The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reinterpreting the Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five‐Factor Model of Personality
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI, Myers & McCaulley, 1985) was evaluated from the perspectives of Jung's theory of psychological types and the five‐factor model of personality as measured by self‐reports and peer ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO‐PI, Costa & McCrae, 1985b) Data were provided by 267 men and 201 women ages 19 to 93 Consistent with earlier research and evaluations, 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 The interpretation of the Judging‐Perceiving index was also called into question The data suggest that Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it However, 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
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 · Cited by 6,404
Self-citationTrait-names: A psycho-lexical study.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936) · Psychological Monographs · doi:10.1037/h0093360 · Cited by 2,018
Cited by
An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x · Cited by 6,835
Self-citationThe development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure
Goldberg, L. R. (1992) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 · Cited by 5,530
The structure of phenotypic personality traits.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.1.26 · Cited by 4,816
Learning Styles and Pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004) · Newcastle University · doi:10.25405/ncl.34085991 · Cited by 1,810
Conceptions and Correlates of Openness to Experience
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997) · Handbook of Personality Psychology · doi:10.1016/b978-012134645-4/50032-9 · Cited by 1,093
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1989-03
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-40
- ISSN
- 0022-3506 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6494
- OpenAlex
- W2073043307
- Cited by
- 986
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.