• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Relevant literature
 Design of the study
 Results
 Discussion and conclusions
 Appendices
 Bibliography
 Biographical sketch














Group Title: method of assessing Jungian psychological type development in a high school student sample /
Title: A method of assessing Jungian psychological type development in a high school student sample /
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099100/00001
 Material Information
Title: A method of assessing Jungian psychological type development in a high school student sample /
Physical Description: xi, 132 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Sweet, Janie Darlene, 1950-
Publication Date: 1981
Copyright Date: 1981
 Subjects
Subject: Typology (Psychology)   ( lcsh )
High school students -- Psychology   ( lcsh )
Foundations of Education thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Foundations of Education -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1981.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 124-130.
Statement of Responsibility: by Janie Darlene Sweet.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099100
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000296286
oclc - 08055727
notis - ABS2647

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 5 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    List of Tables
        Page vii
        Page viii
    List of Figures
        Page ix
    Abstract
        Page x
        Page xi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Relevant literature
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
    Design of the study
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
    Results
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
    Discussion and conclusions
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
    Appendices
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
    Bibliography
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
    Biographical sketch
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
Full Text













A METHOD OF ASSESSING
JUNGIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT
IN A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT SAMPLE







BY

JANIE DARLENE SWEET


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1981































Copyright 1981

by

Janie Darlene Sweet















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Words cannot express adequately my appreciation and

heart-felt thanks to my committee, Richard Anderson, Wilson

Guertin, and especially to my chairman, Donald Avila, for

putting up with me all these years, for too many phone calls

during meetings, and for my showing up on trips from South

Carolina to Florida with very little notice. Don has served

me well as an advisor and was always there when I needed

someone to listen and be a friend.

To Drs. Margaret K. Morgan and Mary H. McCaulley, my

love and appreciation for long years of support, encourage-

ment, and guidance. My feelings for them are equally shared

by my husband, George.

Thanks to the staff of the Center for Applications of

Psychological Type for their assistance and patience in

helping me get ready to conduct the testing phase of the

study.

To Richard Kainz, doctoral student in clinical psy-

chology and long-time member of the CAPT staff, I am

indebted in a multitude of ways--for his part in data

collection, for fearlessly helping me tackle the computer,

for playing devil's advocate, and for being a true friend.

To Claudette Connolly, my dearest and closest friend,

there is not room to express my appreciation for all the










years of encouragement and support. My only regret that

this dissertation is finished is in no longer having a valid

excuse to visit you often.

To Dr. Drew Barrett, Assistant Principal at Sarasota

High School at the time this study was conducted, my deepest

and warmest thanks to you and to the kids, for making the

study possible and for all your valuable efforts and time in

providing the needed information.

My thanks to my family, George, Scott, and George, Jr.,

for hanging in there during the disappointments and the

sacrifices, and for sharing in the joys. Anything that I

have accomplished would not have been possible without their

patience, understanding, and love.

Thanks to my parents, my aunt, and my grandmother for

their love, support, and all the babysitting so I could work

knowing my children were in good hands.

To the spirit of Isabel Briggs Myers--I regret I could

not finish this in time for her reading--her work and her

being have inspired so many. This is dedicated in memorium

to her.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......... ............... iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................... .. vii

LIST OF FIGURES...................................... ix

ABSTRACT............................................. x

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION ............................... 1

Purpose of the Study...................... 1
Statement of the Problem.................. 1
Theoretical Basis for the Study............ 4
Focus of the Present Study................ 7
Hypotheses................................ 9

II RELEVANT LITERATURE ......................... 10

Jung's Theory of Psychological Types ...... 10
The Developmental Nature of the Theory.. 10
Extraversion, Introversion and the
Four Psychological Functions.......... 14
The Origin of Psychological Type
Preferences........... ................ 17
An Interpretation of the Dominant and
the Auxiliary Function................. 25
Evidence Related to the Value of Clarity
and Strength of Psychological Type
Preferences ............................. 30
An Assessment Problem ..................... 44

III DESIGN OF THE STUDY. ........................ 47

Subjects.................................. 47
Procedure ................................ 49
Instrumentation Employed in the Study..... 51
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.......... 51
Description................. .......... 51
Validity.............................. 52
Reliability............................ 55











TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

CHAPTER PAGE

The Moral Judgment Questionnaire....... 58
Description.......................... 58
Validity ............................. 59
Reliability........................... 62
Demographic and School Performance
Data.................................. 63
Demographic .. ............... ......... 63
School Performance................... 63
The Discrepancy Index .................. 64
Statement of Specific Hypotheses.......... 68
Data Analysis ............................ 70

IV RESULTS ..................................... 73

One-way Analysis of Variance.............. 73
Post Hoc Comparisons....................... 75
Selection Ratio Type Table Analyses...... 75
Frequencies ................ ..... ........ .76
Results of Hypotheses Testing............ 76

V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................. 85

Discussion of Results ................... 85
Summary.................. .... ........... 93
Implications for Education............... 94
Limitations and Suggestions for
Further Research ....................... 98

APPENDICES

A SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSES OF TEACHER ESTIMATES
OF READING LEVEL......................... 103

B DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR DISCREPANCY
INDICES.................................. 105

C TYPE DISTRIBUTION IN STUDY SAMPLE.......... 111

D RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF SELECTION RATIO
TYPE TABLE (SRTT) ANALYSES................ 117

BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................ 124

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................. 131
















LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAGE

1 Subjects broken down by grade level................. 48

2 Confidence ranges for reported preferences......... 65

3 Continuous score ranges differing significantly
from chance...................................... 66

4 Significant findings for H ........................ 77

5 Significant findings for H 2....................... 79

6 Significant findings for H2.2 and H24.............. 81

7 Significant findings for H ........................ 84

APPENDICES

Al Significant findings for teacher estimates of
reading level.................................... 104

B1 Descriptive statistics for DI's reflecting
strength of preference........................... 106

B2 Descriptive statistics for DI's reflecting
word-pair/phrase discrepancies................... 107

B3 Descriptive statistics for DI's reflecting
split-half differences........................... 108

B4 Descriptive statistics for total discrepancies
for each MBTI scale.............................. 109

B5 Descriptive statistics for combined
discrepancies on all 4 MBTI scales............... 110

Cl Psychological type distribution for 485 high
school students .................................. 114

C2 Myers' students in Pennsylvania high schools ....... 115

C3 Comparison of 485 high school students with
Myers' Pennsylvania high school student sample... 116











LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)

TABLE PAGE

Dl SRTT analysis for DIEI groups 1 and 3.............. 121

D2 SRTT analysis for D1TF groups 2 and 4.............. 122

D3 SRTT analysis for D4SN groups 1 and 3.............. 123


viii
















LIST OF FIGURES


FIGURE PAGE

1 Diagram illustrating the basic psychological
type preferences .................. ............. 29

2 Myers' schema for determining dominant
function ......................................... 30












Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A METHOD OF ASSESSING
JUNGIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT
IN A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT SAMPLE

By

JANIE DARLENE SWEET

August 1981

Chairman: Donald Avila
Major Department: Foundations of Education

A Discrepancy Index designed to indicate the level of

psychological type development at which a person is func-

tioning was constructed and evaluated. The index was

derived from the following three categories of discrepant or

inconsistent responses to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI): (1) when a person has a very low overall score in

general for a particular scale of the MBTI; (2) a person

gives answers favoring one pole of a scale on the word-pair

items and then chooses the opposite pole on the phrase

questions, or vice versa; and/or (3) a person gives answers

favoring one pole or an MBTI scale on the x or y-half of the

MBTI and then favors the opposite pole on the other half.

The focus of the study was to determine, in a large

sample of metropolitan Florida high school students

(N = 485), whether the Discrepancy Index has the capability

to differentiate between students high and low in level of

moral reasoning and high and low on academic variables

(overall and academic grade point average and class rank).
x










It appears that the Discrepancy Index dealing with

strength of preference has discriminating power. As pre-

dicted, students expressing high preference for their per-

ceptive function, whether it is for Sensing or for

Intuition, fared better academically than students with low

preferences for their perceptive function. A similar rela-

tionship existed for high Moral Judgment Scale score and

high preference for their judging function, either Thinking

or Feeling.

The Discrepancy Indices for word-pair/phrase discrepancy

and x-y half differences need further adjustment and

re-evaluation. As constructed for the present study they

predicted very little. More sensitive dependent measures

than grade point average should be utilized.

Results of the study do provide evidence that assessment

of "within type" differences is reasonable and possible, and

that strong, clear preference appears to be an important and

measurable component of good type development. The results

obtained provide further support for the theoretical

assumption that it is the clarity and degree of development

of a preference, and not which preference is favored, that

accounts for competence in perception and judgment.
















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity

of a Discrepancy Index designed to indicate the level of

psychological type development at which a person is func-

tioning. The Discrepancy Index was constructed from three

categories of discrepant or inconsistent responses to the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

Statement of the Problem

Some of the problems facing the public school system

have reached or are reaching a crisis point. The push for

accountability in schools is gaining momentum. When large

proportions of students cannot pass functional literacy

tests it is no surprise that the schools bear the burden of

blame.

Part of the total problem is that there is no con-

sensus among members of the American public as to what the

schools should, in fact, be teaching. Once goals are

clearly delineated by school administrators and curriculum

planners, the important question then becomes how to teach

that which is supposed to be taught (a matter of methods

rather than of goals). One method which has surfaced is the

attempt to individualize the educational process. A problem










here is to find ways to individualize instruction while

achieving cost efficiency. The successful individualized

approach will be one which provides a straightforward and

inexpensive way to discover and deal with individual differ-

ences of students in their own approaches to learning situa-

tions. A great deal of research on individualizing

instruction is taking place all over the country. It is

this researcher's belief that if we cannot very soon, and on

a large scale, satisfactorily implement in the classroom the

fruits of these researches, the movement to individualize

will go the route of so many other short-lived educational

innovations.

Carl G. Jung (1921) proposed a theory of individual

differences which is currently being examined and evaluated

in educational settings as a means of individualizing

instruction. Research has clearly established that people

do differ in the basic preferences for the use of the psy-

chological functions and attitudes proposed by Jung, and

that these preferences make a difference in motivation,

aptitude and achievement. In addition, students differ in

the command that they have over their preferred functions.

Teachers and counselors dealing with psychological type

concepts in the classroom have made similar observations.

In describing the psychological type preferences Jung (1921),

Myers (1962) and others (McCaulley, 1978; Quenk, 1978; Van

der Hoop, 1939; von Franz & Hillman, 1971) comment upon dif-

ferences between persons with excellent type development and those










with problems in type development. In other words, it is

expected that some individuals will have developed their

preferred process or function to a greater extent than

others preferring use of the same function. The degree to

which students have developed their preferred functions has

implications for how well they perform in day-to-day situa-

tions which call upon their powers of perception and their

powers of judgment. In this respect, the present study is

at a far more individual and micro-level than that of

dealing with basic type differences. The focus is on

individual differences within types as much as with the

differences between types which have been the concern of

earlier research.

Knowledge of psychological type preferences of students

is beneficial to educators and to students. In elementary

level classrooms, however, it may not be necessary or even

advisable to determine the type preferences of particular

students. At this age level students are gaining experience

and expertise in their own approaches to learning situations.

Many elementary level teachers have found it useful, however,

to estimate type through observation (Nuernberger & Lawrence,

1974). Knowledge of activities that appeal to students with

different psychological type preferences allows the instruc-

tor to offer a "smorgaasbord"--where, indeed, there is

something for everybody and students can gain experiences

which develop all their powers of perception and judgment.










By the time a student reaches the high school level, an

indication of the type preferences of the individual becomes

relevant for more than understanding communication between

teachers and students. It becomes relevant for decisions

about lifelong goals, including career decisions. It is

particularly important for students experiencing academic

difficulty, and for their teachers, to assess not only their

type preferences but to determine whether or not they really

have command over the psychological functions they prefer to

use. It is for these students that the educational dollar

to individualize instruction can have the highest return.

Public Law 94-142 has mandated the development of highly

individualized educational programs for all handicapped

learners. Learning disabled students are a target group for

highly individualized instruction. Use of the MBTI to

assess type preferences of learning disabled students is

being explored (Metts, 1979).

At this point in time we can assess the basic type

preferences with a considerable degree of reliability. The

pressing problem is to discover a reliable means to appraise

"the potent but as yet unmeasurable variable of 'type

development'--i.e., the extent to which the person actually

has developed the processes and the attitudes which he pre-

fers" (Myers, 1962, p. 19).

Theoretical Basis for the Study

The approach to individualizing instruction being

utilized in the present study is based on Carl G. Jung's








5
theory of psychological types (1921). The theory is highly

relevant to education because it focuses on the individual's

conscious use of his/her powers of perception and his/her

powers of judgment. The theory begins at the point where

the students focus their attention to take in information or

know something (perceive) and then to decide or come to con-

clusions (judge) about it. Some students will naturally be

better at perceiving than judging and vice versa, but all

individuals need to develop their full potential for both

processes.

An instrument, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI),

designed to implement Jung's theory of psychological types,

was developed by Isabel Myers in the 1940's. After careful

study and evaluation, the MBTI was published as a research

instrument by Educational Testing Service in 1962 and as a

tool for general professional use by Consulting Psycholo-

gists Press in 1975. A substantial body of research using

this instrument in education is available (Bibliography,

Center for Applications of Psychological Type, 1981).

Psychological type differences have been fruitfully

studied. Attempts to individualize instruction based on

these findings are meeting with success. Gifted students

and others with special talents have been studied from the

perspective of psychological type differences. Increased

knowledge of student preferences for educational media based

on type differences is emerging (Anast, 1966; Golanty-Koel,

1977; Williams, 1973). A substantial proportion of the










literature on psychological type differences in students

deals with academic aptitude and performance. With so much

current interest in cognitive structures, perceptual organi-

zation, and teaching and learning "styles" it is not sur-

prising to find a large proportion of studies in those areas

taking psychological type variables into account in settings

that range from middle school through graduate and profes-

sional training. Research over more than three decades has

established the reliability of the MBTI (Carlyn, 1977; Coan,

1978; Myers, 1962) and the practical utility of Jung's

theory in the educational process (Neurnberger & Lawrence,

1974; McCaulley, 1974, 1976a, 1976b; von Franz & Hillman,

1971; Wickes, 1966).

Myers (1980) considers a major goal of education to be

the fostering of psychological type development in order to

improve and enhance learning and to prevent or head off

future problems. In this writer's opinion we have reached a

major roadblock in accomplishing this goal, and an obstacle

for psychological type research in the educational process

in general. We have looked extensively at basic type

differences between students in all sorts of fields,

programs and settings. What we do not yet know is the

amount of variance in our studies that might potentially be

accounted for if we could identify persons who are at a high

level of type development (regardless of which preferences

they like and use best) from those who are less differenti-

ated and at low levels of type development.











Before we can study this issue further, we must have

a way to measure type development. Research related to

education employing the MBTI has not yet dealt centrally or

systematically with the issue of individual differences in

type development. There are several clues that such studies

will be productive. Myers (1962) found underachieving stu-

dents in her sample to have lower internal consistency

measures on the MBTI than high achievers. She also found

aptitude and achievement scores for high school and college

students in her sample to be lower for those potentially

less clear about their type preferences.

Focus of the Present Study

In day-to-day situations, inconsistent or discrepant

responses to an MBTI scale are being interpreted as

suggestive of inadequate development of the psychological

process that the scale measures. Before any lack of

development can be assumed to exist, more direct evidence

regarding the meaning of inconsistent response patterns must

be established.

It was the focus of the present study to construct and

evaluate one possible index of level of psychological type

development. The focus was three-fold. First, a Dis-

crepancy Index was created which operationalizes the con-

cepts of inconsistent response and strength of type

preference. The inconsistencies or discrepancies upon which

the Discrepancy Index was built are: (1) when a person

responds or gives answers favoring one pole of an MBTI scale










on the X or Y-half of the MBTI and then favors the opposite

pole on the other half; (2) a person gives answers favoring

one pole of a scale on the word-pair items of the MBTI and

then chooses the opposite pole on the phrase-question items,

or vice versa; and/or (3) a person has a very low overall

score in general for a particular scale of the MBTI.

Secondly, it was determined whether, in a large sample

of high school students (N = 485), a relationship exists

between discrepant responding on the MBTI as measured by the

Discrepancy Index and students' responses to a Moral Judg-

ment Questionnaire. The Moral Judgment Scale was developed

by Maitland and Goldman (1974) to assess the level of develop-

ment of moral reasoning (judgment) that a person employs.

Finally, the academic and overall gradepoint average

and class rank of students with low Discrepancy Index scores

were compared with those of students with high Discrepancy

Index scores to determine whether a relationship exists

between discrepant response pattern and measures of academic

performance.

It was also expected that students with a high Dis-

crepancy Index score on the Sensing-Intuition (S-N) scale of

the MBTI would have lower reading levels than students with

low Discrepancy Index scores on the S-N scale. Reading test

scores could be made available from school records for so

few students that this relationship was not tested formally

in the present study. English teachers did provide the

investigator with estimates of students' reading level.










Supplemental analyses of these estimates of reading level

with Discrepancy Index scores were performed and are

reported in Appendix A.

Hypotheses

H Students who respond in a consistent and non-discrepant

pattern on the MBTI will employ a higher level of moral

reasoning than students who respond in an inconsistent and

discrepant pattern on the MBTI.

H2 Students who respond in a consistent and non-discrepant

pattern on the MBTI will have demonstrated higher academic

performance than students who respond in an inconsistent

and discrepant pattern on the MBTI.

H3 Students with low Discrepancy Index scores on the

Thinking-Feeling scale of the MBTI when it represents their

theorized Dominant Function will employ a higher level of

moral reasoning than students with high Discrepancy Index

scores on the T-F scale when it represents their theorized

Dominant Function.

H Students with low Discrepancy Index scores on the

Sensing-Intuition scale of the MBTI when it represents their

theorized Dominant Function will have attained a higher

academic and overall grade point average, or higher academic

and overall class rank than students with high Discrepancy

Index scores on the S-N scale when it represents their

theorized Dominant Function.
















CHAPTER II
RELEVANT LITERATURE

In the first portion of this chapter the basic concepts

of Jung's theory of psychological types are reviewed and the

developmental aspects of the theory explicated. In part two

research and clinical observations related to the value of

an individual's holding clear and consistent psychological

type preferences are examined. Part three delineates an

assessment problem in psychological type research.

Jung's Theory of Psychological Types

The Developmental Nature
of the Theory

Increasing recognition of individual differences and

the need to "individualize" the educational experience have

led many educators to the study of psychological type

differences. Many of these educators are attracted by the

underlying assumption that the differences found between

types represent alternative, but equally valid paths to the

achievement of excellence.

Jung (1921) postulated individual differences in a

person's preferences for mode of perception. Within the

realm of perception, he proposed that some are sensors, pre-

ferring to glean knowledge as to what goes on around them

from the physical senses, i.e., sight, hearing, touch, smell,

and taste. These sensors strongly trust what their










experiences have told them. Jung stated that others are

intuitives, preferring to perceive the world in terms of

relationships, meanings and abstractions. These intuitors

are often more concerned with what something means or might

be than with what it is.

Jung proposed that individuals also differ in the type

of judgment they rely upon. Some are thinkers, preferring

to draw on their powers of logic and objectivity in making

most decisions. Thinking types like best to utilize an

impersonal approach in decision-making. The opposite type

of person, Jung called feeling types, preferring to weigh

all evidence within their own subjective value system as a

basis for making decisions. Feeling types like best and

trust most decisions where they have employed their own sub-

jective criteria as to what is of highest value to them-

selves and to others in the situation.

The third individual difference in psychological type

is in the basic orientation people take towards their

environment. Extraverts are oriented toward the environ-

ment, incorporating it into their own self-system and

drawing energy from it. Introverts are oriented away from

the surrounding environment. The environment is more alien

to them. It takes energy away from them. In contrast to

the extravert, they draw their energy from their own inner

world of thought and ideas. Jung's analysis of these differ-

ences in perception (Sensing and Intuition) and judgment

(Thinking and Feeling) as they interact with basic










orientation towards the environment (Extraversion and

Introversion) have been seen empirically to organize, within

a powerful theoretical framework, many valuable observations

of the educational process.

In psychological type theory each of the four functions

(Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling) and orientations

(Extraversion and Introversion, sometimes called attitudes)

described by Jung is essential, and all of them are used by

every individual. The functions and attitudes are not

equally preferred, however, by all individuals. These basic

differences in preferences lead to differing priorities of

development, with the most preferred functions being differ-

entiated earlier than the less preferred ones.

Jung's psychological theory places great emphasis on

consciousness. As precisely stated by Fordham,

In attempting to divide human beings into
recognizable types, Jung is dealing mainly with
the psychology of consciousness; when a person
is described as either extraverted or intro-
verted, it means that his habitual conscious
attitude is either the one or the other. A
balanced attitude would include equally both
extraversion and introversion, but it frequently
happens that one attitude is developed and the
other remains unconscious. No one, however,
lives completely as one or the other, but mani-
fests the unconscious attitude at times, though
in an inferior way. (1966, p. 31)

Thus, Jung's theoretical position was that the process of

becoming a mature person, termed individuation, is one of

life-long development taking different forms that are

related to the person's preferences in the use of perception

and judgment. Jung considered each psychological type to be









13

a "normal" process of maturation. Quenk (1978) very clearly

emphasized this position,

Thus Jung was quite explicit in stating that the
attitude and function types are not "pure" but
orienting structures which reflect the habitual
way in which a person behaves. In energic,
libido terms, the attitude and function type are
the vehicles for the flow and amplitude of
psychic energy. As a psychology of character,
then, the Typology is not a static, classifi-
catory scheme, but a dynamic process through
which adaptation to the world occurs. (p. 5)

Central to Jung's concept of maturation is "the process

of becoming whole" (Fordham, 1966, p. 140). The key to this

individuation process is the concept of making conscious the

unconscious. Here Jung meant raising a person's level of

awareness as to the existence of the differing approaches,

which potentially increases the person's behavior repertoire

and self-understanding. Most people use or rely heavily on

one function; some use two. A highly differentiated or

developed person uses three, and in rare cases, people exist

who use all four functions (Sensing, Intuition, Thinking,

and Feeling). The use of all four functions is the end-

point or goal of the individuation process. This bears

similarity to Maslow's construct called self-actualization.

According to Fordham's interpretation (1966), the utiliza-

tion of all four functions involves both "the individuation

process, and the reconciliation of the opposing trends of

one's nature" (p. 46). Thus, as the separate components of

psychological type are explained in following sections it is

important to bear in mind the dynamic, developmental under-

pinnings of Jung's theory.










Extraversion, Introversion, and the
Four Psychological Functions

Jung considered the psychological type preferences to

be dichotomous in nature--as "either-or" preferences. One

either prefers the Introverted (I) or Extraverted (E) atti-

tude, either Sensing (S) or Intuitive (N) perception, and

either Thinking (T) or Feeling (F) judgments. There is a

very logical ordering of the preferences from E-I to S-N

to T-F. We direct our energy (E or I) to perceive a situa-

tion (S or N), and then to decide about it (T or F). Jung

called Sensing and Intuition the "irrational" functions

because they are processes or modes of perception. They

are not decision-making functions. They give us first the

percepts or information that later we may or may not use in

making decisions or judgments. Perception is the process of

cognition. We have utilized it when we say "I know" or "I

see." Conversely, Jung called Thinking and Feeling the

"rational" functions because they form the foundation of the

decision-making process. They are two different avenues or

approaches to coming to conclusions or judging about some-

thing.

It is necessary to acknowledge again that while Jung

postulated the preference for E or I, S or N, and T or F to

be "either-or" in nature, he did not mean that we utilize

one preference to the total exclusion of the other. Fordham

(1966) re-emphasizes this point,

Since human nature is by no means simple, one
rarely finds the absolutely pure type; often the
main function is sufficiently clear to dub the











person a thinker, an intuitive and so on, but it
is seconded by another function which modifies
and blurs the picture. Jung in fact refers to
his description of types as "somewhat Galtonesque
family portraits," for human nature refuses to
be classified in a precise and simple way. All
the same, the concept of types has great practi-
cal value as an aid to understanding in personal
relationships and in education. (p. 45)

In more specific terms, extraversion or introversion

indicates the direction of the individual's flow of energy.

A person who prefers the extraverted orientation is most "at

home" when energy and attention are focused on the outer

world of people and objects. Persons preferring intro-

version are more comfortable in the inner world of their

own thoughts and ideas. Kagan's "impulsive" and "reflec-

tive" dimensions reflect the Extravert-Introvert difference

in orientation. Jung (1921) states,

The introvert's attitude is an abstracting one; at
bottom, he is always intent on withdrawing libido
from the object, as though he had to prevent the
object from gaining power over him. The extravert,
on the contrary, has a positive relation to the
object. He affirms its importance to such an
extent that his subjective attitude is constantly
related to and oriented by the object. (p. 329)

Next comes the perceptive function which is divided

into the Sensing preference and the Intuitive preference

(Sensing and Intuition are two of the four functions Jung

refers to). The person who prefers sensing perception likes

best to take in information (i.e., perceive) through direct

use of and reliance upon the physical senses. This type of

perception is that which is most trusted by the individual.

Alternately, the person who prefers intuitive perception









16
likes best to "see" or perceive the possibilities extant in

a situation rather than the concrete realities of it. For

example, Intuitive types are often described as people with

great powers of imagination. Likewise, Sensing types are

often described as being superbly practical. This is no

surprise, as the intuitive person relishes in seeing "what

might be" and the sensing person delights in clear percep-

tion of "what is."

Finally, having perceived a situation, we come to con-

clusions or decide about it. For this Jung said we utilize

the judging function. The judging function is characterized

by the preferences for Feeling judgments or for Thinking

judgments (Feeling and Thinking are the other two of the

four functions referred to by Jung). While every individual

has the potential for both kinds of judgment, each person

tends to prefer or favor one kind over the other. This

leads to greater and greater development of the favored way.

Persons preferring Feeling judgment like best to rely on

their own value system to guide their behavior. The con-

scious and subjective weighing of things important to them

and to others involved in a situation is a cornerstone of

Feeling judgment. This process sheds light on the solution

which can be most trusted and satisfying. Alternately,

persons who prefer Thinking judgment trust and like best to

decide based on what they believe to be the logic of the

situation. Much emphasis is placed on the logical

consequences of one decision as opposed to another (cause










and effect). The attempt at impersonal objectivity is a

cornerstone of Thinking judgment. William James was

probably noting type differences in the Thinking and Feeling

functions when he postulated his tough-minded and tender-

minded types.

The Origin of Psychological
Type Preferences

The origin of the attitude and function types is not

certain. It remains the object of scientific inquiry. Jung

(1921) stated that at first we might be erroneously

inclined to consider such differences "as mere idiosyn-

crasies of character peculiar to individuals"; however, the

differences in behavior are consistent enough to be highly

predictable. He proceeded to state that these consistent

differences are found across all ranks of society--

Sex makes no difference either; one finds the
same contrast among women of all classes. Such
a widespread distribution could hardly have come
about if it were merely a question of conscious
and deliberate choice of attitude. In that case,
one would surely find one particular attitude in
one particular class of people linked together by
a common education and background and localized
accordingly. But that is not so at all; on the
contrary, the types seem to be distributed quite
at random. (pp. 330-333)

The type preferences show themselves in behavior very

early. Von Franz and Hillman (1971) say in the crib, and Jung

says on the first day of life. Jung seems to have ruled out


Jung's highly detailed descriptions of the attitudes
(E or I) and the four functions appear throughout
Psychological Types (1921), and in more condensed form
in Chapter Eight of The Portable Jung, J. Campbell, 1971.








18

any strict Mendelian inheritance pattern from parents as the

origin of type preferences. In other words, he could

observe no pattern wherein two extraverted parents produce

an extraverted child, or two sensing parents a sensing

child. Indeed, present-day data reveal no inheritance pat-

terns either. Jung hints, however, that biological and

physiological factors probably play a primary role--

In the same family one child is introverted, the
other extraverted. Since the facts show that
the attitude-type is a general phenomenon having
an apparently random distribution, it cannot be
a matter of conscious judgment or conscious
intention, but must be due to some unconscious,
instinctive cause. As a general psychological
phenomenon, therefore, the type antithesis must
have some kind of biological foundation .
there are obviously individuals who have a
greater capacity, or to whom it is more con-
genial, to adapt in one way and not in another.
It may well be that physiological causes of which
we have no knowledge play a part in this. I do
not think it improbable, in view of one's
experience that a reversal of type often proves
exceedingly harmful to the physiological well-
being of the organism, usually causing acute
exhaustion. (pp. 330-333)

One avenue of inquiry which may eventually shed light

on the origin of type preferences lies in investigation of

the functioning of the right and left hemispheres of the

brain. There may, for example, be a relationship between

hemispheric dominance and preferred mode of perception

(Sensing or Intuition). It would seem possible that

preference for sensing could be correlated with left-

hemispheric dominance and preference for intuition with

right-hemispheric dominance. Whatever the explanation,

Jung clearly suspected a biological basis for the type










preferences; an inborn predisposition to develop in one

direction rather than another.

Both biology and environment play a role in the develop-

ment of most human characteristics. Jung (1921) discussed

how environmental influences (especially parents) can

affect drastically what would be the normal type development

of the child. But, he says these are extreme and abnormal

cases and that

As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type
takes place as a result of parental influence,
the individual becomes neurotic later, and can be
cured only by developing the attitude consonant
with his nature. (p. 332)

Jung thus thought environment very important, with

possibilities existing both for falsification of type and

for helping develop a basic predisposition. In the Inner

World of Childhood, Wickes (1966) provides a further

example of the forces affecting the personality type of a

very young child,

The closer the bond between the parent and child
the more the child is molded not only by the
conscious but also the unconscious demands of the
parent, reacting in many ways as he is expected
to react instead of in accordance with his
individual type. Such a confusion produces a
sense of unreality and makes the integration of
the personality a difficult task. (p. 130)

Several writers have commented upon the effects the

child's personality type has in the classroom, specifically

in the relationship with the teacher. Wickes discussed

the many ways in which the child is affected by school and

ways that teachers or parents can ascertain (without










pigeonholing) clues as to psychological type of the child,

and how to utilize that information to the best benefit of

the child. Wickes (1966) offered the following anecdotal

illustration of why clues as to the psychological type

preferences of the child are important "tools" in the edu-

cational process,

I have known schools where it was possible to
predict the success or failure of a child of
pronounced type as he advanced from grade to
grade and teacher to teacher. In one class he
would be spoken of as a boy with an interesting
mind and showing promise of great ability; in
the next as impractical, dreamy, inaccurate.
Or the reverse type of boy would be first depre-
ciated as too ready, lacking in imagination and
originality, and in the next grade praised as a
fine, accurate, responsive, careful pupil. These
verdicts were primarily based upon the type atti-
tude of the teacher and upon the form of work
which she valued. The same is true of parents.
They feel rapport with the child whom they can
understand. (pp. 134-135)

Fordham (1966) states that it is of help to teachers to

"realize that an introverted child, for instance, is not

unhappy or unadapted if it does not join in activities with

the same zest as extraverted pupils" (p. 45). She gives

the following comparison of an extraverted and an intro-

verted child:

This [the extraverted child] is the type of child
who is popular both with parents and teachers.
He is spoken of as "well adjusted", and is often
considered "brighter" than he really is because
of his earlier development and his capacity to
make a good impression.
The introverted child is shy and hesitant.
He dislikes all new situations, and even
approaches new objects with caution, and some-
times with fear. He prefers to play alone, and
have one, rather than many friends. Because of
the widespread preference for extraversion, such










introverted children often cause anxiety to
parents, but they are just as "normal" and intel-
ligent as the other type of child. They are
thoughtful and reflective, and often have a rich
imaginative life. What they need most is time
to develop their less obvious gifts, and to learn
to feel at home in the world. (p. 32)

These external forces (parental and societal, as well

as all life experiences) can be positive or negative in

their influence on type development. In the lifetime of an

individual, the formal education process has the potential

for extensive positive influence. With respect to the

institution of education, Inlow (1970) states that the goals

of formal education and of humanism go hand in hand, "First

and foremost, individual man is of supreme worth. Further-

more, he is an emerging essence, with total personality ful-

.fillment constituting both his birthright and his

commitment" (p. 29). Inlow further comments that learners

themselves are an important source of any curriculum, "No

curriculum, irrespective of its antecedents, is functional

unless it relates meaningfully to the differing interests,

abilities, and needs of learners" (pp. 117-118). Myers

(1962) has long favored the smorgaasbord approach, where

students of all types find their psychological differences

both respected and nurtured, and where there is an

atmosphere that fosters fuller personality development.

Such an approach serves a dual purpose; every child is

provided opportunities to develop all functions, as well as

develop his own preferred functions to a higher level of

expertise.










Lawrence (1979),in his practical guide to learning

styles, provides examples using psychological type concepts

in developing school curricula, and specifically for planning

instructional strategies for the classroom which "honor the

rights of every type" (p. 27). He clarifies how type con-

cepts suggest solutions for two of education's most persis-

tent and perplexing problems. School personnel across the

country report lack of student motivation a major problem.

Lawrence (1979) suggests breaking motivation down into four

parts corresponding to the four dimensions of psychological

type as follows:

1. The extraversion-introversion preference
shows the broad areas of a student's
natural interest
2. The sensing-intuition preference reveals
basic learning style differences
3. The thinking-feeling dimension shows patterns
of commitments and values of a student
4. The judging-percelving dimension shows
work habits. (p. 24)

When these four natural motivators are taken into account,

Lawrence suggests that teachers "can better direct student

energies toward learning" (p. 24).

Lawrence describes another problem which is increasingly

becoming known to educators and educational researchers

dealing with psychological type data. He refers to it as

"perhaps the most crucial unrecognized problem of American

education" (p. 27). Lawrence is pointing to the biases of

instruction that may actually operate to the detriment of

students who prefer extraverted sensing (ES types). It

is estimated (McCaulley, 1978; Myers, 1962) that these










extraverted sensing types make up about 70% of the general

population, and hence approximately 70% of the average

public school population. Two examples of these biases may

serve to illustrate the problem. The classroom practice of

presenting abstractions first and applications second

appeals to and fits best the intuitive's learning style, not

that of the sensing type. Secondly, biases favoring both

introversion and intuition may exist in reading instruction.

Lawrence explains,

Probably the young child first encounters it in
the teaching of reading. Of course, reading is
primarily an introverted activity; it is done
quietly by oneself. And it is fundamentally an
intuitive activity, involving abstractions--the
printed symbols. But reading need not be taught
as if all students were introverts and intuitives.
The skills of reading can be and are being
mastered by students of all types, and they all
can leave school with a positive attitude toward
reading. Tragically many students are alienated
by their first encounters with reading instruc-
tion. Type theory points to the probability that
most of the alienated children are extraverted
sensing types. There are data which indicate that
the dropout rate is much higher among sensing
children. (pp. 26-27)

In addition, Lawrence and others have noted that

standardized test constructors seem to be biased toward

intuitive intelligence (manipulating symbols, abstract

thinking, the drawing of inferences, describing "how to"

rather than doing). As a group, IN types score highest

on intelligence tests, followed by EN_, IS_, and finally

ES types. Even textbooks seem to favor the intuitive way

of viewing the world. According to Lawrence, "The record of

American education in the twentieth century is a record of










neglect of sensing intelligence . the kind of

intelligence possessed by the majority of American students"

(1979, p. 27).

The problems raised by Lawrence are matters of concern

for educators who wish to take an active role in fostering

the total development of their students. Empirical research

dealing directly with these issues is needed. Fuller under-

standing of psychological type concepts and the process of

type development offers great potential for developing

better instructional strategies for individual learners.

Both internal and external forces have a role in the

normal "unfolding" of the developmental process. It is the

favored mode for perceiving and for judging which is

naturally the one most utilized by the child. Habitual use,

through reinforcement, makes for further development and

expertise in the use of the preferred way of perceiving and

the preferred way of judging. This habitual use of one's

preferences produces sets of characteristics, values and

behaviors which a person of a given type shares in common

with other people of the same psychological type.

Humans, in general, seem to feel rapport with others

who resemble them in the preferences for the psychological

attitudes and functions. Van der Hoop's quote of the earth

spirit's answer to Faust is illustrative, "That spirit thou

resemblest, whom thou dost comprehend" (1939, p. 319).

Von Franz and Hillman (1971), in their treatise on

psychological type, discussed the natural initial one-

sidedness of the process










of development. In describing how our psychological type

preferences affect our interpretation of the world around us

Van der Hoop (1939) pointed out that our type differences

have some far-reaching consequences--

One's immediate experience of one's fellowman
proves itself at once to be much more influenced
by one's own personality than is one's experience
of a natural object, and the way in which this
experience is dealt with is likewise still more
under this influence, since the different modes
of psychological objectification are sometimes
determined by typical attitudes. . In the
various schools of psychology, this influence
can frequently be clearly demonstrated. . Men
of different types are not all equally interested
in scientific problems. . Although I do not
maintain that this recognition of a one-sidedness
in conscious orientation according to type offers
an explanation of all the varieties in outlook,
this differentiation does, nevertheless, make it
possible to get a better understanding of the one-
sidedness in these points of view. (pp. 319-320)

An Interpretation of the Dominant
and the Auxiliary Function

Having dealt briefly with what the basic type

preferences are, Jung's description of the dynamic inter-

play of the preferences within a single individual can be

reviewed. It is a gross oversimplification and probably an

inaccuracy to deal with the effect of the preferences

separately, without reference to one another, because the

preferences have their joint effect in unison. To clarify

this "orchestration" effect we must understand what Jung

called the Dominant and the Auxiliary function.

The Dominant function for any individual is theorized

to be the most conscious and most developed function of the










four functions. Therefore, the Dominant function is either

Sensing perception or Intuitive perception, or either Think-

ing judgment or Feeling judgment. Also from the four

functions, Jung postulated the existence of an auxiliary

function. He stated (1921) that the auxiliary is "comple-

mentary," "relatively unconscious," and "in every respect

different from the nature of the primary [Dominant] func-

tion" (pp. 405-406). We recall that the extraverted or

introverted orientation indicates the direction of the

individual's flow of energy; introversion toward the inner

world of thought and ideas, extraversion toward the outer

world of people, objects and events. Based on Jung's state-

ment about the auxiliary function we can assume two things:

(1) If the Dominant function is a judging function

(thinking or feeling, whichever the person prefers), then

the auxiliary function must be a perceptive function

(sensing or intuition, whichever the person prefers); and if

a perceptive function is dominant then the auxiliary

function for that person must lie in a judging function; and

(2) If the Dominant function for a person is extraverted,

then the auxiliary function must be introverted; and if the

Dominant function is introverted, then the auxiliary

function must be extraverted. With regard to this Quenk

(1978) stated, "A function cannot be both extraverted and

introverted. Its directionality must be unitary" (p. 8).

Myers (1962) had earlier come to this same deduction when

she and her mother, Katharine C. Briggs, in the development










of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) added the J P

Index to indicate whether the person uses a perceptive

function (S or N) or a judging function (T or F) in the

extraverted world (that shown most to others). As shown in

Figure 2, the judging or perceptive attitude identifies

(points to) the Dominant function for Extraverts and the

auxiliary function for Introverts. According to Myers

(1962), persons who prefer the extraverted orientation

(prefer to direct energy to the outer world of people,

places and objects) extravert their Dominant function.

Introverts (prefer to direct energy to their own world of

thoughts and ideas) introvert their Dominant function. The

extraverts introvert their auxiliary function, and the

introverts extravert their auxiliary function. According to

Quenk (1978),

It also follows that an extravert is more
confident of his dominant function, especially
as he receives confirmation from others. An
introvert, because he extraverts his auxiliary
[or second best] function, receives confirma-
tion from the environment only for his auxiliary;
he must rely on his self-awareness to ascertain
his dominant function. . Jung has stated
that extraverts fear their inner world just as
introverts fear the outer world. (p. 10)

In line with this argument Plaut (1972) found that intro-

verts have less confidence than extraverts in determining

their dominant function.

In direct relation to this, Myers (1962) pointed out

that all of us must live in both "inner" and "outer" worlds.

Some prefer the outer world; some prefer the inner world.











According to Myers (1962), the excursion into the least

liked place is delegated to the person's auxiliary function.

With regard to the auxiliary function she stated,

If he [the extravert] has no useful development
of an auxiliary process, he will have little or
no inner life, which will make him an extreme
extravert, and better-balanced associates will
find him superficial. . If the introvert
has no useful development of an auxiliary process,
his outer life will be a very awkward, accidental
and uncomfortable affair. (pp. 60-61)

On the issue of extraversion, introversion, and the dominant

and the auxiliary function Quenk (1978) further stated,

The well-developed function is that function which
has a definite directionality to its energic
charge. Directionality is an all-or-none phenome-
non. Metaphorically, one can only go in one
direction at a time. Thus, as the functions
become specialized their directionality can be
seen as central to their development. (p. 12)

The "evolution" process of psychological type has been

described by Van der Hoop (1939) as follows:

A first point of difference between people of the
same type is found in the stage of development
which they have reached. In every type there is
a simple form, in which the differentiation of
the prevailing function has only just begun,
and its modes of adaptation are still being
tentatively tried out, although a clear prefer-
ence for typical forms of adaptation can already
be observed. At a later stage the dominating
function has found its forms, controlling these
with great assurance. Anything which is not in
accord is, at this stage, suppressed. With a
few people there follows a still further stage,
in which the other functions are permitted more
development, to compensate for any one-sidedness,
and the pronounced typical picture is again modi-
fied to some extent by the unfolding of a fuller
and richer expression of human nature. (p. 92)

In a lecture in Zurich, Jung (1928) further explicated the

interplay of the functions in the natural unfolding process










of type development. He gave several behavior-based

examples for recognizing functions at differing levels of

development,

Whether a function is differentiated or not can
be recognized from its strength, stability,
consistency, reliability and adaptedness. But
inferiority in a function is often not so easy
to recognize or to describe. An essential
criterion is its lack of self-sufficiency and
consequent dependence on people and circumstances,
its disposing us to moods and crotchetiness, its
unreliable use, its suggestable and labile
character. The inferior function always puts us
at a disadvantage because we cannot direct it
but rather are its victim.

As a final point of clarification, Figures 1 and 2 may

serve as aides to remembering the proposed nature of psy-

chological type as a developmental schema.


ATTITUDE TOWARD
ENVIRONMENT


Extraverted Judging
orientation ,_Sensing Thinking, attitude
(E) (S) \(T) (J)
---- ------ I ----- -

Introverted Perceptive
orientation Intuition Feeling attitude
(I) (N) (F) (P)

_THE FOUR FUNCTIONS
THE FOUR FUNCTIONS


FLOW OF ENERGY PERCEPTION JUDGMENT


Figure 1. Diagram illustrating the basic psychological
preferences.















For the Extravert:


For the Extravert:


For the Introvert:







For the Introvert:


S T
SF----

N F


-S T

N F




S T

N F




S T

N F


With the Judging
attitude, the
Dominant Function
is


With the Percep-
tive attitude, the
Dominant Function
is



With the Judging
attitude, the
Dominant Function
is
I


With the Percep-
tive attitude, the
Dominant Function
is


Figure 2. Myers' schema for determining dominant function.


Evidence Related to the Value of Clarity
and Strength of Psychological Type Preferences

From the literature it is implied that being clear

about one's psychological type preferences is a positive

characteristic and being uncertain or arbitrary in the use

of the preferences is a negative characteristic. As afore-

mentioned, stable type differences are noticeable in very

young children (Myers, 1962; von Franz, 1971; Wickes, 1966).

From Jung's writings the following sequence of development


I


I


I I








31
is inferred--individuals first develop and gain increasing

expertise in their preferred modes of functioning. Only

then can they begin to work on and consciously develop (at

ease and with comfort and confidence) the functions they do

not prefer. These lesser preferred functions are in theory

those under the least conscious control of the individual.

For most people such development is probably a life-long

journey.

From a clinical perspective, Quenk (1978) offered the

following comments regarding two possible problems in the

process of type development. We are reminded that Jung

considered development to be a process of individuation and

differentiation, with great importance placed on extra-

version and introversion,

If both the auxiliary and dominant functions have
the same directionality extravertedd or intro-
verted], one can be confused for the other; i.e.,
they are undifferentiated. . Thus, as the
functions [S-N and T-F] become specialized their
directionality can be seen as central to their
development. (pp. 12-13)

Quenk further stated that if the dominant and auxiliary were

to have the same directionality (both introverted or both

extraverted) then the energicc charge" of both would be

lessened as it is shared by two functions. However, if one

of them is extraverted and one is introverted then "the

energic charge available to each would be greater, thereby

assuring the differentiation of the two functions."

The second problem as viewed by Quenk (1978) was what

he called the "fusion of functions"--










Fusion is a blending of functions, e.g., thinking
is fused with feeling, or sensation with intui-
tion. If this occurs, it is a sad state of
affairs. The manifestation of the function would
be erratic and primitive. Fusion of functions is
a sign of poor ego development and predisposes a
person to an onslaught from the unconscious which
may result in psychosis. It is the fusion of
functions which is characteristic of latent psy-
chosis, whereas confusion of functions [with
dominant and auxiliary both introverted or both
extraverted] may result in neurosis. Thus,
determining which of the functions is undiffer-
entiated and the extent to which there is fusion
or confusion of functions is one means by which
ego strength can be ascertained. (pp. 12-13)

Myers (1962) does offer an opinion and some evidence

that clarity and/or strength or preference as assessed by

the MBTI may provide a clue in the eventual understanding of

the complex phenomenon of type development. Preference

scores on the MBTI reflect the strength with which a

preference is reported. Myers points out that mean strength

of a preference varies from preference to preference (scale

to scale) and from one kind of group to another (age

groupings are theoretically relevant here). It is helpful

to refer any individual's preference score to the group to

which they belong,

A preference score well above the mean is likely
to indicate a strong and conscious preference,
which will demand an outlet in the person's work
and make him dissatisfied with any job that does
not give it exercise and scope. Scores in the
neighborhood of the mean are thought to reflect,
on the average, a moderate to strong preference,
with enough development of its attendant qualities
to affect definitely the person's happiness and
effectiveness in his job. With scores well below
the mean there may or may not be an important
development of the preference. And with really
small scores the preference itself may be in
considerable doubt. (p. 69)











In a seventh and eighth grade college preparatory

population and in college populations Myers found the pref-

erence for N, and for I and J in combination, to be signifi-

cantly related to grade point average. The point of

relevance here is that Myers also found strength of

preference to be related to mental age (as well as to

chronological age as implied by van der Hoop). In her

gifted sample Myers found relatively higher preference

scores for both males and females when compared with others

in their age group. Myers found major differences in the

regression of IQ on mean preference scores for EI, TF, and

JP. For each of these three scales, as strength of

preference increased so did mean IQ scores, creating

U-shaped curves. With respect to S-N, Myers found a higher

preference for Sensing to be associated with lower mean IQ

scores in the high school sample. Myers suggested this

finding may be more indicative of the Intuitive type's

greater interest in scholastic or academic activities in

general. She warns against the interpretation that as

preference for Sensing gets stronger grades get lower.

In a related investigation, Weychert (1975) found the

mean IQ for Intuitive males to be 13 points higher than for

Sensing males and 16 points higher for Intuitive females

than for Sensing females. Weychert points out that this

further substantiates Myers' findings regarding the effect

on intelligence of clarity or strength of preference on the










S-N scale because Weychert used only subjects with moderate

to high preferences on S-N (some of the variance in

Weychert's study was thus automatically removed). It should

be further noted that Weychert did not find Sensing types

achieving in a manner inconsistent with their aptitude--as

the Sensing preference was reported stronger and stronger,

grades did not get lower and lower. While "leveling off" of

grades occurred with increasing preference for Sensing

(i.e., grades did not get lower and lower as Sensing was

more strongly reported), it should be remembered that for

extreme scores on all the other preferences aptitude

increased with extremity of score (Myers, 1962). Weychert

suggested that future studies include all scales of the MBTI

rather than just one (S-N); and that all students rather

than just those with moderate to high preferences be

included. The failure to do either of the above could mask

interactions.

It is noteworthy that Myers (1962) issued a strong

warning against taking the strength of preference scores for

an individual as a direct measure of the excellence of the

type development.

Scores measure the reported strength of a pref-
erence. The report may for many reasons not
reflect the true strength, either through
accident, or through the well-known hazards of
self-report, or because of unusual appreciation
or supplementary development of the opposite
process or attitude, which would be admirable
rather than detrimental.
Even the true strength of the preference
may not accurately reflect the actual degree of










development. Therefore high scores should not
be equated to excellence, nor low scores to
deficit, unless there is positive external
evidence that excellence or deficit exists.
In the latter case the low score, while not
adequate evidence in itself, may provide a
clue which the counselor could find useful in
understanding and seeking to remedy the diffi-
culty. (p. 73) [underlining by the present
writer]

Following up on Myers' statements regarding quantitative

interpretation of MBTI preference scores, Morse (1975) pro-

vided a table of distributions of random scores on the MBTI,

as well as a table of probabilities that any given type

could result by chance response. His purpose was to provide

"an objective and familiar decision-making technique by

which to evaluate a given score, independent of any other

score by any other person" (pp. 1-2). Morse's calculations

were utilized further in the development of the Discrepancy

Index described in Chapter III, where specific ranges for

low, moderate and high preference scores were set.

Other than size of the preference score as an indi-

cation of strength of preference, there are two other clues

internal to the scoring of the MBTI which warranted

investigation. They are clues as to the clarity with which

a preference is held. One is the split-half reliability

measure. If a person is clear about preference it can be

hypothesized that they will come out relatively the same on

the x-half as on the y-half. The other is the phrase

question/word-pair comparison. Again, if a person is clear

about or sure of the preference it can be hypothesized that








36

they will come out the same type on the phrase questions as

on the word-pair items when scored separately. It is

reasonable to assume that persons with low preference

scores, with x-half/y-half differences, and with phrase

question/word-pair item discrepancies may, indeed, not be

sure about what they trust and prefer. It may be hypothe-

sized that this person has poor type development (especially

if the preference in question is the person's Dominant func-

tion). If such a person is operating at a deficit due to

poor type development, then we should be able to predict

that in areas of functioning related to that preference, the

person will show evidence of deficit there, too. For

example, a student with the above described discrepancies on

the MBTI for the S-N scale would be expected to show

evidence of academic difficulties. (The S-N scale, since it

deals with perception and how a person comes to "know" about

something, is increasingly being found to be of great impor-

tance in learning situations.) Myers (1962) found lower

internal consistency correlations in her academically

underachieving samples.

Only one study dealing with the problem of discrepancies

on MBTI profiles was found. Metts (1979) looked closely at

discrepancies on MBTI profiles of 113 learning disabled

adolescents. Because of the import of Metts findings for

the present study it is reviewed in depth here.

Metts (1979) addressed the need to help learning

disabled adolescents with problems related to self-knowledge








37

and self-identity in counseling situations. He pointed out

that many researchers and practitioners agree that inter-

vention with the personal development and self-identity

processes of the learning disabled adolescents is as impor-

tant as remediation of academic deficits. Jung's emphasis

on awareness and maturation of one's type preferences is

highly relevant here.

Metts reviewed contradictory research findings with

respect to the importance of low self-esteem and low self-

concept as contributing to the learning disabled adolescent's

problems. Negative results (that low self concept was not

a significant contributing factor) were obtained by Bruner

and Starkey (1974), Busby, Fillmer, and Smittle (1974),

Leviton and Kiraly (1975), and McDonnell (1975). Other

studies, however, found significant positive relationships

between self-concept and problems of L.D. students. Examples

cited by Metts were Black (1974), Rosenthal (1973), and

Rosser (1974). Metts concluded that the differing

measurement devices employed to measure self-concept and

differing definitions of self-concept are largely responsible

for contradictory findings, and thus the noncomparability of

the studies. Metts suggested, "In spite of these problems,

the behavioral observations of Beare (1975), Giffin (1971),

Gordon (1970), Gow (1974), Siegel (1975), Thompson (1970),

and Wender (1971) suggest that the learning disabled

adolescent continues to experience problems in self-

identity" (pp. 12-13).










Metts' study has four important implications for

education. First, use of the MBTI promises to meet a need

of learning disabled students to gain self-knowledge.

Secondly, an approach is offered where differences are

valued rather than discouraged. Normal aspects of the

student's personality are stressed. Jung's personality

theory has implications for the education of the whole

person, as Metts puts it--"balanced development of individ-

uality" (p. 79). The third area is that of focusing on the

social maturity of the learning disabled adolescent. The

adolescent learns not only about himself and his own person-

ality, but that of his peers--understanding how he may be

like them and ways in which they may differ. Finally, Metts

concluded that the MBTI can be used in studies to further

explore personality variables in learning disabled students

with the hope of understanding and discovering better ways

of teaching them. Knowledge gained through employing the

MBTI with students has then a two-fold potential. One is

oriented toward personality development, the other toward

academic achievement--better personal understanding as well

as suggesting ways to enhance cognitive learning.

Metts' basic research question was whether the distri-

bution of the 16 profiles of learning disabled adolescents

on the MBTI was the same as the distribution for normal

adolescents. If they differed significantly one could

question whether or not the learning disability had

influenced type development in some way.










Metts' L.D. sample had a similar type distribution

when compared with two normal samples. Only two differences

existed. The most important of these was that the L.D.

students more frequently expressed a preference for thinking

judgments (T) in comparison with the two normal samples. In

general there were more ISTP's and fewer ENFP's among the

learning disabled group. Finding only two significant

differences in the type distribution is not uncommon. If

a sample of high school students is divided into those

opting for college and those not, there would probably be

more than two significant differences between the profiles

of these two sub-groups.

Metts also looked very closely at discrepancies in

profiles. Only eight of 113 subjects (7.01%) came out with

the same type formula (the four letters used to designate

type preferences) when x-y halves and word-pair/phrases on

the MBTI were scored separately. Employing the three

scoring methods (standard scoring, x-y halves, and word-

pair/phrases) 22.12% of Metts' sample showed discrepancies

on one MBTI scale, 36.28% on two MBTI scales, 25.66% on three

scales, and 8.85% had discrepancies on all four scales.

Metts employed alternative scoring in the hope of verifying

type preference for subjects with low preference scores on

one or more MBTI scales. The high percentage of discrep-

ancies for his sample prevented this.

It is possible that the high percentage of discrepan-

cies in Metts' sample and the questions raised about










predominance of thinking may both be understood within the

framework of psychological type development. Metts gave two

possible explanations for the prevalence of thinking judg-

ment. One is that they may truely prefer thinking. The

other is that it may result from educational procedures

stressing clear, logical, objective thinking employed in the

remediation of deficits. Metts further noted that students

may have learned to distrust Feeling due to a lack of

social, academic, and familial success. Since behavioral

descriptions of L.D. students rarely connote traits associ-

ated with thinking judgment, Metts suggested further research

to determine whether the choice of thinking is really the

true preference.

The line of reasoning employed in the present study

suggests that even though the behavioral descriptions of

L.D. students do not frequently mention logical, analytical,

impersonal methods of decision making, the students may

still prefer thinking over feeling; however, they may not in

reality have good command over its use. In other words, the

large number of discrepancies may be related to the level of

type development the student has reached.

Another consideration is the possibility that judgment

(whether it be thinking or feeling oriented) may be the last

process to develop. If this were true it is not unlikely

that in any adolescent population, whether L.D. or not, the

decision making process would be the function over which the

person has the least command in its use, and hence, a greater








41

likelihood of discrepancies in reporting the preference. A

common finding is that reliability of the T-F scale improves

with age (McCaulley, 1978; Myers, 1962). Metts also found

significantly more discrepancies for subjects who reported

a preference for Feeling.

Metts' study clearly shows the researcher's dilemma in

deciding whether to use profiles with low preference scores.

He supports Myers' procedure for "mutual verification of

results" (1962, p. 78). When low preference scores and

multiple discrepancies exist, discussion of MBTI results

with the person who took it is absolutely necessary from a

counseling standpoint. In this case, the subject can often

shed light on what "fits" and what does not. Metts reiter-

ated Myers caution regarding interpreting very low prefer-

ence scores--the smaller the score the more likely it is to

be wrong.

It was outside the perspective of the present research

to review studies where the direction of preference has been

of central importance (direction of preference being whether

the person prefers E or I, S or N, T or F, and J or P).

This included studies where basic type differences between

students was the independent variable. There was no intent

to dismiss these studies lightly. Studies focusing on

direction of preference were important in the past and will

continue to gain in importance in the future.

It is interesting to note that in a study not dealing

centrally with the matter of psychological type development








42
Hogan (1970) noted several things which in this researcher's

opinion show probable evidence of the operation of dif-

fering levels of type development in his subjects. Hogan's

study dealt with the subject of moral development. He

investigated personality dimensions related to holding one

or the other of two contrasting moral principles as the

basis for making decisions in situations of "moral uncer-

tainty." The "ethics of personal conscience" was contrasted

with the "ethics of social responsibility." Hogan found the

adherents of the "personal conscience" ideal (low scorers on

the Survey of Ethical Attitudes, Hogan, 1967) to be -NFP's

on the MBTI, and adherents of the "social responsibility"

ideal (high scorers on the Survey of Ethical Attitudes) to

be -STJ's on the MBTI (N = 57, p<.01 on all three scales of

the MBTI). He points out that in an independent sample

(N = 37), adherents of "personal conscience" (low scorers)

were described on the Gough Adjective Check List (Gough,


1960; Gough & Heilbrun, 1965)

rebellious (-.49)
handsome (-.47)
smug (-.45)
uninhibited (-.44)
charming (-.44)

Those adhering to the "social

scorers) were described as

thoughtful (.47)
good-natured (.43)
conventional (.40)
conscientious (.37)
conservative (.32)


complicated (-.42)
cynical (-.41)
sarcastic (-.41) p = .05
progressive (-.41) -
vindictive (-.40)

responsibility" ideal (high


sincere
helpful
responsible
planful
honest


(.31)
(.30)
(.29) p = .05
(.28) -
(.27)










Hogan concludes that persons holding the "personal

conscience" ideal,

may be unconventional, liberal, and progressive;
however, they may also be capricious, undepend-
able, and anti-conforming. On the other hand,
persons whose moral judgments are guided by
rational and legal considerations [holding the
"social responsibility" ideal] are often
thoughtful, considerate and honest; yet, they
may also be conventional and overconforming .
[they] tend to gravitate to positions where sup-
port of rules of conduct is viewed as positive
behavior. Low scorers, on the other hand often
seem to delight in changing the "system." Thus,
both high and low scorers on the test possess
unique virtues and drawbacks. (p. 211)

Hogan also comments that based on interviews, persons with

scores below 5 or above 30 (extremely low and high scores)

he considered to be highly sensitive to injustice--"sensi-

tive to the point of paranoia." It is this writer's opinion

that a large portion of the negative characteristics

indirectly and potentially ascribed to -NFP's in Hogan's

study could be explained if we could differentiate and treat

separately the -NFP's who are mature and fully-developed (in

psychological type terms) and likewise for the -STJ's. It

is granted that the strengths of each of the psychological

types differ and each has their characteristic "blindspots"

and difficulties with which to deal, but this writer

suspects that psychologically mature "examples of their

type" (whichever of the sixteen types they may be) will

exhibit their weaknesses and deficits in far less drastic

ways than someone who is immature and less differentiated

in a developmental sense.










An Assessment Problem

We have reached a roadblock in psychological type

research. We know type differences do exist. We are only

beginning to learn how important these differences are.

What we do not know at this point is how to measure the

extent to which a person has developed and has command over

his preferences. Only then can we determine how much vari-

ance in observed differences between different types can be

attributed to differences in the types themselves, and how

much to differing levels of individual development within

each type. Level of development is being assessed in a day-

to-day clinical fashion based on theory. A data base is

needed if we are ever to leave this intuitive stage. Case

histories, anecdotal accounts, and successful experiences

with clients or students where we have operated from a

theory-base, while important, are not enough.

No studies, other than Metts (1979), either

experimental or correlational in nature, were found in the

published literature which dealt centrally with the topic of

assessing an individual's level of psychological type

development. While most investigators have recognized the

developmental aspects of psychological type, research and

application have been limited for the most part to explora-

tion of differences between persons of various psychological

types. The goal in most studies has been to determine how

the direction of preference (i.e., whether the person prefers

E or I, S or N, T or F, and J or P in Myers' system for








45

ascertaining type) relates to other variables, or to test

predictions based on basic type differences (e.g., Sensing

types will prefer a certain thing more than Intuitive

types). These are legitimate goals, as it is necessary to

determine empirically how psychological type manifests

itself in interacting with other variables. Such investi-

gations are, in fact, crucial in assessing construct valid-

ity of the MBTI. It is expected, however, that individuals

will differ not only in the direction of basic preferences

for the use of the psychological functions and attitudes,

but that they will differ also in the command that they have

over their preferred functions as well. In other words, it

is expected that some individuals will have developed their

preferred process or function to a greater extent than

others preferring the use of the same function. The degree

to which one has developed his preferred functions has

implications for how well he functions in day-to-day

situations which call upon powers of perception and

powers of judgment. The perspective of the present

study was at a more individual and micro-level than that of

dealing with the basic type differences in direction of

preference.

It has been proposed that persons giving inconsistent

and discrepant responses on the MBTI scales may be func-

tioning at a lower level of type development than persons

giving clear and consistent responses. In order to measure









46

the effects of clear and consistent versus discrepant and

inconsistent response against academic and nonacademic

variables a Discrepancy Index was constructed. Discrepancy

scores on each of the four MBTI scales were calculated for

each subject in the present study. The Discrepancy Index is

described in the section on Instrumentation in Chapter III.
















CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

This chapter describes subjects utilized in the study

and explains administration procedures. Reliability and

validity data for instruments employed in the study are

given. The rationale and method of developing the Discrep-

ancy Index arealso presented. Hypotheses are restated and

statistical methods for data analysis are explained.

Subjects

At the request of school officials a total of 1,171

tenth, eleventh and twelfth-grade students from a metropoli-

tan high school participated in the project. Of this number,

555 students were subjects in the present study. For reasons

explained in the next section, 70 of the 555 students were

excluded from the study, leaving for the purposes of statis-

tical analyses, 485 subjects. Table 1 gives a breakdown of

subjects by grade level. Of this group 271 were females and

214 males. The 456 eleventh-graders whose data were

analyzed represent 72% of the total eleventh-grade population

of the school. The 29 tenth and twelfth-grade subjects were

members of mixed-level English classes where eleventh-graders

predominated.

The total school population was comprised of

approximately 2,000 students. Socioeconomic level of the










Table 1. Subjects broken down by grade level.


Grade level N
10th 15
llth 456
12th 14


Note: Total N = 485.


students covered an extremely wide range, with family

incomes ranging from less than $4,000 per year to what has

been termed the upper upper class. The school population

included both inner city and rural dwellers.

The only selection factors known to have been operating

in obtaining eleventh-grade subjects were the student's

absence on the days instruments were administered, the stu-

dent's choice not to participate, or the lack of informed

parental consent. Students were guaranteed total anonymity

in relation to the findings of this study.

Because the psychological type distribution of the

sample may be of interest to researchers it is presented in

standard "type table" format (as used at the Center for

Applications of Psychological Type, Gainesville, FL) in

Appendix C. The type distribution of students in the

present study was compared statistically with that of Myers'

sample of 9,320 Pennsylvania high school students. Results

of this comparison are also reported in Appendix C.










Procedure

Approximately one week prior to the administration of

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), teachers distri-

buted to their students letters explaining the nature of the

research and informed parental consent forms. Teachers col-

lected the consent forms prior to administration time. The

MBTI was administered to students by their classroom English

teachers during their standard 50 minute class period.

Students who did not finish in the 50 minute period were

allowed more time, as their schedules permitted, to complete

their responses. The decision was made by the researcher to

exclude from the study subjects who left blank 45 or more of

the 166 items (N = 56). Another 14 subjects were excluded

because no data, other than the MBTI, were obtained for

them. For these reasons a total of 70 out of 555 were

dropped from data analysis.

For the purposes of another study on response style

bias operating in subjects' taking the MBTI (Kainz, 1978),

the standard Form F test booklet was given to 244 subjects

from the present study. The remaining 241 students were

given Form FR. Form FR had reversed response formats on 23

of the 166 items. Males and females sat on opposite sides

of the classroom. Distribution of test booklets proceeded

in a fashion so that every other student received a Form FR

test booklet rather than a Form F booklet, thus, male and

female students were provided an equal probability of being

assigned to the Form F group and the Form FR group.











Students were unaware that two forms were distributed.

Based on analyses of the results obtained from the alternate

forms, it was found that students did not respond differ-

ently to the two forms (Kainz, 1978). In the present study

the forms were considered equivalent.

In another 50 minute class period on the second day of

administration, combined classes of students were asked

under standardized directions from three test administrators,

to complete a modified form of Landfield's Repertory Grid

for assessing cognitive complexity. A major problem in this

administration session was that a large number of students

did not complete the procedure in the 50 minutes allotted.

Analyses of these data will be performed at a later date and

reported elsewhere.

Due to the impossibility of utilizing more of the

students' daily class time, teachers agreed to assist the

researcher by distributing and collecting from the students

additional materials that students took home following the

in-class testing. The materials in each take-home packet

were general directions for completing the enclosed ques-

tionnaires, the moral judgment questionnaire, the ego

development questionnaire with separate forms for males and

females (responses to which will be analyzed and reported

elsewhere), and a demographic data sheet.

While assessing the concurrent validity between two

instruments or scales measuring comparable or related con-

structs is a legitimate way to assess the validity of any











new measure (the Discrepancy Index proposed here), it is

advisable to search for behavioral or performance-related

evidence where it is available and quantifiable. In the

present study the following additional data were obtained:

academic and overall grade point average; academic and

overall class rank/standing. The school provided ethnic

codes for the subjects from their census list. Concern for

confidentiality plus time and financial constraints made the

cost of accessing reading test scores for all subjects via

the school system's computer prohibitive. English teachers'

judgments of reading levels were obtained instead. Because

the teacher judgments may or may not be reliable for all

students, they will be analyzed as supplementary data only

and results reported in Appendix A.

Instrumentation Employed in the Study

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Description. The MBTI contains 166 forced-choice items

and was designed to yield preference scores on four separate

indices. The E-I index has two poles,extraversion and

introversion. This index reflects whether the person pre-

fers to focus perception or judgment upon the outer environ-

ment (E) or whether toward the inner world of one's own

thoughts and ideas (I).

The S-N index has two poles, sensing perception and

intuitive perception. This index reflects whether the

person prefers to deal with the immediate reality as










revealed through the senses (S), or the world of

possibilities revealed through the use of intuition (N).

The T-F index reflects what kind of judgment the person

relies upon. One pole of the index is thinking (T) which is

the preference for deciding based upon impersonal criteria

and logic. The other pole is feeling (F) which is the pref-

erence for deciding based upon what is, from a subjective

standpoint, valued in the situation. As described by Jung,

thinking and feeling are both rational processes.

The J-P index was designed to reflect whether the

person prefers the use of perception or the use of judgment

as a way of dealing with the outside world (in other words,

when the person is behaving in an extraverted way).

According to Myers (1962), the difference here is "between

the judging people who run their lives and the perceptive

people who just live them" (p. 58). Perceptive types tend

to want to perceive or find out more about something rather

than to decide about it. Judging types tend to want mat-

ters decided.

Validity. Because the MBTI is a theory-based instru-

ment, construct validity is of primary concern. With

respect to validity, Kerlinger (1964) states, "Validity

is much more than technique. It bores into the

essence of science itself. It also bores into philosophy.

Construct validity, particularly, since it is concerned

with the nature of 'reality' and the nature of the










properties being measured, is heavily philosophical"

(p. 473). Fox (1969) defines construct validity as,

The ability of the instrument to distinguish
between groups known to behave differently on the
variable or construct under study. . There
are two sources for the construct or criterion on
which the groups can be said to differ. One
source is overtly relevant behavior. . A fre-
quent parallel to this behavioral basis for con-
struct validity is the development of the groups
to be tested on the basis of indirectly related
behavior. . construct validity is at best
evidence that at a gross level the instrument
measures what it seeks to measure. (pp. 372-373)

In a critical review of the MBTI for Buros 8th Mental

Measurements Yearbook, Coan (1978) gave the following com-

ments (concerning chiefly construct validity) about the

complexities and problems in assessing the Jungian variables,

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator represents a major
effort to capture the Jungian personality
typology in a psychometric instrument. This is
a formidable task. The Jungian typology rests on
a sophisticated and intricate analysis of the
basic modes of variation in human experience.
.To assess fully an individual's type, we
must identify his dominant attitude and his
superior and auxiliary functions. For a number
of reasons, this is a complicated problem.
The Type Indicator is the product of much thought
and research, and its authors endeavored to take
some of these problems into account. They have
not fully solved them, but neither has any other
test constructor. . Research has shown the
instrument to be useful for many applications.
.On the whole, the test clearly merits
further research and use. (pp. 973-975)

McCaulley (1978),in a voluminous monograph on the

application of the MBTI to Medicine and over twenty other

health-related professions, provides further information on

validity of the instrument. A four-page table (McCaulley,

1978, pp. 28-31) presents the correlations of MBTI










continuous scores on the four indices (E-I, S-N, T-F, and

J-P) with scales from other personality instruments used

with medical students. McCaulley (1978) explains,

The table gives the direction of the significant
correlations in type letters [E or I, S or N,
T or F, and J or P] so that the reader can use
the table not only to assess concurrent and
construct validity, but also to gain a better
understanding of qualities associated with
each preference. (p. 27)

Correlations given are for the 16 Personality Factor Test,

the Omnibus Personality Inventory, the Opinion, Attitude and

Interest Survey, the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values,

and others.

With respect to predictive validity, the interested

reader should refer to numerous articles cited in the

extensive MBTI Bibliography (1981) which concern

themselves with prediction. McCaulley (1978) adds, "The

Myers Longitudinal Sample [McCaulley, 1977] is one of the

major research efforts concerned with predictive validity of

the MBTI, since the research question concerned the selec-

tion of specialties 12 or more years after taking the MBTI

as freshmen in medical school" (p. 27).

The Manual (Myers, 1962)2 is another rich source of

data on validity of the MBTI. Chapter IV provides corre-

lational data for the MBTI with (1) the Gray-Wheelwright

2
The original Manual was published in 1962 by Educational
Testing Service. Revised manuals are due for publication
by Consulting Psychologists Press in 1981. Plans exist
for an administrative manual and a statistical manual.










Psychological Type Questionnaire (designed with the same

purpose as the MBTI), (2) the Strong Vocational Interest

Blank, (3) The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values,

(4) the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, (5) the

Personality Research Inventory, and finally, (6) non-test

variables such as faculty ratings, turnover in utility jobs,

and MacKinnon's data on creativity. Chapter V provides

correlational data for the MBTI and scholastic performance

and aptitude (such as SAT scores, Terman's Concept Mastery

Test scores, grade point averages, IQ data, Davis reading

test scores, and others). Hicks (1970) states, "The MBTI

(Myers, 1962) represents perhaps the most satisfactorily

validated, non-cognitive measure that falls into the forced

choice category" (p. 200).

Reliability. Myers (1962) reports split-half

reliability data for several groups (a measure of internal

consistency). Myers utilized a logical split-half pro-

cedure and applied the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula to

obtain correlations between the X and Y halves of the MBTI.

Split-half reliabilities range from .75 to .94. Myers notes

that a wide range of age, intellectual ability, and socio-

economic status is included in these data. She points out

that the only coefficients below .75 are for the under-

achieving eighth-grade male sample and the non-college

preparatory twelfth-grade males. The coefficients for these

two groups on the T-F scale are .44 and .60, respectively.

The T-F scale fares lowest of the four scales in general,










but it should be noted that for the two college samples

Myers reports, its "disadvantage" has disappeared (with

coefficients of .83 and .86). McCaulley (1978, p. 33) sup-

plies additional split-half and alpha measures.

Carlyn (1977) found MBTI test-retest reliabilities for

the type classifications to be satisfactory. McCaulley

(1978) provides test-retest data for both MBTI continuous

scores and type categories (E-I, S-N, T-F, and J-P). Test-

retest correlations (over periods of from 8 to 21 months)

range from a low of .60 for the T-F scale to a high of .83

on the S-N scale. For two groups retested after a two

month period, reliabilities ranged from .69 to .83.

McCaulley points out that those people who change type upon

retest usually do so on one or two letters, rarely on three

letters, and almost never on all four letters. Of the seven

samples presented, change on all four letters occurred only

in one sample and then only 1% of the time. For a personal-

ity instrument the MBTI's test-retest reliabilities are

quite respectable.

A final point with respect to reliability of the MBTI

deserves discussion, as it bears centrally on the problem

investigated in the present study. This is the issue of

psychological type development. Myers' hypothesis as stated

by McCaulley (1978) is that, "Samples assumed to have

reached higher levels of type development will have higher

internal consistency reliabilities (as reflected in split-

half correlations provided by Myers). The T-F scale is










particularly likely to be low in underdeveloped samples"

(p. 32). With respect to the T-F index reliabilities, Myers

(1962) states, "The possibility would seem to exist that the

relative uncertainty on TF may reflect a lesser development

of the judging process, which may prove to be a significant

characteristic of such samples" (p. 20).

Because the MBTI is a self-report instrument, we have

the thorny question of how much variance is due to the

reliability of the instrument, and how much is due to the

reliability of the respondent. McCaulley (1978) addresses

this point when she suggests that studies should be done in

which test-retest reliabilities are computed separately for

individuals originally clear in their preferences, and for

those with initially low (indeterminate) scores. The problem

as stated best by Myers (1962) boils down to the fact that

at present,

The potent but as yet unmeasurable variable of
"type development"--i.e., the extent to which
the person actually has developed the processes
and the attitudes which he prefers--enters every
equation as an unknown quantity. Also unknown
is the mean level of type development for any
of the various samples that are tested, and how
many individuals in each should be expected to be
answering virtually at random because their type
is insufficiently developed to govern their
responses. (p. 19)

The Discrepancy Index developed for the purposes of

the present study and described later in the section on

Instrumentation is an attempt at incorporating several

clues as to the level of type development of the respondent










into a single index. The predictive power of the new index

can then be assessed against outside criteria that are

related to education and to psychological development in

general.

The Moral Judgment Questionnaire

Description. The Moral Judgment Scale (MJS)was

developed for the purpose of ascertaining levels of moral

reasoning corresponding to those of Kohlberg (1958) in an

objective-scoring format. According to Maitland and

Goldman (1974) Kohlberg's interview procedures, "while com-

prehensive and well based on theoretical foundations,

require great expenditures of time and careful administra-

tion" (p. 699). The administration and scoring format of

the MJS was ideally suited for use in the present study.

The MJS consists of 15 vignettes, each followed by "a

question aimed at evoking one particular issue of moral

judgment and six alternatives representing characteristic

modes of thought about the issue at each of the six stages

of moral development" (Maitland & Goldman, 1974, p. 700).

The order of presentation of the six stage-representative

responses for each vignette was made random in the con-

struction of the instrument.

Kohlberg (1958, 1963, 1964, 1969, 1971) defines the

development of moral judgment as a dynamic process which

proceeds as the child interacts with its social environ-

ment. Kohlberg's schema identifies six stages or levels of

moral development. The first stage is the "punishment and










obedience" orientation. The second stage is termed "naive

instrumental hedonism." In the next stage the primary focus

is that of winning approval and maintaining good relations

with others. The fourth stage involves a "law and order"

orientation, where conformity serves to avoid censure by

authority and the guilt that might accompany such censure.

Level five is the morality of social contract. One obeys

laws because they are the outcome of democratic process.

The highest orientation in Kohlberg's system (level six) is

that of reliance on "individual principles of conscience."

Each successive stage of moral development in Kohlberg's

conceptualization transmutes, restructures and displaces the

preceding stage or level.

Validity. The authors pointed out two important differ-

ences between the MJS and Kohlberg's interview procedures.

First, there is a loss of personal interaction with the MJS.

In order to compensate for this, the authors personalized

the vignettes by asking for judgments on situations where

they themselves are involved (as opposed to judgments on

behavior of a third party). Secondly, it is noted that

subjects in Kohlberg's procedure provide or produce the

response on their own, whereas in the MJS they choose from

responses that have already been provided for them.

Maitland and Goldman (1974) state, however, that "While the

subject's decision to select a justification is a somewhat

different task than that of Kohlberg's interview procedure,

in which the subject supplies a decision and justifies it










through probing questions by the interviewer, this

difference is seen as relatively minor" (p. 703). They

point out that the matter of equivalence of selecting a

justification with the spontaneous production of one, is an

open question, and further stated that the direct computa-

tion of a validity coefficient was not possible from their

data. Maitland and Goldman (1974) did find the mean scores

on moral judgment for their subjects to be in accordance

with Kohlberg's expectations for that age group (fifteen to

seventeen-year olds). The authors compared MJS scores of

their 36 subjects with Moral Maturity Scale scores of 25 of

Kohlberg's subjects of similar age and academic preparation

(Gilligan, Kohlberg, Lerner, & Belenky, 1971) by multi-

plying the MJS scores by a factor of 100/15. Kohlberg's

mean Moral Maturity Scale score for this group was 364. The

converted MJS score for Maitland and Goldman's subjects

(from same age and academic grouping) was 365.

Wilmoth and McFarland (1977) made a comparison of four

measures of moral reasoning. Contrary to Maitland and

Goldman's findings, Wilmoth and McFarland did not conclude

that the Objective Moral Judgment Scale validly assesses the

Kohlberg stages, nor did they report it to have good reli-

abilities. They did find the Maturity of Moral Judgment

Scale developed by Hogan (and reviewed in relation to MBTI

findings in Section II, Chapter II) to be strongly related

to subjects' classifications on the Kohlberg stages, but its

continuous scores did not permit clear stage classification.










The goal- of Wilmoth and McFarland's study was to use

common age subjects to assess inter-instrument relation-

ships, because the Objective MJS of Maitland and Goldman had

been administered only to pre-college age students and

Hogan's Maturity of Moral Judgment Scale to under-graduate

age subjects. Wilmoth and McFarland used a sample of 70

adults enrolled in three extension graduate courses for edu-

cators. Over 80% of the subjects were elementary or

secondary teachers, counselors, and/or administrators. Age

ranged from 21 to 51 years with mean age being 30.45 years.

Only two dilemmas from Kohlberg's interview procedure

and two from the Sexual Moral Judgment Scale (Gilligan,

Kohlberg, Lerner, & Belenky, 1971) were utilized for the

comparison. Subjects scores on the Objective MJS were not

found to be significantly related to their scores on the

four moral stories combined (F = 1.82, df = 4/64, p <.15).

Utilizing Scheffe's post hoc comparison procedure, the

authors found none of the means to be significantly differ-

ent from one another (it is noted, however, that if the

one-way analysis of variance was not significant, no

significant post hoc comparison could be expected).

Wilmoth and McFarland concluded that their data offer

little support for the Objective MJS as constructed by

Maitland and Goldman. They report substantially lower

internal reliabilities than those reported by Maitland and

Goldman, and they ascribe the absence of relationship









62
between the Objective MJS and the four dilemmas used as the

independent variable to the Objective MJS's lower reli-

ability.

In spite of contradictory findings, the decision was

made to employ the Objective MJS in the present study. This

was due primarily to its objective format and secondly to

the acceptable reliability and validity data obtained for

subjects in the same age range as those in the present

study. The hypothesis presented in the present investiga-

tion regarding moral reasoning is concerned foremost with

predicting relative levels of moral judgment from analysis

of discrepant responses and strength of preference for the

Thinking-Feeling scale of the MBTI. The Objective MJS was

seen as adequate for exploratory purposes.

Reliability. Maitland and Goldman (1974) assessed the

test-retest reliability of the MJS by successive administra-

tion to 60 subjects at a ten-day interval. Subjects were

public school students from seventh'to twelfth grade (ages

twelve to nineteen). The Pearson product-moment correlation

for this group was .83. For a sample of 22 tenth and

eleventh-graders it was .60. The authors concluded that

scores were quite stable over a ten-day period.

Maitland and Goldman (1974) offer evidence that stage

achievement can be reliably assessed by the MJS. They

reasoned that "since stage achievement is somewhat inde-

pendent of specific issue selections" (p. 700), item

content differences might be expected to reduce internal











consistency reliability estimates. They obtained a

corrected split-half reliability of .71. They computed a

Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 reliability estimate (r = .67)

in order to rule out particular order effects on the split-

half reliability estimate obtained. In each case a sample

of 125 subjects was employed. Subjects were evenly distri-

buted by age from 12 to 23.

Over short periods (ten days) the MJS appears reliable.

However, its reliability over longer intervals needs assess-

ment.

Demographic and School Performance Data

Demographic. The subject's age was recorded on each

MBTI answer sheet. Information as to grade level and race

or ethnic origin was provided on computer-generated lists

from the school. A questionnaire designed to obtain birth

order information and an inferred estimate of socioeconomic

status was returned by so few students that a range of

socioeconomic level was all that could be provided by school

personnel.

School performance. Academic and overall grade point

average and class rank were obtained for each subject from

a computer-generated list provided by the school. Reading

test scores were available for so few students that English

teachers were asked for estimates of their students' reading

levels. Due to the questionable reliability of these

estimates, they were utilized only in supplementary data

analysis.










The Discrepancy Index

A Discrepancy Index (DI) based on individuals'

responses on the MBTI was constructed for use in the present

study. The complex computer-scoring program developed at

the Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT)

provided the detailed scoring utilized in the DI. Four

scores are rendered for each subject on the DI as follows:

(1) a strength of preference score (DI1); (2) a word-pair/

phrase item discrepancy score (DI2); (3) a split-half

difference score (DI3); and (4) an overall discrepancy score

(DI4).

Strength of preference scores (DIEI, D1SN, D1TF, and

DIJP) were computed by giving a point value from one to four

for each of four possible ranges of scores. Two sources of

information were drawn upon in determining where to set

score ranges for each of the four MBTI scales (E-I, S-N, T-F,

and J-P). The first source comes from guidelines provided

by Myers which the CAPT center utilizes in its extended

scoring report. Table 2 presents these confidence regions

in continuous score format.

Support for the confidence regions set by Myers was

found in a paper presented by Morse (1975). Morse's goal

was to provide "a measure of the likelihood that a pref-

erence as strong or stronger than a given score could have

occurred by chance" (1975, p. 1). The distribution of

random scores for the four MBTI scales is provided by Morse











Table 2. Confidence ranges for reported preferences.


Continuous score ranges: slight preference, may not be actual preference


E I S N T F J P

99 93 101 107 99 93 101 107 99 93 101 107 99 93 101 107



Continuous score ranges: moderate preference


E I S N T F J P

92 80 108 120 92 80 108 120 92 80 108 120 92 80 108 120


Continuous score ranges: clear preference


E I S N T F J P

79 -60 121 140 79 60 121 140 79 66 121 134 79 60 121 140
..........................................................................................................

Continuous score ranges: very strong preference


E I S N T F J P

59 or less 141 or more 59 or less 141 or more 65 or less 135 or more 59 or less 141 or more










(Table 3). Continuous scores falling outside each range are

significantly different from chance at the alpha level

specified. While Morse provides the ranges for alpha levels

from .50 to .001, only the .05 and .01 levels are reported

here.


Table 3. Continuous score ranges differing significantly
from chance.



Alpha levels (2-tail)

MBTI scale .05 .01


E I 79 127 71 135

S N 67 117 61 123

T F (Males) 79 123 73 129

T F (Females) 69 119 63 125

J P 79 129 71 137


Note: Data from Morse, 1975, p. 8, Table 4.


The agreement between Myers' suggested ranges for con-

fidence placed in reported preferences (Table 2) and Morse's

confidence regions derived through statistical methodology

(Table 3) is quite high. Because Myers' continuous score

range for a clearly reported preference for each scale

reaches or exceeds those reported by Morse as differing from

chance at at least the .05 confidence level, they were uti-

lized in the present study to designate strength of prefer-

ence categories (slight, moderate, clearly reported, and









very strongly reported). A point value of 1 was assigned to

the very strongly reported category, 2 to the clearly

reported category, 3 to the moderately reported category,

and 4 to the slightly reported preference category.

Word-pair/phrase item discrepancy scores (D2EI, D2SN,

D2TF, and D2JP) were computed for each subject. If the

subject did not change type (came out with the same prefer-

ence on the word-pair items as on the phrase question items

when scored separately) the zero difference was assigned a

point value of 1. If the subject had a difference in con-

tinuous score of from 1 to 6 points, a 2 was assigned. A 3

was assigned if the difference in continuous score points

ranged from 7 to 12. A 4 was assigned if the continuous

score point difference was 13 or greater.

Split-half difference scores (D3EI, D3SN, D3TF, and

D3JP) were computed by scoring the x-half and the y-half for

each scale of the MBTI separately. If the absolute differ-

ence in continuous score points ranged from zero to 5, a

point value of 1 was assigned (whether the subject changed

type or not). A 2 was assigned for differences from 6 to 11,

a 3 for differences from 12 to 17, and a 4 for differences

of 18 or greater.

The fourth part of the Discrepancy Index was total

scores combining discrepancies (D4EI, D4SN, D4TF, and D4JP)

for each subject across each scale of the MBTI. Total scores

were computed by combining the point values previously

calculated for each MBTI scale as follows:










D4EI = DIEI + D2EI + D3EI
D4SN = D1SN + D2SN + D3SN
D4TF = D1TP + D2TF + D3TF
D4JP = D1JP + D2JP + D3JP

The fifth and final part of the Discrepancy Index was

an additional set of combined scores (Dl, D2, D3, and D4)

where:

Dl = DlEI + D1SN + D1TF + D1JP
D2 = D2EI + D2SN + D2TF + D2JP
D3 = D3EI + D3SN + D3TF + D3JP
D4 = Dl + D2 + D3

Dl combines point values assigned for strength of reported

preference across all four MBTI scales. D2 combines point

values assigned for word-pair/phrase item discrepancies on

all four MBTI scales. D3 combines point values assigned for

split-half differences on all four MBTI scales. D4 combines

the total points computed for strength of preference, word-

pair/phrases, and split-halves on all four MBTI scales.

While beyond the exploratory scope of the present

study, the Discrepancy Index is open to differential

weighting of its component parts. Components which contri-

bute little to variance may be redesigned by adjusting the

ranges, and re-evaluated, or dropped altogether. Other

components could be differentially weighted as merited.

Statement of Specific Hypotheses

H Students with low Discrepancy Index scores will employ

higher levels of moral reasoning than students with high

Discrepancy Index scores.

To test this hypothesis the following discrepancy

scores will be examined;










1.1 reported strength of preference for Thinking/
Feeling scale
1.2 word-pair/phrase discrepancy on Thinking/Feeling
scale
1.3 split-half difference on Thinking/Feeling scale
1.4 total and combined index scores (D4EI to D4JP
and Dl to D4)

H2 Students with low Discrepancy Index scores will have

higher a) overall and academic class rank and b) higher

overall and academic grade point average than students with

high Discrepancy Index scores.

To test this hypothesis the following discrepancy scores

will be examined:

2.1 reported strength of preference for E-I, S-N, T-F,
and J-P scales
2.2 word-pair/phrase discrepancies
2.3 split-half differences
2.4 total and combined index scores

H3 Students with low Discrepancy Index scores on the

Thinking/Feeling scale when it represents their theorized

Dominant function, will employ higher levels of moral

reasoning than students with high Discrepancy Index scores

on the Thinking/Feeling scale when it represents their

theorized Dominant function.

To test this hypothesis the following index scores for

students with either Thinking or Feeling as their theorized

Dominant function, will be examined:

3.1 strength of reported preference for Thinking or
Feeling
3.2 word-pair/phrase discrepancy on T or F
3.3 split-half differences on T or F
3.4 total and combined index scores

H Students with low Discrepancy Index scores on the

Sensing/Intuition scale when it represents their theorized










Dominant function will have a) higher overall and academic

class rank or b) higher overall and academic grade point

average than students with high Discrepancy Index scores on

the Sensing/Intuition scale when it represents their theo-

rized Dominant function.

To test this hypothesis, the following discrepancy

scores for students with either Sensing or Intuition as

their theorized Dominant function, will be examined:

4.1 strength of reported preference for Sensing or
Intuition
4.2 word-pair/phrase discrepancy on S or N
4.3 split-half differences on S or N
4.4 total and combined index scores

Data Analysis

Scoring of MBTI optically-scanned answer sheets was

accomplished via the computer program of the Center for

Applications of Psychological Type with continuous scores,

word-pair/phrase item scores, and split-half scores pro-

vided on standard 80 column computer cards. The Moral

Judgment Scale was hand-scored by the researcher. Demo-

graphic data, school performance data, and MJS scores were

recorded on computer cards. The 20 Discrepancy Index

scores for each subject were computed and coded using

Version 7.1 of the Statististical Package for the Social

Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner & Bent, 1975).

Statistical procedures were performed at the Northeast

Regional Data Center of the University of Florida using

Version 7.1 of the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS). SPSS subprograms utilized were Frequencies,










Pearson Correlations, and Breakdowns providing one-way

analysis of variance and linear trend tests. In the pre-

liminary stages of analysis subprograms Scattergram and

Factor Analysis were also used. Post hoc tests for sub-

groups where the overall F tests were significant at at

least the .05 level were performed by hand employing

Scheffe's S test procedure. The Selection Ratio Type Table

program (Allen & Kainz, 1976) was utilized to obtain chi-

square statistics for psychological type distributions and

for comparison purposes between the sample employed in the

present study and that of 9,320 Pennsylvania high school

students (Myers, 1962). Type distribution data are reported

and discussed in Appendix C.

The independent variables consisted of the 20

Discrepancy Index scores computed for each individual. There

were seven dependent variables; overall class rank, academic

class rank, overall grade point average, academic grade

point average, Moral Judgment Scale total score, Moral

Judgment Scale mean score, and teacher estimates of student

reading level. Both grade point average and class rank were

utilized as criterion variables even though they are nearly

perfectly correlated (one derived from the other), because

class rank reflects the student's academic performance in

relation to that of classmates and to that extent provides

descriptive information not readily ascertained from grade

point average. Teacher estimates of reading level were

analyzed and reported as supplementary data only








72

(Appendix A). Ordinal level measures were obtained for all

variables in the study and they were treated as though they

were interval level in data analysis. According to

Labovitz (1970) interval statistics can be applied to

ordinal-level variables, especially when the nature of the

research is exploratory.
















CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

This chapter provides the results from one-way analysis

of variance and other data analysis procedures, including

post hoc comparisons. Significant findings for the four

hypotheses are presented.

One-way Analysis of Variance

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed

for the six criterion variables utilizing version 7.1 of

the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS,

Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner & Bent, 1975). Significant

results are reported in Tables 4 through 7. Supplementary

analysis of teacher estimates of reading level are reported

in Appendix A. In spite of the exploratory nature of the

study, only those differences reaching the .05 level of

significance are reported in Tables 4 through 7 and the

Appendices.

The two basic assumptions for legitimate use of ANOVA

were met--the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of

variance. With respect to normality the question of impor-

tance was, do the criterion variables under study have a

normal or near-normal distribution, and examination of

means, medians, and values for skewness and kurtosis

revealed that they do. In addition, measurement in the








74

present study reached at least the ordinal level. Labovitz

(1970) argues that interval statistics parametricc) can be

applied to ordinal-level variables, and that error associ-

ated with such treatment is offset by the use of better

developed, more sensitive, and more clearly interpretable

statistics.

The assumption of homogeneity of variance was tested.

The F-test for homogeneity of variance (Kohout, 1974) was

employed for this purpose. In 240 possible comparisons of

sample variances only two reached significance at the .01

level and three at the .001 level (these comparisons were

between groups 1 and 2, and 1 and 3 for D1TF with overall

grade point average, and between groups 1 and 2, 1 and 3,

and 1 and 4 for D1TF with academic grade point average).

In three of the five cases the obtained value for F just

barely exceeded the F table value. For example, with

degrees of freedom 40,172 the obtained F value was 1.58

where the table value for F was 1.56. In 235 comparisons

sample variances did not significantly differ. In general

then, sample variances did not differ widely enough to war-

rant assuming inequality.

Tests of linearity (linear trend tests) were per-

formed to determine whether the relationship between the

dependent and independent variables was solely a linear

relationship (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner & Bent,

1975). Linear and non-linear components of variance

explained are given in Tables 4 through 7.










Post Hoc Comparisons

Considering the exploratory nature of the study a

liberal test for the post hoc comparisons would have been

desirable. Two such tests were considered. Unfortunately,

Tukey's method of multiple pairwise contrasts could not be

used because it requires equal sample sizes (Marascuilo,

1971). Duncan's method was not chosen because according to

McNemar (1969), "The frequently advocated Duncan 'new multi-

ple range test' is currently under suspicion by mathematical

statisticians" (p. 324). Because of its general acceptance

and wide use (albeit extremely conservative) Scheffe's S

test was selected and utilized in two formats. In a fashion

consistent with the direction of the hypotheses posed, all

possible pairwise comparisons of group means were made. In

addition, non-pairwise contrasts (combining groups 1 and 2

for comparison with groups 3 and 4) were performed. These

post hoc analyses were made only where the overall F for the

one-way ANOVA reached the .05 level of significance. Only

those post hoc comparisons reaching the .05 significance

level are reported in Tables 4 through 7 and Appendix A.

Selection Ratio Type Table Analyses

The frequency distribution of the type preferences

themselves must be closely scrutinized before the analysis

of variance results are interpreted. For each of the four

groups of each discrepancy index the selection ratio type

table program, SRTT (Allen & Kainz, 1976) was utilized to

locate any significant differences in type distribution.








76

As these analyses were not part of the primary focus of the

present study, they are reported and discussed in Appendix

D.

Frequencies

Metts (1979), in working with learning disabled stu-

dents, raised the question as to how many discrepancies on

MBTI scales can be expected to exist in normal samples.

Descriptive statistics for the Discrepancy Indices in the

present study are found in Appendix B. For all 20 Dis-

crepancy Index groups, the mean for each index as well as

the N and percent of sample for each of the four groups

within each index is presented.

Results of Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis 1.1 was supported (see Table 4). Students

who reported higher preferences for either Thinking or

Feeling had significantly higher Moral Judgment Scale total

and mean scores than students who reported low preferences

for Thinking or Feeling. Hypotheses 1.2 and 1.3 regarding

word-pair/phrase discrepancy and x-y half differences were

not supported.

Hypothesis 1.4 received some support. The relationship

between D4TF and MJS score was not significant at the .05

confidence level; however, means were in the exact order

predicted, with students with high preferences for T or F,

no word-pair/phrase discrepancy, and low x-y half differ-

ences having highest MJS scores. With respect to H14

(dealing with total or combined index scores) there was










Table 4. Significant findings


for H.


I
2 22 2
Hypothesis N overall p r eta -r eta significant S significant S
F pairwise (p) non- (p)
(df) contrasts pairwise
(Scheffe's S) contrasts

1.1
H
D1TF with 115 3.71 .01 .088 .003 .091 gp 2>gp 4 5.58 gp 1&2 >3&4 4.55
MJS total (3,111) (.05) (.05)


DITF with 115 3.71 .01 .088 .003 .091 gp 2 >gp 4 .376 gp l&2?3&4 .303
MJS S (3,111) (.05) (.05)


H1.4
D4JP with 115 4.06 .01 .001 .098 .099 gp 3>gp 2 -5.76 none
MJS total (3,111) (.05)


D4JP with 115 4.06 .01 .001 .098 .099 gp 3> gp 2 -.384 none
MJS x (3,111) (.05)


* 2
r =proportion of linear variance explained.
2 2
eta r = proportion of non-linear variance explained.
2
eta = total variance explained.










a significant relationship between D4JP and MJS score. The

relationship appears non-linear. Group 3 had significantly

higher MJS scores than did group 2. For J-P then, the

students expressing only moderate preference for J or P,

with slight word-pair/phrase discrepancy, and moderate

split-half difference, had the highest scores on the MJS.

Hypothesis 2.1 received support. Students who reported

the highest preferences for either Extraversion or Intro-

version (on D1EI) had significantly higher overall class

rank and overall grade point average than students expressing

lower preferences for E or I. The same trend existed for

academic class rank and academic grade point average, but

results did not reach the .05 level of significance.

Students who reported the highest preferences for

either Sensing or Intuition (on D1SN) had significantly

higher academic class rank and academic grade point average

than students reporting lower preferences for Sensing or

Intuition. The same trend existed for overall class rank

and overall grade point average, but results were not

significant at the .05 level.

Students expressing the highest preferences for either

Thinking or Feeling (on D1TF) had significantly higher

overall and academic class rank and overall and academic

grade point averages than students expressing only moderate

or slight preferences for T or F.

Another significant non-linear relationship appeared

for the J-P scale as it did in H1.4 (see DIJP on Table 5).









2.1
Table 5. Significant findings for H2

*
2 22 2
Hypothesis N overall p r eta -r eta significant S significant S
F -pairwise (p) non- (p)
(df) contrasts pairwise
(Scheffe's S) contrasts
DIEI & overall 482 3.22 .02 .002 .018 .02 none none
class rank (3,478)
D1EI & overall 478 2.75 .04 .002 .016 .017 none none
g.p.a. (3,474)
D1SN & acad. 482 3.19 .02 .002 .018 .02 none none
class rank (3,478)
DISN & acad. 478 3.25 .02 .002 .018 .02 none none
B.p.a. 1(3474)
D1TF & overall 482 7.14 .0001 .039 .004 .043 gp 1> gp 3 85.33 gp 1&2> 3&4 75.28
class rank (3,478) (.05) (.001)
gp l>gp 4 126.5
(.001)
gp 2 >gp 4 59.96
_.05)
D1TF & acad. 482 4.75 .003 .023 .006 .029 gp 1 >gp 4 106.1 gp 1&2?3&4 52.33
class rank (3,478) (.01) (.05)
D1TF & overall 478 6.04 .0005 .033 .004 .037 gp l>gp 4 .463 gp 1&2>3&4 .2303
g.p.a. (3,474) (.001) (.01)
DITF & acad. 478 4.45 .004 .022 .006 .027 gp l>gp 4 .447 gp 1&2>3&4 .221
g.p.a. (3,474) (.01) (.05)
DIJP & overall 482 3.16 .02 .003 .016 .02 gp 3>gp 4 59.43 none
class rank (3,478) ______(.05)
D1JP & overall 478 3.26 .02 .004 .016 .02 gp 3>gp 4 .217 none
g.p.a. (3,474) (.05)
DlJP & acad. 478 2.68 .05 .003 .014 .017 none none
g.p.a. (3,474)










Students who reported only a moderate preference for

either the judging or perceptive attitude had significantly

higher overall class rank and overall grade point average

than students reporting higher and lower preferences for

J or P.

Hypothesis 2.2 was only partially supported (see

D2JP, Table 6). No significant relationships emerged for

word-pair/phrase discrepancies with academic variables for

the E-I, S-N, or T-F scales of the MBTI. A significant

relationship existed for the J-P scale. In the post hoc

comparisons, group 4 (students with the largest word-pair/

phrase discrepancy for J or P) came out highest on all four

academic variables. In 3 of 4 post hoc comparisons, group 1

(students with no word-pair/phrase discrepancy on J or P)

were second highest on academic variables. The relation-

ship thus appears curvilinear with students highest and

lowest in word-pair/phrase discrepancies on J-P faring best

on academic variables.

Hypothesis 2.3 was not supported. No significant

relationships emerged between x-y half differences and

academic variables.

Hypothesis 2.4 dealt with total discrepancy scores

(D4EI to D4JP) which combines strength of preference, word-

pair/phrase discrepancies, and x-y half differences for E-I,

S-N, T-F, and J-P, and combined discrepancy scores (Dl to

D4) where D1 combines strength of reported preference for

all four MBTI scales, D2 combines word-pair/phrase







2.2 2.4
Table 6. Significant findings for H2 and H2


2 22 2
Hypothesis N overall p r eta -r eta significant S significant S
F pairwise (p) non- (p)
(df) contrasts pairwise
(Scheffs's S) contrasts
H2.2
D2JP & overall 482 5.99 .001 .0114 .025 .0363 gp 4 >gp 2 132.7 none
class rank (3,478) ___ (.01)
D2JP & acad. 482 4.81 .003 .015 .015 .0293 gp 4 >gp 1 52.91 none
class rank (3,478) (.05)
gp 4> gp 2 110.07
(.05)
D2JP & overall 478 5.51 .001 .012 .022 .034 gp 4 7gp 2 .484 none
g.p.a. (3,474) ______(.01)
D2JP & acad. 478 4.70 .003 .013 .016 .029 gp 4?gp 2 .463 none
g.p.a. (3,474) __ _(.05)
H2.4
D4SN & acad. 482 4.07 .007 .012 .014 .025 gp 1>gp 2 70.04 none
class rank (3,478) (.05)
gp 1>gp 3 69.81
(.05)
D4SN & overall 478 2.59 .05 .006 .01 .016 none none
g.p.a. (3,474)
D4SN & acad. 478 4.60 .004 .01 .018 .028 gp 1> gp 2 .294 none
g.p.a. (3,474) (.05)
gp l>gp 3 .353
(.01)
D4TF & overall 482 3.16 .02 .018 .002 .019 none gp 1&2 >3&4 51.66
class rank (3,478) __ (.05)
D1 & overall 482 3.53 .01 .02 .004 .022 gp 1>gp 3 79.55 gp 1&2>3&4 54.36
class rank (3,478) (.05) (.05)
gp 1> gp 4 95.63
(.05)
D1 & overall 478 2.98 .03 .02 .002 .02 none gp 1&2>3&4 .199
g.p.a. (3,474) _______(.05)










discrepancies for all four MBTI scales, D3 combines

split-half differences on all four MBTI scales, and D4 com-

bines total points computed for strength of preference,

word-pair/phrase discrepancies, and split-half differences

on all four MBTI scales. Significant relationships, in the

direction predicted, did exist for the total Discrepancy

Index for Sensing or Intuition (D4SN) and academic class

rank, overall grade point average, and academic grade point

average. Students with strongly reported preference, low

word-pair/phrase discrepancy, and low x-y half differences

for S or N were higher on these academic variables than

students reporting lower preferences, higher word-pair/

phrase discrepancy, and higher x-y half differences for S or

N. A single relationship existed for the total Discrepancy

Index for T or F (D4TF) where students with high preference,

low word-pair/phrase discrepancy, and low x-y half differ-

ence for Thinking or Feeling had significantly higher over-

all class rank than students with low preference, high

word-pair/phrase discrepancy, and high x-y half difference

for T or F. A significant relationship did not emerge

between the total Discrepancy Index for J or P (D4JP) and

the academic variables.

A significant relationship existed for the combined

Discrepancy Index for strength of preference on all four

MBTI scales (Dl) and academic variables. Students with

highest reported preference for E or I, S or N, T or F,

and J or P had significantly higher overall class rank and








83

overall grade point average than students with only moderate

or slightly reported preferences. No significant relation-

ships emerged for D2, D3, or D4 and academic variables.

H was not supported.

Hypothesis 4.1 received partial support. For students

with either Sensing or Intuition as their theorized dominant

function, those with strongly reported preference for S or N

(group 1 on DlSN) had higher academic class rank and higher

academic grade point averages than those reporting lower

preference for S or N. Neither word-pair/phrase discrepancy

(H 42) nor x-y half difference (H 43) on S or N for those

students with S or N as their theorized dominant function,

was significantly related to academic variables.

Hypothesis 4.4 was supported. The total index for S or

N (D4SN, where S or N was the theorized dominant function)

did significantly predict to the academic variables in the

direction expected. Students with S or N dominant who had

strongly reported preference, low word-pair/phrase discrep-

ancy, and low x-y half differences on S or N had signifi-

cantly higher overall class rank, academic class rank,

overall grade point average, and academic grade point

average than students with lower preference, higher

word-pair/phrase discrepancy, and higher x-y half differences

on S or N.









Table 7. Significant findings for H4.

S*I *
2 22 2
Hypothesis N overall p r eta -r eta significant S Significant S
(where S or N F -pairwise (p) non- (p)
dominant) (df) contrasts pairwise
(Scheffg's S) contrasts
H4.1

D1SN & acad. 243 3.46 .02 .002 .0401 .042 none none
class rank (3,239)
cls ---------------------------- (,3)----------------- --------------------------------------------
D1SN & acad. 240 3.43 .02 .004 .038 .042 none none
g.p.a. (3,236)
H4.4

D4SN & overall 243 4.01 .01 .009 .0387 .048 gp 1 >gp 2 103.7 none
class rank (3,239) (.05)
gp l> gp 3 103.1
-- . ___.. _________ ____(.05)
D4SN & acad. 243 5.8 .001 .011 .057 .068 gp lgp 2 125.7 none
class rank (3,239) (.01)
gp 1 >gp 3 125.0
-----------------___ ________ ___ _____----------_ _- (.01)---
D4SN & overall 240 4.8 .003 .009 .049 .058 gp l>gp 2 .374 none
g.p.a. (3,236) (.05)
gp 1)gp 3 .451
...............-------- .........----- -------.... ----. ------------ .0 (.01).. ... ..
D4SN & acad. 240 6.95 .0002 .013 .068 .081 gp l>gp 2 .526 none
g.p.a. (3,236) (.01)
gp 1 >gp 3 .624
(.001)
















CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In the first part of this chapter the results presented

in Chapter IV (Tables 4 through 7) are discussed and sum-

marized in relation to the hypotheses tested. Next, impli-

cations for education are discussed. Finally, suggestions

for further research are given.

Discussion of Results

Hypothesis 1, that students with low Discrepancy Index

scores will employ higher levels of moral reasoning than

students with high Discrepancy Index scores, received

support. The Discrepancy Index dealing with strength of

reported preference for either Thinking or Feeling (D1TF)

did significantly discriminate between students expressing

high and low levels of moral reasoning on the MJS. As

predicted, students who expressed the strongest preferences

for T or F employed higher levels of moral reasoning than

students expressing only moderate or slight preferences for

T or F. In terms of Jungian psychological type theory this

suggests then that students who have developed their judging

function, regardless of whether they prefer to make thinking

judgments or feeling judgments, tend to make decisions which

can be categorized as employing higher levels of reasoning

than students who have a lesser-developed judging function.










The Discrepancy Indices dealing with word-pair/phrase

discrepancy (D2TF) and split-half differences (D3TF) did not

significantly predict the level of moral reasoning employed.

For D2TF, students in group 1 (those who indicated the same

type preference on the word-pair items as on the phrase

questions) did have the highest total and mean MJS scores;

however, the results were not statistically significant. A

problem with the word-pair/phrase index is that, as it was

constructed in the present study, the number of students

falling in each of the four groups was highly dispropor-

tionate. For example, for D2TF and MJS score, 84 of the 115

students completing the MJS did not have a type discrepancy

on word-pair/phrases. Only 4 students had discrepancies of

from 1 to 6 points, 8 students had discrepancies of from 7

to 12 points, and 19 students had discrepancies of 13 points

or greater. This index needs refinement and re-evaluation

before it can be concluded that word-pair/phrase discrepancy

per se does or does not discriminate between students at

differing levels of psychological type development.

For D3TF, dealing with split-half differences, dis-

proportionate numbers of students across the four groups did

not appear to be a problem. As constructed here, no

significant relationships emerged for split-half difference.

A significant relationship emerged for D4JP (total

index for reported strength of preference, word-pair/phrase

discrepancy, and split-half difference for the J-P scale of

the MBTI) and MJS score. The relationship appears










non-linear, with students expressing only moderate

preference for J or P, with slight word-pair/phrase discrep-

ancy, and moderate split-half difference having highest

scores on the MJS. It appears that students expressing very

high or very low preference for J or P may not fare as well

as those expressing more moderate preference for the judging

or perceptive attitude. Personality factors such as ten-

dency to overcontrol or failure to control, to over-organize

or under-organize one's affairs may be involved as well as

factors such as dogmatism. A person with an extreme judging

attitude may not be open to change or grant consideration to

incoming perceptions. Myers has commented that they may

"slam the door" on perception too soon. In opposite fashion,

the person with an extreme perceptive attitude may fail to

make important decisions or meet deadlines by wanting to

keep on perceiving and taking in new information indefinitely.

Myers likened this to "refusing to shut the door" and hesi-

tating to act on what is already known. The data here do

indicate that a balanced or moderate degree of development

or usage of either the judging or perceptive attitude may

prove more adaptive.

Hypothesis 2, that students with low Discrepancy Index

scores will have 1) higher overall and academic class rank

and 2) higher overall and academic grade point average than

students with high Discrepancy Index scores, was supported.

Results were in the direction predicted for reported

strength of preference for E-I, S-N, and T-F. In terms of










Jungian theory this suggests that students who have a well

developed orientation (either Extraversion or Introversion),

a well developed perceptive function (either Sensing or

Intuition), and a well developed judging function (either

Thinking or Feeling) are more likely to be higher achievers

in the traditional school environment than students with

lesser developed functions and orientation.

A significant relationship emerged for strength of

preference for J or P (D1JP) and academic variables. Stu-

dents with moderate preference for J or P had higher overall

class rank and grade point average than students with

highest and lowest preference for J or P.

As with the previous hypothesis, word-pair/phrase dis-

crepancy predicted very little. The only significant rela-

tionship between word-pair/phrase discrepancy and academic

variables was for the J-P scale of the MBTI (D2JP), with the

relationship non-linear as before. The students with the

highest and lowest word-pair/phrase discrepancies on J-P

fared best academically. Further research regarding

personality factors associated with extreme scores on J-P

may shed more light on this finding.

No significant relationships between split-half

differences and the academic variables emerged. As

constructed here, the split-half index did not predict

academic standings.

Significant relationships in the direction predicted

existed for the total Discrepancy Indices for the










Sensing/Intuition scale of the MBTI and for the Thinking/

Feeling scale (D4SN and D4TF). As predicted, students with

strongly reported preference, low word-pair/phrase dis-

crepancy, and low split-half difference fared better on the

academic variables than students reporting lower preference,

higher word-pair/phrase discrepancy, and higher split-half

difference for Sensing or Intuition and for Thinking or

Feeling. That these significant relationships emerged is

important in terms of Jungian psychological type theory.

They are believed related to the developmental framework

upon which type theory rests. This development involves the

gradual growth and continued strengthening and evolving of

the four psychological functions (Sensing, Intuition,

Thinking, and Feeling). In terms of the theory, it has been

hypothesized that persons who have a well-developed percep-

tive function with which to perceive (either Sensing or

Intuition) would fare better in real life situations and

particularly in academic settings than someone with a lesser

developed perceptive function. Likewise, a person with a

mature, well-developed judging function (either Thinking or

Feeling) would be expected to make more effective decisions,

a factor that might contribute to academic success. The

achievement data obtained here clearly lend credence to this

aspect of the theory.

Significant relationships existed for the combined

Discrepancy Index for strength of preference on all four

MBTI scales (Dl) and the academic variables in the direction




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs