Automated Integrative Complexity

Abstract

Integrative complexity is a conceptually unique and very popular measurement of the complexity of human thought. We believe, however, that it is currently being underutilized because it takes quite a bit of time to score. More time-efficient computer-based measurements of complexity that are currently available are correlated with integrative complexity at fairly low levels. To help fill in this gap, we developed a novel automated integrative complexity system designed specifically from the integrative complexity theoretical framework. This new automated IC system achieved an alpha of .72 on the standard integrative complexity coding test. In addition, across nine datasets covering over 1,300 paragraphs, this new automated system consistently showed modest relationships with human-scored integrative complexity (average alpha = .62; average r = .46). Further analyses revealed that this relationship consistently remained significant when controlling for superficial markers of complexity and that the new system accounted for both the differentiation and integration components of integrative complexity. Although the overlap between the automated and human-scored systems is only modest (and thus suggests the continued usefulness of human scoring), it nonetheless provides the best automated integrative complexity measurement to date.

Strategic Communication and the Integrative Complexity‐Ideology Relationship: Meta‐Analytic Findings Reveal Differences Between Public Politicians and Private Citizens in Their Use of Simple Rhetoric

“…Integrative complexity criteria. While there are numerous ways to measure the broader construct of cognitive complexity , this meta‐analysis focused on one specific measure of complexity that is the most widely used and validated measurement (Conway et al, ): integrative complexity. Studies were excluded if they used other complexity‐related measures.…”

“…While there is a newly developed and validated Automated Integrative Complexity measure (Conway et al, ; Houck et al, ), we opted to only include studies that used the traditional method of hand‐scoring source materials by trained IC coders. This decision was made for two reasons: (1) While evidence suggests Automated Integrative Complexity is frequently used as a proxy of human‐scored complexity, it is nevertheless correlated on average at only .46.…”

“…Why integrative complexity? Integrative complexity has been extensively validated as a measurement of cognitive complexity differences across a number of domains (e.g., Conway & Conway, ; Conway, Conway, Gornick, & Houck, ; Conway, Dodds, Hands Towgood, McClure, & Olson, ; Conway, Suedfeld, & Tetlock, ; Conway et al, ; Conway, Gornick, et al, ; Hale, ; Houck, Conway, & Gornick, ; Suedfeld, , ; Suedfeld & Bluck, ; Suedfeld, Conway, & Eichhorn, ; Suedfeld, Leighton, & Conway, ; Suedfeld & Tetlock, ; Tetlock, , ; Thoemmes & Conway, ).…”

Language use in Inspire magazine

“…It can be further subdivided into two aspects: dialectic complexity, the awareness that concepts can be considered from more than one point of view, and elaboration, the awareness that concepts can contain more than [2]. Integrative complexity is measured on a 7 point scale; its usefulness has been considerably advanced by the development of an automatic scoring algorithm which we use here [1]. Measures of all three of these scores are shown in Figure 10.…”

Language use in the Jihadist magazines inspire and Azan

“…It can be further subdivided into two aspects: dialectic complexity, the awareness that concepts can be considered from more than one point of view, and elaboration, the awareness that concepts can contain more than one simple idea [17]. Integrative complexity is measured on a 7 point scale; its usefulness has been considerably advanced by the development of an automatic scoring algorithm which we use here [18].…”