Are Jungian preferences really categorical?: an empirical investigation using taxometric analysis

Arnau, Randolph C.; Green, Bradley A.; Rosen, David; Gleaves, David H.; Melancon, Janet G.

doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00040-5

Cited by 34 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Simple conceptualisation and measurement of mindset theory suggests the two belief factors as antipoles, however more nuanced perspectives and measurement approaches appear to be emerging in the literature. This appears to mirror discussions in personality and attitude research suggesting that a simple conceptualisation of mindset theory maybe the subject of debate, (for example, see Arnau, Green, Rosen, Gleaves, & Melancon, 2003;Mercer & Ryan, 2009;Widiger, 1993). In specific HE domains, it is postulated that individuals can endorse both mindsets concurrently and that neither remain stable overtime (Dai & Cromley, 2014;Zuckerman, Gagne, & Nafshi, 2001).…”

Section: Self-regulation: Goal Orientations Mindset and Academic Permentioning

confidence: 65%

Predicting gainful learning in Higher Education; a goal-orientation approach

Forsythe

Jellicoe

2018

Higher Education Pedagogies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present data that may not only provide direction to those who are interested in developing a measure of learning gain, but also provide a route for those wishing to directly enhance student performance through gainful learning. Richardson found that student performance showed moderate correlations with only three self-regulatory variables academic self-efficacy, grade goal and effort regulation. We examine how student self-regulatory behaviours and predict these predict feedback engagement and behavioural change. Data provide converging evidence suggesting that mastery approach goal orientations, challenging interventions from feedback, and motivational intentions are essential personal constructs linked to behavioural change. These tentative findings support the suggestion that measures of gainful learning could be operationalised as 'self-reported behaviours that suggest the productive acquisition of beneficial skills, knowledge and attitudes through study and experience' . Evidence is also offered indicating that more research is necessary to understand the measurement of mindset. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Self-regulation: Goal Orientations Mindset and Academic Permentioning

confidence: 65%

Predicting gainful learning in Higher Education; a goal-orientation approach

Forsythe

Jellicoe

2018

Higher Education Pedagogies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately for Jungian typists, Arnau, Green, Rosen, Gleaves, and Melancon (2003) subsequently applied Meehl's (1992) coherent cut kinetics to several Jungian type assessments, including the MBTI. They found no support using any of the assessments for the existence of underlying types.…”

Section: Testabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the validity of Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology

Stein

Swan

2019

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its immense popularity and impressive longevity, the Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has existed in a parallel universe to social and personality psychology. Here, we seek to increase academic awareness of this incredibly popular idea and provide a novel teaching reference for its conceptual flaws. We focus on examining the validity of the Jungian‐based theory behind MBTI that specifies that people have a “true type” delineated across four dichotomies. We find that the MBTI theory falters on rigorous theoretical criteria in that it lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability, and possesses internal contradictions. We further discuss what MBTI's continued popularity says about how the general public might evaluate scientific theories.

show abstract

“…The popular and somewhat controversial MBTI assesses four attitudes or orientations (extroversion vs. introversion, judging vs. perceiving) and four functions (sensing vs. intuition, thinking vs. feeling). Several recent and earlier studies have questioned the validity of the MBTI on several grounds, such as its criterion and construct validity (e.g., Arnau et al, 2003;Garden, 1991;McCrae and Costa, 1989;Pittenger, 2005), its use far beyond the original theoretical intent developed by Jung (Mitchell, 2000), and the potential confusion and interaction across scales related to determination of dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions (Gardner and Martinko, 1996;James, 2003). Validation research on the most recent Form M has also been criticized because the sensing-intuition and judging-perceiving scales were found to be unrelated for half of the 16 MBTI types in the very sample used to validate the instrument (Mitchell, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%