A Critique of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and its Operationalization of Carl Jung's Psychological Types

Abstract

Sum?nay.-Personality, as represented by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and its interpretative literature as a means of understanding behavior, is critically analyzed. Specifically, the dichotomous nature of the indices is criticized as is its operationaliza-[ion of Jung's psychological rypes. This paper argues that Jung's stated intentions for understanding individual behavior suggesc chat personality variables exist in various levels of consciousness and unconsciousness which require study to consider the proportions wich which each exists. The paper also considers a reconstrucuon of the measure of Jung's psychological rypes and reconsideration of the descriptions and characterisucs of each personahty function measured.Understanding individual behavior has been a long and exhausting effort in the management literature. While there is much debate between dispositional and situational explanations of behavior (McClelland, 1985; Davis-Blake , a general theme is that behavior involves an interaction of both &spositions and situations (Pervin, 1989;House, et a/., 1996). If an individual perceives a situation to be particularly strong, one which invokes a high motivational force (Vroom, 1964), then this situation wdl have a strong influence on behavior, perhaps over-riding a disposition. Conversely, a person with a strong behavioral disposition will likely behave in a consistent manner across situations. The relative strengths of dispositions and situations account for individual behavior in this model. If two individuals perceive a situation to be the same, what produces differences in behavior? Using the statements above, we would conclude that they must have M e r e n t dispositions or preferences for certain behaviors. Personality theory suggests that the two may have different personality preferences which influenced behavior.A very widely accepted personality measure is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Clawson, Kotter, Faux, & McArthur, 1992). The underlying theory suggests that indviduals displaying different behaviors have ddferent per-'The author thanks &chard W. SchoU, John Boulmeus, Charles F. Hickox, and three anonymous reviewers for their insighdul comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this rnanuscri t ~B d i e s s enquiries toJ. E. Barbuto, Jr., Management Department, 31Za Ballentine Hall, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881 or e-mad (JBAR8161@URIACC.URI.EDU).

Futures of integral futures: An analysis of Richard Slaughter's analysis of Causal Layered Analysis

“…26 Where AQAL would be configured according to vertical and horizontal metaphors; quadrants represent different (but not developmental) perspectives of the same holon. [69][70][71]-or, indeed, that the Myers Briggs Indicator might even be a depostformalisation of Jung's work [72]; he does not discuss Jung's archetypes in relation to discourse regarding universals and nominalism [73] 28 -a quest highly pertinent to integral theorising; nor does he identify Riso and Hudson's Enneagram as stemming from a Neoplatonic understanding-as relayed through George Ivanovich Gurdjieff, Guvia Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo [74, pp. 19-26].…”

Emotional Experiences and Frequency of Domestic Abuse Among Female and Male College Students

“…A series of step-wise regression analyses were conducted to examine the ability of partner type to { The CAS items were treated as continuous measures based on the assumption that we can learn more about behavior by using continuous measures instead of arbitrary cut-points (Barbuto, 1997).…”

Learning styles and the human brain: what does the evidence tell us?

“…Although not explicitly recognized in the literature reviews on the subject, the notion of learning styles is closely related to the psychological type theory, introduced by the Swiss psychiatrist and psychologist Carl Jung in 1923 (Barbuto, 1997;McCrae & Costa, 1989;Pittenger, 1993). This theory categorizes people by their propensities or functions of attitude, judgment and perception, which reflect the most natural or comfortable way in which people perform an action (Bayne, 1995).…”