Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The Myers Briggs Type Indicator: the origins, the structure and its criticisms

The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality inventory which is designed to measure how an individual perceives, thinks and processes information around them. It is often used in the business sector as well as career counseling as it can give an individual an idea about the career which is best suited for their personality. Recently, I saw an episode of the TRuTv’s Adam Ruins Everything show which he discusses the inventory as basically a fraud that it does not truly measure what it says it does. So I was curious. I studied the test as part of my psychology degree and I’ve taken the inventory many times. I wanted to look deeper into the history of the MBTI as well as the criticisms surrounding the inventory.


The Myers Briggs Type Indicator was developed by mother-daughter team of Katherine Cook Briggs (1875-1968) and Isabel Briggs Meyers (1897-1980). Katherine Cook Briggs was a psychologist theorist who researched personality types when she read Carl Jung’s book Psychological Types (1921). Isabel Briggs Meyers joined her mom and together developed the inventory. While neither woman had formal training in psychology and were self-taught in the field of psychometric testing (which was one of the criticism featured in Adam Ruins Everything), this could said of many of the early psychological theorists. Even Carl Jung’s early theory wasn’t based on any controlled scientific experiment but instead through clinical observations. This was the norm until the scientific method become standard when applied to psychology in the 1940s with BF Skinner’s operant conditioning experiments. Jung’s theory contained four cognition functions: thinking, feeling, sensations, and intuition and one of two polar orientations: extraversion and introversion.


The MBTI takes a structured approach to personality assessment where an individual would score on one of two categories on the four scales. First, interactions with others in the form of extraversion or introversion. An extraverted person would processes new information by talking and interacting with others. An introverted person would prefer reflection and privacy to process information internally. Second, attention focus in terms of sensation or intuition. A sensing person prefers a learning environment in a detailed and sequential manner. They will often focus on events occurring in the present and can move to abstract after a concrete experience is established. While an intuitive person prefers a learning atmosphere with an emphasis on meaning and association. They place higher value on insight than careful observation and pattern recognition occurs naturally. Third, decision preference through thinking or feeling. A thinking person using objective truth and logical principles and is natural at deductive reasoning. A feeling person places emphasis on issues and causes that can be personalized while considering motives of others. Lastly, complexity in the form of judging ot perceiving. A judging person thrives when information is organized and structured. They are motivated to complete assignments on time in order to gain closure. A perceiving person flourishes in flexible learning environments and may be late and or procrastinate.


The inventory has been criticized on the grounds poor validity and poor reliability. In terms of validity, many critics claim the inventory does not measure what it purports to measure. With reliability, critics claim the inventory does not give consist results for the same individual. It has been estimated that a third to one half of all published material supporting the MBTI had been funded by organizations backed by Myer Briggs advocates thus creating an argument that the studies reflect a lack of true critical scrutiny and studies supporting the MBTI were methodically weak or unscientific. According to psychometric specialist, Robert Hogan, most personality psychologists view the MBTI “as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie” (Hogan 2007). However, the MBTI has correlated with four of the Big Five Personality Traits. The four traits are openness to experience (inventive/curious or consistent/cautious), conscientiousness (efficient/organized or easygoing/careless), extraversion (outgoing/energetic or solitary/reserved), and agreeableness (friendly/compassionate or challenging/detached). The only Big Five personality trait the MBTI does not measure for is neuroticism (sensitive/nervous or secure/confident) which is a predictor of depression and anxiety disorders. The MBTI does depend on honest self-reporting. It does not use validity scales to assess exaggerated or socially desirable responses unlike the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). The test-retest reliability studies have shown 37-76% of respondents will obtain a different type of classification when retaking the test after five weeks.


That being said, I will discuss my scores. I first took the MBTI in 2000 when I was 21 year old. I received a classification of ISFJ: Introverted, Sensing, Feeling and Judging. When I took the test, my results showed strong preference in each scale. However, while researching for this post, I took the test again, at 38 years old, I received a classification of INFJ: Introverted, Intuition, Feeling and Judging. While only one scale changed, the preference in each scale changed too. My results indicated that I had a moderate preference for introversion over extraversion (31%), slight preferences of intuition over sensing (6%), feeling over thinking (19%) and judging over perceiving (6%). So what does this mean for me? Is the inventory wrong? No, I feel the differences between tests is an indication of growth on my part. When I was 21, I was strongly introverted and now after graduating college, getting married, having a child, and just day to day living, I have learned to experience the world. I do feel this inventory helps me understand myself and why I like to do things a certain way and why I have a hard time with certain situation. Does that mean I can’t function in situations different from my preferences? No, it just mean that I will have to work harder to accomplish what needs to be done in challenging situations outside my preferences.


In conclusion, the MBTI is one of many tools that psychologists use to gain a picture of who each individual is and it shouldn’t be used as an absolute indicator. Humans are fluid who grow throughout their lives. While some aspects of who we are stay static, others will mold and change as we age. Katherine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers may not have had a formal education in the field of psychology; however, many did not in the early 20th century and the early pioneers of psychology were actually trained in the field of medicine or even philosophy. To criticize an inventory simply because the writer would not formally trained is unfounded as the critic may not understand the true history of psychology. However, it does not mean that every psychological test should be accepted without scrutiny.


I will leave you with little tidbit. According to the MBTI, as an ISFJ, I am “quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Work devotedly to meet you obligations. Lend stability to any project or group. Thorough, painstaking, accurate. Your interests are not usually technical. Can be patient with necessary details. Loyal considerate, perceptive, concerned with how other people feel.” With my new results, as an INFJ, I “succeed perseverance, originality, and a desire to do whatever is needed or wanted. Put your best efforts into their work. Quietly, forceful, conscientious, concerned for others. Respected for their firm principles. Likely to be honored and followed for your clear visions as to how best to serve the common good.” While both description have some overlap; but I think my family and friends would say both accurately describe me.

If you would like to take the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, there are a number of website who offer it online. The links before are just a few:




References

Hogan, Robert (2007) Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Eribaum Associates, pg. 28. 

No comments:

Post a Comment