Cognitive complexity: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:21, 19 February 2023

Latest revision as of 05:42, 19 March 2025

(15 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 4:

==History==

{{Expand section|date=June 2010}}

{{more citations needed section|date=March 2025}}

First proposed by [[James Bieri]] in 1955.<ref name='bell.2004'/>

The concept of cognitive complexity was first proposed by psychologist [[James Bieri]] in 1955,<ref name=":0">Bieri, J. (1955). Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. ''The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51''(2), 263–268. {{doi|10.1037/h0043308}}</ref><ref name="bell.2004" /> marking a significant step in understanding how individuals perceive and interact with their social environments. Bieri explored the intricate relationships between cognitive styles and social behavior, laying the groundwork for future research in psychology and communication.

Bieri tested two main hypotheses in his study:

* '''Positive relationship between cognitive complexity and predictive accuracy:''' He posited that individuals with higher levels of cognitive complexity are better at predicting the behavior of others. This implies that those who can consider multiple perspectives and nuances in a situation are more adept at anticipating how others will act or react, thus improving their social interactions and decision-making capabilities.

* '''negative relationship between cognitive complexity and assimilative projection:''' Bieri suggested that individuals with greater cognitive complexity would be less likely to engage in assimilative projection.<ref name="thomas:2008" /> This cognitive process refers to the tendency to project one’s own qualities or feelings onto others, leading to overgeneralizations and misinterpretations. Essentially, a more cognitively complex person is capable of recognizing and respecting the individuality of others, which reduces the likelihood of such projection.

Over the years, cognitive complexity has been linked to various positive outcomes, including enhanced empathy, better problem-solving skills, and improved emotional intelligence. In educational and organizational settings, understanding cognitive complexity has helped develop training programs aimed at fostering critical thinking and interpersonal skills, thereby contributing to more effective teamwork and collaboration.

==In artificial intelligence==

In an attempt to explain how humans perceive relevance, cognitive complexity is defined as an extension of the notion of [[Kolmogorov complexity]]. It amounts to the length of the shortest description ''available to the observer''. For example, individuating a particular [[Inuit|Inuk]] woman among one hundred people is simpler in a village in Congo than it is in an Inuit village.

Cognitive complexity is related to probability (see [[Simplicity theory]]): situations are cognitively improbable if they are simpler to describe than to generate.

Line 15 ⟶ 23:

* generation complexity: the size of the minimum set of parameter values that the 'world' (as imagined by the observer) needs to generate the event.

To 'generate' an event such as an encounter with an InuitInuk woman in Congo, one must add up the complexity of each event in the causal chain that brought her there. The significant gap between both complexities (hard to produce, easy to describe) makes the encounter improbable and thus narratable.

==In computer science==

Line 25 ⟶ 33:

Cognitive complexity is a [[psychological]] characteristic or psychological variable that indicates how complex or simple is the [[framing (social sciences)|frame]] and [[perception|perceptual]] skill of a person.

A person who is measured high on [[cognitive]] complexity tends to perceive nuances and subtle differences whichwhile a person with a lower measure, indicating a less complex cognitive [[structure]] for the task or activity, does not.

{{Quote box

| quote = an aspect of a person's cognitive functioning which at one end is defined by the use of many constructs with many relationships to one another (complexity) and at the other end by the use of few constructs with limited relationships to one another (simplicity)

Line 65 ⟶ 73:

* Sanders, T.J.M. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20081005121747/http://w3.univ-tlse2.fr:8880/erss/index.jsp?perso=bras&subURL=sem05%2Fproceedings-final%2F03-Sanders.pdf Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse]".

* Streufert, S., Pogash, R.M., Piasecki, M.T. (1987). "[https://web.archive.org/web/20120225065931/http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA181828&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Training for cognitive complexity]". ARI Research Note 87–20, AD-A181828.

* {{cite journal|firstfirst1= Patricia W. Linville |year=1985|title= Self-Complexity and Affective Extremity: Don't Put All of Your Eggs in One Cognitive Basket |journal=Social Cognition| volume= 3|pages=94–120|doi=10.1521/soco.1985.3.1.94|last1=Linville}}

* {{cite journal|author1= David A. Snowdon |author2=Susan J. Kemper |author3= James A. Mortimer |year=1996|title= Linguistic Ability in Early Life and Cognitive Function and Alzheimer's Disease in Late LifeFindings From the Nun Study |journal=JAMA| volume=275|issue=7 |pages=528–532|doi=10.1001/jama.1996.03530310034029|pmid=8606473 |s2cid=13613023 }}

==External links==