MBTI Facts | The Myers-Briggs Company (2024)

There are several ways to demonstrate validity of a personality assessment. The United States manual supplement (and other country/language supplements) for the MBTI^® Global Step I^™ and Step II^™ assessments focuses on convergent and divergent validity. This approach to validity examines whether the assessment is related to other measures in a manner that is consistent with what would be expected based on the theory or approach underlying both assessments. For example, if two scales on two assessments measure a similar characteristic, then a person who scores high on the scale on the one assessment should also score high on the scale on the other assessment (convergent validity). If the scales are measuring very different, even contradictory, characteristics, then one would expect a high score on one scale and a low score on the other scale (divergent validity). The supplements and the MBTI global manual report on correlations among the MBTI preference scales and the Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1980) and the California Psychological Inventory^™ (Gough & Bradley, 2005). Prior studies on the various forms of the MBTI assessment (Form M and the European Step I; Form Q and the European Step II) remain relevant due to high correlations between those forms and MBTI Global Step I and Step II, respectively. Supplements to the original manuals² have also been published showing additional validity evidence. In addition to the manuals, supplements have been published for these assessments as well, and are freely available online; for both proponents and critics to evaluate: Form M and Form Q, European Step I. Summaries of such studies can be found in the manual.

Note that the MBTI assessment is not intended to predict job performance and should not be used in selection. Therefore, validity data related to the application of the MBTI assessment in recruitment are not available. Moyle and Hackston (2018) summarize some of the differences between what is important for the validity of questionnaires used in selection and questionnaires, like the MBTI assessment, used in development.

References

Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (2005). CPI 260^® manual. Sunnyvale, CA: The Myers-Briggs Company.

Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The Adjective Check List manual. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

Moyle, P., & Hackston, J. (2018). Personality assessment for employee development: Ivory tower or real world? Journal of Personality Assessment, 100, 507-517. doi: 10.1080/00223891

Myers, I. B. (1962). Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator^®. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator^® (2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI^® manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator^® Instrument (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (2018). MBTI^® manual for the Global Step I^™ and Step II^™ assessments (4th ed.). Sunnyvale, CA: The Myers-Briggs Company.

² In addition to the manuals, supplements have been published for these assessments as well, and are freely available online; for both proponents and critics to evaluate Form M and Form Q, European Step I, European Step II

Is there validity evidence regarding behavior and MBTI^® type?

Anderson, Kulas, and Thompson (2018) explored links between MBTI types and managerial behaviors. First, an independent sample of 160 students rated 1 of 16 hypothetical managers (10 students for each corresponding MBTI type) on Benchmarks^® 360 items, an instrument from the Center for Creative Leadership^® (CCL^®). Second, a sample of 4,450 managers for whom MBTI type was known and who had Benchmarks ratings provided by others (not self-ratings) was examined. The average hypothetical and actual manager ratings were then correlated for each of the whole type combinations. It was expected that as the actual and hypothetical ratings shared more MBTI preferences, the correlations would increase, and as they shared fewer preferences, the correlations would decrease. The results of this analysis are presented in the figure below. For the expected and actual MBTI types, the behavior of managers converged, meaning that managers behaved as expected. When the MBTI type is opposite, behaviors diverged, meaning that opposite MBTI types had dissimilar behaviors. Thus the study shows there are observable differences between personality types.

McPeek et al. (2013) administered the Form M and the Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for Children^® (MMTIC^®; Murphy & Meisgeier, 2008) assessments to a sample of 123 teenagers. As part of the feedback session, the participants were given two type descriptions composed of 12 adjectives and short phrases drawn from the 16 type descriptions found in Lawrence (1998) and in Myers’ Introduction to Type^® booklet (1998). When the MBTI and MMTIC results disagreed, participants were given two type descriptions that corresponded to the results from the two assessments. When the results of the two assessments agreed (i.e., yielded the same four-letter type), participants received one description that matched their type and one that did not. The mismatched type description was randomly selected to be either a description of the opposite type (i.e., all four preferences were different from the reported type) or a description that differed from the reported type by only one preference. Participants were asked to rate the accuracy of each of the type descriptions they received. The mismatched descriptions were rated much less descriptive than the matched ones, even when the mismatch involved only a single preference, although the difference was much greater when all four preferences differed from the reported type.

A second study of type and self (Schaubhut, 2013) used a sample of 1,886 individuals who had completed the MBTI Step I assessment and volunteered to take part in a study in which they were asked to read type descriptions taken from the Introduction to Type^® booklet (Myers, 1998) and rate each one on a five-point scale as to how well it described them, from “very little” to “very much.” Participants read a type description that matched their reported type on all four preferences; descriptions that differed by one, two, and three preferences from their reported type; and a description that was the opposite of their reported type (i.e., differed on all four preferences). The data were analyzed separately for each of the 16 types. For all 16 types, the type description that matched the participants’ reported type was rated higher on average than any other description, even the description that differed from their reported type by only one preference. For 13 of the 16 types, the average ratings increased incrementally from the description that was opposite the reported type to the description that matched the reported type. Sixteen analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were run using the number of matches as the independent variable and the ratings as the dependent variable. All the ANOVAs were significant. For 2 types, INTJ and INFJ, the effect sizes were small; for 9 types there was a medium effect size; and for 5 types (ISTJ, ESFP, ENFP, ENTP, and ESTJ) there were large effect sizes.

It is worth noting that these studies directly contradict claims such as “the MBTI assessment is like a horoscope - all the type descriptions are positive, and you could agree with any of them.” Individuals are much more likely to agree with descriptions that match their type and much less likely to agree with descriptions that do not.

References

Anderson, M. G., Kulas, J., & Thompson, R. C. (2018, July). Observing Predicted Behaviors in Others: A validation study. In J. Hackston (Chair) Assessment for employee development: Alternative approaches to validation. Symposium conducted at the 11th conference of The International Testing Commission, Montreal, Quebec.

Lawrence, G. (1998). Descriptions of the sixteen types. Gainesville, FL: CAPT.

McPeek, R. W., Breiner, J., Murphy, E., Brock, C., Grossman, L., Loeb, M., & Tallevi, L. (2013). Student type, teacher type, and type training: CAPT Type and Education Research 2008-2011 Project Summary. Journal of Psychological Type, 73(3), 21-54.

Murphy, E., & Meisgeier, C. (2008). MMTIC^® Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for Children^®. Gainesville, FL: CAPT.

Myers, I. B., with Kirby, L. K., & Myers, K. D. (1998). Introduction to Type^® (6th ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

Schaubhut, N. A. (2013, September). Self-awareness of type. In R. C. Thompson (Chair), Seeing MBTI^® type: Awareness, expression, and cross-cultural evaluations. Presented at Global MBTI^® Users Conference, Shanghai, China.

Is there validity evidence for the MBTI^® assessment based on how it relates to other measures of personality?

If the MBTI assessment is measuring what it is supposed to, then when people take the questionnaire alongside other assessments that measure the same or similar concepts, there should be a high degree of correlation between the two sets of results. Similarly, there should be low or no correlations among measures that are measuring different concepts. These concepts are referred to as convergent and divergent validity, respectively. The global manual and the country/language supplements provide evidence for these forms of validity. Here, the focus is on the relationships of the MBTI assessment with the five-factor model (FFM, or Big Five) approach to personality.

Several studies have examined the relationships among Big Five personality measures (a personality model favored by many academics) and the MBTI assessment (Furnham, Moutafi, & Crump, 2003; McCrae & Costa, 1989). Drawing on these prior studies, Arneson (2016) conducted a meta-analysis³ of the correlations among the measures of the MBTI assessment (Form G) and the Big Five (NEO-PI-R^™). The results of this meta-analysis are summarized in the table below with key relationships highlighted in red. The meta-analysis, and the studies upon which it is based, demonstrate that the

MBTI Extraversion-Introversion scale is correlated with the Big Five measure of Extraversion
MBTI Sensing-Intuition scale is correlated with the Big Five measure of Openness
MBTI Thinking-Feeling scale is correlated with the Big Five measure of Agreeableness
MBTI Judging-Perceiving scale is correlated with the Big Five measure of Conscientiousness

Similar results were found by Renner, Menschik-Bendele, Alexandrovicz, and Deakin (2014) using a German translation of the MBTI European assessment and NEO-FFI^™ assessment.

The Big Five concept of Neuroticism is not included in the MBTI model. While this concept may be of interest to some personality psychologists, it was not a part of Jung’s or Myers’ theorizing, and is therefore not included in the MBTI assessment. Note, however, that there is a modest correlation between the Big Five measure of Neuroticism and the E-I preference in the direction of Introversion. It is likely that this correlation is largely driven by the confound between measures of psychosocial adjustment and more extreme levels of introversion, along with a bias against introverts in Western culture.

Big Five Scale

MBTI scale	N	E	O	A	C
E-I	.27	-.79	-.12	-.07	-.06
S-N	.01	.06	.65	.04	-.22
T-F	.16	.14	.10	.42	-.26
J-P	.09	.09	.25	-.01	-.53

Note: Number of studies = 7, total number of individuals in the combined studies = 2,243. A negative sign indicates correlation toward MBTI preference of E, S, T, or J, and a positive number indicates correlation toward I, N, F, or P.

From Arneson 2016

Is there validity evidence based on the measurement structure of the MBTI^® assessment?

Bess, Harvey, and Swartz (2003) conducted a hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the 94 items used on MBTI^® Form G. Their results clearly supported the view that the 94-item pool for Form G was dominated by the predicted four-factor structure. In discussing their results, they wrote:

The fact that this a priori factor structure was yet again recovered via exploratory means and found to fit reasonably well using confirmatory analysis, in a sample of “real world” managerial employees that is arguably quite different from the college student based samples that have been seen in earlier confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, speaks directly to the robustness and generalizability of past claims of support for the predicted 4-factor MBTI latent structure.... The criticisms [of the MBTI assessment] that have been offered by its vocal detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993) have led some psychologists to view it as being of lower psychometric quality in comparison to more recent tests based on the FFM (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987). In contrast, [our findings]—especially when viewed in the context of previous confirmatory factor analytic research on the MBTI, and meta-analytic reviews of MBTI reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996)—provide a very firm empirical foundation that can be used to justify the use of the MBTI as a personality assessment device in applied organizational settings. (p. 4)

References

Bess, T. L., Harvey, R. J., & 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 Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Harvey, R. J. (1996). Reliability and validity. In A. L. Hammer (Ed.), MBTI^® applications: A decade of research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator^® (pp. 5-29). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). Measuring the MBTI… And coming up short. Journal of Career Planning and Placement, 54(1), 48-52.

Is there evidence of predictive validity of the MBTI^® assessment?

For a psychometric tool used in development, arguably the most importance evidence of predictive validity is whether it has demonstrated effective outcomes (Rogers, 2017; Scoular, 2011). One area where the MBTI^® assessment has been used to demonstrate such validation is in the area of careers and occupational choice. When occupational tasks are compatible with the preferences or inclinations of the individual performing them, higher satisfaction is likely to result than when the fit is less congruent (Dawis, 1996). Hammer (1996) summarized studies of job satisfaction in the MBTI^® Career Report Manual (Hammer & Macdaid, 1992) and included a synopsis of more than a dozen studies on the subject. Among the occupations studied for job satisfaction were bank officers/financial managers, computer professionals, dietitians, elementary and secondary school teachers, intensive care nurses, healthcare managers and executives, lawyers, managers, occupational therapists, parish pastors, pediatric nurse practitioners, pharmacists, marketing teachers, secretaries, teachers, and vocational education administrators. Hammer pointed out some of the difficulties in conducting research on satisfaction, such as a restriction in the range of data on job satisfaction (most people tend to say they are satisfied with their job). He summarized the literature as follows:

When satisfaction is measured globally, its relationship with psychological type is equivocal. However, among those studies that do show a relationship, a pattern seems to emerge. Overall, Introverts and Perceiving types seem less satisfied with their work than do Extraverts and Judging types, although the one study that examined men and women separately suggested that overall results may be misleading if gender is not accounted for. When specific facets or aspects of job satisfaction are employed instead of global measures, the picture becomes clearer. For example, the T-F scale seems to be important in identifying satisfaction with co-workers. Type theory would predict that different types will have different criteria for satisfaction, and this seems to be at least partially supported by the research.

Studies of person-environment fit suggest that those who are dissatisfied in an occupation tend to be those types who are opposite from the modal type in the occupation. A number of studies have also suggested that those types who are less frequent or underrepresented in an occupation tend to be less satisfied or have higher intention to leave the occupation than do those types who are more frequent or whose fit with the occupation is judged to be better. (pp. 40-41)

Subsequent studies support Hammer’s 1996 summary. Hopkins (1997) surveyed 133 members of an association of type practitioners (the sample was highly educated, high in job tenure, middle-aged, and Caucasian) and concluded that people who felt their job matched their personality were more satisfied with their job than were those who did not. SFs were the least satisfied group. In personal telephone calls with some participants, Hopkins (personal communication) also noted that, of the four process pair groups, SFs seemed the most grateful that someone was listening to them and their concerns. In his study, co-workers, the work itself, and supervision were far more important to job satisfaction than were pay and promotions.

Sitzmann, Ployhart, and Kim (2019) went further in investigating the link between personality type, behavior, and occupation. Using a large sample of 178,087 individuals drawn from 315 different occupations, they found that occupations with a high degree of task significance (decisions have a large effect on other people, mistakes have a large impact, there is responsibility for the health and safety of others and for their work outcomes) show less diversity of personality amongst job incumbents and that this in turn predicts longer job tenure. Other researchers have demonstrated links between the MBTI assessment and hom*ogeneity within organizations, as predicted by Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) theory (Quintero, Segal, King, & Black, 2009; Thomas, Benne, Marr, Thomas, & Hume, 2000; Wallick, Cambre, & McClugage, 2000).

In reviewing the literature on type and turnover, the focus has been on the relationship between job fit and job dissatisfaction. Hammer (1996) reviewed research from the 1985 MBTI^® Manual (Myers & McCaulley, 1985) and other studies and concluded,

Although few studies have been conducted on turnover, those that are available provide some support for the proposition that types working in environments or jobs that are not a good match for their preferences are more likely to leave or to say they are going to leave than are those whose type provides a better fit for either the tasks or the environment. Future studies examining the relationship of type and turnover should heed Garden’s (1989) finding that organizational size may be a mediating variable. (p. 47)

Is there validity evidence for the perceived value of the MBTI^® assessment?

For any assessment used in development, one of the most important questions is, has it demonstrated effective outcomes and made a difference to people? The MBTI assessment has been shown to be useful for a range of real-life personal and organizational outcomes, including, for example, improved grades in students whose teachers had received MBTI-based training (McPeek et al., 2013),⁴ better communication (Ang, 2002), greater certainty in career choice (Leong, Hardin, & Gaylor, 2005), and improvements in team functioning (Sedlock, 2005; Stockhill, 2014).

In a study carried out by OPP Ltd, the European distributor of the MBTI assessment (now part of The Myers-Briggs Company), 927 people were asked what benefits they had experienced since they became aware of their MBTI type. Eighty-eight percent agreed or strongly agreed that they capitalized on their strengths more, 73 percent that they felt more confident in their personal life, 72 percent that they felt more confident in their contributions at work, and 65 percent that they made better decisions.

Other research conducted by CPP, Inc. (now part of The Myers-Briggs Company), using a third-party marketing firm to obtain participants investigated the utility of the MBTI assessment with a random sample of 944 adults that matched the age, gender, ethnic, educational, and employment status distribution of the United States.⁵ Participants were asked whether they could recall ever completing any personality assessment, and if so, which one they completed. Then, for each assessment the participant recalled completing, she or he was asked how useful the information provided by the assessment was. In this sample, obtained independently of the publisher of the MBTI assessment, 82 percent of people who recalled taking the MBTI assessment reported they found it “useful,” and their responses fell into these categories: useful “to a moderate extent” (42 percent), “to a great extent” (24 percent), or “to a very great extent” (16 percent).

In a second sample of about 1,500 people who had completed the MBTI assessment and who obtained a quality interpretation of the results, rather than just being provided a four-letter type, the participants were asked if they would recommend the MBTI assessment to a friend or colleague. Of these 1,500 people 96 percent indicated they would recommend it. They were further asked about a variety of possible benefits from learning about their MBTI type. As can be seen in the next figure, which summarizes results, most participants reported experiencing several benefits.

⁵ Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 88 years, with an average of 45.6 years (SD = 16.76), and 49% were men. Race of the participants consisted of 75% Caucasian, 12.5% African American, 5% other, 4% Asian, 2% multiple ethnicities, 0.7% Native American, and 0.3% Native Hawaiian. Of the participants, 8% had completed some high school, 32% held a high school diploma, 22% had some college (no degree), 9% held an associate’s degree, 19% held a bachelor’s, 7% held a master’s, and 3% held a doctorate or professional degree. The largest industries represented included sales (11%), education (6%), and business/financial operations (5%). Fifty-two percent were employed full-time, 19% part-time, 6% not working for income, 12% retired, 5% enrolled as full-time student, and 6% none of the above.

References

Ang, M. (2002). Advanced communication skills: Conflict management and persuasion. Academic Medicine, 77(11), 1166. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200211000-00034

Leong, F. T. L., Hardin, E. E., & Gaylor, M. (2005). Career specialty choice: A combined research-intervention project. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 69-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.07.004

Sedlock, J. R. (2005). An exploratory study of the validity of the MBTI^® team report. Journal of Psychological Type, 65(1), 1-8.

Is there evidence for the validity of using the MBTI^® assessment to address practical concerns?

Many studies have shown the validity of the MBTI assessment when used for a variety of purposes:

Career search (Tinsley, Tinsley, & Rushing, 2002)
Dealing with conflict (Kilmann & Thomas, 1975; Insko et al., 2001; Mills, Robey, & Smith, 1985)
Decision making (Gallen, 2006; Haley & Stumpf, 1989; Hough & Ogilvie, 2005)
Interplay of occupational and organizational membership (Bradley-Geist & Landis, 2012)
Health, well-being, coping, and stress (Allread & Marras, 2006; Buckworth, Granello, & Belmore, 2002; Du Toit, Coetzee, & Visser, 2005; Horacek & Betts, 1998; Short & Grasha, 1995)
Relationship with occupational interests (Briggs, Copeland, & Haynes, 2007; Fleenor, 1997; Garden, 1997)
Ratings of transformational leadership (Brown & Reilly, 2009; Hautala, 2005, 2006; Sundstrom & Busby, 1997)
Use of technology, email, and social media (Bishop-Clark, Dietz-Uhler, & Fisher, 2006-2007; Bowen, Ferguson, Lehmann, & Rohde, 2003; Hackston & Dost, 2016; Weber, Schaubhut, & Thompson, 2011)
Working in teams (Amato & Amato, 2005; Choi, Deek, & Im, 2008; Glaman, Jones, & Rozelle, 1996; Hammer & Huszczo, 1996; Schullery & Schullery, 2006)

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. doi: 10.1080/14639220500076504

Amato, C. H., & Amato, L. H. (2005). Enhancing student team effectiveness: Application of Myers-Briggs personality assessment in business courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 41-51. doi: 10.1177/0273475304273350

Bishop-Clark, C., Dietz-Uhler, B., & Fisher, A. (2006-2007). The effects of personality type on web-based distance learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(4), 491-506. doi: 10.2190/DG67-4287-PR11-37K6

Bowen, P. L., Ferguson, C. B., Lehmann, T. H., & Rohde, F. H. (2003). Cognitive style factors affecting database query performance. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 4, 251-273. doi: 10.1016/j.accinf.2003.05.002

Bradley-Geist, J. C., & Landis, R. S. (2012). hom*ogeneity of personality in occupations and organizations: A comparison of alternative statistical tests. Journal of Business Psychology, 27, 149-159. doi: 10.100/s10869-011-9233-6

Briggs, S. P., Copeland, S., & Haynes, D. (2007). Accountants for the 21st century, where are you? A five-year study of accounting students’ personality preferences. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18, 511-537. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2006.01.013

Brown, F. W., & Reilly, M. D. (2009). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and transformational leadership. Journal of Management Development, 28(10), 916-932. doi: 10.1108/02621710911000677

Buckworth, J., Granello, D. H., & Belmore, J. (2002). Incorporating personality assessment into counseling to help students adopt and maintain exercise behaviors. Journal of College Counseling, 5, 15-25. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2002.tb00203.x

Choi, K. S, Deek, F. P., & Im, I. (2008). Exploring the underlying aspects of pair programming: The impact of personality. Information and Software Technology, 50, 1114-1126. doi: 10.1177/0013164402062004004

Du Toit, F., Coetzee, S. C., & Visser, D. (2005). The relation between personality type and sense of coherence among technical workers. South African Business Review, 9(1), 51-65.

Fleenor, J. W. (1997). The relationship between the MBTI^® and measures of personality and performance in management groups. In C. Fitzgerald & L. K. Kirby (Eds.), Developing leaders: Research and applications in psychological type and leadership development (pp. 115-138). Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey.

Gallen, T. (2006). Managers and strategic decisions: Does the cognitive style matter? Journal of Management Development, 25(2), 118-133. doi: 10.1108/02621710610645117

Garden, A. M. (1997). Relationships between MBTI^® profiles, motivation profiles and career paths. Journal of Psychological Type, 41, 3-16.

Glaman, J. M., Jones, A. P., & Rozelle, R. M. (1996). The effects of co-worker similarity on the emergence of affect in work teams. Group & Organizational Management, 21(2), 192-215.

Hackston, J., & Dost, N. (2016). Type and email communication: A research study from OPP. Oxford, UK: OPP Ltd.

Haley, U. C. V., & Stumpf, S. A. (1989). Cognitive trails in strategic decision-making: Linking theories of personalities and cognitions. Journal of Management Studies, 26(5), 477-497. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1989.tb00740.x

Hammer, A. L., & Huszczo, G. E. (1996). Teams. In A. L. Hammer, (Ed.), MBTI^® applications: A decade of research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator^®(pp. 81-104). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

Hautala, T. M. (2005). The effects of subordinates' personality on appraisals of transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 84-92. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100407

Hautala, T. M. (2006). The relationship between personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Management Development, 25(8), 777-794. doi: 10.1108/02621710610684259

Horacek, T. M., & Betts, N. M. (1998). College students’ dietary intake and quality according to their Myers Briggs Type Indicator personality preferences. Journal of Nutrition Education, 30(6), 387-395. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3182(98)70361-9

Hough, J. R., & Ogilvie, D. T. (2005, March). An empirical test of cognitive style and strategic decision outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 417-448. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00502.x

Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1975). Interpersonal conflict-handling behavior as reflections of Jungian personality dimensions. Psychological Reports, 37(3), 971-980. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1975.37.3.971

Mills, J., Robey, D., & Smith, L. (1985). Conflict-handling and personality dimensions of project-management personnel. Psychological Reports, 57(3), 1135-1143. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1985.57.3f.1135

Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2006). Are heterogeneous or hom*ogeneous groups more beneficial to students? Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 542-556.

Short, G. J., & Grasha, A. F. (1995). The relationship of MBTI^® dimensions to perceptions of stress and coping strategies in managers. Journal of Psychological Type, 32, 13-22.

Sundstrom, E., & Busby, P. L. (1997). Co-workers’ perceptions of eight MBTI^® leader types: Comparative analysis of managers’ SYMLOG^® profiles. In C. Fitzgerald & L. K. Kirby (Eds.), Developing leaders: Research and applications in psychological type and leadership development (pp. 225-265). Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey.

Tinsley, H. E. A., Tinsley, D. J., & Rushing, J. (2002). Psychological type, decision-making style, and reactions to structured career interventions. Journal of Career Assessment, 10(2), 258-280. doi: 10.1177/1069072702010002008

Weber, A. J., Schaubhut, N. A., & Thompson, R. (2011). The influence of personality on social media usage. CPP research paper, Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

MBTI Facts | The Myers-Briggs Company (2024)

Is there validity evidence regarding behavior and MBTI® type?

Is there validity evidence for the MBTI® assessment based on how it relates to other measures of personality?

Is there validity evidence based on the measurement structure of the MBTI® assessment?

Is there evidence of predictive validity of the MBTI® assessment?

Is there validity evidence for the perceived value of the MBTI® assessment?

Is there evidence for the validity of using the MBTI® assessment to address practical concerns?

Is there validity evidence regarding behavior and MBTI^® type?

Is there validity evidence for the MBTI^® assessment based on how it relates to other measures of personality?

Is there validity evidence based on the measurement structure of the MBTI^® assessment?

Is there evidence of predictive validity of the MBTI^® assessment?

Is there validity evidence for the perceived value of the MBTI^® assessment?

Is there evidence for the validity of using the MBTI^® assessment to address practical concerns?