No abstract

. For over a decade, Eolene has developed and evaluated cognitive complexity interventions to reduce and prevent destructive conflict through participatory research and end-user partnerships in diverse communities, using the cross-culturally validated measure, integrative complexity (IC) (Suedfeld and Tetlock, 2014 AbstractWe developed and tested through two studies a new intervention run as a course, I SEE! Scotland, to reduce and prevent Protestant-Catholic sectarianism in Scotland, a historic intergroup conflict expressed in forms ranging from polite to violent, within a wider population that includes those who feel untouched. Designed to reflect the social ecology of Scotland and engage individuals regardless of sectarian involvement, the intervention aimed to increase cognitive complexity, measured as integrative complexity, through participatory theatre and experiential methods. We hypothesised that the confluence of experiential learning to support multiple forms of self, other, and systems awareness with narrative framing would increase integrative complexity management capacities. Tested with a diverse sample of 104 participants (secondary school staff; achieving, disruptive or vulnerable students; young adults returning to education; other professionals; prisoners; recovering drug addicts; unemployed), study one pre-post comparisons showed significant integrative complexity gains that cohered with second end of intervention integrative complexity measures, replicating results from other integrative complexity interventions despite differences in samples, conflicts, and context. Study two with twenty-eight of the one hundred and four participants showed significant pre post increases in resilience. These results predict peaceful outcomes to intergroup conflict, tackling sectarianism and promoting community psychosocial health. We note future research plans.

Without carefully planned, sustained resourcing of children and young people, post-conflict Northern Ireland (NI) may fail to flourish. In May, 2016, MI5 (the UK domestic security agency) increased the security threat level from moderate to substantial for NI related terrorism. For over two years we have been partnership building in post-conflict NI to produce a plan for developing an evidence-based integrative complexity resource for NI secondary schools. Integrative complexity interventions have been shown effective at increasing capacities in a range of contexts, on different conflicts and extremisms, with diverse population samples (evaluated using the cross-culturally validated integrative complexity measurement frame). Based on over forty years of research,[1] integrative complexity measures assess how we think about our social world, from rapid, inflexible, closed thinking toward more deliberate, flexible, open thinking about our own and opposed groups. The latter predicts more peaceful outcomes to conflict. This research plan has the most rigorous and systematic empirical design to date, to advance the theory and method of integrative complexity science in partnership with end-users for promoting capacities to live well with difference and disagreement. The findings will benefit NI and other post-conflict regions struggling to overcome legacies of violence.[1] Peter Suedfeld and Philip E. Tetlock, "Integrative complexity at forty: Steps toward resolving the scoring dilemma," Political Psychology 35 (2014): 597-601.

Over four decades of cognitive complexity research demonstrate that higher integrative complexity (measured by the ability to differentiate and integrate multiple dimensions or perspectives on an issue) predicts more lasting, peaceful solutions to conflict. Interventions that seek to raise integrative complexity offer a promising approach to preventing various forms of intergroup conflict (e.g. sectarianism, violent extremism). However, these contexts can also be extremely stressful, and dominant theory suggests that cognitive complexity diminishes in the face of high stress. However, we know that this is not always the case, with some findings demonstrating the opposite pattern: increases in complexity under high stress. How is it that some people in the midst of stressful conflict are able to recognize multiple perspectives and solutions, while others become increasingly narrow and rigid in their thinking? The aim of this paper is to integrate these divergent findings through the broader framework of the biopsychosocial model of stress and to explore possible underlying mechanisms such as affect. Implications for intervention will also be discussed.

No abstract