Integrative complexity scoring can assess leaders’ cognition at a distance from archival texts

Evidence

One approach to this issue has been to develop research methods such as content analysis that permit the assessment of political leaders “at a distance” (Hermann, 1977; Suedfeld & Rank, 1976; Tetlock, 1981a, 1983b; Winter & Stewart, 1977). For instance, Tetlock (1983a) used the integrative complexity coding system to explore the relation between cognitive style and ideology in the United States Senate. This coding system, originally developed for scoring open-ended responses to a semiprojective test designed to measure individual differences in integrative complexity (Schroder, Driver, & Streufert, 1967), has proven to be a flexible methodological tool that can be adapted to analyze a wide range of archival documents, including the letters, diaries, and speeches of political elites (e.g., Levi & Tetlock, 1980; Suedfeld & Rank, 1976; Suedfeld & Tetlock, 1977; Tetlock, 1979, 1981a, 1981b). The actual coding rules define integrative complexity in terms of two cognitive structural variables: differentiation and integration (see Schroder et al., 1967; Streufert & Streufert, 1978; Tetlock, 1979, 1981a; 1981b). Individuals at the simple end of the complexity continuum tend to rely on fixed, one-dimensional evaluative rules in interpreting events and to make decisions on the basis of only a few salient items of information. Individuals at the complex end tend to interpret events in multidimensional terms and to integrate a variety of evidence in making decisions. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2282

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the integrative complexity construct and its two structural variables (differentiation and integration) along with the ‘at a distance’ method.
• XREF: Connects to Tetlock’s wider work on expert judgment and forecasting; also to content-analysis methods used in political psychology generally.