Journal of Applied Psychology

1976, Vol. 61, No. 5, 622-629

Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure

Michael Kirton
The Haifield Polytechnic, St. Albans, England
Following the observation that people characteristically produce qualitatively
different solutions to seemingly similar problems, an inventory distinguishing
adaptors from innovators was constructed. Items to distinguish the proposed
types were derived from observation, intensive interviews, and relevant liter-
ature. The construct and internal validity and the reliability of the inventory
were established, using a heterogeneous sample of 532 subjects and a replica-
tion sample of 276 subjects. Additional descriptions of innovators (made by
adaptors) and of adaptors (made by innovators) were obtained. The descrip-
tions that met with objections from those so described were explored and, for
the most part, found invalid.

Drucker (1969) has argued that the aim of
large commercial and industrial organizations
has been the efficient accomplishment of
known and denned tasks in set and approved
ways. Fie concluded that to meet this aim,
bureaucrats and managers were sought who,
when confronted by problems, had "the abil-
ity to do better rather than the courage to do
differently" (p. SO). It is consistent with this
thesis to assume that the more the structure
surrounding a problem is incorporated within
and treated as part of the problem, the more
any solution is likely to be radical and inno-
vative (i.e., "doing things differently"). The
less the structure is challenged, the more any
solution is likely to be adaptive (i.e., "doing
things better").
The contention of this paper is that every-
one can be located on a continuum ranging
from an ability to "do things better" to an
ability to "do things differently," and the ends
of this continuum are labeled adaptive and
innovative, respectively. It is further con-
tended that adaption-innovation is a basic
dimension of personality relevant to the anal-
ysis of organizational change, in that some
The work was supported by a grant from the
Social Science Research Council (London). Thanks
are due to D. G. Mulligan of La Trobe University
for his help on an earlier draft, to W. Martin of
Wellington for the test-retest results, and to Jennifer
Taylor for her editorial assistance.
Requests for reprints should be sent to M. J.
Kirton, The Hatfleld Polytechnic, Birklands Annexe,
London Road, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, England.
622
people characteristically adapt while some
characteristically innovate. If there are people
in organizations who can be characterized as
adaptors and innovators, and if those charac-
teristics can be measured, then it would be
useful to explore empirically the interplay
between adaptors and innovators in their vari-
ous organizational settings. For example, it is
assumed that adaptors and innovators bring
incommensurable viewpoints and different so-
lutions to administrative and organizational
problems. Such knowledge might allow better
mutual appreciation and consequent coopera-
tion between those with different, potentially
equally valuable, modes of problem perception
and problem solving.
The observation that people characteris-
tically either adapt or innovate led to a further
exploration of the sort of behavior that might
be related to these two cognitive styles. De-
scriptions of such behavior within each style
are listed in Table 1.
Observation suggested that the differing be-
havioral characteristics of adaptors and inno-
vators could be linked to the following exist-
ing notions: (a) Because those who "do
things better" support existing paradigms
within which problems can be perceived and
conversely, those who "do things differently"
can threaten these paradigms, Kuhn's (1970)
analysis of scientific progress is relevant, (b)
Because adaptive man works within cognitive
systems, he is also at home in bureaucratic
ones, and the descriptions of the needs of a
bureaucracy in behavioral terms are also rele-
 ADAPTORS AND INNOVATORS
TABLE 1
BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTIONS Of ADAPTORS AND INNOVATORS
Adaptor
Characterized by precision, reliability, efficiency,
methodicalness, prudence, discipline, conformity.
Concerned with resolving problems rather than
finding them.
Seeks solutions to problems in tried and understood
ways.
Reduces problems by improvement and greater
efficiency, with maximum of continuity and
stability.
Seen as sound, conforming, safe, dependable.
Liable to make goals of means.
Seems impervious to boredom, seems able to
maintain high accuracy in long spells of detailed
work.
Is an authority within given structures.
Challenges rules rarely, cautiously, when assured
of strong support.
Tends to high self-doubt. Reacts to criticism by
closer outward conformity. Vulnerable to social
pressure and authority; compliant.
Is essential to the functioning of the institution all
the time, but occasionally needs to be "dug out"
of his systems.
When collaborating with innovators: supplies
stability, order and continuity to the partnership.
Sensitive to people, maintains group cohesion and
cooperation.
Provides a safe base for the innovator's riskier
operations.
vant (Merton, 1957; Parsons, 1951; Weber,
1948). (c) Because innovative man breaks
patterns of accepted modes of thought and
action, some of the literature on creative man
is also pertinent. Although both adaptors and
innovators create in their own way, the litera-
ture on creativity has concentrated on de-
scribing innovators (Rogers, 1959). A few
623
Innovator
Seen as undisciplined, thinking tangentially,
approaching tasks from unsuspected angles.
Could be said to discover problems and discover
avenues of solution.
Queries problems' concomitant assumptions;
manipulates problems.
Is catalyst to settled groups, irreverent of their
consensual views; seen as abrasive, creating
dissonance.
Seen as unsound, impractical; often shocks his
opposite.
In pursuit of goals treats accepted means with little
regard.
Capable of detailed routine (system maintenance)
work for only short bursts. Quick to delegate rou-
tine tasks.
Tends to take control in unstructured situations.
Often challenges rules, has little respect for past
custom.
Appears to have low self-doubt when generating
ideas, not needing consensus to maintain certitude
in face of opposition.
In the institution is ideal in unscheduled crises, or
better still to help to avoid them, if he can be
controlled.
When collaborating with adaptors: supplies the
task orientations, the break with the past and
accepted theory.
Insensitive to people, often threatens group cohesion
and cooperation.
Provides the dynamics to bring about periodic
radical change, without which institutions tend
to ossify.
quotes from familiar literature, when com-
pared to the list of adaptor and innovator
characteristics, illustrates the links with exist-
ing analyses.
Weber (1948) wrote that the aims of the
bureaucratic structure are precision, reliabil-
ity, and efficiency. Merton added to Weber's
list, saying, "The bureaucratic structure exerts
624 MICHAEL KIRTON

a constant pressure on officials to be method- he may convert others to some new view of
ical, prudent, disciplined . . . [and to attain] his own, he would on each attempt be seen
an unusual degree of conformity" (p. 198). as the cause of discord and friction. The ob-
These qualities, as attributes of the adap- jectives of the present study are (a) to de-
tor, describe the bureaucratic personality, an velop an instrument for locating respondents
"organisation man" (Whyte, 1957) suited to on a continuum of adaptiveness-innovative-
work within institutions. As Weber (1948) ness (the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inven-
and Merton (19S7) made clear, the man best tory, or KAI); (b) to evaluate the validity
fitted to work within set structures works in and utility of the construct measures; and (c)
impersonalized relationships: reducing con- to evaluate characteristics of the instrument.
flict, minimizing risks, and managing to solve
problems by proceeding at a disciplined pace METHOD
in a predictable direction. Bakke (1965) A list of statements was constructed descriptive
of the adaption-innovation
wrote that a bureaucratic aim is to produce managers were then interviewed, typologj'. Twenty senior
using the list as a
a "roster of jamiliar strategies for solving conversation piece, to learn if the typology was
recurring problems" (p. 43). The adaptor's consistent with their experience. It was, and the
weakness is his tendency to be too entrenched managers were asked to add to the list of state-
in his systems, failing to see that new stimuli ments. Each member of a second group of twenty
managers was asked to divide the statements into
are not being solved by the roster, for the two sets. Each set was to contain only attributes
stimuli are more (radically) altered than he that in the manager's experience of people commonly
perceives, and lie is led to pathologically in- went together. The managers had little difficulty
appropriate responses (Parsons, 1951; Veblen, in allocating each description to one or other of
the two sets, and there was almost total agreement
1928; Warnotte, 1937). between managers. What the first group of man-
Since innovative change must by its nature agers had agreed were adaptor items, the second
lead to increased risk, uncertainty, and im- group (without guidance) grouped together and
precision (Bright, 1964), innovative man is distinguished from innovator items.
less conforming to rules, social norms, and The number of items was increased, and a test
format appropriate for self-description was devel-
accepted work patterns. He can even accept oped, avoiding response-bias effects as far as pos-
deviation from accepted notions of good sible. The final form of the test was to ask respon-
reason (Schoen, 1960). Innovative change not dents to imagine that they had been asked to pre-
only follows along unexpected lines but is sent, consistently and for a long time, a certain
image of themselves to others. They were to state
often associated with memorable (and to the degree of difficulty that such a task would entail
the adaptor, unpleasant) precipitating events for them on a 5-point scale from very easy to very
(Kirton, 1961). When the innovator threatens hard. The scoring system used led to innovators
to create upheavals (innovation) in a period scoring higher than the mean and adaptors scoring
of no obvious crisis, he may well be viewed lower than the mean.
Using a series of independently drawn samples,
with distaste while he persists in such threat- item analyses were carried out on successive versions
ening behavior (Whyte, 1957)—which he is of the test. Items that gave skewed distributions or
likely to do (Schon, 1967). Rogers (1959) failed to correlate significantly with the test as a
lists qualities of the creative person, which whole were dropped. The surviving 32 items formed
the final version of the inventory.
fit the innovator better than the adaptor. For the main study, a sample of S32 subjects—
According to Rogers, the creative person (a) heterogeneous with repect to age, sex, occupational
has little awe of traditional knowledge or status, and education—was collected from London
practice; (b) compulsively toys with ideas; and surrounding counties.
and (c) displays a high need for social recog- RESULTS
nition, that is, wants his ideas to be judged Theoretically, KAI scores may range from
good, without regard to their latent or 32 to 160. The 532 subjects occupied nearly
manifest heretical challenge to consensus. In the full spread (46-145). Their mean score
Rogers' view, the creative man is a loner; at 95.33 was almost identical to the theoret-
and so is innovative man, for once he departs ical mean of 96, and with a standard devia-
from consensus he is on his own. Even though tion of 17.54, the distribution of these scores
 ADAPTORS AND INNOVATORS
when graphed showed a very close approxima-
tion to the normal curve.
When the four sample variables were par-
tialled out, each in turn, the KAI correlated
significantly with sex (r — .19) and age
(r = —.19). Women, with a mean score of
90.8, were more adaptor-inclined than men,
whose mean was 98.1; and those over 45 had,
on average, lower innovator scores (90.5)
than either those under 30 (98.2) or those
in-between, aged 30-44 (96.8). The common
variances were small (less than 4%) and the
extent to which these variations were attrib-
utable to social learning is not known. Cor-
relations with occupational status and educa-
tional level were not significant.
The test's reliability, using the Kucler-
Richardson Formula 20 coefficient (Ar = 532),
was .88, accounting for 78% of the internal
variance. Calculated for an additional inde-
pendent sample of 276 subjects—also hetero-
geneous with respect to age, sex, occupational
status, and educational level—collected 1
year later, the KR-20 was again .88. The
test-retest reliability was calculated at .82,
using a sample of 64 pupils in their final year
at secondary school, with a 7-month interval
between tests.
A principal-factor analysis was carried out
on the intercorrelations of the 32 items in the
KAI, and 7 factors with eigenvalues of 1 or
greater were extracted, which together ac-
counted for more than half the total vari-
ance. The first of these unrelated factors
loaded strongly (the smallest = .29) and posi-
tively with all test items and accounted for
over twice the variance of any other factor.
Varimax rotation suggested clearly how the
scale might be divided to produce three sub-
scales measuring trait components of the
adaptor-innovator dimension. Their identifi-
cation was assisted by analyses reported fully
later (N = 286) in which other tests were
included in the analysis. The principal finding
emerged in a factor analysis involving 136
items representing the total scores of three
tests and the individual items scores of six
others. Twenty-seven KAI items loaded .3
or more on one, and only one, of the three
factors that they dominated. Two items loaded
.3 or more on two factors, and three items
625
loaded less than .3 on any of the first 12 fac-
tors. An examination of the items loading
heaviest on each factor (see Table 2A) shows
that a labeling of these groupings is not diffi-
cult. The first (Factor 2) is called Originality,
as it contains items that describe the creative
person in much of the literature, especially
Rogers' (1959) creative loner. The second
(Factor 4) is Methodical Weberianism, as it
describes at one extreme the kind of person
Weber (1948) envisaged as needed in orga-
nizations—precise, reliable, disciplined. The
third (Factor 6) is called Mertonian Con-
formist, since it mirrors Merlon's (19S7) de-
scription of the person who fits well into a
bureaucracy because he has proper respect for
authority and rules.
The allocation of 27 of the 32 items to just
one subscale was unequivocally made using
factor loadings. The two items that loaded
.3 or more on two factors, and the three
remaining items that did not load as much as
.3 on any relevant factor, were each assigned
to the subscale with which they best corre-
lated. The composition of the three subscales
and the correlation of each item with its total
subscale score are given in Table 2. These
findings are replicated almost exactly in the
analysis using the second sample, TV = 276.
The KR-20 coefficients for the factor scales
are given in Table 3. Considering the short-
ness of these subscales—particularly the sec-
ond—the degree of internal consistency is
satisfactory. The items that relate to Weber's
(1948) writings cohere, as do those relating
to both Merlon (1957) and Rogers (1959).
All three streams combine in turn to form a
measure of adaptiveness-innovativeness. Their
intercorrelation is given in Table 3.
Confounding Elements Unraveled
During intensive interviews with managers,
they suggested additions to the descriptions
of adaptors and innovators. The additions
examined here are those that were (a) sug-
gested by adaptors or innovators, and vice
versa; and (b) pejorative; and (c) denied by
those so described. The adaptors thought that
innovators tended markedly to be "neurotic,"
though adaptors were not able to define ex-
actly what they meant by that term. They
626 MICHAEL KIRTON

TABLE 2
FACTOR-TRAIT STRUCTURE oi> THE KIRTON ADAPTION-INNOVATION INVENTORY (KAI)

A B

Within-factor
Item loading" correlation1'

Origi- Weber- Merton- Origi- Weber- Merton-

Item nality (2) ian (4) ian (6) nality (2) ian (4) ian (6)

Has original ideas -.77 .57

Proliferates ideas -.74 .55
Is stimulating -.64 .45
Copes with several new ideas at tlie same time -.60 .53
Will always think of something when stuck -.52 .46
Would sooner create than improve -.52 .45
Has fresh perspectives on old problems -.51 .42
Often risks doing things differently -.47 .53
Likes to vary set routines at a moment's notice -.37 .41
Prefers to work on one problem at a time -.36 .40
Can stand out in disagreement against group -.34 ,30 .37
Needs the stimulation of frequent change -.33 .34
Prefers changes to occur gradually — .34
Is thorough .77 .60
Masters all details painstakingly .75 .50
Is methodical and systematic .74 .67
Enjoys detailed work .63 .49
Is (not) a stead}' plodder -.35 .48 .39
Is consistent .35 .39
Imposes strict order on matters within own
control — .33
Fits readily into "the system" .75 .59
Conforms .68 .49
Readily agrees with the team at work .60 .39
Never seeks to bend or break the rules .57 .58
Never acts without proper authority .54 .54
Is prudent when dealing with authority .51 .32
Likes the protection of precise instructions .48 .50
Is predictable .44 .48
Prefers colleagues who never "rock the boat" .36 .46
Likes bosses and work patterns which arc
consistent .34 .45
Works without deviation in a prescribed way .30 .45
Holds back ideas until obviously needed — .33

Cumulative % of eigenvalues0 16 23

•Voie,
1 Only loadings >.30 arc entered.
5
.Y = 286. Loadings of the items on the three factors containing KAI items.
.V = 532. Correlations of each item in a factor with the rest of the items in that factor.
- Cumulative percentage of eigenvalues for factors not shown: Factor 1 ~ 12; Factor 3 = 20; Factor 5 = 26.

tended also to class innovators as extraverts,
for example, showing periodic ebullience and
insensitivity to others—descriptions not al-
ways accepted by innovators as typical of
themselves. Innovators saw adaptors as dog-
matic, inflexible, and conservative, with a
marked distaste for venturing into the un-
known. Adaptors rejected such descriptions of
themselves as a class.
These views were sufficiently numerous and
strongly put to warrant their exploration con-
currently with the elaboration of the dimen-
sion description and the construction of its
measure. Such exploration might well cope
with some difficulties that would otherwise
cloud the present lines of this theory, which
of course posits no overlap between styles of
problem solving described here and other
 ADAPTORS AND INNOVATORS 627

TABLE 3 clearly have much in common. Tests of these

CORRELATION PATTERN OF ADAPTION-INNOVATION variables were the principle defmers of the
THAIT COMPONENTS first factor extracted, which was labeled the
Rule/
"Adorno" factor. The results suggest that (a)
Group the KAI is not related to the tests that define
Con-
Efficiency forming the Adorno factor as strongly as these tests
Variable Originality (Weber) (Merton)
are related to one another; and (b) the three
Between-tests correlations EPI scales are independent both of KAI and
0V = 286)
Dogmatism (Rokeach) -.14 -.12 -.26 of the Adorno tests in the battery.
Intolerance of ambiguity
(Budner) -.29 -.07 -.32 To explore further the relations between
Intolerance of ambiguity
(MacDonald) -.34 -.21 -.41 the KAI and the other scales, two other factor
Conservatism
(Wilson & Patterson) -.26 -.25 -.34 analyses were carried out using varimax rota-
Inflexibility (Gough) -.28 -.46 -.38 tion. In the first factor analysis the items
Eysenck Personality Inventory from all scales—other than those in the EPI,
Extraversion .42 .36 .32
Neuroticism -.11 .11 -.04 which were represented by total scores on
Lie scale -.06 -.17 -.21
Witlriir-KAI correlations extraversion, neuroticism, and lying—were
(A' = 532) treated as variables (M = 136). The results
Originality — — —
Efficiency —
Rule/Group Conforming
.36
.47
—
.42
are given, in part, in Table 2A. The KAI
— items defined their own factors, grouping in
Internal reliability (N = 532)
KR-20 coefficient* .81 .76 .82
the same way as in the smaller analyses re-
n
KR-20 for entire Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory ported above. Of the 32 KAI items 29 had
(KAI) = .88. their highest loadings on the 2nd, 4th, and
6th of the 43 factors that emerged, and only
dimensions of personality. Suitable estab- 4 had loadings as high as .3 on any other of
lished tests were selected for inclusion in a the first 12 factors. In the three factors that
parallel study overlapping with the original were saturated by KAI items, only three vari-
validation exercise. For dogmatism, Rokeach's ables from elsewhere had loadings of .3 or
(1960) 40-item scale was included. Of the more—extraversion, which ended up at the
two tolerance-of-ambiguity tests, selected with bottom of the first of these three factors, and
the help of Bochner's (196S) article, one was two items from Gough's (19S6) test of in-
constructed by Budner (1962) and the other
was MacDonald's (1970) version of Rydell TABLE 4
and Rosen's (1966) test. Inflexibility was
FACTOR ANALYSIS SHOWING SEPARATENF.SS OF
measured by Gough's (1956) subscale from ADORNO-TYPE TESTS FROM THE KTRTON
the California Psychological Inventory (CPI); ADAPTION-INNOVATION INVENTORY
and Wilson and Patterson's (1968; Wilson, (KAI)
1973) test of a conservative/radical dimen-
sion was also selected. Both neuroticism and Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
extraversion were measured by the Eysenck Dogmatism (Rokeach) .82
Personality Inventory (EPI) (Eysenck & Intolerance of ambiguity
Eysenck, 1964), which also includes a useful (Budner) .77
Lie scale. Not all of those in the original Intolerance of ambiguity
(MacDonald) .77
sample (N = 532) were able to complete all Inflexibility (Gough) .72 .35
of these extra tests, but those who did Conservatism
(A7 — 286) did not differ significantly in (Wilson & Patterson) .67
composition from the original sample, as far KAI .32 .78
Eysenck Personality Inventory
as could be detected. Extraversion .89
The results of a factor anatysis (varimax Lie scale -.46
rotation) of the intercorrelation matrix, com- Neuroticism
prising KAI and the above eight scales, are Cumulative % of
given in Table 4. Dogmatism, intolerance eigenvalues 40 54 66

of ambiguity, conservatism, and inflexibility Note. N = 286. Only loadings >.30 are entered.
628 MICHAEL KIRTON
flexibility, which were low contributors to the
second.
A further factor analysis (again using
varimax rotation) was carried out on 40 vari-
ables, including the 32 KAI items and the test
scores on the remaining 8 scales. The first
factor is defined by intolerance of ambiguity,
inflexibility, dogmatism, and conservatism:
repetition of the Adorno factor. The KAI
items contribute almost nothing to this factor
but find their place in Factors 2, 3, 7, and 8.
Factors 2 and 3 replicate, respectively, the
Originality and Weberian factors of the M136
analysis, but the Mertonian Conformist factor
split into two factors (7 and 8), which have
been tentatively labeled "Rule-Followers" and
"Fitters-In," respectively.
The trait components of the KAI were then
correlated with the other tests and each other
(see Table 3). The originality trait reflected
in the first subscale has by far its highest
correlation (among the external tests) with
the extraversion score, thereby supporting
Rogers' (1959) theoretical position. It is
interesting that both the other subscales also
have significant correlations with extraversion.
The Weberian subscale has its highest correla-
tion with the inflexibility test from Cough's
(1956) CPI. It is clear, however, that the
last subscale of the three—the factor of con-
forming, both to rules and to one's group—
has the widest connections with the inter-
related tests of dogmatism, intolerance of
ambiguity, inflexibility, and conservatism. As
with adaption-innovation as a whole, none of
the dimension's trait components correlates
strongly with either ncuroticism or the Lie
scale. The three subscales of the KAI inter-
correlate significantly (see Table 3), re-
flecting the general factor of adaptiveness-
innovativeness that underlies them.
In short, the qualities attributed to adap-
tors (by innovators) and to innovators (by
adaptors) were found to be substantially un-
justified when those so described objected to
the characteristics ascribed to them. Those
qualities represent that part of each other's
stereotype that divides the "types" from one
another in their institutional opposition rather
than in fact.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
It has previously been observed (Kirton,
1961) that among managers advocating par-
ticular changes are some men who "fail to
see possibilities outside the accepted pattern"
(p. 1), while others are marked as "men of
ideas," who fail to exhibit a knack for getting
their notions implemented. The present de-
velopment of these observations has led to the
formulation of the hypothesis of an adaptor-
innovator personality continuum and also to
provide a measure by which people can be
located on it.
Differences in general readiness to accept
change, depending on whether the stimulus
for it emerged from predictable or unexpected
lines of thought, were also observed but not
then explored. The present tentative explica-
tion offers a new element in the understanding
of the well-known concept of "resistance to
change," often rather simplistically viewed in
management literature. There are also impli-
cations here for further insight into the stim-
uli for change, described in Kirton's (1961)
earlier study as "precipitating events." The
present work suggests two types of such
events: those originating within the currently
guiding paradigm and those emanating from
outside the system. The former are more
easily identified by adaptors and so are built
into corporative forward planning—Bakke's
(1965) roster of familiar strategies. The
latter may be anticipated by innovators but
frequently must actually occur, sometimes in
dramatic form, before being generally recog-
nized as valid stimuli for problem solving
(decision making). The advent of such ex-
traneous precipitating events seems to cause
perceptual realignment involving discontinu-
ity of thought within brief time spans (e.g.,
the paradigm switches described by Kuhn,
1970). The prophetic role that is occasionally
assumed by innovators does not only affect
their acceptability before the event but is
likely to continue to affect their image even
after the switch has occurred. The natural
position of high innovators seems to be out
on a limb. Improved understanding of their
role in a group, however, may help to make
better use of them.
Although this study has been derived from
 ADAPTORS AND INNOVATORS
behavior within institutions, the adaptor-in-
novator distinction clearly has wider applica-
tion. These cognitive styles are common to
everyone and are manifest in any situation
where creativity, problem solving, and decision
making are applicable.
REFERENCES
Bakke, E. W. Concept of the social organization.
In M. Haire (Ed,)j Modern organization theory.
New York: Wiley, 1965.
Bochncr, S. Defining intolerance of ambiguity. Psy-
chological Record, 1965, 15, 393-400.
Bright, J. R. Research, development and techno-
logical innovation. Homewood, 111.: Irwin, 1964.
Budner, S. Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality
variable. Journal oj Personality, 1962, 30, 29-50.
Drucker, P. F, Management's new role. Harvard
Business Review, 1969, 47(6), 49-54.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. Manual of the
Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: Univer-
sity of London Press, 1964,
Gough, H. G. California Psychological Inventory.
Palo Alto, Calif.: Consultant Psychological Press,
1956.
Kirton, M. J. Management initiative. London: Acton
Society Trust, 1961.
Kuhn, T. S. The structure oj scientific revolutions
(2nd ed.). Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago
Press, 1970.
MacDonald, A. P., Jr. Revised scale for ambiguity
tolerance. Psychological Reports, 1970, 26, 791-
V98.
629
Morton, R. K. (Ed.). Social theory and social
structure. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1957.
Parsons, T. The social system. New York: Free
Press of Glencoe, 1951.
Rogers, C. R, Towards a theory of creativity. In
H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultiva-
tion. New York: Harper, 1959.
Rokcach, M. The open and closed mind. New
York: Basic Books, 1960.
Rydell, S. T., & Rosen, E, Measurement and some
correlates of need cognition. Psychological Reports,
1966, 19, 139-165.
Schocn, D. R. Managing technological innovation.
Harvard Business Review, May-June 1960, 156-
168.
Schon, D. A. Technology and change. New York:
Delacortc Press, 1967.
Vcblen, T. The theory oj the leisure class. New
York: Vanguard Press, 1928.
Warnottc, D. In R. K. Morton (Ed.), Social theory
and social structure. New York: Free Press of
Glencoe, 1957.
Weber, M. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds. and
trans.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology.
London; Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1948.
Whyte, W. H. The organisation man. London:
Jonathan Cope, 1957.
Wilson, G. D. (Ed.). The psychology oj conserva-
tion. London: Academic Press, 1973.
Wilson, G. D., & Patterson, J. R. A new measure
of conservatism. British Journal oj Social • and
Clinical Psychology, 1968, 7, 274-2 79.
(Received November 25, 1975)