- Email: [email protected]
Cognitive style and personality: The Kirton adaption-innovation and Cattell's sixteen personality factor inventories
COGKITIVE STYLE AND PERSONALITY: THE KIRTON AD,4PTION-INNOVATION AND CATTELL’S SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR INVENTORIES bl. Occupatronal
J. KIRTON
Research
and STEVEN
M. DE CTAXTIS
Centre. The Hatfield Polytechnic. Herts. AL10 9AB. England
College
Lane.
Hatfield,
Summary-Considerable work hds now been generated on the testing of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), much of Lthich has the erect of rclatmg this measure to other personality measures. The Cattell Sixteen Personality Factor Inventory (16PF) is one of the major measures of personality which purports to co\er the whole personality domatn. The KAI is now related to it with the alms of locating cognitive style tn the personality domatn and testing for the completeness of its description. The nature of the personality characteristtcs underlying cognitive style are sharpened. and some revelations derived as to ho& these preferred styles &tre consistent with underlying personality traits.
INTRODUCTION
Cognitive style has been defined as “consistent individual differences in preferred ways of I essick er ul., 1976) and as such provides a hypothetical mediator organising information” (M between stimuli and responses (Goldstein and Blackman, 1978). The emphasis is on style over content (Goldstein and Blackman, 1981); thus cognitive style is considered to be independent of level in abilities, skills or intelligence (Messick et al., 1976; McKenna, 1983; Kirton, 1978) or levels of cognitive complexity (Goldsmith. 1985b). Cognitive styles are noted as tending towards stability across time and situations (Goldstein and Blackman, 1978: Messick et al., 1976) and consequently remain largely unresponsive to specific training (Kagan and Kogan. 1970). This stability suggests cognitive style to be related to underlying personality traits (Goldstein and Blackman, 1978. 1981; Messick et al., 1976; McKenna, 1983), whereby a ‘personality space’ is suggested which links the concepts. This term may be thought of as describing the area of conceptual space in which the key bridging components linking cognitive style and personality are located. Early evidence of such a relationship emerged with the exposition of the authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson and Sanford, 1950), when intolerance of ambiguity, dogmatism and closed mindedness (Rokeach, 1960) were located in the ‘personality space’ linking the underlying trait of ambivalence with cognitive rigidity. Other major cognitive style theories also mention personality dimensions as part of their description, for example, cognitive complexity (Bieri, 1966) and field dependence (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough and Karp, 1962; McKenna, 1983). The adaption-innovation theory (Kirton, 1976) of cognitive style identifies a bipolar dimension on which the habitual adaptor and the habitual innovator are at the extreme ends. Use of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), the measure of the theory, has shown that an individual’s position alon g this dimension is stable and the distribution of a general population sample approximates the normal curve (Kirton, 1976). Adaption-innovation is a cognitive style manifesting in creativity, problem-solving and decisionmaking behaviour. Characteristically, adaptors when confronted with a problem turn to conventional procedures and consensus of the group to which they belong, and derive their ideas towards the solution of the problem from those established procedures (Kirton, 1976). This behaviour is seen as refining existing methods or, in Drucker’s (1969) terms, “doing things better”. Conversely innovators faced with a similar problem will characteristically attempt to restructure the problem by approaching it from a new angle, thus breaking the customary starting point for 141
Its solution: an approach i\hlch might be described as “doing things difrrentlq” (Druckzr. 1969). This stud) aims to explore the personality characteristics underlbln g adaption-inno\,ation and to dlscovcr Mhethsr there are links with the Lvhole personality. or onI> a specitic part. .\daption-innovation theory supplements the description of its underl>,iny personality dimensions by factor analysis of Its measure. the K.-II. This reveals this dimension of cognitive stqle to be a function of three underlying personality factor traits. named sufficienq of originality. efficiency of operation and rule’group conformity. The reliability and the consistenq of repeated factor anal~~ses support the notion that these underlying factors are stable personality traits (Kirton, 1976; Goldsmith. 195%~: Prato Previde and Massimini. 1985). Correlations bettveen KAI and personality tests measuring specific traits reveal expected significant relationships. For example the innovator is more estravert (Grqskieiricz. 1952; Kirton. 1977: Carne and Kirton. 1952), flexible (Kirton, 1976. Gryskiebvicz. 1952). tolerant of ambiguity (Kirton. 1976; Keller and Holland, 197S), risk-taking (Goldsmith. I9S1. 19SSc) and self-confident 1976; Goldsmith, 19S-L) and less conservative (Gryskiewicz, 1991). but less dogmatic (Kirton. (Kirton. 1977) than the adaptor. A fuller account is given elsewhere (Kirton. 19S-I). HoLvever. to identify the principal links of adaption-innovation to the \vhole personality. it is appropriate to investigate the construct lvith a system lvhich claims to cover the Lvhole range of personality. An established measure which purports to do just that is Cattell’s Sixteen Personalit) 1970). B) way of note. Cattell (1965) Factor Inventory (16PF: Cattell, Eber and Tatsouka, mentions that one or t\vo of his main personality factors. rather than the Lvhole personality. should be predicted from stylistic features. although he does not elaborate to which ones.
HYPOTHESES A reading of the manuals for the two instruments (Cattell rt rJ., 1970; Kirton, 1977) reveals some descriptive correspondences. some apparent correspondences, some contradictions and a remaining group of descriptions bearin, 0 little or no resemblance to one another. The resulting hypothesized relationships are set out in four groups (see Table I). The first group contains the l6PF factors related to which by nature of their descriptions are hypothesized to be strongly adaption-innovation (A-l). The second group. if A-1 personality descriptions are complete, will show some weaker directional correspondences. The third group are those factors for which A-I theory explicitly denies any relationship. The fourth group is exploratory, but if the A-1 descriptions are complete then no relationships should emerge. Using the hypotheses described, the l6PF higher-order factors may be allocated to the four groups according to their internal factor structures, Lvhich are supplemented by their descriptions (see Table 2). I
Table
Descr~prrrs
correspondences
bclwsr”
Group
E G
QI Q3
Humble (-) Asrrrtl\e (+) Expedienr (-) Co”xlr”tlous
Adaptor: I”“ovator:
Innovamr.
i+) ConscrvarlVr(&)
Adapror: Adaptor.
Innovators
Expcrmxntal
(+)
tindisciphnrd Controlled (f
(- 1
I”“ObLitOr:
)
Adaptor; Group
H xi
Shy (-I .Ad\s”turous Practical (-
(~1
Q~
Imdpl”aclo” (A ) Group Dependence Self-sufficient (+)
A
rntelllgent
l6PF
factors
Hyporhesized
as showmg
weakrr
lnnovaror (-1
Adaptor: I”“OV~lOr:
links apparent
1976)
direr-lronai
currrsp~nderr~rr
‘brrah, wl!h past accrpxd Ihrory‘. ‘challenges rule>‘ ‘conforming’: ‘concerned with rcsoi~~ng problsms rather than finding them’. ‘sound’. ‘rslubls‘ ‘unpracucai’; ‘thinkIng t.~“genMl~‘. ‘approaching (asks from unsuspecrsd angles’ ‘maintains group cohesmn‘: ‘compliant’: ‘reacts ICI cr,t!c~sm by closer outward conformlry’ ‘Insensirive LO people’: ‘thrrarsns group cohesion and co-operation us indeprndenr Group
No descrlptibe
(KI~uI.
rout~nc accuracy I” dewled uork’: ‘methodicsl’: ‘rfficisnt‘ past merhods’ for pasr cu,Lom’: ‘qucnrs assumpuons‘: ‘brmgs about
I”“O~~bJ~: ‘Inssnsitl~rto people’. Adapror-
desxprron?
rriareri
‘CaUtlOUI’
Group 3: H~porhesrxi
Explorarory:
and KAI lheore~ical
oc srrongi>,
‘CBUIIOUS ‘seen as abrasive ‘Impatient wth detail‘: ‘bored uiih ‘able to mamtai” a high degree of ‘conforming‘; ‘seek solutions wng ‘challenges rules, has little resprcr radical change’ ‘Undwaphned‘; ‘thanks mngentially’ ‘precise‘: .reliable’: ‘disciphned
2. Hypo/hrsr:ed
.Adaptor:
)
I
A, C. F. 1. L. iL:. 0. Q4
4
0.f ride
L. 0.
Q4
Group
1
E. F. H
Group
z
-C.
E. F. N
Group
2
-A,
I, 41 Group
I
Group
3’
T
-C.
H.
+.A.
Q3
-Q’
IV
c E. ,M. QI.
Subduedness
Q2
Indepsndcnt
-x. G x ‘Descnptively
E. H.
-‘h.
-?F.
this
contans unclear
f?B.
factor
21. M.
should
a mix of hypothesized as to what
thls
QI.
High/Low
?Q?
Crcatl~lty
-N be independent styls-related
higher-order
of style trn,ts
fActor
(Klrton.
1975):
And LLdouble
measure
actually
measures:
howetier
its factor
of~ntell~~rnce.
11s nomenclature
ma)
structure
Ir IS therefore bc mlsleadinp.
METHOD. The Ss companies, completed Pearson subscales)
in the study here reported consisted of 83 professional staff, aged 2540 yr, in two one a multinational oil company, the other a U.K.-based chemical company. Each Ss the KAI and the 16PF inventories whilst attending in-house assessment centres. product-moment correlations were computed between the KAI scores (Total plus three and the specified 16PF variables. RESULTS
The results are shown in Table 3. As expected, Hypothesis I is confirmed with strong significant correlations between all Group I factors and A-I. Hypothesis 2 yields few surprises. Factors H, M and Q2 reveal small correlations in the expected direction but of insuthcient magnitude for statistical significance. The Group 2 higher-order factors have lower correlations than expected, but nevertheless in the direction expected. Table
3. Pearson
product-moment
correlations
between
the
KAI KAI
and
l6PF
subscales
sufficiency Efiic~ency
“S
Proilferation of Orlglnallty
of Operation
0 16PF
Group
Qj flV 16PF H
Conforml~y R
E
I jiirrorv Humble:Assertivc
E
Rule,‘Group
0.22’
0.46’
Expedlrnt.Consclcnttous
-0.74’
-0.52’
Conservau\r tindwplmcd,
Experimenting Controlled
0.49* -007
-0
Subduedne,s
lndspendsncs
0 39’ 47’
0.32’ -0.35’
0 -II* - 0.44’
0.5?* -0
34’
0 60’ -0.35’
0.53’
0.30’
0 46.
0.55. 0.14
Croup2/aclors Shy.Advenlurous
0 I9
0 03
0.09
&I
Pracucal
0.17
0.04
0.18
Q?
0.19
Group
0.01
0 03
0.04
0.02
0.19
0.0s
0.11’
0.17
Im.$nau~r Dependent
+I1
lnrrovers~on
till 16PF B
Tender Gruup
16PF A
Group
Extraversion
Emotionally
Alert
3/acrors lntelllgencc
Pow
-0.1
Creativity
+x
Self-sufficienr
(High,
Low)
I
0.23’
-0.05 0.13
-0.08
0 00
-009
0 02
C
Easily
-002
- 0.08
0.03
F
I
Sober Happy-go-lucky Tou_eh Tender
0.09 0.04
0 00 - 0.0 I
-0.06
-0.10
0.28. -0.08 -0
01
0.06 -002
L
Trusting
N
Forthright,As~urc
-0.19
-0.16
-0.20
-0.12’
0
Self-assured
04
-0.15
-002
- 0.05
-0.1
Relaxed
;I
Low
‘Sipnlticdnt
at
tHilghsr-order
High
Suspxious
0.06 - 0.06
0.26’
0.29’
1 JU(.IWY Reserved Outgoing Upsst,Stablr
0.16
0.21’
Apprehenslvr
Tense Anxiety
P < 0.05 faclor
Ic\cI.
0.15
- 0.04
-0.15
0.05
-0.15
0.03
0. I3
0.00 -0.03
0.1
-0.05 -0.09
I I
The third goup jhouj Factor B (Intelligencs) to haLe no sizniticant correlation L\ith K.AI. ;tn expected result since intsili gence is a measure of Ielel Lihile X.41 measures cognitive st)le The higher-order Factor S (High Lo~v Creati\.it>) co:rei;ltej significantI> ~tlth .A ~1; something l$hich. ifit is a measure ofcreatiie lewl. it jhould not do. This L+III he dealt Liith ssparutel\ in the following section. Finall!. Hypothesis 3 is largeI> confirmed uith no significant correlations ‘ipart from one anomal>,. Factor X. which correlates sIgnificanti> wth the K.-i\1 Total score.
DISCUSSlON The underlying personality characteristics of adaptors and innovators revealed by the signiticant correlations of Group I factors show to some extent the bases for the cognitihc preferences described by A-I theory. Furthermore. the 16PF correlates can be jet’n to be more closei~. associated to one or another of the KAI factor traits. thereby pro\.iciin= 0 further et idcncc’ that these dimensions underlying cozniti\e style. factors are central in describin, 17the personality It is consistent with thr, underlying personalit} trait of humbleness or submiJjir.eness for the adaptor to have less ‘push’ behind his ideas and to compensate by producing ideas that are seen as acceptable and sound and therefore requirin g a lo\\ degree Of push or Violation of consensus on the part of their originator in order to be accepted. Convsrsei~~. the assertive trait allows the to stand alone most ‘way out’ ideas to be pushed towards acceptance by enablin, = the originator in the fax of group criticism. Lchich is manifest in the innovative preference. This characteristic has most in common Lvith Kirton’s first factor. Sufficiency \‘s Proliferation of Ori$nalit>,. and indeed correlates most highI). on this trait. The consewative trait describes a predisposition to stay Lvithin traditlon;ll boundaries. conforming to past customs. traditions and practices generally. The adaptor displays ;I similar bzhaviour in the specific context of creativity. problem-solvin, ~7and decision-making. This findin specific is consistent bvith the pervasiveness of the notion that cognitive sthles are non-context (illrhsick (‘f rrl.. 1976: Goldstein and Blackman, 197s: Kirton, I9S-l). Conwrsely, the esporimenting trait >tssocl>ited ivith the innovator manifests in his tojing Lvith ideas (Rogers. 1959) and producing thereby, breaking a proliferation of ideas many of which are original, bein g extra-paradigmatic, consensus (Kirton. 1976). This dimension can be seen to be most ctojel>’ associated with Kirton’s third factor. Rule/Group Conformity. and indeed correlates most highly \\ith this trait. The adaptor’s preference for a high degree of personal eficlzncy (Kirton. 1976) appears to bc supported by the underlying predisposition towards conscientiousness in paying attention to detail in a methodical and structured mode (Kirton. 1976). which is consistent \bith a high degree of control. The innovator’s lesser concern with zfliciency is in line \\ith his predisposition for expedience in trading off detail for an holistic perspective of the problem. Furthermore. his less disciplined personality predisposes him for less concern L\,ith efljciency, often a> a trade-OR‘ for long-term efi‘ectivsness. an important distinction in mana~emsnt (Rzddin. 1970). The higher-order Factor IV (Subdurdness;Independencr) correlated significantI> uith KAI and on examination of its factorial composition it can be seen that all of the Group I factors. except fxtor ma> predict cognitive stqlc. Factor Q3. are included. It is suggested that this higher-order thereby implving that Cattsll has included a crude measure of cogniti\c: stble in hlj t6PF. but :ij far as the authors are n\vars, he has not acknouled~sd this to be the case. The hypotheses for the Group Z factors \vere aljo largely confirmed. However, some gweral comments need to be made with rrsard to the higher-order factors. It might hat,s been expected that Factor II (Introwxsion Extraversion) would hale been more highI> correlated \\ith KAI Mhen attention is focused on Rosers’ (1959) description of the cw1tii.e loner (Kirton. 1976. 1977: Gryskiewicz, 1981). .A closer look at this higher-order factor re\eais that it includes Factor Q2 3s being group (Group Dependent Self-sufficient) scored negatibety. thus describing the estra\ert dependent. Clearly this is contradictor!, to Rogers’ ( 1959) description. It is suggested that this factor reduced the magnitude of the correlation obtained. If both propositions contain an element of truth. then new subtlet> must be introduced to explain “roup more than intro\xrts. Adaptor extroverts the apparent anomaly. Eytraverts may ‘need’ the =
Cognltl~e
st)ir and personahty
l-tj
(the smaller subset) may achieve accord by treating the group as a consensus referent. Innovator extraverts may try to relate by converting the group’s views to their own. Of the Group 3 factors the expected non-significant correlation emerged on Factor B (Intelligence), thus providing further evidence that KAI measures cognitive style, as distinct from cognitive level. (Kirton, 1977. 1978; Gryskiewicz, 1951; Flegg, 1983; Goldsmith, 1985b). A low but significant correlation was found with High, Low Creativity (Factor X). The components of this higher-order factor reveal that High,‘Low Creativity includes two of the Group 1 factors (Factor E and Factor Ql) which have now been shown to be measures of style as opposed to level of cognitive ability. This suggests that the creativity factor is contaminated by style-related dimensions. It also contains a double weighting of Intelligence, which has been noted above to be related to level of cognitive ability, thus reducing the correlation to this middling range (0.28). This finding launches criticism at this higher-order factor by showing it to be an impure measure of creativity, mixing level of creative ability with style or mode of creative operation. Finally, Group 4 factors yielded non-significant correlations as expected, confirming that the personality descriptions born out of the KAI factor analysis represent a largely complete picture of the ‘personality space’ bridging personality and cognitive style. However, one anomaly, Factor N (Forthright Artlessness/Astute) emerged, revealing a low but significant correlation. The description seems to be most reflective of how cognitive style extends to social and interpersonal functioning (Messick ef al., 1976; Witkin, 1978). A-I theory suggests that the adaptor takes more note of social conventions, formalities and cues in his interpersonal interactions, and in order to do this it is cognitively consistent to be socially alert to the demands of the social situation. The innovator, by contrast. is purported to be somewhat less concerned with such cues and social conventions. often read as social clumsiness. but now more accurately described as arising from the personality characteristics of forthrightness and unpretentiousness. On balance the findings are consistent with Cattell’s (1965) view that one or two of his main personality factors, rather than the whole personality, can be predicted from stylistic features. Furthermore, it is now clear that only a portion of the whole personality is important in determining the cognitive style preferences described by A-I theory, and directions for further work in exploring specific personality dimensions have now been clarified. It is worth mentioning that the KAI is a comparatively new test whereas the 16PF is considered to be a widely established test. It must be noted that some of the internal reliabilities of the 16PF are low and the test has often been criticized on this basis (Jessup and Jessup, 1975). It is felt that as well as sharpening the -personality space’ between the whole personality and cognitive style, some new light has been cast on the 16PF, in which case the KAI and the 16PF may be seen to be mutually supportive. ~c~tlo~~lecll~en,enls-Thanks are due to Roger
REFERENCES Adorn0 T. W.. Frenkel-Brunsu-ick E.. Letinson P. J. and Sanford R. S. (1950) Tire rlurhorirarion Personalir~. Harper & Row. New York Bteri J. (1966) Clinical crttri Sociul Jud,yenrm~: rhe Discrm~rmr~on o/‘Behariourai Informnrum. Wiley, New York. Carne G. C. and Kirton hl. J. (1982) Styles of creatiwty: test score correlations between the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. PsychoI. Rep. 50, 31-36. Cattell R. B. (1965) The Srienrific rlno/~~si.v o/’ Persomltr~. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Middx. Cattrll R. B.. Eber H. U’. and Tatsouka Xl. M. (1970) Handbook for ~hc .Si.rreen Per.ronality Facror Quesrlonnaire 16PF. IPAT. Champaign, III. Drucker P. F. (1969) Management’s new role Hurt. Bus. Rev. 47, 49-54. Flegg D. (1953) Debeloping a test battery for engineering apprentices. Unpublished Consultancy Report, Industrial Training Research Unit. Cambridge. Cambs. Goldsmith R. E. (1981) Personalilty charactersitics: association with adaption-innovation. J. Psxchol. 117, 159-165. Goldsmith R. E. (1985,) A factorial composition of the KAI Inventory. Educ. psychol. Measur. In press. Goldsmith R. E. (198jb) Adaption-innovation and levels of cognitive complexity. Unpublished Working Paper, College or Business. State Univ. of Florida. Gainsvtlle. Fla. Goldsmith R. E. (198%) Personality and adapubs-tnnovattke problem solving. Unpublished Working Paper. College of Business. State Uni\. of Florida. Gainesville. Fla. Goldstsin K. tvl. and Blackman S (1978) Cognriii-e Style: Fre .Approuche.s and Relecanr Research. Wiley, New York.
Goldstein K ht. dnd BlackmAn S. f 19~31) Cognitive jt>Iej. In Prrr~~~~~~/l/\ 7:wvi .Ilw.i;r the Occupa~u~nol Ps~cholo,q_~: C‘ont: 01. rhe Brlruh P~~choio~rwl SIJCW~~. Susex Cnl’. Fdlmsr. BrIghton. Jessup G. and Jcssup H. (1975) Szirciwn tiinii .Assessnwnr u( ifibrk. blethuen. London. Kagan 1. and Kogan S. (19-O) Indi\tdual bariatlon III cogn~t~~c procasa In Curn~i~~i!tir!‘i .Ifunutii ~;iCiiAi P.vjc/wia~~. Vol. I (EdIted by Xlussen P. H.,. Wile>. Sru York. Keller R. T. and Holland W. E. I 1978) A cross-validation stud! of the Klrron .Adaptton-lnnovatton Inventory in three research and development organizations. .-lppl. p.s,rchoi. .I/~osur 2, 563-5’0. Ktrton 41. J. (1976) ,Adaptors and innovators: B description and measure. J. u/~pl. P.~whu/. 61, 627-629. Kirton hl. J. ( 1977) .Llnnrru/ ofrhr Kurorr .-l~~upi~orl~/nno~cltion Inrmiorr~. S~~lt~on~li Found.~t~on for Educational Research. London. Kirton M. J. (1978) Hare adaptors and Innovators equal Iecc‘ls of creatl\lt) I Ps~ciroi. R,zp 12. 695-698. Kirton hi. J. (1984) Adaptors and innotators: copnltl>e style and personality. Inblted paper for Crt~iwr Prohlcn~ Sdrur~ Instiiitr~
3Orh .-I. C’onJ:
h4cKenna F. P. (198.3) Field dependence and personAt): ;1 re-eunminatlon. 5’~ Brhacc Prrson. Il. 51-55. hlessick S CI rri. (1976) /ndiriduai~i,t~ in Lrurnb~g. Jossey-Bass. London. Prato Previde G. and Majsimini F. (1985) Adattorl -Innovntori: una teoru d? una mlsura della cratl~lt~ rwile. RIG PVKO/. In prrss. Reddin W. J. (1970) .\fnn~zgerin! Ejrctiwww LlcGraw-Hill, London. Rogers C. R. (1959) Touards a theory of creati\lty. In Creclricl~~ irnrl l/r L‘uii~t.ntion [EdIted b> i-\nderwn H. H.). Harper. New York. Rokeach hl. (1960) 711e Open unrl C/owl/ .\(vu/. Basic Books. New York Witkjn H. ,A. (1978) CO,~I/;N* Stogie in Prrsomi und Cuiiurol .-ldrrprarion; Vol. Xi. Hrin: I~>rm’r Lt~‘lwc~ .%rrc.s. Clark. Univ. Press. Worcester. Mass. Witkin H. ,A.. Dyk R. B.. Faterson H. F , Goodenough D R. and Kwp S. A. (1962) P.~~tdo~~~ul D~[f>rerrtiutim. Wiley, New York.
J. KIRTON
Research
and STEVEN
M. DE CTAXTIS
Centre. The Hatfield Polytechnic. Herts. AL10 9AB. England
College
Lane.
Hatfield,
Summary-Considerable work hds now been generated on the testing of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), much of Lthich has the erect of rclatmg this measure to other personality measures. The Cattell Sixteen Personality Factor Inventory (16PF) is one of the major measures of personality which purports to co\er the whole personality domatn. The KAI is now related to it with the alms of locating cognitive style tn the personality domatn and testing for the completeness of its description. The nature of the personality characteristtcs underlying cognitive style are sharpened. and some revelations derived as to ho& these preferred styles &tre consistent with underlying personality traits.
INTRODUCTION
Cognitive style has been defined as “consistent individual differences in preferred ways of I essick er ul., 1976) and as such provides a hypothetical mediator organising information” (M between stimuli and responses (Goldstein and Blackman, 1978). The emphasis is on style over content (Goldstein and Blackman, 1981); thus cognitive style is considered to be independent of level in abilities, skills or intelligence (Messick et al., 1976; McKenna, 1983; Kirton, 1978) or levels of cognitive complexity (Goldsmith. 1985b). Cognitive styles are noted as tending towards stability across time and situations (Goldstein and Blackman, 1978: Messick et al., 1976) and consequently remain largely unresponsive to specific training (Kagan and Kogan. 1970). This stability suggests cognitive style to be related to underlying personality traits (Goldstein and Blackman, 1978. 1981; Messick et al., 1976; McKenna, 1983), whereby a ‘personality space’ is suggested which links the concepts. This term may be thought of as describing the area of conceptual space in which the key bridging components linking cognitive style and personality are located. Early evidence of such a relationship emerged with the exposition of the authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson and Sanford, 1950), when intolerance of ambiguity, dogmatism and closed mindedness (Rokeach, 1960) were located in the ‘personality space’ linking the underlying trait of ambivalence with cognitive rigidity. Other major cognitive style theories also mention personality dimensions as part of their description, for example, cognitive complexity (Bieri, 1966) and field dependence (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough and Karp, 1962; McKenna, 1983). The adaption-innovation theory (Kirton, 1976) of cognitive style identifies a bipolar dimension on which the habitual adaptor and the habitual innovator are at the extreme ends. Use of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), the measure of the theory, has shown that an individual’s position alon g this dimension is stable and the distribution of a general population sample approximates the normal curve (Kirton, 1976). Adaption-innovation is a cognitive style manifesting in creativity, problem-solving and decisionmaking behaviour. Characteristically, adaptors when confronted with a problem turn to conventional procedures and consensus of the group to which they belong, and derive their ideas towards the solution of the problem from those established procedures (Kirton, 1976). This behaviour is seen as refining existing methods or, in Drucker’s (1969) terms, “doing things better”. Conversely innovators faced with a similar problem will characteristically attempt to restructure the problem by approaching it from a new angle, thus breaking the customary starting point for 141
Its solution: an approach i\hlch might be described as “doing things difrrentlq” (Druckzr. 1969). This stud) aims to explore the personality characteristics underlbln g adaption-inno\,ation and to dlscovcr Mhethsr there are links with the Lvhole personality. or onI> a specitic part. .\daption-innovation theory supplements the description of its underl>,iny personality dimensions by factor analysis of Its measure. the K.-II. This reveals this dimension of cognitive stqle to be a function of three underlying personality factor traits. named sufficienq of originality. efficiency of operation and rule’group conformity. The reliability and the consistenq of repeated factor anal~~ses support the notion that these underlying factors are stable personality traits (Kirton, 1976; Goldsmith. 195%~: Prato Previde and Massimini. 1985). Correlations bettveen KAI and personality tests measuring specific traits reveal expected significant relationships. For example the innovator is more estravert (Grqskieiricz. 1952; Kirton. 1977: Carne and Kirton. 1952), flexible (Kirton, 1976. Gryskiebvicz. 1952). tolerant of ambiguity (Kirton. 1976; Keller and Holland, 197S), risk-taking (Goldsmith. I9S1. 19SSc) and self-confident 1976; Goldsmith, 19S-L) and less conservative (Gryskiewicz, 1991). but less dogmatic (Kirton. (Kirton. 1977) than the adaptor. A fuller account is given elsewhere (Kirton. 19S-I). HoLvever. to identify the principal links of adaption-innovation to the \vhole personality. it is appropriate to investigate the construct lvith a system lvhich claims to cover the Lvhole range of personality. An established measure which purports to do just that is Cattell’s Sixteen Personalit) 1970). B) way of note. Cattell (1965) Factor Inventory (16PF: Cattell, Eber and Tatsouka, mentions that one or t\vo of his main personality factors. rather than the Lvhole personality. should be predicted from stylistic features. although he does not elaborate to which ones.
HYPOTHESES A reading of the manuals for the two instruments (Cattell rt rJ., 1970; Kirton, 1977) reveals some descriptive correspondences. some apparent correspondences, some contradictions and a remaining group of descriptions bearin, 0 little or no resemblance to one another. The resulting hypothesized relationships are set out in four groups (see Table I). The first group contains the l6PF factors related to which by nature of their descriptions are hypothesized to be strongly adaption-innovation (A-l). The second group. if A-1 personality descriptions are complete, will show some weaker directional correspondences. The third group are those factors for which A-I theory explicitly denies any relationship. The fourth group is exploratory, but if the A-1 descriptions are complete then no relationships should emerge. Using the hypotheses described, the l6PF higher-order factors may be allocated to the four groups according to their internal factor structures, Lvhich are supplemented by their descriptions (see Table 2). I
Table
Descr~prrrs
correspondences
bclwsr”
Group
E G
QI Q3
Humble (-) Asrrrtl\e (+) Expedienr (-) Co”xlr”tlous
Adaptor: I”“ovator:
Innovamr.
i+) ConscrvarlVr(&)
Adapror: Adaptor.
Innovators
Expcrmxntal
(+)
tindisciphnrd Controlled (f
(- 1
I”“ObLitOr:
)
Adaptor; Group
H xi
Shy (-I .Ad\s”turous Practical (-
(~1
Q~
Imdpl”aclo” (A ) Group Dependence Self-sufficient (+)
A
rntelllgent
l6PF
factors
Hyporhesized
as showmg
weakrr
lnnovaror (-1
Adaptor: I”“OV~lOr:
links apparent
1976)
direr-lronai
currrsp~nderr~rr
‘brrah, wl!h past accrpxd Ihrory‘. ‘challenges rule>‘ ‘conforming’: ‘concerned with rcsoi~~ng problsms rather than finding them’. ‘sound’. ‘rslubls‘ ‘unpracucai’; ‘thinkIng t.~“genMl~‘. ‘approaching (asks from unsuspecrsd angles’ ‘maintains group cohesmn‘: ‘compliant’: ‘reacts ICI cr,t!c~sm by closer outward conformlry’ ‘Insensirive LO people’: ‘thrrarsns group cohesion and co-operation us indeprndenr Group
No descrlptibe
(KI~uI.
rout~nc accuracy I” dewled uork’: ‘methodicsl’: ‘rfficisnt‘ past merhods’ for pasr cu,Lom’: ‘qucnrs assumpuons‘: ‘brmgs about
I”“O~~bJ~: ‘Inssnsitl~rto people’. Adapror-
desxprron?
rriareri
‘CaUtlOUI’
Group 3: H~porhesrxi
Explorarory:
and KAI lheore~ical
oc srrongi>,
‘CBUIIOUS ‘seen as abrasive ‘Impatient wth detail‘: ‘bored uiih ‘able to mamtai” a high degree of ‘conforming‘; ‘seek solutions wng ‘challenges rules, has little resprcr radical change’ ‘Undwaphned‘; ‘thanks mngentially’ ‘precise‘: .reliable’: ‘disciphned
2. Hypo/hrsr:ed
.Adaptor:
)
I
A, C. F. 1. L. iL:. 0. Q4
4
0.f ride
L. 0.
Q4
Group
1
E. F. H
Group
z
-C.
E. F. N
Group
2
-A,
I, 41 Group
I
Group
3’
T
-C.
H.
+.A.
Q3
-Q’
IV
c E. ,M. QI.
Subduedness
Q2
Indepsndcnt
-x. G x ‘Descnptively
E. H.
-‘h.
-?F.
this
contans unclear
f?B.
factor
21. M.
should
a mix of hypothesized as to what
thls
QI.
High/Low
?Q?
Crcatl~lty
-N be independent styls-related
higher-order
of style trn,ts
fActor
(Klrton.
1975):
And LLdouble
measure
actually
measures:
howetier
its factor
of~ntell~~rnce.
11s nomenclature
ma)
structure
Ir IS therefore bc mlsleadinp.
METHOD. The Ss companies, completed Pearson subscales)
in the study here reported consisted of 83 professional staff, aged 2540 yr, in two one a multinational oil company, the other a U.K.-based chemical company. Each Ss the KAI and the 16PF inventories whilst attending in-house assessment centres. product-moment correlations were computed between the KAI scores (Total plus three and the specified 16PF variables. RESULTS
The results are shown in Table 3. As expected, Hypothesis I is confirmed with strong significant correlations between all Group I factors and A-I. Hypothesis 2 yields few surprises. Factors H, M and Q2 reveal small correlations in the expected direction but of insuthcient magnitude for statistical significance. The Group 2 higher-order factors have lower correlations than expected, but nevertheless in the direction expected. Table
3. Pearson
product-moment
correlations
between
the
KAI KAI
and
l6PF
subscales
sufficiency Efiic~ency
“S
Proilferation of Orlglnallty
of Operation
0 16PF
Group
Qj flV 16PF H
Conforml~y R
E
I jiirrorv Humble:Assertivc
E
Rule,‘Group
0.22’
0.46’
Expedlrnt.Consclcnttous
-0.74’
-0.52’
Conservau\r tindwplmcd,
Experimenting Controlled
0.49* -007
-0
Subduedne,s
lndspendsncs
0 39’ 47’
0.32’ -0.35’
0 -II* - 0.44’
0.5?* -0
34’
0 60’ -0.35’
0.53’
0.30’
0 46.
0.55. 0.14
Croup2/aclors Shy.Advenlurous
0 I9
0 03
0.09
&I
Pracucal
0.17
0.04
0.18
Q?
0.19
Group
0.01
0 03
0.04
0.02
0.19
0.0s
0.11’
0.17
Im.$nau~r Dependent
+I1
lnrrovers~on
till 16PF B
Tender Gruup
16PF A
Group
Extraversion
Emotionally
Alert
3/acrors lntelllgencc
Pow
-0.1
Creativity
+x
Self-sufficienr
(High,
Low)
I
0.23’
-0.05 0.13
-0.08
0 00
-009
0 02
C
Easily
-002
- 0.08
0.03
F
I
Sober Happy-go-lucky Tou_eh Tender
0.09 0.04
0 00 - 0.0 I
-0.06
-0.10
0.28. -0.08 -0
01
0.06 -002
L
Trusting
N
Forthright,As~urc
-0.19
-0.16
-0.20
-0.12’
0
Self-assured
04
-0.15
-002
- 0.05
-0.1
Relaxed
;I
Low
‘Sipnlticdnt
at
tHilghsr-order
High
Suspxious
0.06 - 0.06
0.26’
0.29’
1 JU(.IWY Reserved Outgoing Upsst,Stablr
0.16
0.21’
Apprehenslvr
Tense Anxiety
P < 0.05 faclor
Ic\cI.
0.15
- 0.04
-0.15
0.05
-0.15
0.03
0. I3
0.00 -0.03
0.1
-0.05 -0.09
I I
The third goup jhouj Factor B (Intelligencs) to haLe no sizniticant correlation L\ith K.AI. ;tn expected result since intsili gence is a measure of Ielel Lihile X.41 measures cognitive st)le The higher-order Factor S (High Lo~v Creati\.it>) co:rei;ltej significantI> ~tlth .A ~1; something l$hich. ifit is a measure ofcreatiie lewl. it jhould not do. This L+III he dealt Liith ssparutel\ in the following section. Finall!. Hypothesis 3 is largeI> confirmed uith no significant correlations ‘ipart from one anomal>,. Factor X. which correlates sIgnificanti> wth the K.-i\1 Total score.
DISCUSSlON The underlying personality characteristics of adaptors and innovators revealed by the signiticant correlations of Group I factors show to some extent the bases for the cognitihc preferences described by A-I theory. Furthermore. the 16PF correlates can be jet’n to be more closei~. associated to one or another of the KAI factor traits. thereby pro\.iciin= 0 further et idcncc’ that these dimensions underlying cozniti\e style. factors are central in describin, 17the personality It is consistent with thr, underlying personalit} trait of humbleness or submiJjir.eness for the adaptor to have less ‘push’ behind his ideas and to compensate by producing ideas that are seen as acceptable and sound and therefore requirin g a lo\\ degree Of push or Violation of consensus on the part of their originator in order to be accepted. Convsrsei~~. the assertive trait allows the to stand alone most ‘way out’ ideas to be pushed towards acceptance by enablin, = the originator in the fax of group criticism. Lchich is manifest in the innovative preference. This characteristic has most in common Lvith Kirton’s first factor. Sufficiency \‘s Proliferation of Ori$nalit>,. and indeed correlates most highI). on this trait. The consewative trait describes a predisposition to stay Lvithin traditlon;ll boundaries. conforming to past customs. traditions and practices generally. The adaptor displays ;I similar bzhaviour in the specific context of creativity. problem-solvin, ~7and decision-making. This findin specific is consistent bvith the pervasiveness of the notion that cognitive sthles are non-context (illrhsick (‘f rrl.. 1976: Goldstein and Blackman, 197s: Kirton, I9S-l). Conwrsely, the esporimenting trait >tssocl>ited ivith the innovator manifests in his tojing Lvith ideas (Rogers. 1959) and producing thereby, breaking a proliferation of ideas many of which are original, bein g extra-paradigmatic, consensus (Kirton. 1976). This dimension can be seen to be most ctojel>’ associated with Kirton’s third factor. Rule/Group Conformity. and indeed correlates most highly \\ith this trait. The adaptor’s preference for a high degree of personal eficlzncy (Kirton. 1976) appears to bc supported by the underlying predisposition towards conscientiousness in paying attention to detail in a methodical and structured mode (Kirton. 1976). which is consistent \bith a high degree of control. The innovator’s lesser concern with zfliciency is in line \\ith his predisposition for expedience in trading off detail for an holistic perspective of the problem. Furthermore. his less disciplined personality predisposes him for less concern L\,ith efljciency, often a> a trade-OR‘ for long-term efi‘ectivsness. an important distinction in mana~emsnt (Rzddin. 1970). The higher-order Factor IV (Subdurdness;Independencr) correlated significantI> uith KAI and on examination of its factorial composition it can be seen that all of the Group I factors. except fxtor ma> predict cognitive stqlc. Factor Q3. are included. It is suggested that this higher-order thereby implving that Cattsll has included a crude measure of cogniti\c: stble in hlj t6PF. but :ij far as the authors are n\vars, he has not acknouled~sd this to be the case. The hypotheses for the Group Z factors \vere aljo largely confirmed. However, some gweral comments need to be made with rrsard to the higher-order factors. It might hat,s been expected that Factor II (Introwxsion Extraversion) would hale been more highI> correlated \\ith KAI Mhen attention is focused on Rosers’ (1959) description of the cw1tii.e loner (Kirton. 1976. 1977: Gryskiewicz, 1981). .A closer look at this higher-order factor re\eais that it includes Factor Q2 3s being group (Group Dependent Self-sufficient) scored negatibety. thus describing the estra\ert dependent. Clearly this is contradictor!, to Rogers’ ( 1959) description. It is suggested that this factor reduced the magnitude of the correlation obtained. If both propositions contain an element of truth. then new subtlet> must be introduced to explain “roup more than intro\xrts. Adaptor extroverts the apparent anomaly. Eytraverts may ‘need’ the =
Cognltl~e
st)ir and personahty
l-tj
(the smaller subset) may achieve accord by treating the group as a consensus referent. Innovator extraverts may try to relate by converting the group’s views to their own. Of the Group 3 factors the expected non-significant correlation emerged on Factor B (Intelligence), thus providing further evidence that KAI measures cognitive style, as distinct from cognitive level. (Kirton, 1977. 1978; Gryskiewicz, 1951; Flegg, 1983; Goldsmith, 1985b). A low but significant correlation was found with High, Low Creativity (Factor X). The components of this higher-order factor reveal that High,‘Low Creativity includes two of the Group 1 factors (Factor E and Factor Ql) which have now been shown to be measures of style as opposed to level of cognitive ability. This suggests that the creativity factor is contaminated by style-related dimensions. It also contains a double weighting of Intelligence, which has been noted above to be related to level of cognitive ability, thus reducing the correlation to this middling range (0.28). This finding launches criticism at this higher-order factor by showing it to be an impure measure of creativity, mixing level of creative ability with style or mode of creative operation. Finally, Group 4 factors yielded non-significant correlations as expected, confirming that the personality descriptions born out of the KAI factor analysis represent a largely complete picture of the ‘personality space’ bridging personality and cognitive style. However, one anomaly, Factor N (Forthright Artlessness/Astute) emerged, revealing a low but significant correlation. The description seems to be most reflective of how cognitive style extends to social and interpersonal functioning (Messick ef al., 1976; Witkin, 1978). A-I theory suggests that the adaptor takes more note of social conventions, formalities and cues in his interpersonal interactions, and in order to do this it is cognitively consistent to be socially alert to the demands of the social situation. The innovator, by contrast. is purported to be somewhat less concerned with such cues and social conventions. often read as social clumsiness. but now more accurately described as arising from the personality characteristics of forthrightness and unpretentiousness. On balance the findings are consistent with Cattell’s (1965) view that one or two of his main personality factors, rather than the whole personality, can be predicted from stylistic features. Furthermore, it is now clear that only a portion of the whole personality is important in determining the cognitive style preferences described by A-I theory, and directions for further work in exploring specific personality dimensions have now been clarified. It is worth mentioning that the KAI is a comparatively new test whereas the 16PF is considered to be a widely established test. It must be noted that some of the internal reliabilities of the 16PF are low and the test has often been criticized on this basis (Jessup and Jessup, 1975). It is felt that as well as sharpening the -personality space’ between the whole personality and cognitive style, some new light has been cast on the 16PF, in which case the KAI and the 16PF may be seen to be mutually supportive. ~c~tlo~~lecll~en,enls-Thanks are due to Roger
REFERENCES Adorn0 T. W.. Frenkel-Brunsu-ick E.. Letinson P. J. and Sanford R. S. (1950) Tire rlurhorirarion Personalir~. Harper & Row. New York Bteri J. (1966) Clinical crttri Sociul Jud,yenrm~: rhe Discrm~rmr~on o/‘Behariourai Informnrum. Wiley, New York. Carne G. C. and Kirton hl. J. (1982) Styles of creatiwty: test score correlations between the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. PsychoI. Rep. 50, 31-36. Cattell R. B. (1965) The Srienrific rlno/~~si.v o/’ Persomltr~. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Middx. Cattrll R. B.. Eber H. U’. and Tatsouka Xl. M. (1970) Handbook for ~hc .Si.rreen Per.ronality Facror Quesrlonnaire 16PF. IPAT. Champaign, III. Drucker P. F. (1969) Management’s new role Hurt. Bus. Rev. 47, 49-54. Flegg D. (1953) Debeloping a test battery for engineering apprentices. Unpublished Consultancy Report, Industrial Training Research Unit. Cambridge. Cambs. Goldsmith R. E. (1981) Personalilty charactersitics: association with adaption-innovation. J. Psxchol. 117, 159-165. Goldsmith R. E. (1985,) A factorial composition of the KAI Inventory. Educ. psychol. Measur. In press. Goldsmith R. E. (198jb) Adaption-innovation and levels of cognitive complexity. Unpublished Working Paper, College or Business. State Univ. of Florida. Gainsvtlle. Fla. Goldsmith R. E. (198%) Personality and adapubs-tnnovattke problem solving. Unpublished Working Paper. College of Business. State Uni\. of Florida. Gainesville. Fla. Goldstsin K. tvl. and Blackman S (1978) Cognriii-e Style: Fre .Approuche.s and Relecanr Research. Wiley, New York.
Goldstein K ht. dnd BlackmAn S. f 19~31) Cognitive jt>Iej. In Prrr~~~~~~/l/\ 7:wvi .Ilw.i;
3Orh .-I. C’onJ:
h4cKenna F. P. (198.3) Field dependence and personAt): ;1 re-eunminatlon. 5’~ Brhacc Prrson. Il. 51-55. hlessick S CI rri. (1976) /ndiriduai~i,t~ in Lrurnb~g. Jossey-Bass. London. Prato Previde G. and Majsimini F. (1985) Adattorl -Innovntori: una teoru d? una mlsura della cratl~lt~ rwile. RIG PVKO/. In prrss. Reddin W. J. (1970) .\fnn~zgerin! Ejrctiwww LlcGraw-Hill, London. Rogers C. R. (1959) Touards a theory of creati\lty. In Creclricl~~ irnrl l/r L‘uii~t.ntion [EdIted b> i-\nderwn H. H.). Harper. New York. Rokeach hl. (1960) 711e Open unrl C/owl/ .\(vu/. Basic Books. New York Witkjn H. ,A. (1978) CO,~I/;N* Stogie in Prrsomi und Cuiiurol .-ldrrprarion; Vol. Xi. Hrin: I~>rm’r Lt~‘lwc~ .%rrc.s. Clark. Univ. Press. Worcester. Mass. Witkin H. ,A.. Dyk R. B.. Faterson H. F , Goodenough D R. and Kwp S. A. (1962) P.~~tdo~~~ul D~[f>rerrtiutim. Wiley, New York.