Evidence concerning the construct validity of conceptual level as a personality variable.

Abstract

One hundred grade 12 female adolescents from Southern Ontario, classified as either high, moderate, or low Conceptual Level (CL), were examined for differences in integrative complexity as well as movement towards interpersonal maturity. After controlling for the effects of intelligence, the higher CL group exhibited significantly superior performance on the more complex aspects of an impression formation task, and higher ego identity and lower anxiety scores. Correlational analysis revealed that CL tended to be related to higher level task measures and to ego identity and anxiety, while intelligence tended to be related to less complex aspects of the impression task. Intelligence itself was unrelated to ego identity and anxiety. Findings were seen as supporting the construct validity of CL as outlined by David Hunt.

A study of individual differences and self‐awareness in the context of multi‐source feedback

“…Looking at the results obtained here alongside previous studies, what comes through is an impression that high SAw is most strongly associated with intellectual and social detachment, analytical inclination and ability, which is perhaps rather contrary to the popular stereotype of warmth and emotionality being linked with sensitivity. It does, though, have a parallel in the person-perception eld, where it has been suggested that cognitive factors may be of primary importance in forming accurate judgments of others (Ferguson & Fletcher, 1989;Raphael, Moss, & Rosser, 1979). A further interesting aspect of this is that the literature on emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998;Schutte et al, 1998) usually refers to SAw as an important element in this quality, but tends to place it more in a constellation of primarily non-cognitive attributes.…”

Human Behavior Theory

“…Despite some evidence to the contrary (Neimeyer, Neimeyer & Landfield, 1983), there seems to be a relationship between'cognitive complexity and integration, and information processing in social judgment situations, which is precisely what a social worker client interview is (Raphael, Moss & Rosser, 1979;Ferguson & Fletcher, 1989). However there needs to be further work to elaborate the relationship between cognitive complexity and integration as this has implications for the way social workers view their clients and subsequently make decisions about them.…”

Personality and working style predictors of integrative complexity: A study of scientists' thinking about research and teaching.

“…If integrative complexity is the ability to perceive and integrate more than one dimension at a time, and if it is associated with a widening of one's search for information and creativity (Karlins, 1967; Noy & Hunt, 1972; Raphael et al, 1979; Tuckman, 1966), I would argue that scientists, in particular highly creative and productive ones, should be quite complex in their thinking. As Guilford (1950) pointed out, scientists must by necessity keep in mind multiple dimensions and perspectives as they work on problems.…”

“…There are at least three reasons for studying integrative complexity in scientists. First, previous research has shown that integrative complexity is related to a skill that is critical to doing science: seeking out a broad range of information and not constricting one's search for information (Karlins, 1967; Noy & Hunt, 1972; Raphael, Moss, & Rosser, 1979). A cognitive style that is broad and flexible in searching for information has been shown to positively correlate with two other critical scientific skills, namely curiosity and creativity (Barron, 1969; Guilford, 1950; MacKinnon, 1978; Simonton, 1988).…”