The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an introspective self-report questionnaire designed to indicate psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions

1. MBTI
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
A chart with descriptions of each Myers–Briggs personality type and the four dichotomies central to the theory
The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an introspective self-report questionnaire designed to indicate psychological
preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions.[1][2][3]
The MBTI was constructed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers. It is based on the typological
theory proposed by Carl Jung[4]
who had speculated that there are four principal psychological functions by which humans
experience the world – sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking – and that one of these four functions is dominant for
a person most of the time.[5]
The MBTI was constructed for normal populations and emphasizes the value of naturally
occurring differences.[6]
“The underlying assumption of the MBTI is that we all have specific preferences in the way we
construe our experiences, and these preferences underlie our interests, needs, values, and motivation.”[7]
Although popular in the business sector, the MBTI exhibits significant psychometric deficiencies, notably including poor
validity (i.e. not measuring what it purports to measure) and poor reliability (giving different results for the same person on
different occasions).[8][9][10]
The four scales used in the MBTI have some correlation with four of the Big Five personality
traits, which are a more commonly accepted framework.
1

2. 2 1 HISTORY
1 History
Katharine Cook Briggs began her research into personality in 1917. Upon meeting her future son-in-law, she observed
marked differences between his personality and that of other family members. Briggs embarked on a project of reading
biographies, and subsequently developed a typology wherein she proposed four temperaments: meditative (or thoughtful),
spontaneous, executive, and social.[11][12]
After the English translation of Jung’s book Psychological Types was published in 1923 (first published in German in
1921), she recognized that Jung’s theory was similar to, but went far beyond, her own.[1]:22
Briggs’s four types were later
identified as corresponding to the Is, EPs, ETJs and EFJs.[11][12]
Her first publications were two articles describing Jung’s
theory, in the journal New Republic in 1926 (“Meet Yourself Using the Personality Paint Box”) and 1928 (“Up From
Barbarism”). After extensively studying the work of Jung, they turned their interest in human behavior into efforts to turn
the theory of psychological types to practical use.[2][13]
Briggs’s daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, added to her mother’s typological research, which she would progressively take
over entirely. Myers graduated first in her class from Swarthmore College in 1919[1]:xx
and wrote a mystery novel,
Murder Yet to Come, in 1929 using typological ideas (which won the National Detective Murder Mystery Contest that
year). However, neither Myers nor Briggs were formally educated in the discipline of psychology and lacked scientific
credentials in the field of psychometric testing.[1]:xiii
Myers therefore apprenticed herself to Edward N. Hay, who was then
personnel manager for a large Philadelphia bank and who went on to start one of the first successful personnel consulting
firms in the United States. From Hay, Myers learned rudimentary test construction, scoring, validation, and statistical
methods.[1]:xiii, xx
Briggs and Myers began creating the indicator during World War II[2]
in the belief that a knowledge of personality
preferences would help women who were entering the industrial workforce for the first time to identify the sort of war-
time jobs that would be “most comfortable and effective” for them.[1]:xiii
The Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook
was published in 1944. The indicator changed its name to “Myers–Briggs Type Indicator” in 1956.[14]
Myers’ work
attracted the attention of Henry Chauncey, head of the Educational Testing Service. Under these auspices the first MBTI
Manual was published in 1962. The MBTI received further support from Donald W. MacKinnon, head of the Institute of
Personality and Social Research (IPSR) at the University of California, Berkeley; W. Harold Grant, a professor at Michigan
State University and Auburn University; and Mary H. McCaulley of the University of Florida. The publication of the
MBTI was transferred to Consulting Psychologists Press (CPP) in 1975 and the Center for Applications of Psychological
Type (CAPT) was founded as a research laboratory.[1]:xxi
After Myers’ death in May 1980, Mary McCaulley updated the MBTI Manual and the second edition was published in
1985.[15]
The third edition appeared in 1998.
1.1 Origins of the theory
Jung’s theory of psychological types was not based on controlled scientific studies[16]
but, instead, on subjective clinical ob-
servation, introspection and anecdote—methods regarded as inconclusive in the modern field of scientific psychology.[16]
Jung’s typology theories postulated a sequence of four cognitive functions (thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition),
each having one of two polar orientations (extraversion or introversion), giving a total of eight dominant functions. The
MBTI is based on these eight hypothetical functions, although with some differences in expression from Jung’s model (see
Differences from Jung below). However, neither the Myers–Briggs nor the Jungian models offer any empirical evidence
to support the existence, sequence, orientation, or manifestation of these claimed functions.[16]
1.2 Differences from Jung
1.2.1 Structured vs. projective personality assessment
The MBTI takes what is called a “structured” approach to personality assessment. The responses to items are considered
“closed” and interpreted according to the theory of the test constructers in scoring. This is contrary to the “projective”
approach to personality assessment advocated by psychodynamic theorists such as Carl Jung. Indeed, Jung was a pro-

3. 3
ponent of the “word association” test as a measure of the unconscious dispositions influencing behavior. This approach
uses “open-ended” responses that need to be interpreted in the context of the “whole” person, and not according to the
pre-conceived theory of the test constructers. Supporters of the projective approach to personality assessment are critical
of the structured approach because defense mechanisms may distort responses to the closed items on structured tests.
1.2.2 Judging vs. perception
The most notable addition of Myers and Briggs ideas to Jung’s original thought is their concept that a given type’s fourth
letter (J or P) indicates a person’s preferred extraverted function, which is the dominant function for extraverted types and
the auxiliary function for introverted types.[1]:21–22
Orientation of the tertiary function Jung theorized that the dominant function acts alone in its preferred world: ex-
terior for extraverts and interior for introverts. The remaining three functions, he suggested, operate together in the
opposite orientation. If the dominant cognitive function is introverted the other functions are extraverted and vice versa.
The MBTI Manual summarizes references in Jung’s work to the balance in psychological type as follows: “There are
several references in Jung’s writing to the three remaining functions having an opposite attitudinal character. For ex-
ample, in writing about introverts with thinking dominant...Jung commented that the counterbalancing functions have
an extraverted character.”[15]
However, many MBTI practitioners hold that the tertiary function is oriented in the same
direction as the dominant function.[17]
Using the INTP type as an example, the orientation would be as follows:
• Dominant introverted thinking
• Auxiliary extraverted intuition
• Tertiary introverted sensing
• Inferior extraverted feeling
2 Concepts
The MBTI Manual states that the indicator “is designed to implement a theory; therefore the theory must be understood
to understand the MBTI”.[18]:1
Fundamental to the MBTI is the theory of psychological type as originally developed by
Carl Jung.[1]:xiii
Jung proposed the existence of two dichotomous pairs of cognitive functions:
• The “rational” (judging) functions: thinking and feeling
• The “irrational” (perceiving) functions: sensation and intuition
Jung believed that for every person each of the functions are expressed primarily in either an introverted or extraverted
form.[1]:17
Based on Jung’s original concepts, Briggs and Myers developed their own theory of psychological type, de-
scribed below, on which the MBTI is based. However, although psychologist Hans Eysenck called the MBTI a moderately
successful quantification of Jung’s original principles as outlined in Psychological Types,[19]
he also said that "[The MBTI]
creates 16 personality types which are said to be similar to Jung’s theoretical concepts. I have always found difficulties
with this identification, which omits one half of Jung’s theory (he had 32 types, by asserting that for every conscious
combination of traits there was an opposite unconscious one). Obviously the latter half of his theory does not admit
of questionnaire measurement, but to leave it out and pretend that the scales measure Jungian concepts is hardly fair to
Jung.”[20]
In any event, both models remain hypothetical, with no controlled scientific studies supporting either Jung’s
original concept of type or the Myers–Briggs variation.[16]

4. 4 2 CONCEPTS
2.1 Type
Jung’s typological model regards psychological type as similar to left or right handedness: people are either born with,
or develop, certain preferred ways of perceiving and deciding. The MBTI sorts some of these psychological differences
into four opposite pairs, or "dichotomies", with a resulting 16 possible psychological types. None of these types are
“better” or “worse"; however, Briggs and Myers theorized that people innately “prefer” one overall combination of type
differences.[1]:9
In the same way that writing with the left hand is difficult for a right-hander, so people tend to find
using their opposite psychological preferences more difficult, even though they can become more proficient (and therefore
behaviorally flexible) with practice and development.
The 16 types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters—the initial letters of each of their four type
preferences (except in the case of intuition, which uses the abbreviation “N” to distinguish it from introversion). For
instance:
• ESTJ: extraversion (E), sensing (S), thinking (T), judgment (J)
• INFP: introversion (I), intuition (N), feeling (F), perception (P)
These abbreviations are applied to all 16 types.
2.2 Four dichotomies
The four pairs of preferences or dichotomies are shown in the table to the right.
Note that the terms used for each dichotomy have specific technical meanings relating to the MBTI which differ from
their everyday usage. For example, people who prefer judgment over perception are not necessarily more judgmental or
less perceptive. Nor does the MBTI instrument measure aptitude; it simply indicates for one preference over another.[18]:3
Someone reporting a high score for extraversion over introversion cannot be correctly described as more extraverted: they
simply have a clear preference.
Point scores on each of the dichotomies can vary considerably from person to person, even among those with the same
type. However, Isabel Myers considered the direction of the preference (for example, E vs. I) to be more important than
the degree of the preference (for example, very clear vs. slight).[15]
The expression of a person’s psychological type is more
than the sum of the four individual preferences. The preferences interact through type dynamics and type development.
2.3 Attitudes: extraversion/introversion
Myers–Briggs literature uses the terms extraversion and introversion as Jung first used them. Extraversion means literally
outward-turning and introversion, inward-turning.[21]
These specific definitions differ somewhat from the popular usage
of the words. Note that extraversion is the spelling used in MBTI publications.
The preferences for extraversion and introversion are often called "attitudes". Briggs and Myers recognized that each of
the cognitive functions can operate in the external world of behavior, action, people, and things (“extraverted attitude”)
or the internal world of ideas and reflection (“introverted attitude”). The MBTI assessment sorts for an overall preference
for one or the other.
People who prefer extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are
inactive, their motivation tends to decline. To rebuild their energy, extraverts need breaks from time spent in reflection.
Conversely, those who prefer introversion “expend” energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect
again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet time alone, away from activity.[22]
An extravert’s flow is directed outward toward people and objects, whereas the introvert’s is directed inward toward
concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics between extraverted and introverted people include the following:
• Extraverted are action-oriented, while introverted are thought-oriented.
• Extraverted seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverted seek depth of knowledge and influence.

5. 2.4 Functions: sensing/intuition and thinking/feeling 5
• Extraverted often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverted prefer more substantial interaction.
• Extraverted recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverted recharge and get their
energy from spending time alone; they consume their energy through the opposite process.[23]
2.4 Functions: sensing/intuition and thinking/feeling
Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions:
• Two perceiving functions: sensation (usually called sensing in MBTI writings) and intuition
• Two judging functions: thinking and feeling
According to Jung’s typology model, each person uses one of these four functions more dominantly and proficiently than
the other three; however, all four functions are used at different times depending on the circumstances.
Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is under-
stood and interpreted. People who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible, and
concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to
come “out of nowhere”.[1]:2
They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other
hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is less dependent upon the senses, that can be associated
with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more
interested in future possibilities. For them, the meaning is in the underlying theory and principles which are manifested
in the data.
Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and feeling functions are both used to
make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition).
Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems
reasonable, logical, causal, consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions
by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on
balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. Thinkers usually have
trouble interacting with people who are inconsistent or illogical, and tend to give very direct feedback to others. They are
concerned with the truth and view it as more important.
As noted already, people who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, “think better” than their feeling
counterparts, in the common sense; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions
(and, in any case, the MBTI assessment is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those who prefer feeling do
not necessarily have “better” emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts.
2.4.1 Dominant function
According to Jung, people use all four cognitive functions. However, one function is generally used in a more conscious
and confident way. This dominant function is supported by the secondary (auxiliary) function, and to a lesser degree the
tertiary function. The fourth and least conscious function is always the opposite of the dominant function. Myers called
this inferior function the shadow.[1]:84
The four functions operate in conjunction with the attitudes (extraversion and introversion). Each function is used in either
an extraverted or introverted way. A person whose dominant function is extraverted intuition, for example, uses intuition
very differently from someone whose dominant function is introverted intuition.
2.5 Lifestyle preferences: judging/perception
Myers and Briggs added another dimension to Jung’s typological model by identifying that people also have a preference
for using either the judging function (thinking or feeling) or their perceiving function (sensing or intuition) when relating
to the outside world (extraversion).

6. 6 3 FORMAT AND ADMINISTRATION
Myers and Briggs held that types with a preference for judging show the world their preferred judging function (thinking
or feeling). So TJ types tend to appear to the world as logical and FJ types as empathetic. According to Myers,[1]:75
judging types like to “have matters settled”.
Those types who prefer perception show the world their preferred perceiving function (sensing or intuition). So SP types
tend to appear to the world as concrete and NP types as abstract. According to Myers,[1]:75
perceptive types prefer to
“keep decisions open”.
For extraverts, the J or P indicates their dominant function; for introverts, the J or P indicates their auxiliary function.
Introverts tend to show their dominant function outwardly only in matters “important to their inner worlds”.[1]:13
For
example:
Because the ENTJ type is extraverted, the J indicates that the dominant function is the preferred judging function (ex-
traverted thinking). The ENTJ type introverts the auxiliary perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary
function is sensing and the inferior function is introverted feeling.
Because the INTJ type is introverted, however, the J instead indicates that the auxiliary function is the preferred judging
function (extraverted thinking). The INTJ type introverts the dominant perceiving function (introverted intuition). The
tertiary function is feeling and the inferior function is extraverted sensing.
3 Format and administration
The current North American English version of the MBTI Step I includes 93 forced-choice questions (there are 88 in the
European English version). “Forced-choice” means that a person has to choose only one of two possible answers to each
question. The choices are a mixture of word pairs and short statements. Choices are not literal opposites but chosen to
reflect opposite preferences on the same dichotomy. Participants may skip questions if they feel they are unable to choose.
Using psychometric techniques, such as item response theory, the MBTI will then be scored and will attempt to identify
the preference, and clarity of preference, in each dichotomy. After taking the MBTI, participants are usually asked to
complete a “Best Fit” exercise (see below) and then given a readout of their Reported Type, which will usually include a
bar graph and number (Preference Clarity Index, or PCI) to show how clear they were about each preference when they
completed the questionnaire.
During the early development of the MBTI thousands of items were used. Most were eventually discarded because they
did not have high “midpoint discrimination”, meaning the results of that one item did not, on average, move an individual
score away from the midpoint. Using only items with high midpoint discrimination allows the MBTI to have fewer items
on it but still provide as much statistical information as other instruments with many more items with lower midpoint
discrimination.
3.1 Additional formats
Isabel Myers had noted that people of any given type shared differences as well as similarities. At the time of her death,
she was developing a more in-depth method of measuring how people express and experience their individual type pattern.
In 1987, an advanced scoring system was developed for the MBTI. From this was developed the Type Differentiation
Indicator (TDI) (Saunders, 1989) which is a scoring system for the longer MBTI, Form J,[24]
which includes the 290
items written by Myers that had survived her previous item analyses. It yields 20 subscales (five under each of the four di-
chotomous preference scales), plus seven additional subscales for a new “Comfort-Discomfort” factor (which purportedly
corresponds to the missing factor of Neuroticism).
This factor’s scales indicate a sense of overall comfort and confidence versus discomfort and anxiety. They also load onto
one of the four type dimensions:[25]
guarded-optimistic (also T/F), defiant-compliant (also T/F), carefree-worried (also
T/F), decisive-ambivalent (also J/P), intrepid-inhibited (Also E/I), leader-follower (Also E/I), and proactive-distractible
(also J/P)
Also included is a composite of these called “strain”. There are also scales for type-scale consistency and comfort-scale
consistency. Reliability of 23 of the 27 TDI subscales is greater than 0.50, “an acceptable result given the brevity of the

7. 3.2 Translations into other languages 7
subscales” (Saunders, 1989).
In 1989, a scoring system was developed for only the 20 subscales for the original four dichotomies. This was initially
known as “Form K” or the “Expanded Analysis Report” (EAR). This tool is now called the "MBTI Step II".
Form J or the TDI included the items (derived from Myers’ and McCaulley’s earlier work) necessary to score what became
known as “Step III”.[26]
(The 1998 MBTI Manual reported that the two instruments were one and the same[27]
) It was
developed in a joint project involving the following organizations: CPP, the publisher of the whole family of MBTI works;
CAPT (Center for Applications of Psychological Type), which holds all of Myers’ and McCaulley’s original work; and
the MBTI Trust, headed by Katharine and Peter Myers. Step III was advertised as addressing type development and the
use of perception and judgment by respondents.[28]
3.2 Translations into other languages
The MBTI has been successfully translated and adapted into over 20 languages,[29][30]
including reviews by subject matter
experts fluent in the native language, and statistical analysis to check that the questions still measure the same psychological
concepts as the original US English questionnaire.[31]
4 Precepts and ethics
The following precepts are generally used in the ethical administration of the MBTI:
Type not trait The MBTI sorts for type; it does not indicate the strength of ability. It allows the clarity of a preference
to be ascertained (Bill clearly prefers introversion), but not the strength of preference (Jane strongly prefers ex-
traversion) or degree of aptitude (Harry is good at thinking). In this sense, it differs from trait-based tools such as
16PF. Type preferences are polar opposites: a precept of MBTI is that people fundamentally prefer one thing over
the other, not a bit of both.
Own best judge People are considered the best judge of their own type. While the MBTI provides a Reported Type,
this is considered only an indication of their probable overall Type. A Best Fit Process is usually used to allow
respondents to develop their understanding of the four dichotomies, to form their own hypothesis as to their overall
Type, and to compare this against the Reported Type. In more than 20% of cases, the hypothesis and the Reported
Type differ in one or more dichotomies. Using the clarity of each preference, any potential for bias in the report,
and often, a comparison of two or more whole Types may then help respondents determine their own Best Fit.
No right or wrong No preference or total type is considered better or worse than another. They are all Gifts Differing,
as emphasized by the title of Isabel Briggs Myers’ book on this subject.
Voluntary It is considered unethical to compel anyone to take the MBTI. It should always be taken voluntarily.[32]
Confidentiality The result of the MBTI Reported and Best Fit type are confidential between the individual and admin-
istrator and, ethically, not for disclosure without permission.
Not for selection The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the respondent in any
way” (emphasis original).[32]
Since all types are valuable, and the MBTI measures preferences rather than aptitude,
the MBTI is not considered a proper instrument for purposes of employment selection. Many professions contain
highly competent individuals of different types with complementary preferences.
Importance of proper feedback People should always be given detailed feedback from a trained administrator and an
opportunity to undertake a Best Fit exercise to check against their Reported Type. This feedback can be given in
person, by telephone or electronically.

8. 8 5 TYPE DYNAMICS AND DEVELOPMENT
5 Type dynamics and development
The interaction of two, three, or four preferences is known as “type dynamics”. Although type dynamics has received
little or no empirical support to substantiate its viability as a scientific theory,[34]
Myers and Briggs asserted that for each
of the 16 four-preference types, one function is the most dominant and is likely to be evident earliest in life. A secondary
or auxiliary function typically becomes more evident (differentiated) during teenage years and provides balance to the
dominant. In normal development, individuals tend to become more fluent with a third, tertiary function during mid-life,
while the fourth, inferior function remains least consciously developed. The inferior function is often considered to be
more associated with the unconscious, being most evident in situations such as high stress (sometimes referred to as being
in the grip of the inferior function).
However, the use of type dynamics is disputed: in the conclusion of various studies on the subject of type dynamics,
James H. Reynierse writes that “Type dynamics has persistent logical problems and is fundamentally based on a series
of category mistakes; it provides, at best, a limited and incomplete account of type related phenomena"; and that “type
dynamics relies on anecdotal evidence, fails most efficacy tests, and does not fit the empirical facts”. His studies gave the
clear result that the descriptions and workings of type dynamics do not fit the real behavior of people. He suggests getting
completely rid of type dynamics, because it does not help but hinders understanding of personality. The presumed order
of functions 1 to 4 did only occur in one out of 540 test results.[35]
The sequence of differentiation of dominant, auxiliary, and tertiary functions through life is termed type development.
This is an idealized sequence that may be disrupted by major life events.
The dynamic sequence of functions and their attitudes can be determined in the following way:
• The overall lifestyle preference (J-P) determines whether the judging (T-F) or perceiving (S-N) preference is most
evident in the outside world; i.e., which function has an extraverted attitude
• The attitude preference (E-I) determines whether the extraverted function is dominant or auxiliary
• For those with an overall preference for extraversion, the function with the extraverted attitude will be the dominant
function. For example, for an ESTJ type the dominant function is the judging function, thinking, and this is
experienced with an extraverted attitude. This is notated as a dominant Te. For an ESTP, the dominant function is
the perceiving function, sensing, notated as a dominant Se.
• The auxiliary function for extraverts is the secondary preference of the judging or perceiving functions, and it is
experienced with an introverted attitude: for example, the auxiliary function for ESTJ is introverted sensing (Si)
and the auxiliary for ESTP is introverted thinking (Ti).
• For those with an overall preference for introversion, the function with the extraverted attitude is the auxiliary; the
dominant is the other function in the main four letter preference. So the dominant function for ISTJ is introverted
sensing (Si) with the auxiliary (supporting) function being extraverted thinking (Te).
• The tertiary function is the opposite preference from the auxiliary. For example, if the Auxiliary is thinking then
the Tertiary would be feeling. The attitude of the tertiary is the subject of some debate and therefore is not normally
indicated; i.e. if the auxiliary was Te then the tertiary would be F (not Fe or Fi)
• The inferior function is the opposite preference and attitude from the Dominant, so for an ESTJ with dominant Te
the inferior would be Fi.
Note that for extraverts, the dominant function is the one most evident in the external world. For introverts, however, it
is the auxiliary function that is most evident externally, as their dominant function relates to the interior world.
Some examples of whole types may clarify this further. Taking the ESTJ example above:
• Extraverted function is a judging function (T-F) because of the overall J preference
• Extraverted function is dominant because of overall E preference
• Dominant function is therefore extraverted thinking (Te)

9. 9
• Auxiliary function is the preferred perceiving function: introverted sensing (Si)
• Tertiary function is the opposite of the Auxiliary: intuition (N)
• Inferior function is the opposite of the Dominant: introverted feeling (Fi)
The dynamics of the ESTJ are found in the primary combination of extraverted thinking as their dominant function and
introverted sensing as their auxiliary function: the dominant tendency of ESTJs to order their environment, to set clear
boundaries, to clarify roles and timetables, and to direct the activities around them is supported by their facility for using
past experience in an ordered and systematic way to help organize themselves and others. For instance, ESTJs may enjoy
planning trips for groups of people to achieve some goal or to perform some culturally uplifting function. Because of
their ease in directing others and their facility in managing their own time, they engage all the resources at their disposal
to achieve their goals. However, under prolonged stress or sudden trauma, ESTJs may overuse their extraverted thinking
function and fall into the grip of their inferior function, introverted feeling. Although the ESTJ can seem insensitive
to the feelings of others in their normal activities, under tremendous stress, they can suddenly express feelings of being
unappreciated or wounded by insensitivity.
Looking at the diametrically opposite four-letter type, INFP:
• Extraverted function is a perceiving function (S-N) because of the P preference
• Introverted function is dominant because of the I preference
• Dominant function is therefore introverted feeling (Fi)
• Auxiliary function is extraverted intuition (Ne)
• Tertiary function is the opposite of the Auxiliary: sensing (S)
• Inferior function is the opposite of the Dominant: extraverted thinking (Te)
The dynamics of the INFP rest on the fundamental correspondence of introverted feeling and extraverted intuition. The
dominant tendency of the INFP is toward building a rich internal framework of values and toward championing human
rights. They often devote themselves behind the scenes to causes such as civil rights or saving the environment. Since
they tend to avoid the limelight, postpone decisions, and maintain a reserved posture, they are rarely found in executive-
director-type positions of the organizations that serve those causes. Normally, the INFP dislikes being “in charge” of
things. When not under stress, the INFP radiates a pleasant and sympathetic demeanor, but under extreme stress, they
can suddenly become rigid and directive, exerting their extraverted thinking erratically.
Every type, and its opposite, is the expression of these interactions, which give each type its unique, recognizable signature.
6 Cognitive learning styles
The test is scored by evaluating each answer in terms of what it reveals about the taker. Each question is relevant to one
of the following cognitive learning styles. Each is not a polar opposite, but a gradual continuum.
6.1 Extraversion/Introversion
The extraverted types learn best by talking and interacting with others. By interacting with the physical world, extraverts
can process and make sense of new information. The introverted types prefer quiet reflection and privacy. Information
processing occurs for introverts as they explore ideas and concepts internally.

10. 10 7 CORRELATIONS WITH OTHER INSTRUMENTS
6.2 Sensing/Intuition
The second continuum reflects what people focus their attentions on. Sensing types enjoy a learning environment in
which the material is presented in a detailed and sequential manner. Sensing types often attend to what is occurring in the
present, and can move to the abstract after they have established a concrete experience. Intuitive types prefer a learning
atmosphere in which an emphasis is placed on meaning and associations. Insight is valued higher than careful observation,
and pattern recognition occurs naturally for intuitive types.
6.3 Thinking/Feeling
The third continuum reflects a person’s decision preferences. Thinking types desire objective truth and logical principles
and are natural at deductive reasoning. Feeling types place an emphasis on issues and causes that can be personalized
while they consider other people’s motives.
6.4 Judging/Perceiving
The fourth continuum reflects how a person regards complexity. Judging types will thrive when information is organized
and structured, and they will be motivated to complete assignments in order to gain closure. Perceiving types will flourish
in a flexible learning environment in which they are stimulated by new and exciting ideas. Judging types like to be on
time, while perceiving types may be late and/or procrastinate.
7 Correlations with other instruments
7.1 Keirsey temperaments
David W. Keirsey mapped four “temperaments” to the existing Myers–Briggs system groupings: SP, SJ, NF and NT; this
often results in confusion of the two theories. However, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter is not directly associated with
the official Myers–Briggs Type Indicator.
7.2 Big Five
McCrae and Costa based their Five Factor Model (FFM) on Goldberg’s Big Five theory.[36]
McCrae and Costa[37]
present
correlations between the MBTI scales and the currently popular Big Five personality constructs measured, for example,
by the NEO-PI-R.[38]
The five purported personality constructs have been labeled: extraversion, openness, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, and neuroticism (emotional instability), although there is not universal agreement on the Big Five theory
and the related Five-Factor Model (FFM).[39][40]
The following study is based on the results from 267 men followed as
part of a longitudinal study of aging. (Similar results were obtained with 201 women.)
These results suggest that the four MBTI scales can be incorporated within the Big Five personality trait constructs, but
that the MBTI lacks a measure for emotional stability dimension of the Big Five (though the TDI, discussed above, has
addressed that dimension). Emotional stability (or neuroticism) is a predictor of depression and anxiety disorders. These
correlations refer to the second letter shown, i.e., the table shows that I and P have negative correlations with extraversion
and conscientiousness, respectively, while F and N have positive correlations with agreeableness and openness, respec-
tively.
These findings led McCrae and Costa to conclude that, “correlational analyses showed that the four MBTI indices did
measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal personality. The five-factor model provides an alternative
basis for interpreting MBTI findings within a broader, more commonly shared conceptual framework.” However, “there
was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types, instead,
the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions.”[37]

11. 7.3 Personality disorders 11
7.3 Personality disorders
One study found personality disorders as described by the DSM overall to correlate modestly with I, N, T, and P, although
the associations varied significantly by disorder. The only two disorders with significant correlations of all four MBTI
dimensions were schizotypal (INTP) and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (ISTJ).[41]
8 Criticism
The validity (statistical validity and test validity) of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of much
criticism.
It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for the spe-
cial conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provide the training in the MBTI, and are
funded by sales of the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is edited and supported by Myers–
Briggs advocates and by sales of the indicator).[42]
It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.[42]
Many
of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak or unscientific.[9]
A 1996 review by Gardner and Martinko
concluded: “It is clear that efforts to detect simplistic linkages between type preferences and managerial effectiveness
have been disappointing. Indeed, given the mixed quality of research and the inconsistent findings, no definitive conclusion
regarding these relationships can be drawn.”[9][43]
Psychometric specialist Robert Hogan wrote that “Most personality psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an
elaborate Chinese fortune cookie...”[44]
8.1 No evidence for dichotomies
As described in the Four dichotomies section, Isabel Myers considered the direction of the preference (for example, E
vs. I) to be more important than the degree of the preference. Statistically, this would mean that scores on each MBTI
scale would show a bimodal distribution with most people scoring near the ends of the scales, thus dividing people into
either, e.g., an extraverted or an introverted psychological type. However, most studies have found that scores on the
individual scales were actually distributed in a centrally peaked manner, similar to a normal distribution, indicating that
the majority of people were actually in the middle of the scale and were thus neither clearly introverted nor extraverted.
Most personality traits do show a normal distribution of scores from low to high, with about 15% of people at the low
end, about 15% at the high end and the majority of people in the middle ranges. But in order for the MBTI to be scored,
a cut-off line is used at the middle of each scale and all those scoring below the line are classified as a low type and those
scoring above the line are given the opposite type. Thus, psychometric assessment research fails to support the concept
of type, but rather shows that most people lie near the middle of a continuous curve.[8][37][45][46][47]
“Although we do
not conclude that the absence of bimodality necessarily proves that the MBTI developers’ theory-based assumption of
categorical “types” of personality is invalid, the absence of empirical bimodality in IRT-based research of MBTI scores
does indeed remove a potentially powerful line of evidence that was previously available to “type” advocates to cite in
defense of their position.”[47]
8.2 Validity and utility
The content of the MBTI scales is problematic. In 1991, a National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from
MBTI research studies and concluded that only the I-E scale has high correlations with comparable scales of other instru-
ments and low correlations with instruments designed to assess different concepts, showing strong validity. In contrast,
the S-N and T-F scales show relatively weak validity. The 1991 review committee concluded at the time there was “not
sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs”.[48]
This study based
its measurement of validity on “criterion-related validity (i.e., does the MBTI predict specific outcomes related to inter-
personal relations or career success/job performance?).”[48]
There is insufficient evidence to make claims about utility,
particularly of the four letter type derived from a person’s responses to the MBTI items.[8]

12. 12 8 CRITICISM
8.3 Lack of objectivity
The accuracy of the MBTI depends on honest self-reporting.[18]:52–53
Unlike some personality questionnaires, such as
the 16PF Questionnaire, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, or the Personality Assessment Inventory, the
MBTI does not use validity scales to assess exaggerated or socially desirable responses.[49]
As a result, individuals moti-
vated to do so can fake their responses,[50]
and one study found that the MBTI judgment/perception dimension correlates
weakly with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire lie scale.[51]
If respondents “fear they have something to lose, they
may answer as they assume they should.”[18]:53
However, the MBTI ethical guidelines state, “It is unethical and in many
cases illegal to require job applicants to take the Indicator if the results will be used to screen out applicants.”[32]
The
intent of the MBTI is to provide “a framework for understanding individual differences, and … a dynamic model of
individual development”.[52]
8.4 Terminology
The terminology of the MBTI has been criticized as being very “vague and general”,[53]
so as to allow any kind of behavior
to fit any personality type, which may result in the Forer effect, where people give a high rating to a positive description
that supposedly applies specifically to them.[8][16]
Others argue that while the MBTI type descriptions are brief, they are
also distinctive and precise.[54]:14–15
Some theorists, such as David Keirsey, have expanded on the MBTI descriptions,
providing even greater detail. For instance, Keirsey’s descriptions of his four temperaments, which he correlated with
the sixteen MBTI personality types, show how the temperaments differ in terms of language use, intellectual orientation,
educational and vocational interests, social orientation, self-image, personal values, social roles, and characteristic hand
gestures.[54]:32–207
8.5 Factor analysis
Researchers have reported that the JP and the SN scales correlate with one another.[37]
One factor-analytic study based
on (N=1291) college-aged students found six different factors instead of the four purported dimensions, thereby raising
doubts as to the construct validity of the MBTI.[55]
8.6 Correlates
According to Hans Eysenck: “The main dimension in the MBTI is called E-I, or extraversion-introversion; this is mostly a
sociability scale, correlating quite well with the MMPI social introversion scale (negatively) and the Eysenck Extraversion
scale (positively).[56]
Unfortunately, the scale also has a loading on neuroticism, which correlates with the introverted
end. Thus introversion correlates roughly (i.e. averaging values for males and females) −.44 with dominance, −.24
with aggression, +.37 with abasement, +.46 with counselling readiness, −.52 with self-confidence, −.36 with personal
adjustment, and −.45 with empathy. The failure of the scale to disentangle Introversion and Neuroticism (there is no
scale for neurotic and other psychopathological attributes in the MBTI) is its worst feature, only equalled by the failure to
use factor analysis in order to test the arrangement of items in the scale.”[19]
8.7 Reliability
The test-retest reliability of the MBTI tends to be low. Large numbers of people (between 39% and 76% of respondents)
obtain different type classifications when retaking the indicator after only five weeks.[8][46][57]
In Fortune Magazine (May
15, 2013), an article entitled: “Have we all been duped by the Myers-Briggs Test”, stated that:
“The interesting -- and somewhat alarming -- fact about the MBTI is that, despite its popularity, it has
been subject to sustained criticism by professional psychologists for over three decades. One problem is that
it displays what statisticians call low “test-retest reliability.” So if you retake the test after only a five-week
gap, there’s around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category compared to the first
time you took the test.”

13. 13
The consequence is that the scores of two people labelled “introverted” and “extraverted” may be almost exactly the same,
but they could be placed into different categories since they fall on either side of an imaginary dividing line.[58]
Within each dichotomy scale, as measured on Form G, about 83% of categorizations remain the same when people are
retested within nine months and around 75% when retested after nine months. About 50% of people re-administered
the MBTI within nine months remain the same overall type and 36% the same type after more than nine months.[59]
For
Form M (the most current form of the MBTI instrument), the MBTI Manual reports that these scores are higher (p. 163,
Table 8.6).
In one study, when people were asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned by the MBTI assessment, only half
of people chose the same profile.[60]
Critics also argue that the MBTI lacks falsifiability, where every possible outcome
can be interpreted in support of a theory.
It has been argued that criticisms regarding the MBTI mostly come down to questions regarding the validity of its origins,
not questions regarding the validity of the MBTI’s usefulness.[61]
Others argue that the MBTI can be a reliable mea-
surement of personality; it just so happens that “like all measures, the MBTI yields scores that are dependent on sample
characteristics and testing conditions”.[62]
9 Utility
Isabel Myers claimed that the proportion of different personality types varied by choice of career or course of study.[1]:40–51[15]
However, researchers examining the proportions of each type within varying professions report that the proportion of
MBTI types within each occupation is close to that within a random sample of the population.[8]
Some researchers have
expressed reservations about the relevance of type to job satisfaction, as well as concerns about the potential misuse of
the instrument in labeling people.[8][63]
CPP became the exclusive publisher of the MBTI in 1975. They call it “the world’s most widely used personality assess-
ment”, with as many as two million assessments administered annually.[64]
CPP and other proponents state that the indi-
cator meets or exceeds the reliability of other psychological instruments and cite reports of individual behavior.[65][66][67]
Although some studies have claimed support for validity and reliability,[68][69]
most studies suggest that the MBTI “lacks
convincing validity data”.[8][37][45][46][70][71]
The MBTI is not a useful predictor of job performance.[8][48][72]
As noted above under Precepts and ethics, the MBTI
measures preferences, not ability. The use of the MBTI as a predictor of job success is expressly discouraged in the
Manual.[18]:78
However, the MBTI continues to be popular because many people lack psychometric sophistication, it is
not difficult to understand, and there are many supporting books, websites and other sources which are readily available
to the general public.[73]
10 See also
Criticism:
• Labeling theory
• Cold reading
• Barnum effect
• Aura (paranormal)
Others:
• Adjective Check List (ACL)
• Birkman Method

14. 14 11 NOTES
• Brain types
• CPI 260
• DISC assessment
• Enneagram of Personality
• Riso–Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator
• FIRO-B
• Forté Profile
• The Highlands Ability Battery
• Holland Codes
• Humorism
• Interaction Styles
• Interpersonal compatibility
• List of personality tests
• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator (PMAI)
• Personality Assessment System
• Personality clash
• Personality psychology
• Revised NEO Personality Inventory
• Socionics, a sister science[74]
• Strong Interest Inventory
• Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument
11 Notes
[1] Myers, Isabel Briggs with Peter B. Myers (1995) [1980]. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Mountain View, CA:
Davies-Black Publishing. ISBN 0-89106-074-X.
[2] MBTI basics, The Myers-Briggs Foundation, 2014, Retrieved 18 June 2014.
[3] Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), CPP.com, Menlo Park, CA, 2014, Retrieved 18 June 2014.
[4] Jung, Carl Gustav (August 1, 1971). “Psychological Types”. Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6. Princeton University
Press. ISBN 0-691-097704.
[5] Kaplan, R. M.; Saccuzzo, D. P. (2009). Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues (7 ed.). Belmont, California:
Wadsworth. ISBN 978-0495506362.
[6] Pearman, Roger R.; Sarah C. Albritton (1997). I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You (First ed.). Palo Alto, California: Davies-Black
Publishing. xiii. ISBN 0-89106-096-0.

15. 15
[7] Kaplan, R. M.; Saccuzzo, D. P. (2009). Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues (7 ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth. ISBN 978-0495506362.
[8] Pittenger, David J. (November 1993). “Measuring the MBTI...And Coming Up Short.” (PDF). Journal of Career Planning and
Employment 54 (1): 48–52.
[9] William L. Gardner & Mark J. Martinko (1996). “Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: A literature
review and research agenda”. Journal of Management 22: 45–83. doi:10.1177/014920639602200103.
[10] Boyle, G J (1995). “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric limitations”. Australian Psychologist 30: pp.
71–74. doi:10.1111/j.1742-9544.1995.tb01750.x
[11] “CAPT: “The Story of Isabel Briggs Myers"". Retrieved 2009-07-29.
[12] “The TYPE Writer: “It Happened In 1943: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Turns 60 Years Old"" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-
07-29.
[13] Center for Applications of Psychological Type. (2012). “The story of Isabel Briggs Myers”. Retrieved from http://www.capt.
org/mbti-assessment/isabel-myers.htm
[14] “Guide to the Isabel Briggs Myers Papers 1885-1992”. University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries, Department of
Special and Area Studies Collections, Gainesville, FL. 2003. Retrieved 2005-12-05.
[15] Myers, Isabel Briggs; McCaulley Mary H.; Quenk, Naomi L.; Hammer, Allen L. (1998). MBTI Manual (A guide to the devel-
opment and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator). Consulting Psychologists Press; 3rd ed edition. ISBN 0-89106-130-4.
[16] Carroll, Robert Todd (January 9, 2004). “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator-The Skeptic’s Dictionary”. Retrieved 2004-01-08.
[17] “TypeLogic”. Retrieved 2008-09-14.
[18] Myers, Isabel Briggs; Mary H. McCaulley (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press. ISBN 0-89106-027-8.
[19] Eysenck, H.J. Genius: The Natural History of Creativity (1995 ed.). p. 110.
[20] Eysenck, H.J. Genius: The Natural History of Creativity (1995 ed.). p. 179.
[21] Zeisset, Carolyn (2006). The Art of Dialogue: Exploring Personality Differences for More Effective Communication. Gainesville,
FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. p. 13. ISBN 0-935652-77-9.
[22] Nettle, Dr. Daniel. “Personality: A user guide”. The Open University. Retrieved 2013-04-17.
[23] Tieger, Paul D.; Barbara Barron-Tieger (1999). The Art of SpeedReading People. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
p. 66. ISBN 978-0-316-84518-2.
[24] “Hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator” (PDF). Retrieved 2008-09-14.
[25] Rebecca L. Oxford. Language learning motivation: pathways to the new century (Google Book). Retrieved 2012-01-27.
[26] Briggs Myers, Isabel; McCaulley, Mary H.; Quenk, Naomi L.; Hammer, Allen L.; Mitchell, Wayne D. MBTI Step III Manual:
Exploring Personality Development Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Instrument p.119. Consulting Psychologists Press
(2009)
[27] Myers, Isabel Briggs; McCaulley Mary H.; Quenk, Naomi L.; Hammer, Allen L. (1998). MBTI Manual (A guide to the develop-
ment and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator) p.131. Consulting Psychologists Press; 3rd ed edition. ISBN 0-89106-130-4.
[28] “CAPT Step III”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-14.
[29] Be Better with SkillsOne®
[30] International Test Commission (2010). International Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests.
[31] “MBTI® Step I instrument | European Data Supplement” (PDF). OPP Ltd, Elsfield Hall, Oxford. 8 March 2011. Retrieved
2014-07-04.
[32] “Ethics for Administering the MBTI Instrument”. Retrieved 2009-02-15.

16. 16 11 NOTES
[33] “CAPT—Center for Applications of Psychological Type”. Retrieved 2010-06-19.
[34] “The Personality Junkie: Personality Type Theory”. Retrieved 2009-11-22.
[35] James H. Reynierse, “The Case Against Type Dynamics”, Journal of Psychological Type, Issue 1 2009
[36] “University of Oregon: “Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors"". Retrieved 2008-08-08.
[37] McCrae, R R; Costa, P T (1989). “Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor
Model of Personality”. Journal of Personality 57 (1): 17–40. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x. PMID 2709300.
[38] Costa, P.T., Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI) Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
[39] Boyle, G. J., Stankov, L., & Cattell, R. B. (1995). Measurement and statistical models in the study of personality and intelligence.
In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence (pp. 417-446). New York:
Plenum.
[40] Boyle, G. J. (2008). Critique of Five-Factor Model (FFM). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske. (Eds.), The SAGE
Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Vol. 1 - Personality Theories and Models. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. ISBN
9-781412-946513
[41] “An Empirical Investigation of Jung’s Personality Types and Psychological Disorder Features” (PDF). Journal of Psychological
Type/University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. 2001. Retrieved 2013-08-10.
[42] Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K (2004). “Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and
critical review” (PDF). Learning and Skills Research Centre.
[43] Pittenger, David J. (1 January 2005). “Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.”. Consulting Psychol-
ogy Journal: Practice and Research 57 (3): 210–221. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210.
[44] Hogan, Robert (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 28. ISBN
0805841423. OCLC 65400436.
[45] Stricker, L J; Ross, J (1964). “An Assessment of Some Structural Properties of the Jungian Personality Typology”. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 68: 62–71. doi:10.1037/h0043580.
[46] Matthews, P (2004-05-21). “The MBTI is a flawed measure of personality”. Bmj.com Rapid Responses.
[47] Bess, T.L. & Harvey, R.J. (2001). “Bimodal score distributions and the MBTI: Fact or artifact?". The Annual Conference of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego 2001.
[48] Nowack, K. (1996). Is the Myers Briggs Type Indicator the Right Tool to Use? Performance in Practice, American Society of
Training and Development, Fall 1996, 6
[49] Boyle, G J (1995). “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric limitations”. Australian Psychologist 30: 71–74.
doi:10.1111/j.1742-9544.1995.tb01750.x.
[50] Furnham, A (1990). “Faking personality questionnaires: Fabricating different profiles for different purposes”. Current Psy-
chology 9: 46–55. doi:10.1007/BF02686767.
[51] Francis, L J; Jones, S H (2000). “The Relationship Between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire Among Adult Churchgoers”. Pastoral Psychology 48.
[52] “MBTI Type at Workl”. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
[53] “Forer effect from the Skeptic’s Dictionary”.
[54] Keirsey, David (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis
Book Company. ISBN 1-885705-02-6.
[55] Sipps, G.J., R.A. Alexander, and L. Friedt. “Item Analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.” Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 45, No. 4 (1985), pp. 789-796.
[56] Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and Individual Differences. New York: Plenum.

17. 17
[57] Grant, Adam. Say goodbye to MBTI, the fad that won't die. 2013. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130917155206-69244073-say-goodbye-to-m
[58] “Have we all been duped by the Myers-Briggs test? - Fortune”. management.fortune.cnn.com. Retrieved 2014-07-04.
[59] Harvey, R J (1996). “Reliability and Validity, in MBTI Applications A.L. Hammer, Editor”. Consulting Psychologists Press:
Palo Alto, California. pp. 5- 29.
[60] Carskadon, TG & Cook, DD (1982). “Validity of MBTI descriptions as perceived by recipients unfamiliar with type”. Research
in Psychological Type 5: 89–94.
[61] Dawes, Robyn (2004). “Time for a critical empirical investigation of the MBTI: Case and Phillipson are right to highlight the
pre-scientific roots of the MBTI, but they fail to separate the issue of the validity or usefulness of the MBTI from the issue of
the validity of its origins.(Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)". European Business Forum (18).
[62] Capraro, Robert; Margaret Capraro (2002). “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Score Reliability across Studies: A meta-analytic
reliability generalization study”. Educational and Psychological Measurement (62): 590–602.
[63] Druckman, D. and R. A. Bjork, Eds. (1992). In the Mind’s Eye: Enhancing Human Performance. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-04747-1.
[64] “CPP Products”. Retrieved 2009-06-20.
[65] Schaubhut, Nancy A.; Nicole A. Herk; Richard C.Thompson (2009). “MBTI Form M Manual Supplement” (PDF). CPP. p.
17. Retrieved 2010-05-08.
[66] Clack, Gillian; Judy Allen. “Response to Paul Matthews’ criticism”. Retrieved 2008-05-14.
[67] Barron-Tieger, Barbara; Tieger, Paul D. (1995). Do what you are: discover the perfect career for you through the secrets of
personality type. Boston: Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-84522-1.
[68] Thompson, Bruce; Gloria M. Borrello (Autumn 1986). “Construct Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator”. Educational
and Psychological Measurement (SAGE Publications) 46 (3): 745–752. doi:10.1177/0013164486463032.
[69] Capraro, Robert M.; Mary Margaret Capraro (August 2002). “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Score Reliability Across: Studies
a Meta-Analytic Reliability Generalization Study”. Educational and Psychological Measurement (SAGE Publications) 62 (4):
590–602. doi:10.1177/0013164402062004004.
[70] Hunsley J, Lee CM, Wood JM (2004). “Controversial and questionable assessment techniques”. Science and Pseudoscience in
Clinical Psychology, Lilienfeld SO, Lohr JM, Lynn SJ (eds.). Guilford. ISBN 1-59385-070-0., p. 65
[71] Kline, Paul, The Handbook of Psychological Testing, Psychology Press, 2000, ISBN 0-415-21158-1, ISBN 978-0-415-21158-1
[72] Letters to the Editor: It’s Not You, It’s Your Personality.” (1992, February 3). Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. PAGE
A13. Retrieved November 8, 2008, from Wall Street Journal database. (Document ID: 27836749).
[73] Corie Lok (2012). “Career development: What’s your type?". Nature 488, 545-547.
[74] Moshenkov, Sergei; Wing, Tung Tang (2010). MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung. CreateSpace. p. 216. ISBN
978-1452835648.
12 References and further reading
• Hunsley, J.; Lee, C.M.; and Wood, J.M. (2004). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. Science
and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Lilienfeld SO, Lohr JM, Lynn SJ (eds.). Guilford, ISBN 1-59385-070-0
• Bess, T.L.; and Harvey, R.J. (2001, April). Bimodal score distributions and the MBTI: Fact or artifact? Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.
• Bess, T.L.; Harvey, R.J.; and Swartz, D. (2003). Hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, Orlando.

18. 18 13 EXTERNAL LINKS
• Bourne, Dana (2005). Personality Types and the Transgender Community. Retrieved November 14, 2005
• Falt, Jack. Bibliography of MBTI/Temperament Books by Author. Retrieved December 20, 2004
• Georgia State University. GSU Master Teacher Program: On Learning Styles. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
• Jung, Carl Gustav (1965). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Vintage Books: New York, 1965. p. 207
• Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types (Collected works of C. G. Jung, volume 6). (3rd ed.). Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. First appeared in German in 1921. ISBN 0-691-09770-4
• Krauskopf, Charles J. and Saunders, David R. (1994) Personality and Ability: The Personality Assessment System.
Maryland: University Press of America. ISBN 0-8191-9282-1
• Matthews, Paul (2004). The MBTI is a flawed measure of personality'.'. bmj.com Rapid Responses. Retrieved
February 9, 2005
• Myers, Isabel Briggs (1980). Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Davies-Black Publishing; Reprint
edition (May 1, 1995). ISBN 0-89106-074-X
• Myers, Isabel Briggs, Mary H. McCaulley, Naomi Quenk, and Allan Hammer. (1998) MBTI Handbook: A Guide
to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Consulting Psychologists Press, 3rd edition. ISBN
0-89106-130-4
• Pearman, R.; Lombardo, M.; and Eichinger, R.(2005). YOU: Being More Effective In Your MBTI Type. Minn.:Lominger
International, Inc.
• Pearman, R.; and Albritton, S. (1996). I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You: The Real Meaning of the Sixteen Personality
Types. Mountain View, Ca: Davies-Black Publishing.
• Saunders, D. (1989). Type Differentiation Indicator Manual: A scoring system for Form J of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
• Skeptics Dictionary. “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator”
• Virginia Tech. The Relationship Between Psychological Type and Professional Orientation Among Technology Ed-
ucation Teachers. Retrieved December 20, 2004
• Thomas G. Long (October 1992). “Myers-Briggs and other Modern Astrologies”. Theology Today 49 (3): 291–95.
doi:10.1177/004057369204900301.
13 External links
• Myers & Briggs Foundation
• CPP, Inc.
• Association for Psychological Type International
• Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT)

19. 19
Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers extrapolated their MBTI theory from Carl Jung's writings in his book Psychological
Types.

20. 20 13 EXTERNAL LINKS
A diagram depicting the cognitive functions of each type. A type’s background color represents its dominant function and its text color
represents its auxiliary function.

21. 21
14 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses
14.1 Text
• Myers–Briggs Type Indicator Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator?oldid=730252242 Contrib-
utors: Matthew Woodcraft, Jimbo Wales, The Epopt, Tarquin, Dachshund, William Avery, SimonP, DavidLevinson, Maury Markowitz,
Waveguy, Heron, Stevertigo, Michael Hardy, Vaughan, Modster, Kevinbasil, Kku, Gabbe, Menchi, Mic, Axlrosen, TakuyaMurata, Skysmith,
SebastianHelm, Pagingmrherman, Ronz, Doug Pardee, Mcfly85, LittleDan, BenKovitz, Rotem Dan, Evercat, Alex756, Csernica, LordK, Karl-
wick, Emperorbma, Timwi, Nohat, Boson, Mcenedella, David Latapie, Dysprosia, N-true, Andrewman327, Peregrine981, Kierant, Rvalles,
Maximus Rex, Jeffrey Smith, VeryVerily, Wiwaxia, AaronSw, Dbabbitt, Olathe, Lars A, UninvitedCompany, Ke4roh, Dale Arnett, Zand-
perl, R3m0t, Psychonaut, Sam Spade, Chacham, Stewartadcock, Texture, Sunray, Mendalus~enwiki, Aetheling, Quadalpha, Amead, Stroback,
Snobot, Psb777, Giftlite, Muness, Netoholic, Alterego, Everyking, Xinoph, MrSnow, Prosfilaes, Eequor, Tea Tzu, Bohemiotx, Decagon, Bob-
blewik, Isidore, Chowbok, Telso, Sonjaaa, Quadell, Antandrus, Tom the Goober, MarkSweep, Phil Sandifer, Jokestress, Reagle, Sam Hocevar,
Wroscel, Clockout x, Neutrality, Urhixidur, JoseBlanco, Kevyn, BeatePaland, Flex, Poccil, DanielCD, Solitude, Rich Farmbrough, FiP, Wk
muriithi, Silence, MarkS, Night Gyr, Edgarde, Bender235, Mpnolan, Calair, Zenohockey, Bletch, Kwamikagami, Shanes, Sietse Snel, Roy-
Boy, Erik456, Stesmo, Marblespire, Johnkarp, Nyenyec, Psychobabble, Kjkolb, Eritain, Zr40, Vanished user 19794758563875, Minghong,
Danski14, Alansohn, Anthony Appleyard, CyberSkull, Flata, Velella, Jost Riedel, Stephan Leeds, Tony Sidaway, Dirac1933, Pethr, LFaraone,
Emerman, TravisMcArthur, Ringbang, Kazvorpal, InBalance, Tariqabjotu, Barrylb, SDC, Waldir, Harkenbane, Gniw, Joerg Kurt Wegner,
Coroebus, Disc0sheep, Graham87, Magister Mathematicae, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Davidp, Astronaut, PinchasC, Salix alba, Ligulem, Bubba73,
Afterwriting, FlaBot, Twipley, Paul foord, Geekgrrrrrrl, Jtmichcock, It’s-is-not-a-genitive, Chobot, Bgwhite, Eric B, Simesa, Whosasking,
FrankTobia, YurikBot, Wavelength, Hairy Dude, Huw Powell, Hyad, Jengelh, Fabricationary, Lar, Gaius Cornelius, Wimt, Thane, Nawlin-
Wiki, Kvn8907, ONEder Boy, CLAES, Bmdavll, Retired username, Krakatoa, Gronau~enwiki, BOT-Superzerocool, Psy guy, Bota47, Jeremy
Visser, Oliverdl, Xabian40409, Paul Magnussen, Saranghae honey, Closedmouth, Arthur Rubin, SMcCandlish, JuJube, Messy Thinking,
Shawnc, Whouk, Ybbor, Jonathan.s.kt, Meegs, MasterXiam, GrinBot~enwiki, Rogue 9, Locke Cole, Attilios, Veinor, A bit iffy, AtomCrusher,
SmackBot, Eperotao, Tlozano, Classicfilms, Tortuca, MARussellPESE, Chris Heath, Joseph.renzi, Eaglizard, Rouenpucelle, SergeantPepper,
ProveIt, Gilliam, Ohnoitsjamie, Carl.bunderson, Mm378, Bluebot, Joel.Gilmore, Jammycakes, CyberSach, Kasyapa, Hengsheng120, Yanksox,
Thief12, A Geek Tragedy, Jahiegel, Rrburke, LeContexte, James WY. Lee, Nathanm mn, Clevomon, Sjb0926, Downtown dan seattle, De-
cltype, EPM, Mirlen, Lcarscad, IKUnderhill, Jklin, Edahn, Galaxydog2000, Byelf2007, Liem, Lambiam, Khazar, John, Loodog, Aaron-
chall, Tim bates, Robofish, JorisvS, Stwalkerster, Braekbeat, Jiggpig, Meco, Waggers, SandyGeorgia, Doczilla, TastyPoutine, Rubikfreak,
A1octopus, MBTI, Foolishben, Jcbutler, Johnny 0, Mranostay, Iridescent, Dshewry, Wilford Nusser, JHP, Laitr Keiows, Philip ea, Octane,
CapitalR, Blehfu, Whaiaun, Jbolden1517, Bertport, Dan1679, Amniarix, Supernaut76, JForget, Postmodern Beatnik, Nysin, Fumblebruschi,
Jgmccue, LotR, Basawala, Jokes Free4Me, GargoyleMT, Neelix, Penbat, Sarm, Yaris678, Starylon, Vaquero100, Reywas92, Snyrtingar, He-
brides, JustinH, Farzaneh, Strom, Eincrat, Biyer, Mattisse, Thijs!bot, Epbr123, Jksandall, Wee paddy, Marek69, Second Quantization, Sun27,
Dücanem, Dmitri Lytov, Farrtj, AgentPeppermint, Jagriff1, Ljid2k, Peashy, Porqin, AntiVandalBot, Widefox, Careerjoy, Yomangani, Morn-
ingSciFi, Olexandr Kravchuk, Bluedustmite, GWhitewood, JAnDbot, Wiki0709, Barek, Mildly Mad, Greensburger, Jalfro, SiobhanHansa,
VoABot II, Frip1000, The Enlightened, Alyoshka, Steven Walling, LookingGlass, Liseusa, Tins128, Klogue, Sirard, CliffC, V-Man737, Anax-
ial, Jonaboff, Quywompka, Mschel, R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, DBlomgren, Pyrebolt, Gladys j cortez, Kirbodin, Riverfield, Mabert~enwiki,
Chadwickinv, Janetbachand, Dasamuels1, Janus Shadowsong, Notreallydavid, Unitemedia, Bucinka, Trilobitealive, Iulus Ascanius, Julian-
colton, Metawade, JazzyGroove, Dayslipper, Greiskul, Swingkid, WLRoss, 28bytes, Johnfos, Indubitably, Satani, Kameyama, Philip Trueman,
Oshwah, Cosmic Latte, Ryzol, Bog13, Rei-bot, Symbology101, Hannes.de.jager, Seb az86556, PDFbot, Andrewrost3241981, Sentineneve,
Tmore3, Preludeteam, Synthebot, Lova Falk, Francis Flinch, Skixz, NinjaRobotPirate, Vannin, Doc James, Genedna, Chuck Sirloin, CMBJ,
Hmwith, Hrafn, Kaprikorn26, Tom NM, Chinexcodo, Brenont, DivineAna, Prakash Nadkarni, NeonVox, Josh the Nerd, Ontologicos, Triwbe,
JasonOnEarth, Flyer22 Reborn, Jsfouche, RLM2007, Chridd, Scorpion451, Thehotelambush, Absurdaxiom, Martinlc, Drbb01, Anchor Link
Bot, Pinkadelica, Hordaland, Bardofcornish, Ajwenger, Mr. Granger, Dstrube, ClueBot, Jagkise, Fitzimar2, Mild Bill Hiccup, Ketherroosevelt,
Erudecorp, Jamesia, Hschlarb, Lorielle~enwiki, Odyzzeus22, Agentareas, H-Vergilius, Jusdafax, Niteshift36, Muhandes, Dtwong, Stwvk, Mr-
jmcneil, MagicSquid, James Dubreze, Tezero, DumZiBoT, SMP0328., XLinkBot, Nathan Johnson, Aiyaan1712, LeeRamsey, Frood, Ljwwiki,
Addbot, MysticGem15, DOI bot, Ronhjones, Agammelgard, Velvetttaxi, NjardarBot, MichaelShur, MrOllie, ThreeOfCups, Tikki Cunning-
ham, Glass Sword, Debresser, Unibond, Tide rolls, Bdnet72, Chunda’sLemon, Dodger9596, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Dasha enfp, 2D,
Legobot II, User8080~enwiki, Chipy100, Etown76, Silly reader, Synchronism, AnomieBOT, JHvW, Bjørn Clasen, Materialscientist, Nbafan1,
The High Fin Sperm Whale, Citation bot, ArthurBot, LilHelpa, John Bessa, Breannepotter, Srwalden, Xqbot, CXCV, Tomdo08, Mikes469,
Maximalist, SassoBot, Amandave814, Howsa12, Vincent la tortue, Biem, George2001hi, FrescoBot, Dogposter, Patchy-fog, D'ohBot, Mikie
yorkie, T@Di, Rsoundd, Embtypes, Citation bot 1, MarySpencer10, Gesalbte, Vousdoo, Jonesey95, Tom.Reding, Greenpi, AeroSabre, Trap-
pist the monk, Budokaiman, Peacevegetables, Fossilet, 777sms, Anon06, Minimac, Airbag190, Hendricahyana, RjwilmsiBot, Aj912, River-
Coachman, Foridpl, DASHBot, Malafon, WitchettyGrub, Twinkle2003, Barjon, Tommy2010, Wikipelli, Dcirovic, Mjgboston, Chair892,
Manicjedi, WeijiBaikeBianji, Andrew Singer, TurilCronburg, Aronoel, Jacobisq, Donner60, DanCostigan, Ihardlythinkso, Just granpa, Gray-
Fullbuster, David van bruwaene, Conway333, ClueBot NG, Jack Greenmaven, Depuis123, Chriskalexander, MIKHEIL, Cordwayjr, Snot-
bot, Neljack, O.Koslowski, Myexplodingcat, Jorgenev, Oddbodz, Helpful Pixie Bot, Ngocthuy3107, Jeraphine Gryphon, BG19bot, Rober-
ticus, WikiTryHardDieHard, Pacerier, Duane93, Iamthecheese44, Toccata quarta, JamieBrown2011, Brad7777, Normanxu, Jennifer.bogan,
BattyBot, PeerD, Bananananananananana, Cyberbot II, PsychometricsExpert, YFdyh-bot, SirPistachio, Mogism, Frosty, MartinMichlmayr,
Nietzsche123, HullIntegrity, Braydonanderson, Epicgenius, LibrarianAnnie, François Robere, Biogeographist, Chrisfrolle, Tentinator, Ever-
greenFir, New worl, Esotericaaa, Ethveg, Aislinore, Nightbraker, JakeBeech, Ginsuloft, Cdebalko, Daniellagreen, Ma7ged, Cpcseventeen,
Writers Bond, Vi5abl3Llam4, Monkbot, JezGrove, WanderingLost, Anupam3333, KH-1, Texaslax, Hollth, Julietdeltalima, Malshafey, Milo-
brown, Mousenight, Mireknavrat, Melissaspark, Nieuwzeelander, HRS395, Lyricon24, Headtransplant, Bleybovich, Planettary, StarlightSun-
shineRain, Moonlipsdiscokitten and Anonymous: 765

22. 22 14 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
14.2 Images
• File:Art-mb2-300x0.jpeg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Art-mb2-300x0.jpeg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Katharine Myers Original artist: Unknown, Courtesy of Katharine Myers
• File:CognitiveFunctions.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/CognitiveFunctions.png License: CC0 Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: Jake Beech
• File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
? Original artist: ?
• File:MyersBriggsTypes.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/MyersBriggsTypes.png License: CC BY-SA
3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Jake Beech
• File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: Rei-artur
14.3 Content license
• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0