The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conceptual/integrative complexity
Abstract
THE DEVELOPMENT AND CURRENT STATE OF THE CONSTRUCT Theoretical origins The conceptual/integrative complexity construct is a descendant of Kelly's (1955) personal construct theory. Generally, it fits within the cognitive styles approach. Because the emphasis of the work is on the structure of thought rather than on its content, the closest relatives of integrative complexity are cognitive complexity (Bieri, 1971) and cognitive structure (Scott, Osgood, & Peterson, 1979). More remote kinship – the remoteness being empirically demonstrated by low correlations (Schroder, Driver, & Streufert, 1967; Suedfeld, Tomkins, & Tucker, 1969; Vannoy, 1965) – exists with contentladen cognitive traits such as authoritarianism (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950), dogmatism (Rokeach, 1960), and field independence (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp, 1962). The direct line of development proceeds through conceptual systems (Harvey, Hunt, & Schroder, 1961), conceptual complexity (Schroder et al., 1967), interactive complexity (Streufert & Streufert, 1978; Streufert & Swezey, 1987), to integrative complexity (Suedfeld & Tetlock, 1990) and meta-complexity (Streufert & Nogami, 1989). Briefly, the successive versions of the theory focus on the complexity of information processing and decision making, complexity being defined and measured (usually on a 1–7 scale) in terms of degrees of differentiation and integration (cf. Streufert, 1970).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Power, approach, and inhibition.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.265 · Cited by 3,427
Psychological Aspects of Natural Language Use: Our Words, Our Selves
Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041 · Cited by 2,624
Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0223 · Cited by 1,631
Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422 · Cited by 1,385
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421 · Cited by 1,116
Metadata
- Authors
- Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S.
- Venue
- Motivation and Personality
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1992-06-26
- Pages
- 393-400
- OpenAlex
- W2245485852
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 55.73
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conceptual/integrative complexity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511527937.028
- The paper
- Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. Motivation and Personality. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511527937.028
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.