An empirical investigation of the psychometric properties of a commonly-used instrument to measure cognitive complexity was designed. Bieri's (Bieri Atkins, Briar, Leaman, Miller, and Tripodi 1966) grid form of Kelly's (1955) Role Construct Reperatory (REP) Test was shown to have high and statistically significant test-retest reliability (p < .001) and convergent and discriminant validities (p < .05). These results reinforce the internal validity of cognitive complexity research using the instrument. Moreover, stable scores were found across student (N = 176) and nonstudent (N = 169) samples. Such characteristics as sex, level in the organizational hierarchy, year in college, and college major were not found to alter the distributions of scores. Thus, preliminary norm tables for scores were established which would be necessary in building arguments for external validity of research results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allard, M. and Carlson, E. R.The generality of cognitive complexity. Journal of Social Psychology, 1963, 59, 73-75.
2.
Bannister, D. and Mair, J. M. M.The evaluation of personal constructs. London: Academic Press, 1968.
3.
Barron, F.Complexity-simplicity as a personality dimension. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 163-172.
4.
Bieri, J.Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1955, 51, 263-268.
5.
Bieri, J.Complexity-simplicity as a personality variable in cognitive and preferential behavior. In D. W. Fiske and S. Maddi (Eds.), Functions of varied experience. Homewood, Ill. : Dorsey, 1961 .
6.
Bieri, J.Cognitive structures in personality . In H. M. Schroder and P. Suedfeld (Eds.), Personality theory and information processing. New York: Ronald, 1971.
7.
Bieri, J. and Blacker, E.The generality of cognitive complexity in the perception of people and inkblots. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1956, 53, 112-117.
8.
Bieri, J. , Bradburn, W., and Galinsky, M. D.Sex differences in perceptual behavior. Journal of Personality, 1958, 26, 1-12.
9.
Bieri, J., Atkins, A. L. , Briar, S., Leaman, R. L., Miller, H. , and Tripodi, T.Clinical and social judgment. New York: Wiley, 1966 .
10.
Bonarius, J. C. J.Research in the personal construct theory of George A. Kelly. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research , vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965.
11.
Budner, S.Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 1962, 30, 29-50.
12.
Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W.Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-105.
13.
Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C.Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Chicago: Rand McNelly, 1966.
14.
Crockett, W. H.Cognitive complexity and impression formation. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965.
15.
Fiedler, E. E.A theory of leadership effectiveness . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
16.
Goodman, B. S.The measurement of an individual's organization map. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1968, 13, 246-265.
Guilford, J. P.Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.
19.
Hays, W. L.Statistics for the social sciences , 2nd ed. N.Y.: Holt, 1973.
20.
Johnston, S. and Centers, R.Cognitive systemization and interpersonal attraction . Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 95-103.
21.
Kelly, G. A.The psychology of personal constructs , vols. 1 & 2. New York: Norton, 1955.
22.
Klein, G. S., Barr, H. L. , and Wolitsky, D. L.Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 1967, 18, 467-560.
23.
Kuusinen, J. and Nystedt, L.Relation of social intelligence and spatial ability to cognitive complexity in person perception. Reports from the Psychological Laboratories, U. of Stockholm, 1972, no. 372. (Psychological Abstracts, 1973, 50, No. 11249).
24.
Larson, L. L. and Rowland, K. M.Leadership style and cognitive complexity. A cademy of Management Journal, 1974, 17, 37-45.
25.
Leventhal, H. and Singer, D. L.Cognitive complexity, impression formation and impression change. Journal of Personality, 1964, 32, 210-226.
26.
Mitchell, T. R.Cognitive complexity and leadership style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 166-172.
27.
Nidorf, L. J. and Argabrite, A. H.Cognitive complexity and the tendency to make extreme judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970 , 31, 478.
28.
Schneier, C. E.Performance appraisal in organizations: An empirical field investigation of the influence of rater cognitive complexity on rater behavior and of behaviorally anchored rating scales as a performance appraisal format. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1975.
29.
Schneier, C. E.The Operational Utility and Psychometric Properties of Behavioral Expectation Scales (BES): A cognitive reinterpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 541-548.
30.
Schneier, C. E.Cognitive structure and preference for constructs in impression formation: A field experiment. Psychological Reports, in press.
31.
Scott, W. A.Cognitive complexity and cognitive flexibility. Sociometry, 1962, 25, 405-414.
32.
Seaman, J. M. and Koenig, F.A comparison of measures of cognitive complexity. Sociometry, 1974, 37, 375-390.
33.
Suedfeld, P.Information processing as a personality model. In H. M. Schroder and P. Suedfled (Eds.), Personality theory and information processing. New York: Ronald, 1971.
34.
Tripodi, T. and Bieri, J.Cognitive complexity, perceived conflict, and certainty . Journal of Personality, 1963, 34, 144-153.
35.
Tripodi, T. and Bieri, J.Information transmission in clinical judgments as a function of stimulus dimensionality and cognitive complexity. Journal of Personality, 1964, 33, 119-137.
36.
Vannoy, J. S.Generality of cognitive complexity-simplicity as a personality construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 385-396.
37.
Wiggins, J. S.Personality structure. Annual Review of Psychology, 1968, 19, 293-330.
38.
Zajonc, R. B. and Wolfe, D. M.Cognitive consequences of a person's position in a formal organization. Human Relations, 1966 , 19, 139-150.
