The MBTI measures a persons preference for

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

(Myers et al., 1998).

The MBTI has been developed to measure the assignment of individuals into one of 16 personality types (derived from the combination of four dichotomous attitudes or functioning styles: Extraversion–Introversion, Judgment–Perception, Thinking–Feeling, and Sensing–Intuition) inspired from Jung’s (1921/1971) theory. The instrument has multiple forms with different scoring formats. Rather than sum scores indicating standing on an underlying trait, the scales provide type assignments. The MBTI has been claimed to be ‘the most widely used personality inventory in the world’ (McCaulley & Moody, 2008, p. 408). It has been translated into more than 30 languages, of which over 10 versions are approved by the publisher. However, there are no direct examinations of cross-cultural equivalence in a factor-analytic and DIF framework. The theoretical types have nonetheless been replicated in all cultures examined, with varying distribution (McCaulley & Moody, 2008). Only (satisfactory) data from monocultural studies were reported by McCaulley and Moody (2008). References to some (hardly accessible) publications on studies in non-US populations have also been provided. A number of concerns have been raised regarding the psychometric properties of the MBTI (Boyle, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1989). Despite the MBTI’s popularity, the instrument’s adequacy for cross-cultural comparisons cannot be assessed in the psychometric framework adopted in the present review.

The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers & McCaulley, 1985) is loosely based on a theory of psychological “types” developed by the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung. The MBTI consists of nearly 100 self-report items that each contain two statements; the respondent chooses which item best describes him or her. The MBTI assesses four characteristics. Unlike most other inventories, people do not obtain numerical scores for each characteristic, but instead are assigned to one pole or another of each characteristic. For example, instead of obtaining a certain score on the extraversion scale, an individual is declared as an “extravert” (E) if he or she answers most questions in the extraverted direction, or alternatively is declared as an “introvert” (I) if he or she answers most questions in the introverted direction. (Sometimes, a difference in response to one question could make the difference between being declared, say, an extravert as opposed to an introvert.) On the basis of this method of scoring, each person is assigned one of 16 possible “types” based on the combination of his or her results for the four scales.

The MBTI has not been widely used in psychological research but it has been used very widely in business settings, for example, in seminars aimed at improving employees' self-understanding and understanding of each other. Moreover, some studies have shown some support for the construct validity of the MBTI (McCrae & Costa, 1989). However, one shortcoming of the MBTI is that it loses a great deal of precision by describing people in terms of only two levels of each characteristic rather than in terms of a more specific score on each characteristic. For example, consider a person who is slightly on the “extraverted” side of the boundary between extraverts and introverts: This person would actually be more similar to a slightly “introverted” person than to an extremely “extraverted” person. (In the same way, suppose that we had to describe everyone's height as being either “tall” or “short.” A “tall” 5-foot-10 person would actually be much closer in height to a “short” 5-foot-6 person than to a “tall” 6-foot-6 person.)

Myers & Briggs Type Indicator

Finally, the Myers & Briggs Type Indicator (Myers and McCaulley, 1985; McCaulley, 1990) comprises variables 139 to 146. McCaulley (1990) provides this description of the types.

The MBTI items are concerned with four bi-polar preferences; items force choices between two equally valuable poles of each preference to determine the relative preference of one over the other. The four preferences are as follows:

Extraversion attitude (E) or Introversion attitude (1). In the extraverted attitude (E), persons seek engagement with the environment and give weight to events in the world around them. In the introverted attitude (I), persons seek engagement with their inner world and give weight to concepts and ideas to understand events.

Sensing perception (S) or intuitive perception (N). When using sensing perception (S), persons are interested in what is real, immediate, practical, and observable by the senses. When using intuitive perception (N), persons are interested in future possibilities, implicit meanings, and symbolic or theoretical patterns suggested by insight.

Thinking judgment (T) or Feeling judgment (F). When using thinking judgment (T), persons rationally decide through a process of logical analysis of causes and effects. When using feeling judgment (F), persons rationally decide by weighing the relative importance or value of competing alternatives.

Judgment (J) or Perception (P). When the orientation toward the world uses judgment (J), persons enjoy moving quickly toward decisions and enjoy organizing, planning, and structuring. When the orientation to the world uses perception (P), persons enjoy being curious and open to changes, preferring to keep options open in case something better turns up.

(McCaulley, 1990, paras 11–15)

The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

One of the most widely known self-report inventories is the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which is based on Jungian theory. The MBTI is a four-factor model that allows people to describe themselves by four letters (e.g., ENTJ or ISFP) that represent their particular type. The scale yields eight scores (one for each type) that can be considered on four typological opposites (e.g., Introversion or Extraversion) (Paul, 2004).

According to McCrae and Costa (1989), the MBTI is unusual among personality assessment for three reasons: it is based on a sophisticated and established theory (Jungian); it purports to measure types rather than traits specified on a continuous scale; and it is widely used to explain individuals’ personality characteristics not only to professionals, but also to the individuals themselves, as well as to their coworkers, friends, and families. The authors also point out its limitations: the original Jungian concepts are distorted and even contradicted; there is no bimodal distribution of preference scores; and studies using the MBTI have frequently not confirmed either the theory or the measure.

It is composed of 94 forced-choice items that yield scores on each of the eight factors, as well as the famous four dimensions: Introversion–Extraversion, Sensation–Intuition, Thinking–Feeling, and Judging–Perceiving. Respondents are classified into one of 16 personality types based on the largest score obtained for each bipolar scale (e.g., a person scoring higher on Introversion than Extraversion, Intuition than Sensation, Feeling than Thinking, and Judging than Perceiving would be classified as an Introverted Intuitive Feeling Judging type).

The MBTI-Form G (Briggs-Myers & Briggs, 1985) provides linear scores on each dimension, which are usually discussed in terms of types based on cutoff scores. Thus the Extraversion–Introversion dimension has a normal distribution, with high scores being considered Extraverted and low scores being considered Introverted. The MBTI has been the focus of extensive research, which overall supports the inventory’s satisfactory concurrent and predictive validity and reliability (Furnham & Stringfield, 1993).

Validity studies have explored the relationship between the MBTI and other measures, such as the 16PF and the NEO-PI-R. For example, Saggino and Kline (1996) looked at correlations between the MBTI and Cattell’s 16PF, as well as the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Their factor analysis of the MBTI yielded five factors. They argued that the EI (Extraversion–Introversion) dimension is clear, but the TF (Thinking–Feeling) dimension is “not sufficiently pure” because it loads onto different factors.

There have been a number of studies that have related the Big Five personality traits to the personality disorders, suggesting significant overlap (Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Bastiaansen, Rossi, Schotte, & De Fruyt, 2011). Some studies have related the MBTI to dark-side traits (Janowsky, Morter, & Hong, 2002). It should be noted, however, that proponents of the MBTI insist that the measure was never designed to measure, nor does it measure, “pathology” or mental illness of any form (Quenk, 2009).

1.9.1 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Model

This model classifies students according to their preferences on scales derived from psychologist Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Model can combine 16 different learning style preferences. According to Felder (1996), students may be classified as:

extraverts (who try things out, focus on the outer world of people) or introverts (who think things through, focus on the inner world of ideas)

sensors (who are practical, detail-orientated, focus on facts and procedures) or intuitors (who are imaginative, concept-orientated, focus on meanings and possibilities)

thinkers (who are sceptical, tend to make decisions based on logic and rules) or feelers (who are appreciative, tend to make decisions based on personal and humanistic considerations)

judgers (who set and follow agendas, seek closure even with incomplete data) or perceivers (who adapt to changing circumstances, resist closure to obtain more data).

Common learning style theories and models

There are numerous ways of characterizing styles. Christison (2003) distinguishes between cognitive style (field dependent versus field independent, analytic versus global, reflective versus impulsive), sensory style (visual versus auditory versus tactile versus kinesthetic), and personality styles (tolerance of ambiguity, right brain versus left brain dominance). The following learning style theories and models are only a few of the most frequently used or cited by individuals as they design online learning environments and tutorials and helped inform the study described in this book. For a comparison of similarities between learning style models see Sternberg et al.’s (2008) Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Hawk and Shaw (2007) review six well-known and widely available learning style instruments offered by Kolb, Gregorc, Felder and Silverman, Fleming, Dunn and Dunn, as well as the Entwistle and Tait Revised Approaches to Studying model. In each review, they describe the learning styles that emerge from each instrument and review the instruments’ validity, reliability, and student performance research, where available.

The theories and models that influenced the design of the study that was described in the Introduction to this book (Mestre, 2010) are:

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Briggs, 1962);

Dunn and Dunn (1978);

Kolb’s learning style theory (Kolb, 1984);

Gregorc’s Learning/Teaching Style Model (Gregorc and Ward, 1977; Gregorc, 1979, 1985, 1997);

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory, (Gardner, 1983);

Felder-Silverman’s Learning Style Theory (Felder and Silverman, 1988; Felder, 1993); and

Fleming’s VARK Model (Fleming, 2001).

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Briggs Myers, 1962) is used to determine the personality type of an individual and consists of four dichotomous scales: introvert/extrovert (IE), thinking/feeling (TF), sensing/intuiting (SN), and judging/perception (JP). There are 16 possible personality types that a person can fall into based on the indicators set up by Myers and Briggs; for example, one individual could be ISTJ (introvert, sensor, thinker, and perceiver) while another could be EFSP (extrovert, feeler, sensor, and perceiver).

Extroverts are outgoing, and try things out before thinking and interacting with people.

Introverts are reserved and think before trying things out.

Thinkers use logic to make decisions.

Feelers make decisions based on personal and humanistic elements.

Sensors are detail oriented and focus on facts.

Intuitors are imaginative and concept oriented.

Judgers are organized and like to plan.

Perceivers are spontaneous and can adapt to a changing environment.

The Dunn and Dunn learning style model (Dunn and Dunn, 1978, 1989; Dunn et al., 1982; Dunn, 1990) is based on environmental and instructional preferences. The five stimuli are:

Environmental: sound, light, temperature, and classroom design.

Emotional: motivation, responsibility, persistence, and structure.

Sociological: learning alone or in groups, the presence of an authority figure, learning routine patterns.

Physiological: perception, intake, time, and mobility needs.

Psychological processing: global or analytic, hemisphericity, and impulsive or reflective.

This model offers a set of 100 questions covering all five stimuli and their respective elements. Scores range from 20 to 80, with 40 to 60 reflecting a low or balanced preference for the two ends of each of the 20 elements, and 20 to 40 or 60 to 80 reflecting a stronger preference for the indicated polar end.

David Kolb’s experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984; Kolb and Kolb, 2005) looks at learning style as an aspect of cognitive orientation that can influence preference for learning experiences. Kolb views learning as a multistage process that begins with stage 1, when the learner goes through concrete learning experiences. In stage 2, the learner reflects on his/her concrete experience. In stage 3, the learner derives abstract concepts and generalizations. Ultimately, the learner tests these generalizations in new situations using active experimentation in stage 4. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Style Inventory describes learning styles on a continuum running from concrete experience, through reflective observation, to abstract conceptualization, and finally active experimentation (ibid.). The learning cycle is also translated into individual learning styles, starting along two axes. The first dimension relates to whether a person is a concrete or an abstract thinker (whether that person thinks in terms of real things and events or is drawn to ideas and theory). The second dimension relates to whether information is processed in an active or a reflective way. The two axes intersect at right angles, forming a four-quadrant field for mapping individual learning styles. See Figure 2.1 below.

The two dimensions combine to form four different learning styles:

Diverger: thinks concretely and processes what is learned reflectively. Needs to be personally engaged in the learning activity (creative, generates alternatives).

Converger: perceives information abstractly and processes it reflectively. Needs to follow detailed sequential steps in a learning activity (practical, likes practical applications, makes decisions).

Assimilator: thinks abstractly and processes new knowledge actively in the company of others. Needs to be involved in pragmatic problem solving in a learning activity (intellectual, defines problems, creates theoretical models).

Accommodator: thinks concretely and processes information actively. Needs to be involved in risk taking, making changes, experimentation, and flexibility (social, takes risks, gets things done).

Honey and Mumford (1982, 1992) applied Kolb’s theories in a widely used questionnaire, which describes four different learning styles most often applied to management development:

Activists: respond best to learning situations offering challenges, and enjoy new experiences, excitement, and freedom in their learning. They could describe their preference as “learning by doing something new.”

Pragmatists: like relevant learning opportunities with scope for theory and practice – “learning what is useful.”

Reflectors: prefer structured learning opportunities, which provide time to step back and observe, reflect, and think about what has happened. They often seek out detail – “learning through reflection.”

Theorists: like logical, rational structure, clear aims and the opportunity to question and analyze what they have learned – “learning from theory.”

The Gregorc Learning/Teaching Style Model (Gregorc and Ward, 1977; Gregorc, 1979, 1985, 1997) is a model which asserts that individuals have natural predispositions for learning along four bipolar, continuous mind qualities that function as mediators as individuals learn from and act upon their environments. Those mind qualities are:

abstract and concrete perception

sequential and random ordering

deductive and inductive processing and

separative and associative relationships.

The Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD) provides metrics on the first two qualities, perception and ordering, giving an individual a score from 10 to 40 in each of four learning styles with a maximum of 100 points for all four:

Concrete-Sequential (CS): prefers direct, hands-on experience, desires order and a logical sequence to tasks, and follows directions well.

Abstract-Sequential (AS): likes working with ideas and symbols, is logical and sequential in thinking, and likes to focus on a task without distractions.

Abstract-Random (AR): focuses attention on people and surroundings, prefers discussions and conversations that are wide ranging, and requires time to reflect on experiences.

Concrete-Random (CR): prefers experimentation and risk taking, likes to explore unstructured problems, makes intuitive leaps in solving them, and uses trial and error to work out solutions.

Gregorc describes concrete and abstract as orthogonal to sequential and random. Although the scores indicate the individual’s innate dispositions for one, two, three, or all of the styles, individuals can improve their use of the mind qualities for which they do not score highly. For a chart of these combinations and information on the implications related to designing effective instruction based on students’ strengths and weaknesses see: http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/Gregorc.htm (‘Mind styles – Anthony Gregorc’).

Howard Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences focuses on the importance of individual differences in learning. Gardner drew on research in cognitive psychology to expand the notion of intelligence beyond the traditional focus on linguistic, logical, and mathematical aptitudes, emphasizing multiple modes of thinking. He used biological as well as cultural research to formulate a theory of multiple intelligences which has the following dimensions:

Logical-mathematical: to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically.

Linguistic: to use language to express oneself and to remember information verbally.

Spatial: to manipulate and create mental images in order to solve problems.

Musical: to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms.

Bodily-Kinesthetic: to coordinate bodily movements.

Interpersonal and Intrapersonal: to understand one’s own feelings and intentions and those of others.

According to this theory all intelligences are required and it is important to find ways of supporting and developing all the intelligences, unlike traditional education which has favored logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligence over all else. Everyone has different strengths in each of these, and the level of these intelligences will often determine preferred learning styles.

The Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model (FSLSM) (1988) combines several major learning style models such as the learning style models by Kolb (1984) and Pask (1976), as well as the MBTI (Briggs Myers, 1962). Felder and Soloman developed the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) (Felder and Soloman, 1997; Felder and Spurlin, 2005), which is a 44-item questionnaire for identifying learning styles based on the FSLSM. Although the dimensions themselves are not new, the way in which they are combined and describe the learning styles of students is new. Most other learning style models classify learners into just a few types, whereas Felder and Silverman describe the learning style of a learner in more detail, and provide four values, representing the learners’ preference on each learning style dimension expressed by values between + 11 and − 11. Using the active/reflective dimension as an example, + 11 means that a learner has a strong preference for active learning, whereas − 11 means that a learner has a strong preference for reflective learning, thereby distinguishing between preferences on four dimensions using this + 11 to − 11 to indicate the learners’ preferences on each dimension.

By using scales rather than types, the strength of learning style preferences can be described, enabling the model to distinguish between strong and weak preferences for a particular learning style. Furthermore, FSLSM is based on the concept of tendencies, indicating that learners with a high preference for certain behavior can also act differently depending on context.

FSLSM has often been used in research related to learning styles in advanced learning technologies. According to Carver et al. (1999), “the Felder Model is most appropriate for hypermedia courseware” (p. 34). Kuljis and Liu (2005) confirmed this by conducting a comparison of learning style models with respect to their application in e-learning and web-based learning systems. FSLSM characterizes each learner according to four dimensions: Active/Reflective, Sensing/Intuitive, Visual/Verbal, and Sequential/Global:

Active/Reflective

Active learners learn by trying things out and working together with others;

Reflective learners learn by thinking things through and reflecting about them, and they prefer to learn alone.

Sensing/Intuitive

Sensing learners like to learn from concrete material-like examples, tend to be more practical and are careful with details;

Intuitive learners prefer to learn from abstract material, such as challenges, and are more innovative.

Visual/Verbal

Visual learners remember best what they have seen;

Verbal learners get more out of words, regardless of whether they are spoken or written.

Sequential/Global

Sequential learners learn in linear steps, prefer to follow stepwise paths and prefer to be guided through the learning process;

Global learners learn in large leaps and prefer a higher degree of freedom in their learning process.

The VARK inventory (Fleming, 2001) is one style that is applicable in the presentation of e-learning content for the organization of a self-paced e-learning course. It uses the three main sensory receivers – Vision, Auditory, and Kinesthetic (movement) – to determine the dominant learning style. Learners use all three to receive information. However, one or more of these receiving styles is normally dominant. This dominant style defines the best way for a person to learn new information by filtering what is to be learned. This style might not always be the same for different tasks. The learner may prefer one style of learning for one task, and a combination of others for another task. Again, a preferred model is to design e-learning to present information using all three styles. This allows all learners, regardless of their preferred style, the opportunity to become involved.

Mestre (2010, 2012) used the Felder and Soloman ILS described above and also used Fleming’s VARK learning style inventory (available at: http://www.vark-learn.com/english/index.asp) as the two inventories for her study. The VARK inventory adds another dimension to the VAK inventory – Read/Write. This was valuable in the usability studies of tutorials to help understand approaches to the text in tutorials. In this study, three of the 21 students tested with a single learning preference on the Learning Style Inventory, that of a read/write learning style. In the usability study, this preference was evidenced as they first read the text on the page, before looking at the visuals. The only other single learning preference was a kinesthetic learner. The remaining 17 students tested as multimodal learners; however, overall, the percentage of students who scored with a high read/write preference was almost the same as those who scored highly for kinesthetic. These students explained that they looked at the visuals first and only looked at the text if the visuals were not clear. For this study it was very important to gauge the read/write preferences of students, which is one of the reasons why the VARK inventory was used rather than the VAK inventory.

The VARK inventory provides metrics for each of four perceptual modes:

Visual (V): prefer maps, charts, graphs, diagrams, brochures, flow charts, highlighters, different colors, pictures, word pictures, and different spatial arrangements.

Aural (A): like to explain new ideas to others and discuss topics with other students and teachers, use a tape recorder, attend lectures and discussion groups, and use stories and jokes.

Read/Write (R): favor essays, reports, text, manuals, definitions, printed handouts, readings, manuals, web pages, and taking notes, written feedback, multiple-choice questions.

Kinesthetic (K): prefer trial and error and hands-on approaches, doing things in order to understand them, role-playing, demonstrations, laboratories, field trips, recipes and solutions to problems, using the senses, and collections of samples.

The instrument contains 16 multiple-choice questions and participants can choose more than one answer for each question. Although learners are not restricted to only one of four modes, they may show a strong preference for one particular mode. An individual’s preference may range from a single mode to all four modes (Fleming, 2001, 2005; Hawk and Shaw, 2007).

Table 2.1 provides families of learning styles (Coffield et al., 2004).

Table 2.1. Families of learning styles

Author(s)Assessment toolYear introducedDunn and DunnLearning Style Questionnaire (LSQ)1979Learning Style Inventory (LSI)1975Building Excellence Survey (BES)2003GregorcGregorc Mind Styles Delineator (MSD)1977Cognitive structureRidingCognitive Styles Analysis (CSA)1991Stable personality typeApterMotivational Style Profile (MSP)1998JacksonLearning Style Profiler (LSP)2002Myers-BriggsMyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)1962Flexibly stable learning preferencesAllison and HayesCognitive Style Index (CSI)1996HerrmannBrain Dominance Instrument (HBDI)1985Honey and MumfordLearning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)1982Felder and SilvermanIndex of Learning Styles (ILS)1996KolbLearning Style Inventory (LSI)1976LSI Version 31999Learning approaches and strategiesEntwistleApproaches to Study Inventory (ASI)1979Revised Approaches to Study Inventory (RASI)1995Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST)2000SternbergThinking Styles1998VermuntInventory of Learning Styles (ILS)1996

Source: from Coffield et al., 2004

10.3.5.1 Typology of users

Analysis of the focus group transcripts identified three composite profiles of information seekers that typify the opinions expressed by the focus group participants. These are presented here to help the reader gain a richer sense of the ways in which the participants responded to the questions and the probes. Classic typologies such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator have long been used to understand individuals’ reactions to and interactions with information, especially when related to decision-making. While our typology does not include multiple dimensions for each personality type, it does suggest different ways in which the participants think or feel about looking for health-related information and assessing its relevance in their lives. Since the comments were collected anonymously, we are unable to identify individual participants; the same participant may have provided opinions that were coded as responses from different types of information seekers. No attempt is made to assign an individual participant to a single category; rather, the typology emerged as a way of presenting the findings from all of the focus groups in a coherent way. All participant comments were included in the analysis regardless of whether the participant used the Internet for information seeking or not. The three categories of information seekers that were created are the “Caregiver,” the “Sufferer,” and the “Surfer.” Examples of responses in each category of information seeking are described below in the participants’ own words.

Key Terms

Deindividuation

A psychological process characterized by reduced individual self-evaluation and decreased inhibition in crowd situations.

Abolition or reduction of psychological mechanisms that govern spontaneous behavior.

The degree to which findings obtained from research in controlled situations may be generalized and found relevant under other circumstances and more natural environments.

The basic main dimensions or psychological constructs underlying responses to a given test.

A well-known, widely used personality assessment test based on Jung’s typology of personality.

Statistical parameters of a comparison group by which an individual person’s test results are analyzed.

A psychological test in which people are asked to respond to ambiguous stimuli (e.g., pictures, unfinished sentences) and in which they supposedly express their individual needs and desires.

A set of various procedures, including written tests, interviews, appraisal of group behavior, and other measures, carried out in order to evaluate a person’s personality and various traits.

Quality of measurement of a psychological test, assessed by several factors, such as reliability and validity.

Based on subjective analysis and impression rather than objective, measured assessment.

The degree to which a test consistently measures a trait or construct.

A projective test in which people are presented with symmetrical ink stains and asked to tell what they see in them.

What does the MBTI measure?

What is MBTI preference?

What does the MBTI measure for people when administered or given to them?

What is the MBTI quizlet?