398 graduate and undergraduate students from the USA, Japan, and Hong Kong were administered Kirton's 1976 Adaption-Innovation Inventory of decision style. Factor analysis yielded different factor solutions for each of the three groups. Differences in factor structures suggest that adaption and innovation may be interpreted differently across cultures, with implications for group performance in cross-cultural settings. When used in cross-cultural research, Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory scores should be assessed not only in terms of between-group differences in mean scores but also in terms of differences in underlying factor structures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BagozziR.FoxallG. R. (1995) Construct validity and generalizability of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. European Journal of Personality, 9, 185–206.
2.
BeeneJ.ZelhartP. (1986) Factor analysis of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Working paper, Department of Psychology, East Texas State Univer.
3.
DeCiantisS. (1987) The relationship between leadership style, cognitive style and learning style: an exposition of management style dimensions. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Univer. of Hertfordshire, UK.
4.
DollingerM.DanisW. (1998) Preferred decision-making styles: a cross cultural comparison. Psychological Reports, 82, 755–761.
5.
EttlieJ.O'KeefeR. (1982) Innovative attitudes, values and intentions in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 163–182.
6.
FoxallG. R. (1990) An empirical analysis of mid-career managers' adaptive-innovative cognitive styles and task orientations in three countries. Psychological Reports, 66, 1115–1124.
7.
FoxallG. R.HackettP. M. W. (1992) The factor structure and construct validity of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 967–975.
8.
FoxallG. R.HackettP. M. W. (1994) Styles of managerial creativity: a comparison of Adaption-Innovation in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States. British Journal of Management, 5, 85–100.
9.
GoldsmithR. (1985) A factorial composition of the KAI inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 245–250.
HammondS. (1986) Some pitfalls in the use of factor scores: the case of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 401–407.
12.
HofestedeG. (1997) Cultures and organizations, software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
KellerR. (1986) Predictors of project group performance in research and development organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 715–726.
14.
KirtonM. J. (1976) Adaptors and innovators: a description and measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629.
15.
KirtonM. J. (1994a) A theory of cognitive style. In KirtonM. (Ed.), Adaptors and innovators: styles of creativity and problem solving. (Rev. ed.) London: Routeledge. Pp. 1–33.
16.
KirtonM. J. (1994b) A theory of cognitive style. In KirtonM. (Ed.), Adaptors and innovators: styles of creativity and problem solving. (Rev. ed.) London: Routeledge. Pp. 51–71.
17.
McCarthyR. (1993) The relationship of individual characteristics of women managers to the pressures experienced at work and choice of coping strategy. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Univer. of Hertfordshire, UK.
18.
MulliganG.MartinW. (1980) Adaptors, innovators and the KAI. Psychological Reports, 46, 883–892.
19.
PratoPrevide G. (1984) Adattotori ed Innovatori: i risultati della standardizazione italiana del KAI. Ricerche di Psichologia, 4, 81–134. (Validated Italian translation of KAI)
