Human nature is incredibly complex. Personality tests are tools people use to make sense of who they are and how these traits can best be used in different areas of life from career to relationships.
The most popular test, in a sea of many, is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). And even though 3.5 million of the MBTI are administered every year, according to most experts, the limitations of this tool seem to outweigh any positive aspects. Simply put, based on the standards of psychological test validation – the MBTI falls short.
In this article, we examine both positive and negative reviews of the Myers-Briggs test and the latest research showing its limitations. Based on these limits, we also address the strong need for a diagnostic tool that accurately assesses a person’s aptitude based on multiple factors, including cognitive orientation and the environment.
What is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator?
The MBTI was designed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers who were inspired by the work of psychologist Carl Jung. The MBTI is based on 93 questions that group people into 16 different types broken down into dimensions, including:
- Introvert (I) versus Extrovert (E)
- Intuitive (N) versus Sensory (S)
- Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F)
- Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P)
The test looks at eight different cognitive functions that human beings use to interact with the world. Out of the eight, it’s broken down into four perceiving functions and four decision-making functions. Extroverted functions are geared towards action and interaction with the environment, while introverted functions process through analysis and reflection. Based on which combination of traits a person falls into, the test ultimately assigns them one of the 16 types. Each personality type is said to be different from the others, or an ESTJ is a different person than an INTP.
For some, the tool is seen as valuable, “researchers continue to use type tests [MBTI] and theory in their work. For example, some research suggests that there may be a neurological basis for type and that individuals have preferred neural networks that form the basis of their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral patterns – distinguishing their personality type,” states Aqualus M. Gordon Ph.D. in an article defending the use of MBTI (Gordon, 2020).
However, in many scientific circles, Myers-Briggs is viewed as primarily based on theory, with no empirical evidence. This issue has prompted many skeptics of the tool, including personality researcher at the University of California, Davis, Simine Vazire, “Until we test them [MBTI] scientifically, we can’t tell the difference between that and pseudoscience like astrology (Chen, 2018).”
MBTI Limitations
Below are the more well-known limitations found in the Myers-Briggs test, including re-test reliability, validity, inability to capture the full extent of personality, and bimodal grouping of people – suggesting that personalities are static.
Low Test, Re-Test Reliability
Some research suggests the Myers-Briggs tool is unreliable because the same individual can get different results when retaking the test. “Across a 5-week re-test period, 50% of the participants received a different classification on one or more of the (MBTI) scales,” states David Pitteger in his popular paper, Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Pitteger, 2005). Another study revealed, 39% and 76% of individuals taking the test on different occasions received different results, even just after five weeks (Boyle, 1995).
Poor Validity
William L. Gardner, whose research of personality types and managerial behaviors found the MBTI to be a poor predictor of personality or behavior suggesting, “refinement of type construct and measures are still needed because there are worries about it’s [MBTI] type theory and operationalization (Gardner and Martinko, 1996).”
Missing Pieces of Personality
There are many words for describing personality, but most of these can be organized in terms of the Big 5 Personality Traits or the “Big Five,” including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, negative emotionality, and open-mindedness. Some researchers feel the MBTI is not comprehensive because its categories do not capture the full extent of personality. For example, there is no measure of emotional stability, which is considered a critical predictor in terms of patterns of thinking, feeling, and action. As psychologists Robert McCrae and Paul Costa state, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information on the four domains it does sample (McCrae and Costa, 1989).”
Bimodal Grouping – Personalities Are Not Static
The two categories people are grouped into after they complete the Myers-Briggs test has one major flaw – personality traits are not static. According to Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. “There are serious psychometric problems associated with the MBTI. One issue that afflicts all typologies is that scores are placed into two categories – you are either an Extravert or Introvert. In actuality, personality dimensions are continuous, with persons being more or less extraverted or introverted (Riggo, 2014).” The belief that personality traits are static, and do not evolve over time, is the biggest inherent flaw of the MBTI.
According to a recent study, researchers had access to a survey from a large group of adolescents who filled out a questionnaire about their personalities (associated with the Big Five traits) in the 1960s and then did so again fifty years later. “Some of the changes we saw in personality traits over the 50 years were very, very large. For emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness, the changes were one[s] which would be clearly visible to others,” states the author of the study, Rodica Damian of the University of Houston (Suttie, 2018). This study shows that personalities do, indeed, change, and their dimensions are continuous.
Need for a Better Diagnostic Tool
Suresh Balasubramanian, the Myers-Briggs company’s general manager, defended the test, stating, “When you look at the validity of the instrument, it’s just as valid as any other personality assessment (Gholipor, 2019).” But what does this say about other personality tests if the MBTI has so many limitations? Maybe it’s time for a better diagnostic tool to measure aptitude.
Knowing someone’s complex nature of individual identity and behavior is essential to getting to the root of who they are; this point is best argued by Merve Emre, a professor at Oxford University. In her book The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers-Briggs and the Birth of Personality Testing, she objects to the test stating, “assignment to type can serve as a technique for annihilating individuality (Arthur, 2018).” As we can see, traditional aptitude assessments like the MBTI view personality traits as innate and static and do not take into account an individual’s cognitive orientation – or their worldview. This missing piece limits the ability to see the whole person. If a person is grouped into a category and is only allowed to view his or herself in a few dimensions rather than seeking deeper insights – how will they understand the inner forces that motivate them or help them achieve a better career?
Research tells us that a person’s traits and behaviors continue to change over time based on environmental factors and cognitive orientation. With this knowledge, the Myers-Briggs test falls short and the need for a diagnostic tool that accurately assesses an individual’s aptitude is more significant than ever. Providing a holistic view of a person’s cognitive process in relation to their individual traits, perceptions, and behavior, not only generates a more accurate analysis, it unlocks the potential for greater personal, educational, and professional development. By showing not only who someone is, but the how and why behind it, is truly powerful.
References:
Arthur, M.B. (2018, September 16). The strange history behind the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator – and what that can mean for you. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarthur/2018/09/16/the-strange-history-behind-the-mbti-and-what-that-can-mean-for-career-owners/#5f0082782fb3
Boyle, G.J. (1995). Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator MBTI): some psychometric limitations. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Myers%E2%80%90Briggs-Type-Indicator-(MBTI)%3A-Some-Boyle/b5e63da24d471d85d9f6fb0e2cab9e431dd78960
Chen, A. (2018, October 10). How Accurate Are Personality Tests? Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-accurate-are-personality-tests/
Gardner, W.L. and Martinko, M.J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: A conceptual model and research agenda. Journal of Management. 22:45-83
Gholipour, B. (2019, May 19). How accurate is the Myers-Briggs Personality Test? Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/65513-does-myers-briggs-personality-test-work.html
Gordon, A. (2020, February 12). In defense of the Myers-Briggs: A comprehensive counter to anti-MBTI hype. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/my-brothers-keeper/202002/in-defense-the-myers-briggs
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. J Pers. 57(1):17-40.
Pittenger, D. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal Practice and Research. 57(3): 210-221.
Riggio, R.E. (2014, February 21). The truth about Myers-Briggs Types. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201402/the-truth-about-myers-briggs-types
Suttie, J. (2018, October 15). Can your personality change over your lifetime? Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkley. Retrieved from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/can_your_personality_change_over_your_lifetime.