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

Abstract

Research on the relationship between political conservatism and integrative complexity has yielded contradictory results, and little effort has been made to place these mixed results in a theoretical context. The present article considers this issue through a strategic model of language that suggests different psychological processes apply to public politicians versus private citizens. We use a methodologically precise meta‐analytic test of the relationship between political ideology and integrative complexity to examine the degree that conservative simplicity can be understood as a function of public versus private samples. Across 35 studies, findings revealed that conservatives are significantly less complex than liberals overall; however, while this effect was significant for public politicians, no relationship emerged for private citizens. Consistent with a strategic model, conservative simplicity was particularly in evidence for elected officials. This theoretical analysis has many consequences for our understanding of psychological theories that help explain the consequences of political ideology.

Understanding the Role of Linguistic Complexity in Famous Trial Outcomes

“…There is ample theoretical and empirical evidence that suggests the strategic manipulation of linguistic complexity can be beneficial for success (e.g., Conway et al, 2012;Repke et al, 2018;Suedfeld & Rank, 1976;Tetlock, 1981;Thoemmes & Conway, 2007). However, although integrative complexity research examines expansive topics ranging from political speeches (e.g., Conway et al, 2012;Conway & Zubrod, 2020;Houck & Conway, 2019) to terrorism (e.g., Houck et al, 2017;Putra et al, 2018), no integrative complexity research that we know of has examined attorneys' linguistic style during trials (although, as discussed earlier, some work has examined Supreme Court judges, Gruenfeld, 1995;Gruenfeld & Preston, 2000;Hansford & Coe, 2019;Owens & Wedeking, 2011;Tetlock et al, 1985). As a result of this lack of research on attorney courtroom language complexity, we had no certain predictions entering the study.…”

When Beliefs Lead to (Im)Moral Action: How Believing in Torture's Effectiveness Shapes the Endorsement of Its Use

“…Political conservatism. As a covariate to be included in hierarchical regressions, participants further completed a standard two-item measurement of self-reported political conservatism (on a 1-9 scale anchored by liberal/conservative and democrat/republican; see Conway, Houck, Gornick, & Repke, 2018;Houck & Conway, 2019).…”

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

“…Similarly, one of the primary reasons that researchers argued for a “contemptuousness” personality trait is that measurable behaviors (e.g., eye-rolling, sarcasm) show rank-order stability over time (Schriber et al, 2017). Furthermore, it is the objective behavioral output and not subjective self-report that is the more direct measurement of the individual’s actual level of cognitive complexity at a given moment (see S. C. Houck & Conway, 2019).…”

“…This suggests that individual differences in complexity may not just be domain-general, but in fact may be in part determined by domain-specific genetic influences on each individual person. Further evidence suggests that political ideology interacts with topic domain to predict complexity (e.g., Conway, Gornick, et al, 2016; S. C. Houck & Conway, 2019).…”

“…C. Houck & Conway, 2019). In summary, individual differences, in addition to showing domain-general effects, might also show stable and predictable domain-specific effects that are accounted for by factors such as heritability (Conway et al, 2011), attitude strength (Conway, Gornick, et al, 2016), and perceptions of accountability (S. C. Houck & Conway, 2019).…”