Thinking as Levels of Cognitive Complexity

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

“…People who score high on Machiavellianism are conceptualized as lacking emotional empathy with others and thus interpersonally cold (Paulhus & Martin, 1987; see also Fehr et al, 1992). This dovetails with research by McDaniel and Lawrence (1990), who report that cognitive complexity (operationalized as integrative complexity and scored following guidelines by Schroder et al, 1967) was positively correlated with lower levels of ego involvement (i.e., evaluating one’s performance positively only if one’s performance is superior to others’ performance), r (52) = −.31, p < .05. Similarly, those with higher cognitive complexity (assessed with the Role Category Questionnaire, Crockett, 1965, which measured the amount of differentiation in participants’ description of peers) tend to be better comforters (MacGeorge & Wilkum, 2012) and discriminate more accurately between different types of supportive messaging (i.e., Low-Person Centered and High-Person Centered), r (326) = .22, p < .001, as long as they are not under high levels of emotional distress (Bodie et al, 2011).…”

“…Specifically, the self-reported effort participants put into writing their paragraphs was positively correlated with participants’ propensity to use different forms of integrative complexity (scored using guidelines updated by Baker-Brown et al, 1992; different forms scored using the guidelines of Conway et al, 2008) of said paragraphs: Study 1a: r (421) = .13, p < .01, Study 1b: r (421) = .22, p < .01. This is further evidenced in research by McDaniel and Lawrence (1990), who report that cognitive complexity (operationalized as integrative complexity and scored following guidelines by Schroder et al, 1967) was positively correlated with a more autonomous, self-directed learning style (measured by Learner Autonomy, McDaniel & Ferreyra, 1989; r (52) = .35, p < .01).…”

“…As Table 1 shows, the evidence generally suggests that a small-to-moderate amount of variance of cognitive complexity is stable across domains (across-domain sample-weighted average r = .20), with higher correlations across domains that are more similar and lower correlations across domains that are less similar. For example, McDaniel and Lawrence (1990) assessed cognitive complexity (operationalized as integrative complexity and scored following guidelines by Schroder et al, 1967) by coding participants’ responses to open-ended questions about a historical event (the Holocaust) and a current issue (problems associated with nuclear waste created during nuclear weapon production). The complexity of participants’ responses on each of these topics was correlated at r (58) = .54, p < .05.…”

“…For example, some persons are chronically more motivated to think effortfully. Those high Need for Cognition persons (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) produce more complex output as measured by integrative complexity following guidelines by Schroder et al (1967; r = .41, p < .01; McDaniel & Lawrence, 1990). This relationship makes sense; by definition, people with a high Need for Cognition enjoy effortful thinking.…”

“…The strongest evidence for an overlap of stable ability with cognitive complexity stems from measures of academic performance (sample-weighted average r = .31). McDaniel and Lawrence (1990) report that cognitive complexity (operationalized as integrative complexity and scored following guidelines by Schroder et al, 1967) was positively correlated at moderate levels with the California Achievement Test, r (151) = .45, p < .01; Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) verbal scores, r (51) = .39, p < .01; the reading, r (52) = .40, p < .01, language, r (52) = .26, p < .05, and math, r (52) = .29, p < .05, totals of the Indiana State Test for Educational Progress; and high school history ( r s ranging .37–.57, p s < .01), science, r (52) = .30, p < .05, English, r (52) = .27, ns, and mathematics, r (52) = .20, ns, grades. Furthermore, those with higher levels of cognitive complexity were found to have deeper and more elaborative processing (measured by Learning Style; Wood & McDaniel, 1990), r (52) = .33, p < .01.…”