Integrative complexity

Two components

The construct grew from conceptual complexity research and was developed for archival use by Peter Suedfeld, Philip Tetlock, and others. Trained coders score passages of text on a scale, with attention to structure rather than content. A person can therefore argue for an unpopular or mistaken conclusion in a highly complex way.

• Differentiation: recognizing different dimensions or viewpoints on an issue
• Integration: identifying relationships, trade-offs, or a higher-level synthesis among them

Where it has been applied

Because it can be applied to speeches, letters, and diplomatic messages, the measure suits people who cannot be tested in a laboratory. Suedfeld and Tetlock analyzed communications from international crises and reported lower complexity in crises that ended in war than in those resolved peacefully. Others have linked drops in complexity to stress, time pressure, and threat, and have studied how it varies across political ideology.

Interpretation

Lower integrative complexity in public communication does not prove that a person thinks simply, since politicians may choose simple language for strategic reasons. Higher complexity is also not always better: it can reflect indecision or be used to avoid commitment. Scoring demands careful coder training, and automated measures only partly agree with hand coding. Evidence that complexity causes outcomes such as war, as opposed to simply accompanying them, is limited.