Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:10:08.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 5 - Cognitive Complexity:

Sometimes a Boon and Sometimes a Danger to Democracy

from Part I - Of the People

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

By
Peter Suedfeld
Edited by
Ashley Weinberg
Ashley Weinberg
Affiliation:
University of Salford
Get access

Summary

This chapter assesses the role of integrative complexity (IC) in political beliefs and behaviours. Integrative complexity is a structural variable, measured by the degree to which a given document or other text demonstrates open-mindedness, tolerance of uncertainty, information search and processing, perspective-taking, and flexibility of opinions, plans and decisions. To different degrees across individuals, IC is responsive to situations and conditions. The extant corpus of research touches on a wide range of topics, with concentration on the political psychology of leaders and citizens. The chapter focuses on how IC is related to democratic governance, examining situations in which either low or high IC can be conducive or detrimental to the functioning of democracy.

Keywords

Integrative complexityfunctioning of democracypolitical beliefspolitical behaviours
Type
Chapter
Information
Psychology of Democracy
Of the People, By the People, For the People
 , pp. 102 - 123
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. and Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Bros.Google Scholar
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E. J., Bluck, S., de Vries, B., Suedfeld, P. and Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The conceptual/integrative complexity scoring manual. In Smith, C. P. (Ed.), Motivation and personality: A handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 401–418). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd-MacMillan, E. M. (2016). Increasing cognitive complexity and collaboration across communities: Being Muslim being Scottish. Journal of Strategic Security, 9(4), 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd-MacMillan, E. M., Andrews Fearon, P., Ptolomey, A. M. and Mathieson, L. J. (2016). I SEE! Scotland: Tackling sectarianism and promoting community psychosocial health. Journal of Strategic Security, 9(4), 53–78.Google Scholar
Cassel, L., Cross, R., Ivanova, V., Jhangiani, R., Legkaia, K. and Suedfeld, P. (2007). Complexity and values of candidates. Clio’s Psyche, 14(3), 45–47.Google Scholar
Christie, R. and Jahoda, M. (Eds.) (1954). Studies in the scope and methods of ‘The Authoritarian Personality’. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Conway, L. G. III, Conway, K. R. and Houck, S. C. (2020). Validating automated integrative complexity: Natural language processing and the Donald Trump test. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8(2), 502–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, L. G. III, Gornick, L. J., Houck, S. C., Anderson, C., Stockert, J., Sessoms, D. and McCue, K. (2016). Are conservatives really more simple‐minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking. Political Psychology, 37(6), 777–798.Google Scholar
Conway, L. G. III, Gornick, L. J., Houck, S. C., Towgood, K. H. and Conway, K. R. (2011). The hidden implications of radical group rhetoric: Integrative complexity and terrorism. Journal of Asymmetric Conflict, 4(2), 155–165.Google Scholar
Conway, L. G. III, Houck, S. C., Gornick, L. J. and Repke, M. A. (2017). Finding the Loch Ness Monster: Left-Wing Authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychology, 39(5), 1049–1067.Google Scholar
Conway, L. G. III, Thoemmes, F., Allison, A. M., Towgood, K. H., Wagner, M. J., Davey, K., Salcido, A., Stovall, A.N., Dodds, D.P., Bongard, K. and Conway, K. R. (2008). Two ways to be complex and why they matter: Implications for attitude strength and lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1029–1044.Google Scholar
Coren, S. C. and Suedfeld, P. (1995). Personality correlates of conceptual complexity. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(1), 229–242.Google Scholar
Goldstein, K. M. and Blackman, S. (1978). Cognitive style: Five approaches and relevant research. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Goodfellow, S. (1992). From Communism to Nazism: The transformation of Alsatian Communists. Journal of Contemporary History, 27(2), 231–258.Google Scholar
Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E. and Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hermann, M. G. (2003). Assessing leadership style: Trait analysis. In Post, J. M. (Ed.), The psychological assessment of political leaders, with profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton (pp. 178–212; separate chapters applying the method to the two leaders follow). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Joffee, J. (2020, 13 May). The coronavirus isn’t killing democracy. Tablet, accessed 17 June 2020 from www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/coronavirus-not-killing-democracy.Google Scholar
Koehler, D. (2020). Switching sides: Exploring violent extremist intergroup migration across hostile ideologies. Political Psychology, 41(3), 499–515.Google Scholar
Koehler, D. (2017). Understanding deradicalization: Methods, tools, and programs for countering violent extremism. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lavallee, L. and Suedfeld, P. (1997). Conflict in Clayoquot Sound: Using thematic content analysis to understand psychological aspects of environmental controversy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29, 194–209.Google Scholar
Levi, A. and Tetlock, P. E. (1980). A cognitive analysis of Japan’s 1941 decision for war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(2), 195–211.Google Scholar
Nemr, C. and Savage, S. (2019). Integrative complexity interventions to prevent and counter violent extremism. Global Center on Cooperative Security. Accessed at: www.globalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/GCCS-PB-IC-Interventions-Prevent-Counter-Violent-Extremism-2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Porter, C. A. and Suedfeld, P. (1981). Integrative complexity in the correspondence of literary figures: Effects of personal and societal stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 321–330.Google Scholar
Regt, S., Mortelmans, D. and Smits, T. (2011). Left-wing authoritarianism: Not a myth, but a worrisome reality: Evidence from 13 Eastern European countries. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 44(4), 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, B. (2020, 7 December). Jerrold Post: One of the CIA’s truly great innovators. Brookings, 7 December. Accessed at: www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/12/07/jerrold-post-one-of-the-cias-truly-great-innovators/.Google Scholar
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rothman, N. (2020). New Jersey’s coronavirus response is no “model.” Commentary, 6 August 2020. Accessed 12 August from www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/new-jerseys-coronavirus-response-is-no-model/.Google Scholar
Sales, S. M. (1972). Economic threat as a determinant of conversion in authoritarian and nonauthoritarian churches. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 420–428.Google Scholar
Savage, S. and Liht, J. (2008). Mapping fundamentalisms: The psychology of religion as a sub-discipline in the understanding of religiously motivated violence. Archiv für Religionspsychologie / Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 75–91.Google Scholar
Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J. and Streufert, A. (1967). Human information processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Schroder, H. M. and Suedfeld, P. (Eds.) (1971). Personality theory and information processing. New York: Ronald.Google Scholar
Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Stone, W. F., Lederer, G. and Christie, R. (Eds.) (1993). Strength and weakness: The Authoritarian Personality today. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (2014). Political and military geniuses: Psychological profiles and responses to stress. In Simonton, D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 244–265). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (2010). The cognitive processing of politics and politicians: Archival studies of conceptual and integrative complexity. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1669–1702.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (2000). Cognitive styles: Personality. In Kazdin, A. E. (Ed. in Chief), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 166–169). New York and Washington, DC: Oxford University Press and Amer. Psychological Assoc.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1994). President Clinton’s policy dilemmas: A cognitive analysis. Political Psychology, 15, 337–349.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1992a). Cognitive managers and their critics. Political Psychology, 13(3), 435–453.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1992b). Bilateral relations between countries and the complexity of newspaper editorials. Political Psychology, 13(4), 601–611.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1985). APA presidential addresses: The relation of integrative complexity to historical professional, and personal factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(60), 1643–1651.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1983). Authoritarian leadership: A cognitive-interactionist view. In Held, J. (Ed.) The cult of power: Dictators in the twentieth century (pp. 1–22). Boulder, CO: East European Monographs.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. (1981). Indices of world tension in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Political Psychology, 2(3/4), 114–123.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. and Ahmadian, S. (2018, July). Implicit markers of attitudes toward asylum-seekers. Presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. and Bluck, S. (1993). Changes in integrative complexity accompanying significant life events: Historical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 124–130.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Bluck, S., Loewen, L. and Elkins, D. J. (1994). Sociopolitical values and integrative complexity of members of student political groups. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 26, 121–141.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Corteen, R. S. and McCormick, C. (1986). The role of integrative complexity in military leadership: Robert E. Lee and his opponents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 498–507.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Cross, R. W. and Logan, C. (2013). Can thematic content analysis separate the pyramid of ideas from the pyramid of action? A comparison among different degrees of commitment to violence. In Cabayan, H., Sitterle, V. and Yandura, M. (Eds.), Looking back, looking forward: Perspectives on terrorism and responses to it (pp. 61–68). Washington, DC; Strategic Multilayer Assessment Occasional White Paper.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. and Granatstein, J. L. (1995). Leader complexity in personal and professional crises: Concurrent and retrospective information processing. Political Psychology, 16(3), 509–522.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Morrison, B. H. and Kuznar, L. A. (2020). National interests and the meaning of ‘America First’. In Renshon, S. A. and Suedfeld, P. (Eds.), The Trump Doctrine and the emerging international system (pp. 39–70). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P. and Rank, D. A. (1976). Revolutionary leaders: Long-term success as a function of changes in conceptual complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 169–178.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E. and Jhangiani, R. (2007). The new psychology of alliances. In Renshon, S. A. and Suedfeld, P. (Eds.), Understanding the Bush Doctrine: Psychology and strategy in an age of terrorism (pp. 105–128). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E. and Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In Smith, C. P. (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393–400). Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Symposium on the scoring of integrative complexity. (2014). Political Psychology, 35(5), 597–659.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 819–827.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 74–83.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Armor, D. and Peterson, R. S. (1993). The slavery debate in antebellum America: Cognitive style, value conflict, and the limits of compromise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 115–126.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S. and Berry, J. S. (1993). Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 500–511.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. and Tyler, A. (1996). Churchill’s cognitive and rhetorical style: The debates over Nazi intentions and self-government for India. Political Psychology, 17(1), 149–170.Google Scholar
Thoemmes, F. J. and Conway, L. G. III. (2007). Integrative complexity of 41 U.S. presidents. Political Psychology, 28(2), 193–226.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. D. and Suedfeld, P. (1988). Leadership performance in crisis: The longevity – complexity link. International Studies Quarterly, 32, 439–451.Google Scholar
Winter, D. G. (2007). The role of motivation, responsibility, and integrative complexity in crisis escalation: Comparative studies of war and peace crises. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 920–937.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×