Kirton's A–I theory
Evidence bearing on the style/level and factor composition issues
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9620485 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Samuel Mudd (Gettysburg College, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1996 |
| Volume | 87 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 241-254 |
| Publication date | 1996-05-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | British Journal of Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0007-1269 • E-ISSN: 2044-8295 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1996.tb02588.x |
| OpenAlex | W1997373860 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
Two central issues concerning M. J. Kirton's adaption–innovation (A–I) theory, the style vs. level issue and the issue of factor number, are reviewed in terms of existing empirical research. Direct tests of those two issues as they apply to A–I theory indicate that Kirton's position holds. Although the directly applicable evidence is not extensive, that which is available supports Kirton's distinction between style and level of creativity and a simple three‐factor structure underlying the hypothesized AI continuum. These two findings support the conceptualization of creativity as a non‐homogeneous, differentiated set of psychological processes
Cognitive psychology · Cognitive science · Conceptualization · Creativity · Epistemology · Homogeneous · Set (abstract data type) · Style (visual arts) · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Creativity in Education and Neuroscience · Mathematics · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Citations per year | 0.17 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2003 - 2017 (15) |
| Highly cited | No |