Running Head: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

MBTI 1

Running head: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

A Review of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Personality Inventory

Judith D. Spady

Walden University MBTI 2

Abstract

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an objective assessment designed to clarify individual personality preferences by assigning a four-letter formula corresponding to specific personality descriptions. The MBTI is intended for use by adults 17 or older and must be interpreted by a qualified instructor. The four dichotomies measured are: Extraversion (E) - Introversion (I); Sensing (S) - Intuition (N);

Thinking (T) - Feeling (F); and Judging (J) - Perceiving (P). This paper provides an overview of personality preferences and reviews the MBTI from different perspectives. It includes the history of the test, a test description, statistical information including reliability/validity research, current applications of the instrument, and ethical considerations. After analyzing the evaluations, the MBTI is highly recommended and contributes greatly to the overall assessment of defining one’s personality.

Introduction

Katherine Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers had a vision of developing a tool that would provide people with a deeper understanding of their personality differences and allow them to further develop healthy personalities. The Myers Briggs

Type Indicator (MBTI) was first developed by Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs in

1942 and was based on the book, Psychological Types, published in 1921 by C. G.

The initial work of this mother/daughter team started out as developing a “sorter” instrument that helped individuals identify their personality type preferences. They began by creating an individual item on the instrument and then collected corresponding MBTI 3 data to determine whether this item was accurate in measuring what was intended

(Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2007). Isabel Myers recorded this original research onto thousands of index cards which are now part of the archives at the University of Florida in Gainsville (Myers & Briggs Foundation).

The MBTI personality type instrument is taken by more than two million people worldwide each year (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2007) and has primarily been tested using adult populations instead of children. There are five various versions of the MBTI, including: Form M – the standard format; Form M Self-scorable – to be used individually but scheduled in conjunction with a feedback session; Form G – previous version; Form

G Self-scorable – previous version that is used individually but with a feedback session; and Form Q/Step II – used for more in-depth feedback (Myers & Briggs Foundation).

Form Q/Step II is the most recent form of the instrument and is used when individuals or groups require more detailed profiles (Myers & Briggs Foundation) and provides explanations of how individuals express their unique type (CPP, 2007).

Personality is often inaccurately defined by lay persons as how individuals react in social settings. Identifying an individual’s personality type takes into account those traits that are inborn and specifically defines preferences that individuals have about how they make decisions, etc. It is more than just how social they can be in a group of people. The Myers Briggs Foundation (2007, section Your Personality Type) defines it well when they say “the theory of psychological type says that people with different preferences naturally have different interests and views, behave differently, and are motivated by different things. Awareness of differences between types can help people understand and value other people who think and act quite differently.” MBTI 4

Objective tests, such as the MBTI, use a direct approach of short answer items where the scoring is performed based on a set of procedures and there is hardly any room for judgment of the scorer (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005). A projective assessment relies on the judgment of the scorer to analyze the behavior of the individual taking the test to indirectly determine their personality. The individual usually performs “a task that involves supplying some sort of structure to relatively unstructured or incomplete stimuli”

(Cohen & Swerdlik, p. 378).

Although the MBTI uses an objective method of testing, interpreting the results is still a complex process. This is why it is required that the MBTI assessment MUST be administered by a qualified practitioner who has been through the proper training. Since objective testing removes the judgment of the administrator, the potential for bias is reduced.

The point of the test is to make Carl Jung’s theory on psychological types easier to understand and more applicable in everyday life. Jung’s theory basically explains that the variation of behaviors of individuals is simply due to basic differences in the manner that people ‘prefer’ to use their perception and judgment (Jung, 1923/1971).

MBTI Test Description

The MBTI personality inventory is an objective test that asks simple situational questions, with no separate sections of the test, and then places the results into four dichotomies: Extraversion (E) and Introversion (I); Sensing (S) and Intuition (N);

Thinking (T) and Feeling (F); Judging (J) and Perceiving (P). The Extraversion vs.

Introversion preference relates to how individuals prefer to focus their attention and MBTI 5 where they gain their energy (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2007). The Sensing/Intuition pair focuses on how individuals prefer to receive information, through the five senses –

Sensing; or more intuitively from possibilities and patterns received – Intuition (Myers &

Briggs Foundation, 2007). The third pair considers the preference of making decisions.

Thinkers tend to make their decisions based on factual and objective principles, where

Feelers usually are more concerned about the people involved. Lastly, the

Judging/Perceiving dichotomy explains individual orientations to their outer world.

Judgers are very structured and decided and often have lists where they cross off the items accomplished, where Perceivers are more flexible and adaptable and sometimes have 5 lists but can’t remember where they put them. Based on the situational questions asked, it is presumed that people will prefer one result over the other.

The results of the dichotomies are then put together to form a four letter description that explains an individual’s personality preferences. For example, one may be and INTJ or an ESFP. The combinations of these are described as 16 distinctive personality types that result from the interactions of the preferences (Myers & Briggs

Foundation, 2007). For example, one of the 16 types is an ESFP which is described by the instrument as follows: “Outgoing, friendly, and accepting. Exuberant lovers of life, people, and material comforts. Enjoy working with others to make things happen. Bring common sense and a realistic approach to their work, and make work fun. Flexible and spontaneous, adapt readily to new people and environments. Learn best by trying a new skill with other people.” (Myers & Briggs Foundation, section The 16 MBTI Types,

2007). Each personality type, consisting of the four letter combination, has a thorough description of their preferences such as the one in the example. MBTI 6

The MBTI is different from other psychological assessments in that it does not try to evaluate an individual’s mental health status. The test is designed to only focus on the positive preferences of the test taker rather than defining pathological issues. The four dichotomies, mentioned above, are equally desirable and positive in nature. Many other instruments define the degree of a certain trait and one is usually more desirable than another. The MBTI dichotomies are purposefully designed so that neither is more or less desirable as they all are positive attributes. This approach makes it more possible for the test taker to be comfortable with the results instead of wanting to change the outcome in some way. Overt behaviors from test givers can negatively impact the results of a test and that is why the MBTI focuses on helping individuals to better understand their healthy personality choices rather than use an assessment method that can easily be manipulated.

The Extraversion/Introversion dichotomy is often one of confusion as lay people tend to think this corresponds to someone who is either outgoing or shy; however, there is so much more to the MBTI understanding of the meanings. These orientations actually have to do with how people focus their attention towards the outside world and where they obtain their most energy (Myers, 2000). For example, when an extravert is around many people socializing with their friends, they tend to gain more energy where an introverted person feels drained.

Carl Jung and Isabel Myers both contributed greatly to the field of psychology with their descriptions of introversion and extroversion as being healthy differences of personality styles (Lawrence & Martin, 2001). MBTI 7

Another way that the MBTI is different from other tests is that it does not compare results with other people to determine how normal or pathological and individual is. The results are never shared with anyone other than the individual unless that individual requests that it is.

The MBTI instrument also defines how individual preferences interact with each other – this is also called Type Dynamics. This results in a comprehensive understanding of the entire personality type preference rather than simply adding up the parts (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2007).

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator can either be self-scored, computer-scored, or scored by the administrator. The administration and purchasing of the materials must be done through the publisher of the instrument, CPP, Inc.

Statistical

A sample that makes a comparison to the norm analyzes how the thinking aspect of the MBTI influences college scholars that are gifted and talented. A program called the Centralis Scholars Program was analyzed over 5 years and compared to the norm.

Archival records of scholars from 1990-1994 that were assessed the MBTI was the sample studied (Folger, et al., 2003). The program consists of high school seniors and community college students with a grade point average of 3.5 (Folger, et al., 2003).

When compared to the normative sample, “a ratio of less than 1.00 indicates that the type is underrepresented in relation to the reference group” (Folger, et al., 2003, p.

4). MBTI 8

Statistical studies are performed by comparing the descriptive statistics of the control group to that of the norm. This is important to ensure that the study is either similar to that of the normative group or greatly differs. The norm is basically a baseline to start from where all other tests are measured against.

Reliability

According to Cohen & Swerdlik (2005), reliability in psychometrics is a little different than the general term of reliability in the fact that it is consistency in measurement; however, that can mean either consistently good or bad. The four main methods of reliability are: test-retest, alternate-forms, split-half, and inter-scorer reliability (Cohen & Swerdlik). The various reliability coefficients are the Spearman-

Brown formula, the Kuder-Richardson formula and the Coefficient alpha.

The test-retest reliability method is used to analyze the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator (MBTI) and it scores quite high. According to the Myers-Briggs foundation website (2007, section Reliability and validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument) “on retest, people come out with three to four type preferences the same

75% to 90% of the time.”

Most of the test-retest results of the MBTI show that this instrument is extremely reliable especially since the instrument has been around for 60+ years. The test-retest measure has been used on millions of people and still results in a high rating. Reliability can however be low for certain groups using the MBTI (i.e., children, underachieving students) and it is advised to not administer the instrument to these particular groups. MBTI 9

In addition, Salter, Forney, & Evans (2005) analyzed the MBTI using two assessments to show the successful reliability. They point out that “most reliability studies of MBTI scores focus on the four scales and not the eight preferences” (Salter,

Forney, & Evans, 2005, p. 215) and this plays a role in effectively assessing the reliability of the instrument. Salter, Forney, & Evans used the longitudinal configural frequency analysis (L-CFA) and generalizability theory with the Preference Clarity

Indices (PCI) and continuous scores to analyze the reliability of the MBTI. The L-CFA results showed that “all eight stable patterns show highly statistically significant types of stability. The end result of both assessments shows that if the goal of using the MBTI instrument is to help individuals to become aware of their "true type" dispositions, which should remain relatively stable over time, then our results seem consistent with that objective” (Salter, Forney, & Evans, 2005, p. 213).

There are other studies that show a bleaker look at the reliability of the MBTI.

Stricker & Ross (1964) found some nonlinear regressions on some of the scales and explain that these negative findings conflict with prior reported results from Myers.

Stricker & Ross go on to show that the Indicator does not accurately reflect Jung’s viewpoints and they conclude by saying “the Indicator does not operationally define the typology (Stricker & Ross, p. 70).”

Pittenger (2005) shows findings that raise doubts about how reasonable inferences can be made from a four-letter type formula. The issues raised suggest that large differences between two four-letter formulas imply major differences in personality profiles when this may not be the case. MBTI 10

Validity

Validity measurements explain how well a test measures the components that it purports to measure (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005). The validity coefficients are content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity where construct validity is the overall measure with the other two falling under it (Cohen & Swerdlik).

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has undergone many validity tests over the years and the validity of the personality indicator has been proven in three different categories: (1) the validity of the four separate preference scales; (2) the validity of the four preference pairs as dichotomies; and (3) the validity of whole types of particular combinations of preferences (Myers-Briggs foundation (2007, section Reliability and validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument).

According to a book published by CAPT (Lawrence & Martin, 2001, p. 124),

“most factor analytic studies show clearly that the four scales of the MBTI are solid and largely independent scales.”

Some studies have determined that the validity of the Extroversion-Introversion scale of the MBTI is successful by accurately assessing the Extraverion-Introversion dichotomy; however, Coan (1978) showed that the other scales of Sensation-Intuition and Thinking-Feeling “may reflect restricted aspects of the dimensions that they are intended to represent” (Davis, & Mattoon, 2006, p. 237).

Since its inception in 1942, the MBTI has been continually revised to ensure higher reliability and validity of the instrument. The questions have been altered in several ways to ensure they result in the most valid and reliable set that separates the four dichotomies appropriately (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998). Also, the MBTI 11 instrument has been updated over the years to meet the demands of changing social needs. Lastly, the instrument has been fully analyzed to determine whether the items on the assessment should be weighted differently for males and females – the most recent version does not weight differently for the two sexes (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, &

Hammer, 1998).

As mentioned earlier, the administration and purchasing of the materials must be done through the publisher of the instrument, CPP, Inc. If this standard is not followed, the results are not valid and caution must be given in regards to any places claiming to provide MBTI assessments that do not follow the proprietary standards.

Test Application Summary

Over the years, there have been many ways that the MBTI has been used for research and/or applications toward individuals and organizations. Here is a list of ten articles showing various research projects using the MBTI.

Francis, Craig, & Robbins (2007) compare the MBTI to another psychological test called the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised and show that the two instruments have some relation to each other.

Vance, Groves, & Paik (2007) contrast the MBTI with another type of instrument and their self-report diagnostic instrument (Linear–Nonlinear Thinking Style Profile or

LNTSP) to determine implications for management education professionals.

Swiatek & Cross (2007) compare the MBTI to an instrument called the Social

Coping Questionnaire (SCQ) to provide construct validity showing correlations between both instruments. MBTI 12

Male vergers of the Church of England completed the MBTI to compare their results to those of clergy and laity (Craig, Duncan, & Francis, 2006).

The MBTI was used with 133 employees from distribution centers to prove that personality does affect the risk of developing musculoskeletal discomfort (Allread &

Marras, 2006).

Goby (2006) used the MBTI to show that personality affects online and offline choices of conducting social interactions.

Furnham & Crump (2005) performed an assessment where 431 individuals completed three self-report measures: personality disorders, personality traits, and personality type.

Filbeck, Hatfield, & Horvath (2005) studied the MBTI to show a relationship between personality type and risk tolerance.

Salter, Forney, & Evans (2005) use two approaches – longitudinal configural frequency analysis with categorical scores and generalizability theory with the

Preference Clarity Indices and continuous scores to study the stability and reliability of the MBTI which resulted in mostly positive results.

Kennedy & Kennedy (2004) explain how the MBTI can be an effective tool in career counseling processes.

Concluding Summary

A strong recommendation would be given for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator despite some of the recent criticisms. The MBTI personality inventory has been used for over 60 years and is taken by more than 200 million people worldwide. It is not MBTI 13 recommended for children mostly because children are still developing their personality preferences and don’t have them fully defined until adulthood. The success of the MBTI over the years has been profound. It has recently been described as ‘the most widely used non-clinical measure of personality in the world’ (Bayne, 2003).

Ethical Guidelines

The MBTI has “ethical guidelines for the following areas: general guidelines for using the instrument, ethics for administering the instrument, guidelines for ethical feedback of the results, ethics for professional qualifications, and legal standards for using the instrument” (Myers Briggs Foundation, 2007, section Ethical Use of the MBTI

Instrument).

The MBTI ethical guidelines include items such as: explaining that participation in taking the inventory is always voluntary, presenting psychological type as healthy personality differences not pathological problems; communicating that all types are valuable with none better than another; keeping all results confidential to the respondent; describing types using nonjudgmental terminology; presenting results as preferences or tendencies instead of facts; ensuring that type isn’t communicated in a manner that boxes people into specific labels; pointing out that people can behave in ways that are opposite of their preferences depending on the situation; and lastly, explaining that type does not have to do with an individual’s excellence or natural ability, only with their preferences (Myers Briggs Foundation, 2007, section Ethical Guidelines for the MBTI Instrument). MBTI 14

Some reliability and validity studies have attempted to show faults of the MBTI; however, any good instrument can be nitpicked apart if tried long enough. Most of the negative research has focused on showing how the MBTI isn’t in alignment with Jung’s theory in certain areas. The main reason that Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers developed the instrument was to ‘try’ to better interpret Jung’s theory and to apply it to the general public. This isn’t to say that Jung’s theory is simple to understand. Briggs and Myers came very close to developing an instrument that individuals can use every day that reflects the teachings of Carl Jung and the accuracy and effectiveness that the results provide to individuals is astonishing. Based on the validity, reliability, and standardization of the instrument, the best conditions for taking the test is as an adult with an open mind to clarify one’s personality preferences.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator provides a solid explanation of individual personality preferences that are important to the overall assessment of one’s personality. The MBTI may not be the only tool required to better understand one’s personality but it certainly provides the majority of information needed to realize the main personality preferences.

The main strength of the MBTI is that it is an instrument used in collaboration with the respondent to help the individual determine their preferences. It is intended to provide healthy understandings of how differences of personality play a role in our society but it is not to label people’s psychological problems.

The weaknesses of the MBTI are that it is not in full alignment with Jung’s beliefs

(especially in the scales other than Extraversion/Introversion. Jung’s writings did include some study of individual’s ‘dark sides’, an area that he termed ‘archetypes’. The MBTI MBTI 15 fails to analyze these areas; however, CPP, Inc. does have assessments that dig further into the darker psyche of individuals.

As Martin Seligman, founder of Positive Psychology, reminds us – too often we focus on the pathological issues rather than on “knowledge of what makes life worth living” (p. 5). The MBTI helps individuals get closer to this knowledge in regards to their personality preferences. MBTI 16

References:

Allread, W. G., Marras, W. S. (2006). Does personality affect the risk of developing

musculoskeletal discomfort? Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(2),

149-167.

Bayne, R. (2003). Love, money and studying. The Psychologist, 16, 529–531.

Cohen, R. and Swerdlik, M. (2005). Psychological Testing and Assessment (6th Ed.).

Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

CPP, Inc. (2007). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment (MBTI) section. Retrieved

on October 14, 2007 from http://www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.asp.

Craig, C.L., Duncan, B. and Francis, L.J. (2006). Safeguarding tradition: Psychological

type preferences of male vergers in the Church of England. Pastoral Psychology,

54(5), 457-463. Retrieved on Oct 5, 2007 from the PsycINFO database.

Davis, M. F., and Mattoon, M. A. (2006). Reliability and validity of the Gray-

Wheelwrights Jungian Type survey. European Journal of Psychological

Assessment, 22(4), 233-239.

Filbeck, G., Hatfield, P. and Horvath, P. (2005). Risk Aversion and Personality Type.

Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6(4), 170-180.

Folger, W. A., Kanitz, H.E., Knudsen A. E., Mchenry, & Sherene. (2003). Analysis of

MBTI type patterns in college scholars. College Student Journal, 37(4). Retrieved

on June 28, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Francis, L. J., Craig, C. L, and Robbins, M. (2007). The relationship between

psychological type and the three major dimensions of personality. Current MBTI 17

Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 25(4), 257-271.

Retrieved on Oct 5, 2007 from the PsycINFO database.

Furnham, A, Crump, J. (2005). Personality traits, types, and disorders: An examination

of the relationship between three self-report measures. European Journal of

Personality, 19(3), 167-184.

Goby, V. P. (2006). Personality and online/offline choices: MBTI profiles and favored

communication modes in a Singapore study. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(1),

5-13. Retrieved on Oct 11, 2007 from the PsycINFO database.

Jung, C. G. (1923/1971). The collected works of C. G. Jung: Vol 6, Psychological types

(pp. 510-555). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kennedy, R. B., & Kennedy, D. A. (2004). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® in

career counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 41(1), 38-44.

Lawrence, G., & Martin, C. (2001). Building people, building programs. CAPT: Florida.

Myers, I. B. (2000). Introduction to type. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B. & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of

the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., Quenk, N.L., & Hammer, A.L. (1998). Manual: A guide to

the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers/Briggs Foundation. 2007. MBTI Basics. Retrieved from

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/ on August 22,

2007. MBTI 18

Pittenger, D. J., (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210-

Salter, D.W., Forney, D. S., and Evans, N. J. (2005). Two approaches to examining the

stability of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scores. Measurement and Evaluation in

Counseling and Development, 37(4), 208-219.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.

American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.

Swiatek, M. A., Cross, T. L. (2007). Construct validity of the Social Coping

Questionnaire. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 427-449. Retrieved

on Oct 5, 2007 from the PsycINFO database.

Vance, C. M., Groves, K. S., and Paik, Y. (2007). Understanding and measuring linear-

nonlinear thinking style for enhanced management education and professional

practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(2), 167-185.

Retrieved on Oct 5, 2007 from the PsycINFO database.