Abstract
Problems in definition and measurement of ‘cognitive complexity’ are discussed and the importance of examining the predictive validity of the different measurement techniques is stressed. An experiment is described which examines the intercorrelations between several measures of ‘complexity’ and their relation to the subjects' predictions of how others' personal constructs are employed. The ‘hierarchical complexity’ measure of Smith & Leach (1972), Bannister's (1960, 1962) ‘Intensity’ score and Mehrabian & Komito's (1968) measure of factorial complexity share no variance with any scores derived from the prediction task developed in the reported experiment. The hypothesis that more ‘cognitively complex’ persons (Bieri's definition, 1966) are ‘set’ to seek less common features in their social environment receives strong support from the experiment. That this ‘set’ may lead to a significant, but spurious, association between ‘complexity’ and accuracy in social predictions is suggested by an analysis of the prediction tasks used in other studies. Bannister's Intensity is highly related to Mehrabian & Komito's measure, but contrary to expectation is unrelated to Bieri's complexity.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
