Complexity Under Stress: Integrative Approaches to Overdetermined Vulnerabilities

Abstract

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.

Staying put in an era of climate change: The geographies, legalities, and public health implications of immobility

“…If communities believe they have resources that nearly meet or exceed what is demanded in a situation, (e.g., high place utility and social cohesion), then they will tend to view that situation as a challenge rather than as a threat. An appraisal of challenge is associated with positive emotions and complex, flexible, socially cohesive reactions, whereas appraising an environmental stressor as a threat is associated with negative emotions and binary, rigid, polarizing reactions (Andrews Fearon & Boyd‐MacMillan, 2016).…”

“…If communities believe they have resources that nearly meet or exceed what is demanded in a situation, (e.g., high place utility and social cohesion), then they will tend to view that situation as a challenge rather than as a threat. An appraisal of challenge is associated with positive emotions and complex, flexible, socially cohesive reactions, whereas appraising an environmental stressor as a threat is associated with negative emotions and binary, rigid, polarizing reactions (Andrews Fearon & Boyd-MacMillan, 2016). Mallick et al (2021) use Protection Motivation Theory (PMT, Rogers, 1975) to examine threat and coping appraisals in the decision-making processes of Bangladeshi coastal residents, for whom complex coping resources related to place attachment strongly outweighed threats and risks of staying.…”

Grasping the paradoxical nature of wisdom through unconscious integrative complexity

“…Integrative complexity, also known as cognitive complexity ( Fearon and Boyd-MacMillan, 2016 ), is the ability to differentiate among different dimensions of an issue and integrate the various aspects together ( Conway et al, 2018 ). Since one characteristic of wisdom is the ability to integrate different elements of an issue together ( Basseches, 1984 ; Sternberg, 1998 ; Yang, 2014 ; Grossmann, 2017 ; Grossman et al, 2020 ) while another involves effectively processing complexity ( Glück and Bluck, 2013 ; Weststrate and Glück, 2017 ), the concept of integrative complexity seems appropriate to include in the scholarly discourse on wisdom.…”

“…In addition to conceptual relevance, empirical research shows similarity in the benefits of integrative complexity and the benefits of wisdom. For example, integrative complexity helps resolve conflicts ( Woodard et al, 2021 ) and helps people experience a more positive response to stress in situations that induce it, such as relational conflict ( Fearon and Boyd-MacMillan, 2016 ). As adolescents grow in integrative complexity, they are better able to plan ahead, understand the long-term consequences of their behavior, show less negative behavior, resist peer pressure better, and appreciate the connections formed between emotion and behavior ( Orr and Ingersoll, 1995 ).…”

In Search of the Cognitively Complex Person: Is There a Meaningful Trait Component of Cognitive Complexity?

“…Relatedly, those who are able to maintain high levels of cognitive complexity (measured as integrative complexity) in typically stress-inducing situations (e.g., interpersonal conflict) are also those who have a more positive response to stress (see Fearon & Boyd-MacMillan, 2016, for a review). These individuals do not seem to be averse to the physiological sensation of stress (just as those high in complexity are tolerant of and indeed seek many varied sensations) and instead view it as a signal of a positive and surmountable challenge.…”