Two ways to be complex and why they matter: Implications for attitude strength and lying.

Abstract

Integrative complexity broadly measures the structural complexity of statements. This breadth, although beneficial in multiple ways, can potentially hamper the development of specific theories. In response, the authors developed a model of complex thinking, focusing on 2 different ways that people can be complex within the integrative complexity system and subsequently developed measurements of each of these 2 routes: Dialectical complexity focuses on a dialectical tension between 2 or more competing perspectives, whereas elaborative complexity focuses on complexly elaborating on 1 singular perspective. The authors posit that many variables have different effects on these 2 forms of complexity and subsequently test this idea in 2 different theoretical domains. In Studies 1a, 1b, and 2, the authors demonstrate that variables related to attitude strength (e.g., domain importance, extremism, domain accessibility) decrease dialectical complexity but increase elaborative complexity. In Study 3, the authors show that counterattitudinal lying decreases dialectical complexity but increases elaborative complexity, implicating a strategic (as opposed to a cognitive strain) view of the lying-complexity relationship. The authors argue that this dual demonstration across 2 different theoretical domains helps establish the utility of the new model and measurements as well as offer the potential to reconcile apparent conflicts in the area of cognitive complexity.

The hidden implications of radical group rhetoric: Integrative complexity and terrorism

“…Other less direct work demonstrates that extremists (a category that is arguably inclusive of terrorists -more on this later) tend to be less integratively complex than their moderate counterparts (e.g., Tetlock et al, 1994; but see Conway et al, 2008;Van Heil & Mervielde, 2003).…”

“…While this breadth contains many strengths, it also can cause some limitations when it comes to understanding why a passage is complex. In response to these limitations, Conway et al (2008) proposed two additional sub-constructs called elaborative complexity and dialectical complexity. As elaborative and dialectical complexity are part of the integrative complexity construct, they are scored on the same 1 to 7 scale.…”

“…In this case, two dialectically-opposing views of ''peanut butter'' are presented, one positive and one negative. While such viewpoints do not have to be directly in opposition to be scored as dialectical, they do have to be at least implicitly in tension with each other (see Conway et al, 2008, for more details).…”

“…Integrative complexity evaluates the complexity of spoken or written statements based on the underlying structure of the rhetoric, rather than on its content (see, e.g., Conway, Suedfeld, & Clements, 2003;Conway et al, 2008;Suedfeld et al, 2001;Suedfeld & Rank, 1976;Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Streufert, 1992;Thoemmes & Conway, 2007). It is scored on a scale between 1 and 7; the score is determined by the level of differentiation and integration inherent in the statements being assessed (see BakerBrown et al, 1992).…”

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].…”