The Cognitive Processing of Politics and Politicians: Archival Studies of Conceptual and Integrative Complexity

Abstract

This article reviews over 30 years of research on the role of integrative complexity (IC) in politics. IC is a measure of the cognitive structure underlying information processing and decision making in a specific situation and time of interest to the researcher or policymaker. As such, it is a state counterpart of conceptual complexity, the trait (transsituationally and transtemporally stable) component of cognitive structure. In the beginning (the first article using the measure was published in 1976), most of the studies were by the author or his students (or both), notably Philip Tetlock; more recently, IC has attracted the attention of a growing number of political and social psychologists. The article traces the theoretical development of IC; describes how the variable is scored in archival or contemporary materials (speeches, interviews, memoirs, etc.); discusses possible influences on IC, such as stress, ideology, and official role; and presents findings on how measures of IC can be used to forecast political decisions (e.g., deciding between war and peace). Research on the role of IC in individual success and failure in military and political leaders is also described.

Integrative complexity, beliefs, and attitudes: Application to prescribed fire

“…The concept focuses on the structure of thoughts, or beliefs about that issue, rather than the content of those beliefs (Bright and Barro, 2000;Carroll and Bright, 2010). Much of the theory's development came from the field of political science (Suedfeld, 2010). This included, but was not limited to, the policy process, relationships between political ideology and cognitive style, the relationship between integrative complexity and crises from the perspective of political decision making, and communication strategy (Gruenfeld et al, 1998;Suedfeld, 2010;Tetlock, 1989;Wallbaum, 1993).…”

“…Much of the theory's development came from the field of political science (Suedfeld, 2010). This included, but was not limited to, the policy process, relationships between political ideology and cognitive style, the relationship between integrative complexity and crises from the perspective of political decision making, and communication strategy (Gruenfeld et al, 1998;Suedfeld, 2010;Tetlock, 1989;Wallbaum, 1993). Tetlock (1986Tetlock ( , 1989 operationalized integrative complexity using two cognitive structural variables; differentiation and integration.…”

“…Integrative complexity measures the level of complexity with which people think about an issue (Burtz and Bright, 2007;Carroll and Bright, 2009;Suedfeld, 2010;Tetlock, 1989;Wallbaum, 1993). Suedfeld and Bluck (1993) characterize it as the capacity and willingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of competing perspectives on the same issue and forge conceptual links among these perspectives.…”

“…It suggests that behavior reflecting this opposition or support, although directly influenced by specific perceptions related to that behavior, is connected with the attitudes, beliefs, and values people hold related to the issue (Bright and Burtz, 2006;Homer and Kahle, 1988;Manfredo, 2008). However, in addition to "what" people think about natural resource issues in terms of values, beliefs, and attitudes (described by the cognitive hierarchy), it may also be instructive to consider "how" people think about these issues in terms of the complexity of their thoughts Bright, 2009, 2010;Suedfeld, 2010). One social psychological construct that explores this structure is integrative complexity (Tetlock, 1989).…”

“…The concept focuses on the structure of thoughts, or beliefs, rather than the content of those beliefs (Bright and Barro, 2000;Carroll and Bright, 2010;Tetlock, 1989). Structure refers to the conceptual rules used in thinking, deciding, and interrelating: hence how people think, not what they think (Suedfeld, 2010).…”