Evaluating the validity of
                    Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator
                    theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology

Randy Stein; Alexander B. Swan

doi:10.1111/spc3.12434

journal article Jan 25, 2019

Evaluating the validity of Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology

Randy Stein

Alexander B. Swan

Social and Personality Psychology Compass Vol. 13 No. 2 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/spc3.12434

Abstract

Abstract

Despite its immense popularity and impressive longevity, the
Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) has existed in a parallel universe to social and personality psychology. Here, we seek to increase academic awareness of this incredibly popular idea and provide a novel teaching reference for its conceptual flaws. We focus on examining the validity of the Jungian‐based theory behind MBTI that specifies that people have a “true type” delineated across four dichotomies. We find that the MBTI theory falters on rigorous theoretical criteria in that it lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability, and possesses internal contradictions. We further discuss what MBTI's continued popularity says about how the general public might evaluate scientific theories.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

43

[1]

10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00040-5

[2]

Berg R. "Evaluating scientific theories" Philosophy Now (2009)

[3]

10.1207/s15327752jpa7801_11

[4]

Briggs Myers I. (1998)

[5]

The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction

Clark A. Chinn, William F. Brewer

Review of Educational Research 10.3102/00346543063001001

[6]

CPP Blog Central(2015 June 15).Why using the MBTI to select a career is good but using it to select a new hire isn't. [Blog post]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cppblogcentral.com/cpp‐connect/why‐using‐the‐mbti‐to‐select‐a‐career‐is‐good‐but‐using‐it‐to‐select‐a‐new‐hire‐isnt/

[7]

10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004

[8]

10.1177/0146167217746152

[9]

10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390

[10]

10.1037/h0059240

[11]

10.1007/bf01988284

[12]

The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.

Jonathan Haidt

Psychological Review 10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814

[13]

Hayes J.(2014 July 17).Why the Myers‐Briggs assessment is meaningful to millions. [Blog post]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cppblogcentral.com/cpp‐connect/why‐the‐myers‐briggs‐assessment‐is‐meaningful‐to‐millions/

[14]

Jaccard J. (2010)

[15]

Jung C. G. (1971)

[16]

10.1037/0003-066x.43.1.23

[17]

10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008

[18]

10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x

[19]

McGowan D. (1994)

[20]

10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00269.x

[21]

Mocan N. H. &Yu H.(2017).Can superstition create a self‐fulfilling prophecy? School outcomes of dragon children of China.NBER Working Paper Retrieved fromhttp://www.nber.org/papers/w23709. 10.3386/w23709

[22]

10.1177/0959354309104157

[23]

Myers & Briggs Foundation(2018).Type use for everyday life. Retrieved fromhttp://www.myersbriggs.org/type‐use‐for‐everyday‐life/

[24]

10.1177/0956797618780643

[25]

10.3102/00346543063004467

[26]

10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210

[27]

The Logic of Scientific Discovery

KARL R. POPPER, George Weiss

Physics Today 10.1063/1.3060577

[28]

Quenk N. L. (2009)

[29]

10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.07.003

[30]

Redding R. E. "Book review: Juris types, learning law through self‐understanding" Journal of Legal Education (2008)

[31]

Saucier G. "What makes a good structural model of personality? Evaluating the Big Five and alternatives" Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology (2015)

[32]

Schaubhut N. A. (2009)

[33]

10.1037/a0031183

[34]

10.1207/s15516709cog2703_8

[35]

Shaw M. (1982)

[36]

10.1111/phc3.12260

[37]

10.1007/s13164-010-0025-0

[38]

Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?

Keith E. Stanovich, Richard F. West

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10.1017/s0140525x00003435

[39]

10.1177/1948550618766409

[40]

10.1177/1745691616689495

[41]

Stromberg J. &Caswell E.(2015).Why the Myers‐Briggs test is totally meaningless. Retrieved fromhttp://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers‐briggs‐personality‐test‐meaningless.

[42]

The Myers‐Briggs Company(2018).Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI)—A positive framework for life‐long people development. Retrieved fromhttps://www.themyersbriggs.com/en‐US/Products‐and‐Services/Myers‐Briggs.

[43]

Vedantam S.(Host). (2017 December 4).The sorting hat[Audio podcast]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.npr.org/podcasts/510308/hidden‐brain

Cited By

62

Artificial Intelligence and Personality: Large Language Models’ Ability to Predict Personality Type

Max Murphy · 2024

Emerging Media

Hearing From Both Sides: Differences Between Liberal and Conservative Attitudes Toward Scientific and Experiential Evidence

Randy Stein, Alexander B. Swan · 2020

Political Psychology

Metrics

62

Citations

43

References

Details

Published: Jan 25, 2019
Vol/Issue: 13(2)
License: View

Authors

Cal Poly Pomona

Eureka College

Cite This Article

Randy Stein, Alexander B. Swan (2019). Evaluating the validity of Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12434

Evaluating the validity of Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology

You May Also Like