Studies of Jungian typology: I. Memory, social perception, and social action¹

Abstract

One of the major controversies in contemporary personality research-the struggle between advocates of "dispositional" vs. "situational" formulations-now seems to be resolved m mutual agreement that "mteractional" conceptual frameworks are required. While this detente is a heartening development, it offers no solution to a central, enduring question How do personality dispositions structure and modulate the individual's transactions with the field? Urgently needed are conceptual frameworks capable of guiding such mteractional mquiry, yet few promismg formulations can be found m contemporary work Paradoxically, the basic steps toward a "new" and viable personology may consist m redamung and testing a theoretical hentage neglected dunng the recent neo-behaviorist era, and in reinstating quahtative, categoncal constructs as tools of mquiry. Some coherent vision of the nature and organization of mtraindividual quahties and of the nature of person-situation interactions is required by the task at hand. One of the most promising and neglected approaches to this problem may be found in Jung's (1923) theory of psychological types This paper reports a set of studies testing derivations from Jungian type theory, and addresses two basic questions: (1) Is Jungian theory capable of provldmg novel and testable insights into person-situation relationships? (2) Can theoretically-guided research emjdoying categoncal constructs offer a clearer, more differentiated-and more humanly economical-understanding of person-situation interactions than is afforded by current concerns (cf., Carlson, 1971) with estabhshing general laws?Over the past fifty years, Jungian type theory has met a curious i.We are grateful to Shanm Jones, Broadus Miller, and James Maney few their hdb in data collection , ,, . . a. Requests for TepraOs shmM be salt to Rae Carlson,

Genome-wide association study of the five-factor model of personality in young Korean women

“…61 Other studies also demonstrated an association between personality traits and memory. 62 For example, Carlson and Levy 63 found an association between Extraversion and short-term memory, whereas Cuttler and Graf 64 reported a link between Conscientiousness and prospective memory. Memory, personality, behavior and academic performance are common areas of study for psychologists.…”

Studies of Jungian Typology: III Personality and Marriage

“…Thinking types rely on impersonal logic and consistency in coming t o conclusions about experience; feeling types spontaneously invoke affective appreciation as criteria in arriving a t judgments. These type differences were found in earlier studies of short-term memory (Carlson & Levy, 1973), style (but not content) of personally significant emotional memories (Carlson, 1980), and in responsiveness to emotional implications of everyday encounters (Carlson, 1982).…”

“…program found clear typological differences on laboratory tasks involving shortterm memory and interpretation of facial expressions of emotion (Carlson & Levy, 1973), in memories of significant emotional experiences and in personal constructs (Carlson, 1980), and in the emotional experiences of everyday life (Carlson, 1982). Here we turned to the more difficult and involving realm of dyadic relationships to ask how more or less "successfully" married couples manifest psychological type in their perceptions of self, spouse, and the relationship.…”

Cognitive style and customer orientation

“…For example, researchers in management have found that people with different cognitive styles prefer different ways of hand];ng conflicts (e.g., Ki]mAnn & Thomas, 1975), different problemsolving approaches (e.g., Hellriegel & Slocum, 1975), and that they pro-cess information differently (Smith & Urban, 1978). The psychology, social-psychology, and education literatures have also amassed numerous cases revealing that people of diFFering cognitive styles differ in their approach to information processing, decision m~klng, learnlng, and communicating (e.g., Carlson & Levy, 1973;McCaulley & Natter, 1974;Levin, 1978;Thompson, 1984). Since all of these processes impact interpersonal interactions, and since interpersonal interactions affect a salesperson's customer relations, it seems likely that cognitive style will influence an individual's orientation toward the customer (a customer orientation) or toward making the sale (a sales orientation).…”