See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331641271

Integrative Complexity

Chapter · February 2019

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1942-1

CITATIONS READS

4 2,396

2 authors:

Vera Békés Peter Suedfeld

Yeshiva University University of British Columbia - Vancouver
52 PUBLICATIONS   315 CITATIONS    336 PUBLICATIONS   7,099 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Long-term Effects After Prolonged Spaceflight (LEAPS) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vera Békés on 10 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

I
Integrative Complexity
Vera Békés1 and Peter Suedfeld2
1
Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology,
Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY, USA
2
Department of Psychology, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Synonyms
Cognitive complexity; Cognitive structure; Cog-
nitive style; Conceptual complexity; Conceptual
systems; Flexibility; Interactive complexity;
Metacognition; Meta-complexity; Wisdom
Definition
Integrative complexity (IC) refers to the structure
of information processing, independently of its
content. It entails two aspects: differentiation and
integration, where differentiation refers to the
extent of perceiving a variety of dimensions and
perspectives when considering an issue, whereas
integration is a capacity to create conceptual con-
nections among these different dimensions and
perspectives.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
V. Zeigler-Hill, T. K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1942-1
Introduction
IC is unique among cognitive complexity formu-
lations in that it does not only consider the amount
of different information, perspectives, or dimen-
sions noticed and processed regarding one issue
(differentiation) but also incorporates perceiving
the connections among these divergent dimen-
sions (integration). These recognized connections
may be interactions, trade-offs, synthesis, or
belonging under a unifying schema. IC thus
only refers to the structure of thinking and not its
content; it considers how people think about an
issue, independently of what they think about
it. Consequently, any idea can be expressed at
any level of IC (Suedfeld 2010).
In general, low IC is characterized by rigid,
black-and-white thinking, intolerance for ambigu-
ity and uncertainty, a desire for rapid closure, and
not recognizing the validity of other viewpoints.
Conversely, high IC is marked by flexible, broad
thinking that recognizes multiple aspects and pos-
sible interpretations of an issue and sees connec-
tions and dynamic tensions between perspectives
(Suedfeld 1985).
IC, Intellect, and Personality
Despite the required cognitive capacity to perform
interactively complex thinking, the association
between IC and intelligence has been found
to be weak. Instead of an aspect of intelligence,
2 Integrative Complexity
IC is better conceptualized as a thinking style that
involves high levels of information search, flexi-
bility, and tolerance for ambiguity, for uncertainty,
and for lack of closure (Suedfeld 2010). IC has
been found to be associated with divergent think-
ing (Suedfeld and Coren 1992) and to certain
personality characteristics, such as openness, cre-
ativity, and relative lack of compliance and con-
scientiousness (Tetlock et al. 1993). Individuals
with high IC have been found to be more extra-
verted, gregarious, and socially adept, motivated
to seek power (Coren and Suedfeld 1995), and
less authoritarian and dogmatic (Schroder
et al. 1967).
The perception of those with high IC varies.
Generally they are seen as moderate, independent,
and flexible with good social, decision-making,
and information processing skills, high in initia-
tive and self-objectivity (Tetlock et al. 1993).
However, they might also appear as procrastina-
tors, overly anxious (Coren and Suedfeld 1995),
antagonistic, and even narcissistic (Tetlock
et al. 1993).
IC and Political Views
There is strong evidence for an association
between political preferences and interactively
complex thinking style. Moderate political
views, especially left-of-center on the political
spectrum, are generally linked to more cognitive
flexibility when compared to those on the right or
(the further) left. One plausible explanation is that
those who believe in multiple competing political
values employ a more complex approach and thus
demonstrate higher IC than those emphasizing
one value above the others. In addition, those
with less complex thinking styles may feel threat-
ened by the prospect of living in a more open,
changing, and potentially chaotic society and thus
be inclined toward more conservative or extreme
ideologies (Tetlock 1986).
IC and Age
Despite of suppositions about individuals becom-
ing more sophisticated in their reasoning over the
lifespan, IC and age has not been shown to be
consistently associated. On the contrary, there is
some evidence for a decrease in IC in older indi-
viduals (Pratt et al. 1990) A phenomenon of “ter-
minal drop” in IC during the last few years of an
individual’s life, independently of the cause of
death (i.e., protracted illness or sudden death),
has also been demonstrated (Suedfeld 1985;
Suedfeld and Piedrahita 1984).
IC and Situational Factors
The general cognitive capacity for complex think-
ing has been found to be a relatively stable indi-
vidual characteristic, whereas IC greatly depends
on the actual situation and circumstances. Besides
personal characteristics, the actual level of IC is
affected by other internal factors (e.g., motivation,
fatigue) as well as by external circumstances such
as time pressure and perceived danger.
The level of IC demonstrated in each situation
can be described based on the cognitive manager
model (Suedfeld 2010). Independently of individ-
ual differences in cognitive capabilities, complex
information processing requires certain psycho-
logical and material resources, such as cognitive
effort, time, collecting information, and so on, and
individuals have limited capacity to maintain a
high level of cognitive functioning. A good cog-
nitive manager would devote only as much com-
plexity to a given situation as it minimally
requires. Situations that are considered more
important or complex will call for more cognitive
investment, whereas less important or simpler
situations would be solved by less cognitive
effort. Accordingly, IC increases when the
person tries to find a solution to a problem
deemed significant, and it decreases and returns
Integrative Complexity
to baseline once the strategy is successful (or the
problem gets otherwise resolved or becomes
unimportant). However, if the problem remains
unresolved, maintaining an elevated level of
investment is necessary, which might eventually
lead to exhaustion and the depletion in the indi-
vidual’s cognitive resources and consequently to a
reduction in IC. In this case, the person may
become overly frustrated, tired, or stressed to con-
tinue processing the information on a high level of
complexity and might perceive the situation as
unsolvable, look for a simplifying strategy, or
get distracted by other problems.
IC and Performance
Higher IC does not always lead to better out-
comes. In fact, the optimal level of IC seems to
be determined by the nature of the task. Complex
activities, intellectual tasks, and collaborative
efforts, when there is no urgency, do require inter-
actively complex thinking for an optimal result
(Gruenfeld and Hollingshead 1993). On the other
hand, some tasks can be more effectively solved
by a more simplistic approach. These may be
simple, insignificant, familiar, or unresolvable
tasks, problems outside the control of the individ-
ual, or situations that require rapid decisions;
investing cognitive resources in these cases may
be unnecessary or even counterproductive (e.g.,
Tetlock and Boettger 1989).
IC and Life Events
Research shows inconsistent associations
between various life events and levels of IC: dur-
ing negative life events, IC was found to either
increase or decrease, whereas positive life events
were associated with higher IC or with no change
in IC (De Vries et al. 1995; Suedfeld and Bluck
1993; Suedfeld and Pennebaker 1997; Suedfeld
et al. 1998; Suedfeld and Granatstein 1995). The
mixed results support the theory that various fac-
tors determine the level of actual cognitive invest-
ment. IC might increase during life events that
appear to be controllable if one invests enough
3
cognitive resources (such as professional chal-
lenges) and decrease when they seem to be out
of the person’s control and thus deemed to not be
worth the personal investment (e.g., a tense polit-
ical situation) and/or are prolonged and thus even-
tually exhaust the person’s inner resources (for
instance, organized persecution during the
Holocaust).
IC and Political Violence
The concept of IC is most often examined and
discussed in the context of political psychology.
The most robust finding is that IC in speeches
tends to drop when political tension grows and
there is a threat of impending domestic or interna-
tional violence (Suedfeld and Rank 1976;
Suedfeld and Tetlock 1977). This “war crisis
effect” has been consistently found to occur dur-
ing the escalation of political tension before the
outbreak of wars. On the other hand, when inter-
national confrontations are resolved through
peaceful negotiations, increased or at least
maintained levels of IC have been demonstrated;
and, interestingly, the IC level of the negotiators
gets mirrored, i.e., change in one party evokes
similar change in the other (Tetlock 1985).
Assessment
IC can be measured on any type of verbal text.
Given the interest in political psychology among
IC researchers, archival data of policy statements,
speeches, diplomatic documents, and personal
letters have most frequently been analyzed. The
scoring system has been established by Baker-
Brown et al. (1990). First the text is divided to
thematic units (i.e., segments of text related to one
idea, usually a paragraph in length). Several
trained judges then independently rate the level
of IC from 1 to 7 as it occurs in the text based on
the rating manual. Although the scoring system
has been found to be reliable, its application is
somewhat time-consuming and labor-intensive.
Applications of computerized scoring systems
has been proposed (Conway et al. 2014; Young
4 Integrative Complexity
and Hermann 2014); however, despite their rela-
tively reliable complexity scores, they are unable
to assess the integration component (Suedfeld
2010).
Conclusion
The concept of IC is most often examined and
discussed in the context of political psychology,
but it has also been applied fruitfully to various
other areas; the study of IC has increased our
understanding of a wide variety of issues in polit-
ical, social, and personality psychology. Research
continues to focus on factors affecting differences
in IC in various settings, possible procedures to
facilitate changes in IC, and the implications of
such changes both on the individual and group
levels.
Cross-References
▶ Cognitive Complexity
▶ Dogmatism
▶ Explanatory Style
▶ Field Independence
▶ Flexibility
▶ High Levels of Information Search
▶ Lack of Closure
▶ Need for Closure
▶ Need for Cognition
▶ Personal Constructs
▶ Tolerance for Ambiguity
▶ Uncertainty
References
Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E. J., Bluck, S., De Vries, B.,
Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (1990). Coding manual
for conceptual/integrative complexity. Berkeley:
University of British Columbia and University of
California.
Conway, L. G., III, Conway, K. R., Gornick, L. J., &
Houck, S. C. (2014). Automated integrative complex-
ity. Political Psychology, 35, 603–624.
Coren, S., & Suedfeld, P. (1995). Personality correlates of
conceptual complexity. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 10, 229–242.
De Vries, B., Blando, J., & Walker, L. J. (1995). The review
of life’s events: Analyses of content and structure. In
B. Haight & J. Webster (Eds.), The art and science of
reminiscing: Theory, research, methods, and applica-
tions (pp. 123–137). Washington, DC: Taylor &
Francis.
Gruenfeld, D. H., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1993). Socio-
cognition in work groups: The evolution of group inte-
grative complexity and its relation to task performance.
Small Group Research, 24, 383–405.
Pratt, M. W., Pancer, M., Hunsberger, B., & Manchester, J.
(1990). Reasoning about the self and relationships in
maturity: An integrative complexity analysis of indi-
vidual differences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 575–581.
Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. (1967).
Human information processing: Individuals and
groups functioning in complex social situations. Holt:
Rinehart and Winston.
Suedfeld, P. (1985). APA presidential addresses: The rela-
tion of integrative complexity to historical, profes-
sional, and personal factors. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1643.
Suedfeld, P. (2010). The cognitive processing of politics
and politicians: Archival studies of conceptual and
integrative complexity. Journal of Personality, 78(6),
1669–1702.
Suedfeld, P., & Bluck, S. (1993). Changes in integrative
complexity accompanying significant life events:
Historical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64(1), 124.
Suedfeld, P., & Coren, S. (1992). Cognitive correlates
of conceptual complexity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13, 1193–1199.
Suedfeld, P., & Granatstein, J. L. (1995). Leader complex-
ity in personal and professional crises: Concurrent
and retrospective information processing. Political
Psychology, 16, 509–522.
Suedfeld, P., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Health outcomes
and cognitive aspects of recalled negative life events.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 59, 172–177.
Suedfeld, P., & Piedrahita, L. E. (1984). Intimations of
mortality: Integrative simplification as a precursor of
death. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47(4), 848.
Suedfeld, P., & Rank, A. D. (1976). Revolutionary leaders:
Long-term success as a function of changes in concep-
tual complexity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 169–178.
Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (1977). Integrative complex-
ity of communications in international crises. Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 21, 427–441.
Suedfeld, P., Fell, C., & Krell, R. (1998). Structural aspects
of survivor’s thinking about the holocaust. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 11(2), 323–336.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on
the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 48, 227–236.
Integrative Complexity
Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideolog-
ical reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 819–827.
Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability:
A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388–398.
View publication stats
5
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.
Young, M. D., & Hermann, M. G. (2014). Increased com-
plexity has its benefits. Political Psychology, 35(5),
635–645.