The Explorer and the Assimilator: A Theory and Measure of Cognitive Styles in Problem Solving

By Geir Kaufmann and Oyvind Martinsen

Originally appeared in the International Creativity Network Newsletter, volume 1, number 4, 1991, pages 8-9.

Previously, a cognitive style distinction in problem solving was introduced by the senior author (Kaufmann, 1979). The theory is derived from cognitive schema theory. Specifically, it draws upon the Piagetian concepts of assimilation and accommodation as modes of adaptation in problem solving. The cognitive style distinction is assumed to fall on a continuum between two extremes or poles.

The Assimilator is presumed to be guided by a rational (R) strategy, the essence of which involves stretching established or well-known principles as far as possible. Confronted with a novel problem or situation, the Assimilator will try to adapt by fitting the situation into standard schemata. Accommodative behavior is occasioned by situations where existing schemata do not suffice in coping with the task at hand. The R-strategy is directed towards achieving maximum cognitive economy, and may be seen as being driven by a principle of least effort. The R-strategy may be highly efficient, but may also be conducive to failure in tasks where the solution does not conform to established schemata.

In contrast there is the Explorer (E) strategy, which may be described as oriented towards spontaneously seeking new solution alternatives, even in problem situations that are possible to handle through application of standard schemata. The E-strategy entails openness and flexibility, and may be more conducive to breaking established standard procedures. Thus, the E-strategy lends itself to the generation of novel or original ideas and solution alternatives.

In some early pilot experiments (Kaufmann, 1979), it was shown that subjects using the E-strategy were less vulnerable to detrimental set effects in creative problem solving. In a subsequent experiment, Martinsen and Kaufmann (1990) found that Assimilators profited from instructions to try things out (trial and error) and to visualize, while Explorers profited from instructions to analyze and verbalize in creative problem solving. The results are interpreted as compensatory strategy effects.

The consistency of the styles across tasks has also been investigated, with evidence that some consistency is present even when the selected problem situations are very different (self-report technique; see Martinsen and Hagtvedt, submitted). However, due to the relatively large degree of inconsistency, we are presently investigating the possibility that the A-E distinction may be two dimensional rather than bi-polar. Recent work (Martinsen, 1992) has shown that Explorers perform better when the task is high on a novelty (as opposed to familiarity) dimension, while Assimilators perform better when the task is low (i. e. , more familiar) on the same dimension, thus supporting the flexibility and efficiency characterizations for each style.

The original version of the A-E Inventory had alpha reliability coefficients between . 83 and . 90 in different samples (Martinsen and Kaufmann, 1992). Test-retest reliability is between . 71 and . 83. Construct validation shows that the scale is uncorrelated with ability measures, and that Explorers are more achievement oriented, more open to experience and less anxious than Assimilators. There is no social desirability influence. Additionally, means for the scale are different in different educational groups, with art students scoring highest (toward the Explorer end), and student craftsmen scoring lowest (towards the Assimilator end). Further construct validation studies are in progress.

Recently we have developed a revised self report inventory on general preferences for problem solving strategies, with separate Assimilator and Explorer scales (Kaufmann and Martinsen, 1991). This inventory (AE-Form B) consists of 32 questions, judged on a five point scale (Agree strongly to Disagree strongly). The questions relate to schema concepts such as pattern, system, structure, principle, norms, plan, formula, rule, method, instructions, and others. Subjects are asked to assess their own relationship to such concepts in a problem solving context. Examples of questions include: "I like to go against the norms," or "When I solve a problem, I stick closely to a plan."

Pilot studies of the new scale indicate an alpha reliability of . 85. The dimensionality of the new scale will be checked with confirmatory factor analysis, and other studies are in progress investigating relationships of A-E scores with abilities, motivation, and different types or structures of tasks.

We welcome cooperative work using these scales in studying organizational variables, preferences for activities, leadership, or linkages with other variables. For reprints of prior research and additional information about the A-E theory and inventory, contact Dr. Geir Kaufmann, Department of General Psychology, Cognitive Unit, University of Bergen, Sydneshaugen 2, 5019 Bergen, Norway. The fax number is +47-5-900221.

References

Kaufmann, G. (1979). The Explorer and the Assimilator: A cognitive style distinction. Scandanavian Journal of Educational Research, 23, 101-108.

Martinsen O. & Kaufmann, G. (1991). Effect of imagery, strategy, and individual differences in solving insight problems. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 35, 69-76.

Martinsen, O. & Kaufmann, G. (1992). Validation studies of the Assimilator-Explorer Inventory. (Preliminary draft).

Martinsen, O. (1992). Insight problems revisited: The influence of cognitive styles and experience on creative problem solving. Creativity Research Journal (submitted).

Martinsen, O. & Hagtvedt, K. (1992). The cross-situational consistency of the Assimilator-Explorer cognitive style dimension. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, (submitted).