Kirton (2003) suggests that a 10-point difference in score between two

individual's cognitive style, as measured by the KAI, develops a "noticeable difference"

when working together on a problem. The difference found between the two cognitive

styles is defined as cognitive style gap (Kirton). A 20-point cognitive style gap leads to

difficulties in mutual understanding and collaboration which may have a definitive effect

on communication when problem solving (Kirton). For an individual with this amount of

cognitive gap between one's preferred cognitive style and the style required to work with

a problem or another problem solver, coping behavior is needed and can exist in both

intensity and duration (Kirton). Coping behavior requires motivation (Walling, 1987) and

is psychologically expensive (Kirton, 2003).

 When solving a problem, more adaptive individuals can use techniques such as

brainstorming which can be taught, however, they are not preferred and less likely to use

it in their natural environment. Innovative individuals, likewise can be taught to master

details and operate within rules, but would prefer the unstructured situation. Kirton

further suggests that practice of coping behavior does not make coping easier for that

person (Kirton, 2003, p. 255). This suggestion does limit the definition of learning used

in this study; however the suggestion is supported in the creativity literature. Few

researchers have been able to provide hard evidence that an individual can be taught to be

more innovative or more adaptive (Nickerson, 1999). Furthermore, there is evidence that

teaching an individual to use different problem solving techniques has little long term

effect (Nickerson). Cognitive style (Kirton, 2003) is fixed, innate, and determines an

individual's preference for structure within problem solving. There is no association with