The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The conceptual/integrative complexity scoring manual
Abstract
OVERVIEW Integrative complexity is scored on a 1–7 scale. Scores of 1 indicate no evidence of either differentiation or integration. The author relies on unidimensional, value-laden, and evaluatively consistent rules for processing information. Scores of 3 indicate moderate or even high differentiation but no integration. The author relies on at least two distinct dimensions of judgment, but fails to consider possible conceptual connections between these dimensions. Scores of 5 indicate moderate to high differentiation and moderate integration. The author notes the existence of conceptual connections between differentiated dimensions of judgment. These integrative cognitions can take a variety of forms: the identification of a superordinate category linking two concepts, insights into the shared attributes of different dimensions, the recognition of conflicting goals or value trade-offs, or the specification of interactive effects and causes of events. Scores of 7 indicate high differentiation and high integration. A general principle provides a conceptual framework for understanding specific interactions among differentiated dimensions. This type of systemic analysis yields second-order integration principles that place in context, and perhaps reveal, limits on the generalizability of integration rules. Scores of 2, 4, and 6 represent transitional levels in conceptual structure. Here the dimensions of differentiation and integration are implicit and emergent rather than explicit and fully articulated.
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
AI literacy and its implications for prompt engineering strategies
Knoth, N., Tolzin, A., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100225 · Cited by 368
Promoting Argument-Counterargument Integration in Students' Writing
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.3200/jexe.76.1.59-92 · Cited by 279
Cognitive processes underlying coping flexibility: Differentiation and integration
Cheng, C., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2005) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00331.x · Cited by 149
Oosterhoff, B., Wray-Lake, L., & Harden, K. P. (2022) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0001366 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E. J., Bluck, S., de Vries, B., Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E.
- Venue
- Motivation and Personality
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1992-06-26
- Pages
- 401-418
- OpenAlex
- W2990760110
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.39
- 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: The conceptual/integrative complexity scoring manual. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511527937.029
- The paper
- Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E. J., Bluck, S., de Vries, B., Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The conceptual/integrative complexity scoring manual. Motivation and Personality. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511527937.029
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.