I have often faced this question myself: Are personality type models, like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), scientifically validated?
The answer isn't black and white. It's true that there has been considerable debate over the empirical validity of personality type theories, especially the MBTI.
For context, the MBTI is a self-report questionnaire that categorizes people into one of 16 personality types based on four dichotomies: extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving. It was developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, based on Carl Jung's theories (Myers et al., 1998).
Critics argue that the MBTI lacks empirical support for several reasons. First, it's built on dichotomies, which means you're either one type or another, with no middle ground.
However, what people may not realize is what the MBTI is meant to measure. For example, the MBTI measures PREFERENCES, which means you can either prefer Introversion or prefer Extroversion.
While this may seem like a dichotomy, it does not mean that the person who prefers Introversion can only engage in Introversion, and vice versa.
In other words, MBTI does NOT measure degree, but preferences. This means that even if you score very high on the “I” column, it just means you’re VERY CLEAR you prefer Introversion. This is different from degree.
Let me give an example. If I asked you today if you preferred Deep-Fried Chicken or Pan-Fried Chicken, you might reply, “Well, I prefer Fried Chicken.” Does that statement mean that you ONLY eat Fried Chicken and you can’t stand Pan-Fried Chicken? Obviously not. You can eat both, just that you prefer one over the other.
It is the same for the four dichotomies of the MBTI.
In fact, most contemporary personality psychologists agree that traits exist on a continuum, as demonstrated in models like the Big Five (McCrae & Costa, 1987).
Second, studies have raised questions about the MBTI's reliability, which is how consistently it measures what it's supposed to measure. One issue is test-retest reliability, with some people getting different results when they take the test multiple times (Pittenger, 2005).
While this may raise concerns about the MBTI's reliability, similar variations can occur in many tests. If you were to take the same exam paper one year apart, you might provide different answers to the same questions due to various factors, such as your mindset or life circumstances. In light of this, it's worth noting that the MBTI actually employs a 3-step process to establish Type, rather than just a single test, as is commonly known.
Despite these criticisms, personality tests like the MBTI remain widely used in various settings, including businesses and career counseling. Why? Well, they offer an easy-to-understand language for discussing personality, and many still find them useful tools for self-reflection and team building.
More importantly, these tools bring us back to their intended purpose.
They're not meant to pigeonhole or limit us, but to offer a starting point for understanding ourselves and others. With that in mind, it's essential to use them thoughtfully and understand their limitations.
Follow us here for more personality and communication insights!
References:
- 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). Consulting Psychologists Press.
- 2. 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.
- 3. Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210.