Abstract

The present study explored the predictors of integrative complexity of reasoning and integrativeness of negotiations in policy issues designed to activate conflicts between different pairs of basic social-political values. In study 1, regression analyses revealed that the integrative complexity of people's reasoning about policy issues could be predicted from (1) the similarity of the importance rankings of the conflicting values(the extent of value conflict), (2) the mean importance ranking of the two conflicting values, and (3) the interaction of these two terms. Individual differences in liberalism-conservatism contributed little to the prediction of integrative complexity after the predictive power of domain-specific value conflict was controlled. The predictions of the value pluralism model were all supported. In study 2, people turned out to be more integratively complex when given a role with high accountability. People also reached more integrative negotiations as the integrative complexity of reasoning increased.