Skinner, et al. interpreted as significant the difference between means for Canadian men and women on Kirton's inventory and those for British and American samples. The means were similar to prior values. Skinner, et al.'s groups were large and composed of very unequal numbers of men and women, which factors could account for their interpretation. As reported, their analysis is insufficient to interpret very small mean variations as differences in national character.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BertonP. (1982) Why we act like Canadians. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
2.
KirtonM. J. (2000) Adaptors and innovators. (Rev. ed.) London: Routledge.
3.
PrevidePrato G. (1991) Italian adaptors and innovators: Is cognitive style underlying culture?Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1–10.
4.
SkinnerN. F.HutchinsonL.LukendaA.DrakeG.BoucherJ. (2003) National personality characteristics: II. Adaption-Innovation in Canadian, American, and British samples. Psychological Reports, 92, 21–22.
5.
TullettA. (1997) Cognitive style: Not culture's consequence. European Psychologist, 2, 258–267.
6.
TullettA. D.KirtonM. J. (1995) Further evidence for the independence of Adaptive-Innovative (A-I) cognitive style from national culture. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 393–396.
