View source for Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

{{Short description|Non-scientific personality questionnaire}}
{{Hatnote|Several terms (e.g., ENTP, INTP, INTJ and ISFJ) redirect here. These are Myers–Briggs personality types but are also used in [[Socionics]] and the [[Keirsey Temperament Sorter]].}}
{{Redirect-distinguish|MBTI|MTBI}}

[[File:MyersBriggsTypes.svg|thumb|A chart with descriptions of each Myers–Briggs personality type and the four dichotomies central to the theory|300x300px]]

The '''Myers–Briggs Type Indicator''' ('''MBTI''') is a [[self-report]] questionnaire that makes [[pseudoscientific]] claims{{refn|Attributed to multiple sources:<ref name=v512/><ref name="Schweiger"/>{{sfn|Stein|Swan|2019}}{{sfn|Thyer|Pignotti|2015}}{{sfn|Lilienfeld|Lynn|Lohr|2014}}}} to categorize individuals into 16 distinct "[[personality type]]s" based on [[psychology]]. The test assigns a binary letter value to each of four [[dichotomous]] categories: [[Extraversion and introversion|introversion or extraversion]], sensing or intuition, thinking or feeling, and judging or perceiving. This produces a four-letter test result such as "INTJ" or "ESFP", representing one of 16 possible types.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995}}<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=MBTI® Basics |url=https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211012192345/https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/ |archive-date=2021-10-12 |access-date=2021-10-28 |website=The Myers & Briggs Foundation}}</ref>

The MBTI was constructed during World War II by Americans [[Katharine Cook Briggs]] and her daughter [[Isabel Briggs Myers]], inspired by Swiss psychiatrist [[Carl Jung]]'s 1921 book ''[[Psychological Types]]''.<ref name="Pittenger 467–488">{{cite journal |last1=Pittenger |first1=David J. |title=The Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator |journal=Review of Educational Research |date=December 1993 |volume=63 |issue=4 |pages=467–488 |doi=10.3102/00346543063004467 |ref=none }}</ref> Isabel Myers was particularly fascinated by the concept of "introversion", and she typed herself as an "INFP". However, she felt the book was too complex for the general public, and therefore she tried to organize the Jungian cognitive functions to make it more accessible.<ref name="NPR_The Personality Brokers">{{cite news |last1=Block |first1=Melissa |date=September 22, 2018 |title=How The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Began In A Mother's Living Room Lab |url=https://www.npr.org/2018/09/22/650019038/how-the-myers-briggs-personality-test-began-in-a-mothers-living-room-lab |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180922235704/https://www.npr.org/2018/09/22/650019038/how-the-myers-briggs-personality-test-began-in-a-mothers-living-room-lab |archive-date=22 September 2018 |access-date=23 September 2018 |work=NPR}}</ref>

The perceived accuracy of test results relies on the [[Barnum effect]], [[flattery]], and [[confirmation bias]], leading participants to personally identify with descriptions that are somewhat desirable, vague, and widely applicable.<ref name="Whitbourne" /> As a [[psychometric]] indicator, the test exhibits significant deficiencies, including poor [[Test validity|validity]], poor [[Reliability (statistics)|reliability]], measuring supposedly dichotomous categories that are not [[Independence (probability theory)|independent]], and not being comprehensive.{{Sfn|Grant|2013}}{{Sfn|Pittenger|1993}}{{Sfn|Gardner|Martinko|1996}}{{Sfn|Boyle|1995}} Most of the research supporting the MBTI's validity has been produced by the '''Center for Applications of Psychological Type''', an organization run by the Myers–Briggs Foundation, and published in the center's own journal, the ''Journal of Psychological Type (JPT)'', raising questions of independence, bias and [[conflict of interest]].{{Sfn|Lilienfeld|Lynn|Lohr|2014}}

The MBTI is widely-regarded as "totally meaningless" by the [[scientific community]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=North |first=Anna |date=2014-07-18 |title=Why Myers-Briggs Is Totally Useless — but Wildly Popular |url=https://archive.nytimes.com/op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/why-myers-briggs-is-totally-useless-but-wildly-popular/ |access-date=2025-08-03 |website=The New York Times |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2014-07-15 |title=Debunking the Myers-Briggs personality test |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28315137 |access-date=2025-08-03 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}</ref>{{disputed-inline|date=September 2025}} According to [[University of Pennsylvania]] professor [[Adam Grant]], "There is no evidence behind it. The traits measured by the test have almost no predictive power when it comes to how happy you'll be in a given situation, how well you'll perform at your job, or how satisfied you'll be in your marriage."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stromberg |first=Joseph |date=2014-07-15 |title=Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless |url=https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless |access-date=2025-08-03 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref> Despite controversies over validity, the instrument has demonstrated widespread influence since its adoption by the [[Educational Testing Service]] in 1962. It is estimated that 50 million people have taken the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator and that 10,000 businesses, 2,500 colleges and universities, and 200 government agencies in the United States use the MBTI.<ref>{{cite news |id={{ProQuest|1239570178}} |last1=Cunningham |first1=Lillian |title=Myers-Briggs: Does it pay to know your type? |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/myers-briggs-does-it-pay-to-know-your-type/2012/12/14/eaed51ae-3fcc-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=14 December 2012 }}</ref>

==History==
[[File:Katharine Briggs and Isabel Briggs-Myers.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Katharine Cook Briggs]] and [[Isabel Briggs Myers]] [[Extrapolation|extrapolated]] their MBTI theory from Carl Jung's writings in his 1921 book ''Psychological Types'']]
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''.<ref name="CAPT">{{cite web|url= http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/isabel-myers.htm|title=The Story of Isabel Briggs Myers|work=Center for Applications of Psychological Type|access-date=2017-03-29|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170120193009/https://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/isabel-myers.htm|archive-date= 2017-01-20|url-status= live}}</ref><ref name="CPP">{{cite web|url= https://www.cpp.com/pr/Fall03TYPEwriter.pdf |title= The TYPE Writer: 'It Happened In 1943: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Turns 60 Years Old'|access-date= 2009-07-29|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110628131304/https://www.cpp.com/pr/Fall03TYPEwriter.pdf|archive-date= 2011-06-28|url-status=live}}</ref>

After the publication in 1923 of an English translation of Carl Jung's book ''[[Psychological Types]]'' (first published in German as {{lang | de | Psychologische Typen}} in 1921), Briggs recognized that Jung's theory resembled, but went far beyond, her own.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|p=22}} Briggs's four types were later identified as corresponding to the ''IXXXs'' (Introverts: "meditative"), ''EXXPs'' (Extraverts & Prospectors: "spontaneous"), ''EXTJs'' (Extraverts, Thinkers & Judgers: "executive") and ''EXFJs'' (Extraverts, Feelers & Judgers: "social").{{Efn-lr|"X" stands for dichotomies: in this particular case, what letter goes in which place doesn't matter for the description. (e.g., EXXPs may be (1) ENFPs, (2) ESFPs, (3) ENTPs, or (4) ESTPs.)}}<ref name="CAPT" /><ref name="CPP" /> Her first publications were two articles describing Jung's theory, in ''[[The New Republic]]'', "Meet Yourself Using the Personality Paint Box" (1926)<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Briggs |first=Katharine Cook |year=1926 |title=Meet Yourself Using the Personality Paint Box |magazine=[[The New Republic]]}}</ref> and "Up From Barbarism" (1928).<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Briggs |first=Katharine Cook |year=1928 |title=Up From Barbarism |magazine=The New Republic}}</ref> After extensively studying the work of Jung, Briggs and her daughter extended their interest in human behavior into efforts to turn the theory of psychological types to practical use.<ref name=":1" /><ref name="CAPT" />  

Although Myers graduated from [[Swarthmore College]] in political science in 1919,{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|p=xx}} neither Myers nor Briggs were formally educated in the discipline of [[psychology]], and both were self-taught in the field of [[psychometric testing]].{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|p=xiii}} Myers therefore apprenticed herself to [[Edward N. Hay]] (1891–1958), the head personnel officer for a large [[Philadelphia]] [[First Pennsylvania Bank|bank]]. From Hay, Myers learned rudimentary test ''construction'', ''scoring'', ''validation'', and ''statistical'' methods.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|pp= xiii, xx}}

Briggs and Myers began creating their indicator during [[World War II]] (1939–1945)<ref name=":1" /> in the belief that a knowledge of personality preferences would help women entering the industrial workforce for the first time to identify the sorts of war-time jobs that would be the "most comfortable and effective" for them.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|p= xiii}} The ''Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook'', published in 1944, was re-published as "Myers–Briggs Type Indicator" in 1956.<ref>{{cite web|year= 2003|title= Guide to the Isabel Briggs Myers Papers 1885–1992|url= https://findingaids.uflib.ufl.edu/repositories/2/resources/593|url-status=live|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20051230224949/http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/manuscript/guides/Myers.htm|archive-date= 2005-12-30|access-date= 2005-12-05|publisher= University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries, Department of Special and Area Studies Collections, Gainesville, FL.}}</ref>

Myers' work attracted the attention of [[Henry Chauncey]], head of the [[Educational Testing Service]], a private assessment organization. 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 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 in 1975, and the Center for Applications of Psychological Type was founded as a research laboratory.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|p=xxi}}

After Myers' death in May 1980, Mary McCaulley updated the MBTI manual, and the second edition was published in 1985. The third edition appeared in 1998.{{Sfn|Myers|McCaulley|Quenk|Hammer|1998}}

===Format and administration===
<!-- Paragraph hidden: citation missing. 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.{{citation needed|date=May 2021}} -->

In 1987, an advanced scoring-system was developed for the MBTI. From this was developed the Type Differentiation Indicator (TDI),{{Sfn|Johnson|Saunders|1990}} which is a scoring system for the longer MBTI, Form J,{{Sfn|Bess|Harvey|Swartz|2003}} 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 dichotomous preference scales), plus seven additional subscales for a new "comfort-discomfort" factor (which parallels, though not perfectly measuring, the [[NEO-PI]] factor of [[neuroticism]]).<ref>{{Cite journal |last1= Myers |first1= Katherine D. |last2= Quenk |first2= Naomi L. |last3= Kirby |first3= Linda K. |date= 1995 |title= The MBTI Comfort-Discomfort Dimension Is Not A Measure of NEO-PI Neuroticism: A Position Paper |url=https://www.capt.org/jpt/pdfFiles/JPT_Vol_35.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20220428010242/https://www.capt.org/jpt/pdfFiles/JPT_Vol_35.pdf |archive-date= 2022-04-28 |url-status= live |journal= Journal of Psychological Type |volume= 35 |page=3 |oclc=192178067 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1= Marioles |first1= Nancy S. |last2= Strickert |first2= Donald P. S |last3= Hammer |first3= Allen L. |date= 1996 |title=Attraction, Satisfaction, and Psychological Types of Couples |url= https://www.capt.org/jpt/pdfFiles/Marioles_N_et_al_Vol_36_16_27.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20201112031703/https://www.capt.org/jpt/pdfFiles/Marioles_N_et_al_Vol_36_16_27.pdf |archive-date= 2020-11-12 |url-status= live |journal= Journal of Psychological Type |volume= 36 |page=19 |oclc=207612144 }}</ref> 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:<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=v7Ww2tooAs0C&pg=PA88 |via=Google Books |title=Language learning motivation: pathways to the new century |author=Rebecca L. Oxford |access-date=2012-01-27 |isbn=978-0-8248-1849-4 |year=1996 |publisher=Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaiì at Mānoa |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140326224448/http://books.google.com/books?id=v7Ww2tooAs0C&pg=PA88&lpg |archive-date= 2014-03-26 |url-status=live }}</ref>

* guarded-optimistic (T/F),
* defiant-compliant (T/F),
* carefree-worried (T/F),
* decisive-ambivalent (J/P),
* intrepid-inhibited (E/I),
* leader-follower (E/I), and
* proactive-distractible (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 subscales".{{Sfn|Johnson|Saunders|1990}}

In 1989, a scoring system was developed{{citation needed|date=April 2023}} for only the 20 subscales for the original four dichotomies. This was initially known{{citation needed|date=April 2023}} as "Form K" or "the Expanded Analysis Report". This tool is now called the MBTI Step II.<ref>{{Cite web|title= MBTI® Step II™|url= https://eu.themyersbriggs.com/en/tools/MBTI/MBTI-Step-II|access-date= 2021-10-31|website=The Myers-Briggs Company|language=en}}</ref>

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.{{Sfn|Myers|McCaulley|Quenk|Hammer|1998|p= 119}} (The 1998 ''MBTI Manual'' reported that the two instruments were one and the same{{Sfn|Myers|McCaulley|Quenk|Hammer|1998|p= 131}}) Step III was developed in a joint project involving the following organizations: the Myers–Briggs Company, the publisher of all the MBTI works; the Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT), which holds all of Myers' and McCaulley's original work; and the MBTI Trust headed by Katharine and Peter Myers. CAPT advertised Step III as addressing type development and the use of "perception and judgment" by respondents.<ref>
{{cite web|url= https://www.capt.org/research/mbti-step3.htm |title= CAPT Step III |access-date= 2008-09-14 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080509154636/http://www.capt.org/research/mbti-step3.htm |archive-date= May 9, 2008 | quote = What clients is it appropriate for? Anyone who would benefit from awareness of the ways they use perception and judgment and/or guidance in developing and making more effective use of perception and judgment so they can develop their type as fully as possible.}}</ref>

== Concepts ==

The MBTI is based on the theory of [[Personality type#Carl Jung|psychological types]] proposed by Swiss psychiatrist [[Carl Jung]] in 1921,{{sfn|Jung|1971}} which was partially based on the [[Classical element#Ancient classic element systems|four elements]] of classical cosmology.<ref>Phillipson, Garry & Case, Peter. ''The Hidden language of modern Management Science: Astrology, Alchemy and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator'', Culture and Cosmos 5(2) (Autumn/Winter 2001) pp.53-72.</ref> Jung speculated that people experience the world using four principal psychological functions—[[Sensation (psychology)|sensation]], [[intuition]], [[feeling]], and [[Thought|thinking]]—and that one of these four functions is dominant in an individual, a majority of the time. In MBTI theory, the four categories are [[Extraversion and introversion|introversion/extraversion]], sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, and judging/perceiving. According to the MBTI, each person is said to have one preferred quality from each category, producing 16 unique types.{{Sfn|Huber|Kaufmann|Steinmann|2017|p=34-35}}

The MBTI ''Manual'' states that the indicator "is designed to implement a theory; therefore, the theory must be understood to understand the MBTI".{{Sfn|Myers|McCaulley|Quenk|Hammer|1998|p=1}} Fundamental to the MBTI is the [[hypothesis]] of psychological types as originally developed by Carl Jung.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|p=xiii}} Jung proposed the existence of two dichotomous pairs of cognitive functions:
* The "[[Rationality|rational]]" ([[Judgement|judging]]) functions: thinking and feeling.
* The "[[Irrationality|irrational]]" ([[perceiving]]) functions: sensation and intuition.

Jung believed that for every person, each of the functions is expressed primarily in either an introverted or extraverted form.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|p=17}} Based on Jung's original concepts, Briggs and Myers developed their own theory of psychological type, described below, on which the MBTI is based. According to psychologist [[Hans Eysenck]] writing in 1995 the 16 personality types used in MBTI are incomplete, as Jung's theory used 32 types, 16 of which could not be measured by questionnaire. Per Eysenck, it was unfair to Jung to claim the scale accurately measured Jungian concepts.<ref>{{cite book|last=Eysenck|first=H.J.|title=Genius: The Natural History of Creativity|edition=1995|page=179}}</ref> Both Jung's original model and the simplified MBTI remain hypothetical, with no controlled scientific studies supporting either.{{Sfn|Carroll|2004}}

===Differences from Jung===
Jung did not see the type preferences (such as introversion and extraversion) as dualistic, but rather as tendencies: both are innate and have the potential to balance.{{sfn|Jung|1971|p={{page needed|date=January 2024}}}}

Jung's typology theories postulated a sequence of four cognitive functions (thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition), each having one of two polar tendencies (extraversion or introversion), giving a total of eight dominant functions. The MBTI is based on these eight hypothetical functions. While the Jungian model proposes the first three dichotomies, Myers and Briggs added the judgment-perception preference.<ref name="Pittenger 467–488"/> According to Myers' and Briggs', J or P indicates a person's most preferred extraverted function, which is the dominant function for extraverted types and the auxiliary function for introverted types.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|pp=21-22}}

===Type dynamics and development===
[[File:Cognitive Functions.svg|thumb|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.]]

The MBTI sorts some psychological differences into four sets of opposite pairs, or "[[dichotomy|dichotomies]]", with a resulting 16 possible psychological types. None of these are considered to be "better" or "worse"; however, Briggs and Myers theorized that people innately "prefer" one overall combination of type differences.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|p=9}}

The 16 types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters{{snd}}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:
* '''ENTJ''': extraversion (E), intuition (N), thinking (T), judgment (J) 
* '''ISFP''': introversion (I), sensing (S), feeling (F), perception (P) 
These abbreviations are applied to all 16 types.

The interaction of two, three, or four preferences is known as "type dynamics". Type dynamics has received little or no empirical support to substantiate its viability as a [[scientific theory]].{{Sfn|Reynierse|2009}} 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 purportedly associated with the unconscious, and is most evident in situations such as high stress (sometimes referred to as being "in the grip" of the inferior function).<ref>{{Cite book|last=Quenk|first=Naomi L.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=k14ft1agW2AC|title=In the Grip: Our Hidden Personality|date=1996|publisher=CPP Books|isbn=978-1-60203-015-2|location=United States|language=en}}</ref>

The use of type dynamics is disputed: in the conclusion of various studies on the subject of type dynamics, psychologist James H. Reynierse writes, "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 "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.{{Sfn|Reynierse|2009}}

=== Four dichotomies ===
{| class="wikitable floatright"
|+ Carl Jung
|-
!
! Subjective
! Objective
|-
! <span style="color:red;">P</span>erception
| I<span style="color:red;">n</span>tuition/<span style="color:red;">S</span>ensing
| <span style="color:red;">I</span>ntroversion/<span style="color:red;">E</span>xtraversion 1
|-
! <span style="color:red;">J</span>udging
| <span style="color:red;">F</span>eeling/<span style="color:red;">T</span>hinking
| <span style="color:red;">I</span>ntroversion/<span style="color:red;">E</span>xtraversion 2
|}

{| class="wikitable floatright"
|+  Myers–Briggs, ''16 Personalities''
|-
! colspan="2" |
! Subjective
! Objective
|-
! rowspan="2" | Deduction
! rowspan="2" | Deduction, Induction
| I<span style="color:red;">n</span>tuition/<span style="color:red;">S</span>ensing
| rowspan="2" | <span style="color:red;">I</span>ntroversion/<span style="color:red;">E</span>xtraversion
|-
|I<span style="color:red;">n</span>tuition/Ob<span style="color:red;">s</span>erving
|-
! rowspan="2" | Induction
! rowspan="2" | Retroduction
| rowspan="2" | <span style="color:red;">F</span>eeling/<span style="color:red;">T</span>hinking
| <span style="color:red;">P</span>erception/<span style="color:red;">J</span>udging
|-
|<span style="color:red;">P</span>rospecting/<span style="color:red;">J</span>udging
|}
The four pairs of preferences or "dichotomies" proposed by Briggs and Myers are shown in the adjacent table.

The terms as used in the MBTI may 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 attempt to measure [[aptitude]], instead it attempts to indicates personal preference.{{Sfn|Myers|McCaulley|Quenk|Hammer|1998|p=3}} 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).{{Sfn|Myers|McCaulley|Quenk|Hammer|1998}}

=== 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.<ref>{{cite book|last=Zeisset|first=Carolyn|title=The Art of Dialogue: Exploring Personality Differences for More Effective Communication|year=2006|publisher=Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc|location=Gainesville, FL|isbn=978-0-935652-77-2|page=13}}</ref> These specific definitions differ somewhat from the popular usage of the words. Extraversion is the spelling used in MBTI publications.

=== Functions: sensing/intuition and thinking/feeling ===

Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions:
* Two perceiving functions: [[Sensation (psychology)|sensation]] (usually called sensing in MBTI writings) and [[Intuition (psychology)|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. Each of these proposed function can manifest in either an extraverted or an introverted attitude, so Jung's model includes eight combinations of functions and attitudes, four of which are largely conscious and four unconscious.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995}} [[John Beebe]] created a model that combines ideas of archetypes and the [[dialogical self]] with functions, each function viewed as performing the role of an archetype within an internal dialog.<ref>{{cite book |doi=10.4324/9781315685946 |title=Energies and Patterns in Psychological type |date=2016 |last1=Beebe |first1=John |isbn=978-1-315-68594-6 |chapter=Evolving the Eight-Function Model |pages=117–125 }}</ref> 

According to Briggs and Myers, people who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible, and concrete. They tend to distrust hunches.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|p=2}} Those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is associated with other information, either remembered or discovered from context.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995}}

Thinking and feeling are described as the [[decision-making]] (judging) functions by Briggs and Myers. These functions are used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions. Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) {{!}} Official Myers Briggs Personality Test |url=https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-US/Products-and-Services/Myers-Briggs |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190826195327/https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-US/Products-and-Services/Myers-Briggs |archive-date=2019-08-26 |access-date=2021-10-31 |website=www.themyersbriggs.com |language=en-US}}</ref>

People who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, "think better" than their feeling counterparts, as the MBTI attempts to measure of preference, not ability or skill. Similarly, those who prefer feeling do not necessarily have "better" emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts.{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995}}

==== 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."{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|p=84}}

The four functions operate in conjunction with the attitudes (extraversion and introversion). Each function is used in either an extraverted or introverted way.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Myers & Briggs Foundation – The Dominant Function|url=https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/the-dominant-function.htm|access-date=2021-06-17|website=www.myersbriggs.org}}</ref>

=== Lifestyle preferences: judging/perception ===
Myers and Briggs added a dimension to Jung's typological model, claiming that people 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).{{cn|date=July 2025}} According to Myers, judging types like to "have matters settled", while perceptive types prefer to "keep decisions open".{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|p=75}}

==Accuracy and validity==
{{Quote box
| text = ... a major task in interpretation is to help respondents with less clear reported preferences arrive at a {{em|comfortable}} and accurate assessment of their type. This is accomplished in an {{em|interpretation session}} mainly through an exploration of how type preferences appear in client behaviors.
| author = The MBTI Manual, Chapter 6: Interpreting Results of the MBTI and Verifying Type<ref>{{Cite book |last=Myers |first=Isabel Briggs |title=MBTI manual: a guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator |date=2003 |publisher=CPP |page=116 |isbn=978-0-89106-130-4 |edition=3rd |location=Mountain View, California}}</ref>
| width = 300px
}}

Despite its popularity, the MBTI has been widely regarded as [[pseudoscience]] by the scientific community.<ref name="v512">{{cite web | last=Edwards | first=Jim | title=How thousands of companies ended up using a bogus psychology test on their staff | website=The Independent | date=2022-10-12 | url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/myers-briggs-psychology-test-garbage-b2200663.html | access-date=2024-09-25 |quote=dozens of scientists have pointed out that Myers-Briggs is pseudoscience. There is no peer-reviewed, statistically significant, double-blind research demonstrating that it works. }}</ref>{{sfn|Stein|Swan|2019}}<ref name="Schweiger">{{cite journal |last1=Schweiger |first1=David M. |title=Measuring managerial cognitive styles: On the logical validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator |journal=Journal of Business Research |date=August 1985 |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=315–328 |doi=10.1016/0148-2963(85)90004-9 }}</ref> The validity ([[validity (statistics)|statistical validity]] and [[test validity]]) of the MBTI as a [[Psychometrics|psychometric]] instrument has been the subject of much criticism. Media reports have called the test "pretty much meaningless",<ref name="smithsonian">{{cite web|url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-myers-briggs-personality-test-is-pretty-much-meaningless-9359770/ |publisher=smithsonianmag.com |author=Rose Eveleth |author-link=Rose Eveleth |title=The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless|date=2013-03-26}}</ref> and "one of the worst personality tests in existence".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Chen |first1=Angus |title=How Accurate Are Personality Tests? |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-accurate-are-personality-tests/ |website=Scientific American |date=January 2019 |access-date=30 October 2020}}</ref> The psychologist [[Adam Grant]] is especially vocal against MBTI. He called it "the fad that won't die" in a ''[[Psychology Today]]'' article.{{Sfn|Grant|2013}} Psychometric specialist [[Robert Hogan (psychologist)|Robert Hogan]] wrote: "Most personality psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese [[fortune cookie]]".<ref>{{cite book |last=Hogan |first=Robert |author-link=Robert Hogan (psychologist) |date=2007 |title=Personality and the fate of organizations |location=Mahwah, NJ |publisher=[[Lawrence Erlbaum Associates]] |isbn=978-0-8058-4142-8 |oclc=65400436 |page=28}}</ref> [[Nicholas Campion]] comments that this is "a fascinating example of 'disguised astrology', masquerading as science in order to claim respectability."<ref>{{cite book |last=Campion |first=Nicholas |title=A History of Western Astrology |volume=II |publisher=Continuum Books |place=London |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-84725-224-1 |page=259}}</ref>

It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for the special 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).{{sfn|Coffield|Moseley|Hall|Ecclestone|2004|p={{page needed|date=November 2024}}}} It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny.{{sfn|Coffield|Moseley|Hall|Ecclestone|2004|p={{page needed|date=November 2024}}}} Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak or unscientific.{{Sfn|Gardner|Martinko|1996}} 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."{{Sfn|Gardner|Martinko|1996}}<ref name=Pittenger2005>{{cite journal |last1=Pittenger |first1=David J. |title=Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. |journal=Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research |date=2005 |volume=57 |issue=3 |pages=210–221 |doi=10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210 }}</ref>

The test has been likened to [[horoscope]]s, as both rely on the [[Barnum effect]], [[flattery]], and [[confirmation bias]], leading participants to personally identify with descriptions that are somewhat desirable, vague, and widely applicable.<ref name="Whitbourne">{{cite web |last1=Whitbourne |first1=Susan Krauss |author-link1=Susan Krauss Whitbourne |title=What You Don't Know about This Personality Test Can Hurt You |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-at-any-age/201401/what-you-dont-know-about-this-personality-test-can-hurt-you |publisher=[[Psychology Today]] |access-date=March 29, 2024 |date=January 4, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.recruiter.com/i/a-critique-of-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-mbti-part-two/ |title=A Critique of The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) – Part Two: a Personal Review |access-date=2019-08-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190811130325/https://www.recruiter.com/i/a-critique-of-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-mbti-part-two/ |archive-date=2019-08-11 |url-status=live }}</ref> MBTI is not recommended in counseling.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Healy |first1=Charles C. |title=Negative: The MBTI: Not Ready for Routine Use in Counseling |journal=Journal of Counseling & Development |date=April 1989 |volume=67 |issue=8 |pages=487–488 |doi=10.1002/j.1556-6676.1989.tb02125.x }}</ref>

=== Little evidence for dichotomies ===
As previously stated in the {{section link|2=Four dichotomies}} section, Isabel Myers considered the direction of the preference (for example, E vs. I) to be more important than its degree. 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. 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.{{Sfn|Pittenger|1993}}{{Sfn|McCrae|Costa|1989}}{{Sfn|Schuwirth|2004}}<ref name="Stricker">{{cite journal |last1=Stricker |first1=Lawrence J |last2=Ross |first2=John |year=1964 |title=An assessment of some structural properties of the Jungian personality typology |journal=The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=62–71 |doi=10.1037/h0043580 |pmid=14105180}}</ref>{{Sfn|Bess|Harvey|2002}}

{{Blockquote|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 [[Item response theory|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.{{Sfn|Bess|Harvey|2002}}}}

===Little evidence for "dynamic" type stack===
Some MBTI supporters argue that the application of type dynamics to MBTI (e.g., where inferred "dominant" or "auxiliary" functions like Se / "Extraverted Sensing" or Ni / "Introverted Intuition" are presumed to exist) is a logical category error that has little empirical evidence backing it.{{Sfn|Reynierse|2009}}  Instead, they argue that Myers–Briggs validity as a psychometric tool is highest when each type of category is viewed independently as a dichotomy.{{Sfn|Reynierse|2009}}

=== Validity and utility ===
The content of the MBTI scales is problematic. In 1991, a [[United States National Academy of Sciences|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 instruments 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".{{Sfn|Nowack|1996}} This study based its measurement of [[predictive validity|validity]] on "criterion-related validity (i.e. does the MBTI predict specific outcomes related to interpersonal relations or career success/job performance?)."{{Sfn|Nowack|1996}} The committee stressed the discrepancy between popularity of the MBTI and research results stating, "the popularity of this instrument in the absence of proven scientific worth is troublesome."<ref>{{cite book |doi=10.17226/1580 |title=In the Mind's Eye |date=1991 |isbn=978-0-309-04747-0 }}{{page needed|date=November 2024}}</ref> 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.{{Sfn|Pittenger|1993}}

=== Lack of objectivity ===
The accuracy of the MBTI depends on honest self-reporting.{{Sfn|Myers|McCaulley|Quenk|Hammer|1998|pp=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.{{Sfn|Boyle|1995}} As a result, individuals motivated to do so can fake their responses.<ref name = Furnham>{{cite journal |last1=Furnham |first1=Adrian |title=Faking personality questionnaires: Fabricating different profiles for different purposes |journal=Current Psychology |date=March 1990 |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=46–55 |doi=10.1007/BF02686767 }}</ref> One study found a weak but statistically significant correlation between the MBTI judging scale and the [[Eysenck Personality Questionnaire]] lie scale, suggesting that more socially conformant individuals are more likely to be considered judging according to the MBTI.<ref name = Francis-Jones>{{cite journal |last1=Francis |first1=Leslie J |last2=Jones |first2=Susan H |year=2000 |title=The Relationship Between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Among Adult Churchgoers |journal=Pastoral Psychology |volume=48 |issue=5 |pages=377–383 |doi=10.1023/A:1022036504232 }}</ref> If respondents "fear they have something to lose, they may answer as they assume they ''should''."{{Sfn|Myers|McCaulley|Quenk|Hammer|1998|p=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."<ref name="ethics">{{cite web|url=http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-foundation/ethical-use-of-the-mbti-instrument/ethics-for-administering.asp|title=Ethics for Administering the MBTI Instrument|access-date=2009-02-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090221055018/http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-foundation/ethical-use-of-the-mbti-instrument/ethics-for-administering.asp|archive-date=2009-02-21}}</ref> The intent of the MBTI is to provide "a framework for understanding individual differences, and... a dynamic model of individual development".<ref name="type-at-work">{{cite web |url=http://www.myersbriggs.org/type-use-for-everyday-life/mbti-type-at-work/ |title=MBTI Type at Work |access-date=2010-08-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100612204904/http://myersbriggs.org/type%2Duse%2Dfor%2Deveryday%2Dlife/mbti%2Dtype%2Dat%2Dwork/ |archive-date=2010-06-12 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Terminology===
The terminology of the MBTI has been criticized as being very "vague and general",<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html| title=Forer effect from the Skeptic's Dictionary| access-date=2007-10-11| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071017030347/http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html| archive-date=2007-10-17| url-status=live}}</ref> so as to allow any kind of behavior to fit any personality type, which may result in the [[Barnum effect]], where people give a high rating to a positive description that supposedly applies specifically to them.{{Sfn|Pittenger|1993}}{{Sfn|Carroll|2004}} Others argue that while the MBTI type descriptions are brief, they are also distinctive and precise.{{Sfn|Keirsey|1998|pp=14-15}} Some authors, such as [[David Keirsey]], have created their own systems that claim to provide more detail. For instance, Keirsey's descriptions of his [[Keirsey Temperament Sorter#Four temperaments|four temperaments]], which he correlated with the 16 MBTI personality types, claims to 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.{{Sfn|Keirsey|1998|pp=32-207}}

===Factor analysis===
Researchers have reported that the JP and the SN scales correlate with one another.{{Sfn|McCrae|Costa|1989}} 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.<ref name="Sipps-1985">{{cite journal |last1=Sipps |first1=Gary J. |last2=Alexander |first2=Ralph A. |last3=Friedt |first3=Larry |title=Item Analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator |journal=Educational and Psychological Measurement |date=December 1985 |volume=45 |issue=4 |pages=789–796 |doi=10.1177/0013164485454009 }}</ref>

===Correlates===
According to Hans Eysenck:

<blockquote>
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).<ref>{{cite book |last1=Eysenck |first1=Michael |title=Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach |date=1985 |publisher=Springer US |isbn=978-0-306-41844-0 }}{{page needed|date=December 2017}}</ref> 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, +.37 with abasement, +.46 with counselling readiness, −.52 with self-confidence, −.36 with personal adjustment, and −.45 with empathy.{{efn-lr|It also correlates −.24 with aggression, but is it doubtful whether this correlation is really unfortunate.}}{{efn-lr|By a rule of thumb, these correlations should be considered weak, weak, weak, moderate, weak, weak and noise respectively. Overall, this makes a non-correlation of −0.1475±0.01, similar to the quoted result of a longitudinal study of aging later in this article.<ref>{{cite web|title=What is Considered to Be a "Strong" Correlation?|url=https://www.statology.org/what-is-a-strong-correlation/#:~:text=%20What%20is%20Considered%20to%20Be%20a%20"Strong",car%20and%20the%20correlation%20between%20the...%20More%20 |author=Zach |date=January 22, 2020 |website=Statology}}</ref>}} 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.<ref name="Eysenck 110">{{cite book |last1=Eysenck |first1=Hans Jurgen |title=Genius: The Natural History of Creativity |date=1995 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-48508-1 |page=110 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

===Reliability===
The test-retest [[reliability (statistics)|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.{{Sfn|Pittenger|1993}}{{Sfn|Schuwirth|2004}}{{Sfn|Grant|2013}}  In a 2013 ''[[Fortune Magazine]]'' article titled "Have we all been duped by the Myers-Briggs Test?", [[Roman Krznaric]] wrote:

{{Cquote|The interesting{{snd}}and somewhat alarming{{snd}}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.<br />
A second criticism is that the MBTI mistakenly assumes that personality falls into mutually exclusive categories. ... 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.<ref name="cnn">{{cite web |url=http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/have-we-all-been-duped-by-the-myers-briggs-test/ |title=Have we all been duped by the Myers-Briggs test? |work=[[Fortune Magazine]] |date=May 15, 2013 |first=Roman |last=Krznaric |access-date=September 16, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160813235940/http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/have-we-all-been-duped-by-the-myers-briggs-test/ |archive-date=August 13, 2016 |url-status=live }}</ref>}}

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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Harvey |first1=R J |year=1996 |chapter=Reliability and Validity |pages=5–29 |title=MBTI Applications: A Decade of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator |editor1-first=A.L. |editor1-last=Hammer |publisher=Consulting Psychologists Press |location=Palo Alto, California |isbn=978-0-89106-094-9 }}</ref> For Form M (the most current form of the MBTI instrument), the MBTI ''Manual'' reports that these scores are higher.{{Sfn|Myers|McCaulley|Quenk|Hammer|1998|p=163}}

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.<ref name="Carskadon">{{cite journal|author1=Carskadon, TG  |author2=Cook, DD |name-list-style=amp | year=1982| title=Validity of MBTI descriptions as perceived by recipients unfamiliar with type | journal=Research in Psychological Type | volume=5 | pages=89–94 |oclc=12036781 }}</ref>

Robert and Mary Capraro in 2002 meta-analysis published in the journal ''[[Educational and Psychological Measurement]]'' found out that "In general, the MBTI and its scales yielded scores with strong internal consistency and test-retest reliability estimates, although variation was observed." The analysis found that of 210 studies from 1998 to 2001, 14 (7%) reported directly on the reliability of the data, 26% reported reliability via prior studies or the test manual, and 56% did not mention reliability at all.<ref name="Capraro Capraro Indicator Score Reliability Across">{{cite journal |last1=Capraro |first1=Robert M. |last2=Capraro |first2=Mary Margaret |title=Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Score Reliability Across: Studies a Meta-Analytic Reliability Generalization Study |journal=Educational and Psychological Measurement |date=August 2002 |volume=62 |issue=4 |pages=590–602 |doi=10.1177/0013164402062004004 }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Dawes|first=Robyn|title=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)|journal=European Business Forum|year=2004|issue=18}}</ref>  Others argue that the MBTI can be a reliable measurement of personality, and "like all measures, the MBTI yields scores that are dependent on sample characteristics and testing conditions".<ref name="Capraro Capraro Indicator Score Reliability Across"/>

==Statistics==
A 1973 study of university students in the United States found the INFP type was the most common type among students studying the [[fine arts]] and [[Visual arts education|art education]] subjects, with 36% of fine arts students and 26% of art education students being INFPs.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stephens |first1=William Blakely |title=Relationship between Selected Personality Characteristics of Senior Art Students and Their Area of Art Study |journal=Studies in Art Education |date=1973 |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=54–67 |doi=10.2307/1320192 |jstor=1320192 }}</ref> A 1973 study of the personality types of teachers in the United States found Intuitive-Perceptive types (ENFP, INFP, ENTP, INTP) were over-represented in teachers of subjects such as English, social studies and art, as opposed to science and mathematics, which featured more sensing (S) and judging (J) types.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=Earl P. |title=Selected Characteristics of Teachers and Their Preferences for Behaviorally Stated Objectives |journal=Studies in Art Education |date=1973 |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=35–46 |doi=10.2307/1319876 |jstor=1319876 }}</ref> A questionnaire of 27,787 high school students suggested INFP students among them showed a significant preference for art, English, and music subjects.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sides |first1=Charles H. |title=Psychological Types and Teaching Writing |journal=Writing on the Edge |date=1990 |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=23–40 |jstor=43158643 }}</ref>

==Utility==
Isabel Myers claimed that the proportion of different personality types varied by choice of career or course of study.{{Sfn|Myers|McCaulley|Quenk|Hammer|1998}}{{Sfn|Myers|Myers|1995|pp=40-51}} 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.{{Sfn|Pittenger|1993}} 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.{{Sfn|Pittenger|1993}}<ref name="Druckman">{{cite book |editor1=Druckman, D. |editor2=Bjork, R. A. |title= In the Mind's Eye: Enhancing Human Performance |url= https://archive.org/details/inmindseyeenhan00druc |url-access= registration|publisher= National Academy Press |location = Washington, DC |year= 1992 |isbn= 978-0-309-04747-0}}{{page needed|date=December 2017}}</ref>

The Myers–Briggs Company, then known as Consulting Psychologists Press (and later CPP), became the exclusive publisher of the MBTI in 1975. They call it "the world's most widely used personality assessment", with as many as two million assessments administered annually.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-US/Products-and-Services/Popular-Products|title=The Myers-Briggs Company Products|access-date=2009-06-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181116034415/https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-US/Products-and-Services/Popular-Products |archive-date=2018-11-16 |url-status=live}}</ref> The Myers-Briggs Company and other proponents state that the indicator meets or exceeds the reliability of other psychological instruments.{{Sfn|Schuwirth|2004}}<ref>{{cite web |title=MBTI Form M Manual Supplement |last=Schaubhut |first=Nancy A. |author2=Nicole A. Herk |author3=Richard C. Thompson |year=2009 |publisher=CPP |page=17 |url=https://www.themyersbriggs.com/-/media/Myers-Briggs/Files/Practitioner-Resources/MBTI_FormM_Supplement.pdf?la=en-US |access-date=2010-05-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181206235002/https://www.themyersbriggs.com/-/media/Myers-Briggs/Files/Practitioner-Resources/MBTI_FormM_Supplement.pdf?la=en-US |archive-date=2018-12-06 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=Tieger>{{cite book |author1=Tieger, Paul D. |author2=Barron-Tieger, Barbara |title=Do what You Are: Discover the Perfect Career for You Through the Secrets of Personality Type |publisher=Little, Brown |location=Boston |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-316-84522-9 |url=https://archive.org/details/dowhatyouaredisc00tieg |access-date=2019-08-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121009111132/http://archive.org/details/dowhatyouaredisc00tieg |archive-date=2012-10-09 |url-status=live}}{{page needed|date=December 2017}}</ref>

The MBTI has poor [[predictive validity]] of employees' job performance ratings.{{Sfn|Pittenger|1993}}{{Sfn|Nowack|1996}}<ref name="its-not-you">{{cite news |id={{ProQuest|395225147}} |title=Letters to the Editor: It's Not You, It's Your Personality |newspaper=Wall Street Journal |date=3 February 1992 |page=A13 }}</ref> 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''.{{Sfn|Myers|McCaulley|Quenk|Hammer|1998|p=78}} It is argued that the MBTI only continues to be popular because many people are qualified to administer it, it is not difficult to understand, and there are many supporting books, websites and other sources which are readily available to the general public.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/nj7412-545a |pmid=22919707 |title=Career development: What's your type? |journal=Nature |volume=488 |issue=7412 |pages=545–547 |year=2012 |last1=Lok |first1=Corie |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==Correlations with other instruments==

===Keirsey temperaments===
[[David Keirsey]] developed the [[Keirsey Temperament Sorter]] after learning about the MBTI system, though he traces four "temperaments" back to Ancient Greek traditions. He maps these temperaments to the Myers–Briggs groupings SP, SJ, NF, and NT. He also gives each of the 16 MBTI types a name, as shown in the below table.

{| role="presentation" style="margin: auto; border: 1px solid; text-align: center;"
|-
|
<div style="background-color: #fdf; font-weight: bold;">IS<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>T<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>J</div>[[Inspector (role variant)|Inspector]]
|
<div style="background-color: #fdf; font-weight: bold;">IS<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>F<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>J</div>[[Protector (role variant)|Protector]]
|
<div style="background-color: #fdf; font-weight: bold;">IN<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>F<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>J</div>[[Counselor (role variant)|Counselor]]
|
<div style="background-color: #fdf; font-weight: bold;">IN<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>T<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>J</div>[[Mastermind (role variant)|Mastermind]]
|-
|
<div style="background-color: #edb; font-weight: bold;">IS<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>T<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>P</div>[[Crafter (role variant)|Crafter]]
|
<div style="background-color: #edb; font-weight: bold;">IS<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>F<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>P</div>[[Composer (role variant)|Composer]]
|
<div style="background-color: #edb; font-weight: bold;">IN<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>F<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>P</div>[[Healer (role variant)|Healer]]
|
<div style="background-color: #edb; font-weight: bold;">IN<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>T<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>P</div>[[Architect (role variant)|Architect]]
|-
|
<div style="background-color: #ddf; font-weight: bold;">ES<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>T<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>P</div>[[Promoter (role variant)|Promoter]]
|
<div style="background-color: #ddf; font-weight: bold;">ES<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>F<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>P</div>[[Performer (role variant)|Performer]]
|
<div style="background-color: #ddf; font-weight: bold;">EN<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>F<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>P</div>[[Champion (role variant)|Champion]]
|
<div style="background-color: #ddf; font-weight: bold;">EN<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>T<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>P</div>[[Inventor (role variant)|Inventor]]
|-
|
<div style="background-color: #dfd; font-weight: bold;">ES<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>T<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>J</div>[[Supervisor (role variant)|Supervisor]]
|
<div style="background-color: #dfd; font-weight: bold;">ES<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>F<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>J</div>[[Provider (role variant)|Provider]]
|
<div style="background-color: #dfd; font-weight: bold;">EN<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>F<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>J</div>[[Teacher (role variant)|Teacher]]
|
<div style="background-color: #dfd; font-weight: bold;">EN<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">I</sub>T<sub style="font-size: 70%; font-weight: normal;">E</sub>J</div>[[Fieldmarshal (role variant)|Fieldmarshal]]
|}

===Big Five===
McCrae and Costa based their Five Factor Model (FFM) on Goldberg's [[Big Five personality traits|Big Five]] theory.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.uoregon.edu/~sanjay/bigfive.html#b5vffm|title=University of Oregon: "Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors"|access-date=2008-08-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100209071733/http://www.uoregon.edu/~sanjay/bigfive.html#b5vffm|archive-date=2010-02-09}}{{self-published source|date=December 2017}}</ref> McCrae and Costa{{Sfn|McCrae|Costa|1989}} present [[correlation]]s between the MBTI scales and the [[Big five personality traits|Big Five]] personality constructs measured, for example, by the NEO-PI-R.<ref>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.</ref> 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).{{Sfn|Boyle|Stankov|Cattell|1995}}<ref>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|978-1-4129-4651-3}}{{page needed|date=December 2017}}</ref> The following correlations are based on the results from 267 men and 201 women as part of a longitudinal study of aging.{{Sfn|McCrae|Costa|1989}}

{{MBTI study}}

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, respectively. These results suggest that the four MBTI scales can be incorporated within the [[Big five personality traits|Big Five]] personality trait constructs, but that the MBTI lacks a measure for emotional stability dimension of the [[Big Five personality traits|Big Five]] (though the TDI, discussed above, has addressed that dimension). Emotional stability (or [[neuroticism]]) is a predictor of depression and anxiety disorders.

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."{{Sfn|McCrae|Costa|1989}}

== Popularity ==

=== South Korea ===
At the time of the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], MBTI testing became a fad among young South Koreans who were using it in an attempt to find compatible dating partners. The fad originated with a website called 16Personalities.com, which offers a free approximation of the official paid test.<ref name="Chea-April2022"/><ref name="Chea-March2022"/> Both independent experts and a representative of the MBTI publishing company have cautioned against using the MBTI test for dating, as the test was not designed for this purpose.<ref name=kr>{{cite news |first1=Jessie |last1=Yeung |first2=Yoonjung |last2=Seo |date=27 July 2022 |work=CNN |title=How Koreans fell in love with an American World War II era personality test |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/22/asia/south-korea-mbti-personality-test-dating-briggs-myers-intl-hnk-dst/index.html}}</ref> South Korea experienced a similar trend in the early 2000s with the [[blood type personality theory]].<ref name=kr/><ref name="Chea-April2022">{{cite news |last1=Chea |first1=Sarah |title=[WHY] Blood types, palm reading, now MBTI: Korea's love for categorizing |url=https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/04/16/why/korea-mbti-blood-types/20220416070206510.html |access-date=29 March 2024 |work=[[Korea JoongAng Daily]] |date=16 April 2022 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="KoreaTimes-August2022"/>

One survey reported that by December 2021, nearly half of the population had taken the MBTI personality test. The MBTI personality test also became an issue in [[2022 South Korean presidential election|2022 presidential election]].<ref name="KoreaTimes-August2022">{{cite news |newspaper=The Korean Times |url=https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2022/09/113_335268.html |title=Personality tests become hugely popular among young Koreans |date=30 August 2022 |last=Lee |first=Hae-rin}}</ref> In March 2022, ''[[Korea JoongAng Daily]]'' reported that "A growing number of Korean companies are asking job candidates to reveal their MBTI personality test results, angering job hunters who argue that the test is an unreasonable standard to screen and evaluate their capabilities."<ref name="Chea-March2022">{{cite news |last1=Chea |first1=Sarah |title=No INFPs please, and other excesses of the MBTI craze |url=https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/03/27/business/industry/mbti-MyersBriggs-MyersBriggs-Type-Indicator/20220327172450438.html |access-date=29 March 2024 |work=[[Korea JoongAng Daily]] |date=27 March 2022 |language=en}}</ref> A survey of South Korean job-seekers in their twenties found that 60% opposed the use of the test for such purposes.<ref name="Chea-March2022"/>

=== China ===
16Personalities.com also influenced an MBTI fad in China, where some employers and job recruiters have asked applicants about their MBTI or 16Personalities results. The trend in China also led to MBTI-related products, paid services, and social media such as podcasts and memes.<ref>{{Cite web |author=Yang Caini |date=July 31, 2023 |title=Young Chinese Obsess Over Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, the 60s American Personality Test |url=https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1013421 |access-date=2023-11-30 |website=#SixthTone}}</ref>

===Misuse===
In 2021, director Tim Travers Hawkins's film ''Persona: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests'' premiered on HBO.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/mar/03/they-become-dangerous-tools-the-dark-side-of-personality-tests |title=They become dangerous tools': the dark side of personality tests |work=The Guardian |last=Wong Macabasco |first=Lisa |date=4 March 2021 |access-date=2 October 2024}}</ref> The company which owns the test condemns its misuse, writing the test "is not, and was never intended to be predictive, and should never be used for hiring, screening or to dictate life decisions".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28315137 |title=Debunking the Myers-Briggs personality test |work=BBC News |date=15 July 2014 |access-date=2 October 2024}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|Psychology}}
{{Div col|colwidth=22em}}
* [[Adjective Check List]] (ACL)
* [[Brain types]]
* [[Riso–Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator]]
* [[Jungian Type Index]]
* [[Revised NEO Personality Inventory]]
* [[Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory]]
* [[Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument]]
* {{section link|Two-factor models of personality|Factors integrated into modern instruments}} (CPI 260)
{{Div col end}}

== Notes ==
{{Notelist-lr}}

== References==
{{reflist}}

=== Works cited ===
* {{cite journal |last1=Bess |first1=Tammy L. |last2=Harvey |first2=Robert J. |title=Bimodal Score Distributions and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Fact or Artifact? |journal=Journal of Personality Assessment |date=February 2002 |volume=78 |issue=1 |pages=176–186 |doi=10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_11 |pmid=11936208 }}
* {{Cite conference|last1=Bess|first1=Tammy L.|last2=Harvey|first2=R.|last3=Swartz|first3=D.|date=2003|title=Hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator |conference=Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology |journal=|doi=10.1037/E518712013-042|s2cid=5900294}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Boyle |first1=Gregory J. |title=Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some Psychometric Limitations |journal=Australian Psychologist |date=March 1995 |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=71–74 |doi=10.1111/j.1742-9544.1995.tb01750.x }}
* {{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-1-4757-5571-8_20 |chapter=Measurement and Statistical Models in the Study of Personality and Intelligence |title=International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence |date=1995 |last1=Boyle |first1=Gregory J. |last2=Stankov |first2=Lazar |last3=Cattell |first3=Raymond B. |pages=417–446 |isbn=978-1-4419-3239-6 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Coffield |first1=Frank |last2=Moseley |first2=David |last3=Hall |first3=Elaine |last4=Ecclestone |first4=Kathryn |date=2004 |title=Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review |publisher=Learning and Skills Research Centre |isbn=978-1-85338-918-4 |url=https://www.leerbeleving.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/learning-styles.pdf }}
* {{cite web|author=Carroll|first=Robert T.|date=2004-01-09|title=Myers-Briggs Type Indicator-The Skeptic's Dictionary|url=http://skepdic.com/myersb.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031202023311/http://skepdic.com/myersb.html|archive-date=2003-12-02|access-date=2004-01-08|website=The Skeptic's Dictionary}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Gardner |first1=William L. |last2=Martinko |first2=Mark J. |title=Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to Study Managers: A Literature Review and Research Agenda |journal=Journal of Management |date=February 1996 |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=45–83 |doi=10.1177/014920639602200103 }}
* {{Cite web|last=Grant|first=Adam|date=2013|title=Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won't Die|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die|access-date=2018-03-19|website=[[Psychology Today]]|language=en}}
* {{cite book|last1=Huber|first1=Daniel|chapter=The Missing Link: The Innovation Gap|date=2017|url=|title=Bridging the Innovation Gap|pages=21–41|place=Cham|publisher=Springer International Publishing|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-55498-3_3|isbn=978-3-319-55497-6|last2=Kaufmann|first2=Heiner|last3=Steinmann|first3=Martin|series=Management for Professionals }}
* {{cite book|last1=Hunsley|first1=John|last2=Lee|first2=Catherine M.|last3=Wood|first3=James M.|date=2003 |chapter=Controversial and questionable assessment techniques |title=Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology|publisher=Guilford Press|pages=39–76|isbn=978-1-59385-070-8}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Johnson |first1=Donald A. |last2=Saunders |first2=David R. |title=Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator-Expanded Analysis Report |journal=Educational and Psychological Measurement |date=September 1990 |volume=50 |issue=3 |pages=561–571 |doi=10.1177/0013164490503010 }}
* {{cite book |last=Jung |first=C. G. |year=1971 |orig-date=1921 |title=Psychological Types |series=Collected Works of C. G. Jung |volume=6 |edition=3rd |place=Princeton, NJ |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=0-691-09770-4}}
*{{cite book|last=Keirsey |first=David|url=https://archive.org/details/pleaseunderstand00keir|title=Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence|publisher=Prometheus Nemesis Book Company|year=1998|isbn=978-1-885705-02-0|location=Del Mar, CA|url-access=registration}}
* {{cite book |last1=Lilienfeld |first1=Scott O. |last2=Lynn |first2=Steven Jay |last3=Lohr |first3=Jeffrey M. |title=Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Second Edition |date=2014 |publisher=Guilford Publications |isbn=978-1-4625-1751-0 }}
* {{cite journal |last1=McCrae |first1=Robert R. |last2=Costa |first2=Paul T. |title=Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality |journal=Journal of Personality |date=March 1989 |volume=57 |issue=1 |pages=17–40 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x |pmid=2709300 }}
*{{cite book|last1=Myers|first1=Isabel B.|last2=McCaulley|first2=Mary H.|last3=Quenk|first3=Naomi L.|last4=Hammer|first4=Allen L.|year=1998| url=https://archive.org/details/mbtimanualguidet00myer|title=MBTI Manual (A guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator)|publisher=Consulting Psychologists Press|isbn=978-0-89106-130-4|edition=3rd}}
* {{cite book|author=Myers|first1=Isabel B.|title=Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type|last2=Myers|first2=Peter B.|publisher=Davies-Black Publishing|year=1995|isbn=978-0-89106-074-1|location=[[Mountain View, California|Mountain View, CA]]|language=en|orig-date=1980}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Nowack|first=K.|date=1996|title=Is the Myers Briggs Type Indicator the Right Tool to Use?|url=http://www.opd.net/abstracts5.html|journal=Performance in Practice, American Society of Training and Development|volume=6|archive-date=2010-06-27|access-date=2010-08-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100627163127/http://www.opd.net/abstracts5.html|url-status=dead}}
* {{cite book |last1=Pearman |first1=Roger R. |first2=Sarah C. |last2=Albritton |title=I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You |publisher=Davies-Black |year=1997 |isbn=978-0-89106-096-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/imnotcrazyimjust00pear }}
* {{cite journal |last=Pittenger |first=David J. |year=1993 |title=Measuring the MBTI... And Coming Up Short |url=http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf |journal=Journal of Career Planning and Employment |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=48–52 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061206025148/http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf |archive-date=2006-12-06}}
* {{cite journal |first1=James H. |last1=Reynierse |title=The Case Against Type Dynamics |journal=Journal of Psychological Type |volume=69 |issue=1 |year=2009 |pages=1–20 |url=https://www.capt.org/jpt/pdfFiles/JPT_(2009)_69.01.pdf |access-date=2017-12-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171230114439/https://www.capt.org/jpt/pdfFiles/JPT_(2009)_69.01.pdf |archive-date=2017-12-30 |url-status=live }}
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1136/bmj.328.7450.1244 |title=What the educators are saying |journal=BMJ |volume=328 |issue=7450 |page=1244 |year=2004 |last1=Schuwirth |first1=L |pmc=416604 }}
* {{Cite journal |last1=Stein |first1=Randy |last2=Swan |first2=Alexander B. |date=February 2019 |title=Evaluating the validity of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology |journal=Social and Personality Psychology Compass |volume=13 |issue=2 |article-number=e12434 |doi=10.1111/spc3.12434 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Thyer |first1=Bruce A. |last2=Pignotti |first2=Monica |title=Science and Pseudoscience in Social Work Practice |date=2015 |publisher=Springer Publishing Company |isbn=978-0-8261-7768-1 }}

==Further reading==
* {{Skeptoid |id=4221 |number=221 |title=The Myers-Briggs Personality Test |date=August 31, 2010 |ref=none}}
* Falt, Jack. [http://www.trytel.com/~jfalt/topics.html ''Bibliography of MBTI/Temperament Books by Author''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041011154144/http://www.trytel.com/~jfalt/topics.html |date=2004-10-11 }}. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
* Georgia State University. [http://www2.gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwmbti.html ''GSU Master Teacher Program: On Learning Styles''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041120090310/http://www.gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwmbti.html |date=2004-11-20 }}. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
* Jung, Carl Gustav (1965). ''Memories, Dreams, Reflections.'' [[Vintage Books]]: New York, 1965. p.&nbsp;207 {{ISBN?}}
* 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}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Long |first1=Thomas G. |title=Myers-Briggs and Other Modern Astrologies |journal=Theology Today |date=October 1992 |volume=49 |issue=3 |pages=291–295 |doi=10.1177/004057369204900301 }}
* Pearman, R.; Lombardo, M.; and Eichinger, R. (2005). ''YOU: Being More Effective In Your MBTI Type.'' Minn.:Lominger International, Inc.
* {{cite journal |doi=10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.5 |title=The Relationship Between Psychological Type and Professional Orientation Among Technology Education Teachers |journal=Journal of Technology Education |volume=7 |issue=1 |year=1995 |last1=Wicklein |first1=Robert C |last2=Rojewski |first2=Jay W |hdl=10919/8594 |doi-access=free |hdl-access=free }}

== External links ==
<!-- Before adding to this list, refer to WP:EL and make sure the link complies. Otherwise, it will be deleted. -->
* {{commons category-inline}}
* {{wikiquote-inline|Psychological Type}}
* {{Cite web |title=Meet Yourself: How to Use the Personality Paint Box |date=December 22, 1926  |url=https://findingaids.lib.msu.edu/repositories/2/archival_objects/155010 |access-date=2023-10-13 |website=findingaids.lib.msu.edu}}
* Patrick Vermeren, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C5UQbWzwg8 The (uncomfortable) truth of HR and leadership development], TEDxKMA
<!-- Please do not add blogs or commercial sites, even if run by The Myers-Briggs Company. See WP:EL. -->

{{Analytical psychology}}
{{Pseudoscience}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator}}
[[Category:Analytical psychology]]
[[Category:Carl Jung]]
[[Category:Personality typologies]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Self-report personality tests]]