MBTI: Is it Reliable?

MBTI is popular nowadays, to the point that it is seemingly now being used more often than zodiac signs to start a conversation with someone you just met. It is a good conversation starter indeed! But, it is important to know the repercussions on too much reliance on MBTI to understand one's self and other people.

1. What misgivings does the academic community's have regarding MBTI?

Myer-Briggs Inventory Test's immense popularity in different organization is a reflection of human's curiosity and endless search for the self. From personality theorists using the psychodynamic perspective to personal theorists using trait-biological approach, all of them were interested in understanding the self and the reasons why we act and think like we do. Most of us have taken personality tests whether the one approved by most academics like the Five Factor theory to the one popularized in the internet basically for fun like the BuzzFeed. MBTI is also one of these tests patronized by most of us and in fact it is known globally to the point that the company, Consulting Psychologists Press (CPP) who has the publication rights, has numerous lawyers distributed from different parts of the world just to make sure that there is no plagiarism happening. The test instrument is not renowned in different organizations and companies, it was also given a thumbs up by the public. In the last line of this set of judges lies the academic psychological community, and the two articles by Cunningham and Pittenger summarizes the overall concerns and criticisms of the scientific field regarding the warmly welcomed test instrument by millions of people around the globe.

Like what most psychologists discussed in the previous modules, human has this tendency to examine their whole life and to see whether they are living it to the fullest and most of them were more likely to take any self-improvement advices and theories on how to be the best version of themselves. Thousands of questions boggle the human minds and these includes queries related to their personality and whether they are doing things accordingly to their personality. We find security and affirmation whenever we were described positively by other people or, in this case, by a personality test instrument which provides a description of you based on your personality type results. The MBTI framework classifies the personality types along 4 pairs of categories with two choices each, one being a more dominant trait than the other. Adherents of the test instrument believes that every person fits one of the 16 possible combinations, and the scientific community find this troubling because of different reasons that were often implied by most of them, but not outspoken by these academics in the fear of offending their fellow colleagues.

The first article by Cunningham (2012) about the history of MBTI, the proponents, and the business model behind that pushed the test instrument to be popular closely resembles the findings and criticisms of Pittenger (2005) in his more formal research about the misgivings of the academic community regarding the MBTI and about the need to be more analytical and cautious in applying the results of the said test instrument in a social setting. The difference between the two readings is in their focus and method in showing the disadvantages of using the test instrument without taking into consideration the background and the scientific studies performed in lieu of the test instrument. Both articles were interesting and eye-opening, the Cunningham's work is more of an informative essay consists of most statements by the people involved and her insights about the instrument, meanwhile Pittenger's review was more of like a formal research composed of different research papers that warns us about the possible problems when administering MBTI in a workplace and other institutions.

The common tone in Cunningham's work is related to the aggressive marketing approach of the people behind the Myers-Briggs Inventory. It started as a revolution in promoting women's rights to have a job and experiences, which most women does not have during Isabel Myers' time, is a huge mountain that Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs' MBTI was able to overcome. Unfortunately, as times pass by, the instrument still has its merits, but it mostly served capitalism by the people behind making billion dollars just by using a single test instrument that lacks empirical evidence and is not warmly welcomed by the academics.

Adam Grant, a professor at University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, provided his insights and observations and most of his statements was included in Cunningham's article. He was also able to enumerate few of the problematic issues related to MBTI. The first one is its questionable lack of supporters in the scientific community even though many academics were working for the CCP as board members and as consultants. For Grant, it seems like most people were too devoted to this test instrument, for several reasons like it was these people's source of income or because of MBTI's ability to empower and enlighten people. This almost "cultlike devotion" as described by Grant, is quite alarming because it seems like other people fails to acknowledge the disadvantages and flaws of the said material. They failed to question the fact that even the three prominent board members of CCP hasn't published any research about the validity of the test.

Other reasons stated in Cunningham's article are related to the process on how MBTI was formulated, including its setting which is at the home of Isabel Myer's that implies its lack of any in-depth scientific research before creating the framework of MBTI. It is also just based on Carl Jung's personality researchers about introversion and extraversion, which compared to the Five Factor Theory of Costa & McCrae, is definitely a simplified and theoretical version. The MBTI was not directly supported by any scientifically published journals, but there was like a kind of a secret rule not to go against it because it is widely accepted by the public and it is the bread-and-butter of most academics as well. Even Dr. Brian Little, which was part of our discussion in the first module, also mentioned that no one tries to aggressively raise question about the test's reliability because it is like also going against the public opinion. The public does not want to be proven wrong or negative, that is one of the reasons why the Five Factor Theory fell behind the popularity of the MBTI. Though according to academics MBTI is "...about belief much more than scientific evidence" (Cunningham, 2012). The biggest problem is its connection with business, just to make more money out of it, the company created over 800 products and services, trained leadership coaches, most of them does not even have a medical license or a formal education in psychology.

Pittenger's research also posits almost the same concerns with the work of Cunningham. He focused on the fact that the appeal of the MBTI in the public was being more emphasized than the fact that it lacks empirical evidences and it does not promise as much as enthusiasts and promoters said so. For Pittenger, using MBTI as a component of employee selection process is understandable, but it is important to be careful in using it as basis and it should not be the only factor in accepting and rejecting employees. Pittenger was also able to cite other scientific research papers that was able to see inconsistencies between the claims of the promoters and the actual data gathered. He even questioned the connection between where the framework was said to be based because he find little to no connection between Carl Jung's theory and the MBTI's framework. He also tried to prove that the scoring procedure and the results should not be a determinant in judging a person's personality. We should be careful about using the results of the tests because it may cause short-term to long-term effects on the taker of the test, on the company who administered the test and on the credibility of the scientific community. For him the most problematic part is the dichotomous scoring procedure because it sends the message that a people could only be one of the two choices in the four different categories.

Pettinger even cited other researches such as the work of Gardner and Martinko (1996). In their work, they concluded that their is a little connection between the MBTI and work-related behaviors, but they also stated that there were also inconsistent findings and that the methodology in administering MBTI has flaws and limitations. Bjork and Druckman (1991) followed by the work of Boyle (1995) also mentioned the problem stated by Cunningham, the lack of related studies and literature about the validity of the test results of MBTI and whether it is proper to use it as a counseling tool because they also found the methodologies insufficient. MBTI may promote equality among all types and it promotes the acceptance of individual differences, but as most personality theories and tests it is also susceptible to boxing people into a set of categories, and worse without any empirical evidence and without any well-researched framework.

References:

Bjork, R. A., & Druckman, D. (1991). In the mind’s eye: Enhancing human performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Boyle, G. J. (1995). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric limitations. Australian Psychologist, 30, 71–74.

Cunningham, L. (2012, December 14). Myers-Briggs: Does it pay to know your type? Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/myers-briggs-does-it-pay-to-know-your-type/2012/12/14/eaed51ae-3fcc-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html

Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22, 45– 83.