1967). Conceptual complexity and remote-associative proficiency as creativity variables in a complex problem-solving task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 264-278.

Lee, F., & Peterson, C. (1997). Content analysis of archival data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 959-969.

Liotti, G. (1987). The resistance to change of cognitive structures: A counterproposal to psychoanalytic metapsychology. Journal of Cognitive Metapsychology, 1, 87-104.

Lord, R. G., & Saenz, D. S. (1985). Memory deficits and memory surfeits: Differential cognitive consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 918-926.

Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation training. New York: Pergamon.

Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality. New York: Wiley.

Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, (pp. 347-412). New York: Random House.

Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.

Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs. minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55.

Raz-Duvshani, A. (1986). Cognitive structure changes with psychotherapy in neurosis. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 59, 341-350.

Rogers, R., & Wright, E. W. (1975). Behavioral rigidity and its relationship to authoritarianism and obsessive-compulsiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 802.

Porter, C. A., & Suedfeld, P. (1981). Integrative complexity in the correspondence of literary figures: Effects of personal and societal stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 321-330.

Pratt, M., Pancer, S. M., Hunsberger, B., & Manchester, J. (1990). Reasoning about the self and relationships in maturity: An integrative complexity analysis of individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 575-581.

Ruderman, A. J. (1986). Bulimia and irrational beliefs. Behavior Research and Therapy, 24, 193-197.

Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. (1967). Human information processing: Individuals and groups functioning in complex social situations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Shapiro, D. (1965). Neurotic styles. New York: Basic Books.

Sidanius, J. (1984). Political interest, political information search, and ideological homogeneity as a function of sociopolitical ideology: A tale of three theories. Human Relations, 37, 811-828.

Sidanius, J. (1985). Cognitive functioning and sociopolitical ideology revisited. Political Psychology, 6, 637-661.

Sidanius, J. (1988). Political sophistication and political deviance: A structural equation examination of context theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 37-51.

Sidanius, J., & Lau, R. R. (1989). Political sophistication and political deviance: A matter of context. Political Psychology, 10, 85-109

Smith, C. P. (Ed.). (1992). Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Streufert, S., & Streufert, S. (1978). Behavior in the complex environment. Washington, DC: Winston.

Strohmer, D. C., Biggs, D. A., Haase, R. F., & Bruch, M. A. (1983). Cognitive style and synchrony in measures of anxiety. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 13-17.

Suedfeld, P. (1968). Verbal indices of conceptual complexity: Manipulation by instructions. Psychonomic Science, 12, 377.

Suedfeld, P. (1981). Indices of world tension in the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists." Political Psychology, 2, 114-123.

Suedfeld, P. (1985). APA presidential addresses: The relation of integrative complexity to historical, professional, and personal factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1643-1651.

Suedfeld, P. (1992). Cognitive managers and their critics. Political Psychology, 13, 435-453.

Suedfeld, P., & Bluck, S. (1988). Changes in integrative complexity prior to surprise attacks. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32, 626-635.

Suedfeld, P., & Bluck, S. (1993). Changes in integrative complexity accompanying significant life events: Historical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 124-130.

Suedfeld, P., Bluck, S., & Ballard, E. J. (1994). The effects of emotional involvement and psychological distance in integrative complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 443-452.

Suedfeld, P., & Coren, S. (1992). Cognitive correlates of conceptual complexity. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1193-1199.

Suedfeld, P., Corteen, R. S., & McCormick, C. (1986). The role of integrative complexity in military leadership: Robert E. Lee and his opponents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 498-507.

Suedfeld, P., de Vries, B., Bluck, S., Wallbaum, A. B. C., & Schmidt, P. W. (1996). Intuitive perceptions of decision-making strategy: Naive assessors' concepts of integrative complexity. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 177-190.

Suedfeld, P., Fell, C., & Krell, R. (1998). Structural aspects of survivors' thinking about the Holocaust. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 323-336.

Suedfeld, P., & Hagen, R. L. (1966). The measurement of information complexity: I. Conceptual structure and information pattern as factors in information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 233-236.

Suedfeld, P., & Leighton, D. C. (2002). Early communications in the war against terrorism: An integrative complexity analysis. Political Psychology, 23, 585-599.

Suedfeld, P., & Piedrahita, L. E. (1984). Intimations of mortality: Integrative simplification as a precursor of death. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 848-852.

Suedfeld, P., & Rank, A. D. (1976). Revolutionary leaders: Long-term success as a function of changes in conceptual complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 169-178.

Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. (1977). Integrative complexity of communications in international crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21, 169-184.

Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P.E. (2001). Individual differences in information processing. In A. Tesser & N. Schwartz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes (pp. 284-304). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P., & Ramirez, C. (1977). War, peace, and integrative complexity. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21, 427-442.

Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393-400). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 118-126.

Tetlock, P. E. (1984). Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British House of Commons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 365-375.

Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Integrative complexity of American and Soviet foreign policy rhetoric: A time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1565-1585.

Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 819-827.

Tetlock, P. E., Bernzweig, J., & Gallant, J. L. (1985). Supreme Court decision making: Cognitive style as a predictor of ideological consistency of voting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1127-1239.

Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Cognitive and rhetorical styles of traditionalist and reformist Soviet politicians: A content analysis study. Political Psychology, 10, 209-232.

Tetlock, P. E., & Hannum, K. (1983). Integrative complexity coding manual.Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.

Tetlock, P. E., Hannum, K. A., & Micheletti, P. M. (1984). Stability and change in the complexity of senatorial debate: Testing the cognitive versus rhetorical style hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 979-990.

Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., & Berry, J. M. (1993). Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 500-511.

Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies of coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 632-641.

Tuckman, B. W. (1966). Integrative complexity: Its measurement and relation to creativity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 26, 369-382.

Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. Boston: Little, Brown.

Walker, S. G., & Watson, G. L. (1994). Integrative complexity and British decisions during the Munich and Polish crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 3-23.

Winter, D. A. (1993). Slot rattling from law enforcement to lawbreaking: A personal construct theory exploration of police stress. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 6, 253-267.

Winter, D. G. (1996). Personality: Analysis and interpretation of lives. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Created by Dr Simon Moss on 21/05/2009

Free Personality Tests : Relationships - Personality - Beliefs - Wellbeing - Attitudes - Behaviour - Cognitive Abilities