1962
DOI: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.1962.tb00493.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Assessment of Some Structural Properties of the Jungian Personality Typology1

Abstract: Jung's typology implies that the attitudes and functions are (a) stable; (b) categorical or qualitatively dichotomous; (c) interacting; and (d) giving rise to different compounds of surface traits. In addition, it implies that type indeterminacy produces ineffective and maladjusted behavior.A program of studies aimed at assessing these structural properties of Jung's typology '~6 designed and executed, using a self-report inventory, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. These studies found that (a) the type classif… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2004
2004

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Support has been obtained for its construct validity by Carlson (1980), Richek & Brown (1968), and McCaulley (198 1). Considerable research has been carried out illustrating the relationships between the MBTI and other personality instruments (McCaulley, 1978;Myers, 1962;Saunders, 1960;Stricker & Ross, 1964). The results of these studies appear to be quite consistent with Jungian theory.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Support has been obtained for its construct validity by Carlson (1980), Richek & Brown (1968), and McCaulley (198 1). Considerable research has been carried out illustrating the relationships between the MBTI and other personality instruments (McCaulley, 1978;Myers, 1962;Saunders, 1960;Stricker & Ross, 1964). The results of these studies appear to be quite consistent with Jungian theory.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…The popularity of the MBTI exists despite concerns about the psychometric properties of the dimensions. Those concerns range from the factor structure of the scales, whether the dimensions are type versus continuous, the presence of dominant and auxiliary functions, and whether the scales fully measure the dimensions they intend to measure (Devito, 1985, Mendelsohn, 1965, Sundberg, 1965, and Stricker & Ross, 1964. Quenk (2000) indicates that a number of these concerns have been addressed in the more recent revision (Form M -1998) of the instrument.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%