Sei sulla pagina 1di 15

Relationship between the MBTI ® Step 1 instrument and the 16PF ® questionnaire

Significant Differences by Type Dichotomy

Extraversion-Introversion

Table 5 below shows the mean score for Extraverts and for Introverts on each of the 16PF scales, the difference between the means, the difference in Stens and the statistical significance of this difference (based on an independent-samples T-test).

Table 5: 16PF Differences between Extraverts and Introverts

Factor

Extravert

Introvert

Mean

Sten Diff 2

Sig 3

Mean

Mean

Diff 1

A

(Warmth)

15.89

11.89

4.01

1.58

***

B

(Reasoning)

12.54

12.99

-0.44

-0.39

*

C

(Emotional stability)

15.90

14.23

1.67

0.77

***

E

(Dominance)

16.10

13.92

2.19

1.20

***

F

(Liveliness)

14.30

9.68

4.61

1.84

***

G

(Rule-consciousness)

10.29

12.05

-1.77

-0.66

***

H

(Social boldness)

15.32

6.52

8.80

2.24

***

I (Sensitivity)

11.95

11.38

0.57

0.10

NS

L (Vigilance)

8.69

9.82

-1.13

-0.65

**

M (Abstractness)

6.60

6.79

-0.19

-0.06

NS

N (Privateness)

7.88

13.42

-5.54

-2.06

***

O (Apprehension)

9.66

11.37

-1.71

-0.68

***

Q1 (Openness to change) Q2 (Self-reliance) Q3 (Perfectionism) Q4 (Tension) IM (Impression Management) Global Extraversion Global Anxiety Global Tough-mindedness Global Independence Global Self-control

20.53

18.27

2.26

0.90

***

5.44

9.75

-4.31

-1.61

***

10.09

10.77

-0.68

-0.32

NS

11.01

11.40

-0.39

-0.27

NS

10.98

10.83

0.15

0.07

NS

7.38

4.79

2.58

2.58

***

4.03

4.87

-0.83

-0.83

***

4.91

5.66

-0.75

-0.75

***

6.85

5.34

1.51

1.51

***

4.80

5.61

-0.81

-0.81

***

In part because of the large sample size, most scales show a statistically significant

difference between Extraverts and Introverts. Some of these differences are in practice, however, quite small, and for practical purposes it is useful to take a difference of one sten as a meaningful amount.

1 Raw score difference between Extraverts and Introverts. Negative values indicate a higher score for Introverts.

2 Sten difference between Extraverts and Introverts.

3 Based on an independent-samples T-test. *** - sig at 0.1% level; ** sig at 1% level; * sig at 5% level.

On this basis, Extraverts tend to be more:

Socially bold (H)

Lively (F)

Warm (A)

Dominant (E)

And higher on Global Extraversion and Global Independence

Introverts tend to be more:

Private (N)

Self-reliant (Q2)

These differences are illustrated graphically in figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Mean Sten Scores of Extraverts and Introverts on the 16PF scales

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 ABC EF GH I LMNO Q1 Q2
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
ABC
EF
GH
I
LMNO Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 IM G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
Ex An TM
In
SC
Extraverts
Introverts
Sten

Sensing - Intuition

Table 6 below shows the mean score for Sensing types and for Intuitives on each of the 16PF scales, the difference between the means, the difference in Stens and the statistical significance of this difference (based on an independent-samples T-test).

Table 6: 16PF Differences between Sensing and Intuition

Factor

Sensing

Intuitive

Mean

Sten Diff 5

Sig 6

Mean

Mean

Diff 4

A

(Warmth)

14.00

14.59

-0.59

-0.18

NS

B

(Reasoning)

12.42

13.06

-0.64

-0.35

**

C

(Emotional stability)

15.42

15.06

0.36

0.06

NS

E

(Dominance)

14.86

15.59

-0.72

-0.44

*

F

(Liveliness)

11.86

13.02

-1.16

-0.53

**

G

(Rule-consciousness)

12.04

10.00

2.04

0.80

***

H

(Social boldness)

11.01

12.59

-1.58

-0.47

***

I (Sensitivity)

10.88

12.51

-1.63

-0.66

***

L

(Vigilance)

9.43

8.87

0.56

0.27

NS

M (Abstractness)

4.40

8.82

-4.43

-1.64

***

N (Privateness)

10.18

9.99

0.19

0.07

NS

O (Apprehension)

10.50

10.20

0.30

0.18

NS

Q1 (Openness to change) Q2 (Self-reliance) Q3 (Perfectionism) Q4 (Tension) IM (Impression Management) Global Extraversion Global Anxiety Global Tough-mindedness Global Independence Global Self-control

17.22

21.91

-4.69

-1.65

***

7.46

6.88

0.58

0.15

NS

11.78

9.02

2.76

1.03

***

11.43

10.92

0.51

0.26

NS

11.09

10.76

0.33

0.05

NS

6.14

6.54

-0.40

-0.40

**

4.49

4.25

0.24

0.24

NS

6.07

4.42

1.66

1.66

***

5.81

6.65

-0.84

-0.84

***

5.83

4.48

1.35

1.35

***

Looking at those scales which show a difference of at least one sten,

Those with a preference for Sensing tend to be higher on Perfectionism (Q3), Global Tough-mindedness and Global Self-control.

Those with a preference for Intuition tend to be higher on:

Openness to change (Q1) and Abstractness (M)

These differences are illustrated graphically in figure 4 overleaf.

4 Raw score difference between Sensing and Intuition. Negative values indicate a higher score for Intuitives.

5 Sten difference between Sensing and Intuition.

6 Based on an independent-samples T-test. *** - sig at 1% level; ** sig at 5% level; * sig at 10% level.

Figure 4: Mean Sten Scores of Sensing and Intuitive Types on the 16PF scales

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 ABC EF GH I LMNO Q1 Q2
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
ABC
EF
GH
I
LMNO Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 IM G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
Ex An TM
In
SC
Sensing
Intuitive
Sten

Thinking-Feeling

Table 7 below shows the mean score for Thinking and for Feeling types on each of the 16PF scales, the difference between the means, the difference in Stens and the statistical significance of this difference (based on an independent-samples T-test).

Table 7: 16PF Differences between Thinking and Feeling

Factor

Thinking

Feeling

Mean

Sten Diff 8

Sig 9

Mean

Mean

Diff 7

A

(Warmth)

13.42

16.97

-3.55

-1.55

***

B

(Reasoning)

12.81

12.48

0.33

0.39

NS

C

(Emotional stability)

15.83

13.42

2.41

0.90

***

E

(Dominance)

15.66

13.94

1.73

0.77

***

F

(Liveliness)

12.20

13.26

-1.06

-0.50

*

G

(Rule-consciousness)

11.10

10.65

0.45

0.21

NS

H

(Social boldness)

11.87

11.68

0.19

0.02

NS

I (Sensitivity)

10.60

15.10

-4.50

-1.59

***

L (Vigilance)

9.35

8.52

0.83

0.37

*

M (Abstractness)

6.23

8.00

-1.77

-0.61

***

N (Privateness)

10.47

8.92

1.55

0.56

**

O (Apprehension)

9.38

13.25

-3.87

-1.31

***

Q1 (Openness to change) Q2 (Self-reliance) Q3 (Perfectionism) Q4 (Tension) IM (Impression Management) Global Extraversion Global Anxiety Global Tough-mindedness Global Independence Global Self-control

19.61

19.69

-0.08

0.04

NS

7.33

6.63

0.70

0.36

NS

10.49

9.94

0.55

0.23

NS

10.93

11.88

-0.95

-0.28

NS

11.08

10.44

0.63

0.27

NS

6.13

7.03

-0.90

-0.90

***

4.16

5.01

-0.85

-0.85

***

5.52

4.23

1.28

1.28

***

6.39

5.81

0.58

0.58

***

5.22

4.81

0.41

0.41

**

Looking at those scales that show a difference of at least one sten, Thinking types tend

to be higher on Global Tough-mindedness.

Feeling types tend to be more:

Sensitive (I)

Warm (A)

Apprehensive (O)

These differences are illustrated graphically in figure 5 overleaf.

7 Raw score difference between Thinking and Feeling. Negative values indicate a higher score for Feeling.

8 Sten difference between Thinking and Feeling.

9 Based on an independent-samples T-test. *** - sig at 0.1% level; ** sig at 1% level; * sig at 5% level.

Figure 5: Mean Sten Scores of Thinking and Feeling Types on the 16PF scales

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 ABC EF GH I LMNO Q1 Q2
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
ABC
EF
GH
I
LMNO Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 IM G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
Ex An TM
In
SC
Thinking
Feeling
Sten

Judging - Perceiving

Table 8 below shows the mean score for Judging and for Perceiving types on each of the 16PF scales, the difference between the means, the difference in Stens and the statistical significance of this difference (based on an independent-samples T-test).

Table 8: 16PF Differences between Judging and Perceiving

Factor

Judging

Perceiving

Mean

Sten

Sig 12

Mean

Mean

Diff 10

Diff 11

A

(Warmth)

14.34

14.24

0.09

0.03

NS

B

(Reasoning)

12.61

12.96

-0.35

-0.35

NS

C

(Emotional stability)

15.43

14.89

0.54

0.18

NS

E

(Dominance)

15.12

15.43

-0.32

-0.30

NS

F

(Liveliness)

12.12

13.06

-0.95

-0.49

*

G

(Rule-consciousness)

11.94

9.33

2.62

1.16

***

H

(Social boldness)

11.78

11.90

-0.13

-0.10

NS

I (Sensitivity)

11.69

11.78

-0.09

-0.03

NS

L

(Vigilance)

8.99

9.40

-0.40

-0.17

NS

M (Abstractness)

5.27

9.11

-3.84

-1.57

***

N (Privateness)

10.00

10.23

-0.23

-0.16

NS

O (Apprehension)

10.45

10.15

0.30

0.10

NS

Q1 (Openness to change) Q2 (Self-reliance) Q3 (Perfectionism) Q4 (Tension) IM (Impression Management) Global Extraversion Global Anxiety Global Tough-mindedness Global Independence Global Self-control

18.89

20.93

-2.04

-0.79

***

7.13

7.21

-0.08

-0.03

NS

12.17

7.21

4.95

1.91

***

11.20

11.10

0.10

0.02

NS

11.17

10.47

0.70

0.26

NS

6.31

6.42

-0.11

-0.11

NS

4.36

4.38

-0.02

-0.02

NS

5.53

4.64

0.89

0.89

***

6.05

6.59

-0.54

-0.54

***

5.79

3.96

1.83

1.83

***

Looking at scales with a difference of at least one sten, Judging types tend to be more:

Perfectionist (Q3)

Rule-conscious (G)

And higher on Global Self-control.

Perceiving types tend to be more:

Abstract (M)

These differences are illustrated graphically in figure 6 overleaf.

Figure 6: Mean Sten Scores of Judging and Perceiving Types on the 16PF scales

10 Raw score difference between Judging and Perceiving. Negative values indicate a higher score for Perceiving

11 Sten difference between Judging and Perceiving.

12 Based on an independent-samples T-test. *** - sig at 0.1% level; ** sig at 1% level; * sig at 5% level.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 ABC EF GH I LMNO Q1 Q2
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
ABC
EF
GH
I
LMNO Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 IM G.
G.
G.
G.
G.
Ex An TM
In
SC
Judging
Perceiving
Sten

Correlation of MBTI Continuous Scores with the 16PF

The MBTI is a typing inventory and as such the most appropriate analysis in comparing type dichotomies to the 16PF is to look for significant differences between E and I, S and N, T and F, J and P, or to look at the interaction between 16PF scores and whole type categories. It has, however, become accepted practice to correlate MBTI continuous scores with other instruments, even though this arguably misrepresents the way in which the MBTI dichotomies work. MBTI preference scores were available for 395 people; these were used to compute continuous scores that were correlated with the 16PF scales. The results are presented in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Correlation of MBTI Continuous Scores with the 16PF

16PF Factor

E - I

S – N

T – F

J - P

A

(Warmth)

-.502 ***

.121 *

.460 ***

.102

B

(Reasoning)

-.037

.092

-.017

-.018

C

(Emotional Stability)

-.182 ***

-.039

-.234 ***

-.174 **

E

(Dominance)

-.308 ***

.049

-.249 ***

-.043

F

(Liveliness)

-.585 ***

.154 **

.160 **

.153 **

G

(Rule-consciousness)

.183 ***

-.295 ***

-.102

-.373 ***

H

(Social Boldness)

-.799 ***

.163 **

.049

.034

I

(Sensitivity)

-.090

.267 ***

.466 ***

.121 *

L

(Vigilance)

.187 ***

-.158 **

-.160 **

-.032

M (Abstractness)

.024

.481 ***

.118 *

.427 ***

N (Privateness)

.561 ***

-.072

-.261 ***

-.075

O (Apprehension)

.136 *

-.056

.336 ***

.005

Q1 (Openness to Change)

-.283 ***

.568 ***

.062

.325 ***

Q2 (Self-Reliance)

.466 ***

-.116 *

-.247 ***

-.059

Q3 (Perfectionism)

.072

-.261 ***

-.148 **

-.582 ***

Q4 (Tension)

.126 *

-.030

.004

-.036

IM (Impression Management)

-.018

-.059

.041

-.174 **

Global Extraversion

-.732 ***

.182 ***

.369 ***

.124 *

Global Anxiety

.258 ***

-.097

.147 **

.007

Global Tough-mindedness

.267 ***

-.571 ***

-.369 ***

-.369 ***

Global Independence

-.494 ***

.291 ***

-.172 ***

.167 ***

Global Self-control

.278 ***

-.453 ***

-.176 ***

-.632 ***

The highest correlates of each type dichotomy were therefore as follows:

E

– I:

H (-.80), Global. Extraversion (-.73), F (-.59), N (.56), A (.50), Global Independence (-.49), Q2 (.47)

S

– N:

Global Tough-Mindedness (-.57), Q1 (.57), M (.48), Global Self-control (-.45)

T

– F:

I (.47), A (.46)

J

– P:

Global Self-control (-.63), Q3 (-.58), M (.43)

Unsurprisingly, there is a very similar picture here to that shown by the t-tests in the previous section of this report.

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 16

February 13 th 2004

The overall pattern of results is also similar to that shown by the correlation between MBTI Form G and the 16PF5 in a student sample, referenced in both the MBTI Manual (Myers et al, 1998) and the 16PF5 Administrators Guide (Russell and Karol, 1994). There are, however, also some differences. These include:

In general, the correlations between the two questionnaires tend to be stronger for this outplacement sample than for the student sample.

For Extraversion-Introversion, this sample shows stronger relationships with Q1, Global Tough-Mindedness and Global Self-Control, but a weaker relationship with Factor C.

For Sensing-Intuition, this sample shows stronger relationships with Factors A, F and Q2, but weaker relationships with Factors B and E.

For Thinking-Feeling, this sample shows stronger relationships with Factors C, F, I, M, Q2, Global Extraversion, Global Anxiety and Global Self-Control.

For Judging-Perceiving, this sample shows stronger relationships with Factors C and Global Tough-Mindedness, but a weaker relationship with Factor N.

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 17

February 13 th 2004

The Relationship of Whole Type to the 16PF

A one-way analysis of variance showed that whole type showed a statistically significant interaction (at the 1% level or better) with all the global factors of the 16PF and with all 16 primary factors except B (reasoning), which did reach significance at the 5% level, and Q4 (tension), which was not significant. There was also no significant interaction with Impression Management.

Table 10 below shows a number of hypotheses that have been generated 13 about the relationship of whole type or combinations of letters to the 16PF and the extent to which the data supports these.

Table 10: Hypotheses about Whole Type and 16PF

Hypothesis

Results

True?

ENFJ:

High on A and I

High on both

ENTJ: Higher E than non-E- - J

Higher than most, but E- - P higher

ENTP: F+, G-, H+, I-, M+, Q1+, Q3-

I midzone, otherwise all

ESFJ:

High on A and I Higher E than -SFP A+, E+, F+, I+, L-, M-, Q2-

High on both False E low, otherwise all

ESFP: Higher Q1 than –S-J Higher Q3 than –N-P

Yes Yes (ESFP mid; -N-P very low

ESTJ:

Higher E than non E- - J Higher F than ISTJ

True except for ENTP True

-

ESTP: Higher Q1 than –S-J Higher Q3 than –N-P

False

True

INFP:

Low/Mid on A but High on I High on Q2

True

False

INTJ:

Higher M than ENTJ

True

ISFJ:

Higher E than –SFP Higher Q3 than ESFJ, ESTJ

False

True

ISFP:

Low-mid on A but high on I Higher Q1 than –S-J Higher Q3 than –N-P A+, G-, I+, L-, M-, Q1-, Q3-

False. Mid on both False True Mixed

-

ISTJ:

Higher Q3 than ESTJ, ESFJ A-, E+, F-, I-, M-, Q1-, Q2+,

Q3+

False All true except E

ISTP:

Higher Q1 than –S-J Higher Q3 than –N-P

True except for ESTJ True

Out of 25 hypotheses, 15 (60%) were supported, 2 (8%) had mixed evidence and 8 (32%) were rejected.

Table 11 overleaf shows the four “highest scoring” and the four “lowest scoring” types for each 16PF factor except Q4 and IM, with the mean sten score for each type. Looking at this table, it is remarkable how neatly type combinations relate to many of the 16PF factors. In the first line of the table, for example, the four types with the highest score on Factor A (Warmth) all have a preference for Extraversion and Feeling and the four types

13 From Rob McPherson/Lynne Hindmarch and from OPP 16PF users

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 18

February 13 th 2004

with the lowest score all have a preference for Introversion and Thinking. This is illustrated further by figure 7 on the following pages.

Table 11: Whole Type Differences on the 16PF

16PF Factor

Four “Highest” Types

Four “Lowest” Types

A

(Warmth)

ESFP (7.8), ESFJ (7.3), ENFP (7.2), ENFJ (7.0)

ISTP (4.0), INTP (4.1), ISTJ (4.2), INTJ (4.6)

B

(Reasoning)

INTP (8.9), INFJ (8.7), INTJ (8.5), ISTP (8.4)

ESFJ (7.2), ENFJ (7.3), ESTJ (7.6), ISFJ (7.7)

C

(Emotional Stability)

ESTP (7.2), ESTJ (6.9), ENTJ (6.6), ENTP (6.4)

ISFP (4.7), ISFJ (4.8), INFJ (5.0), INFP (5.3)

E

(Dominance)

ENTP (7.3), ENTJ (7.3), ESTP (7.1), ESTJ (6.9)

ISFP (4.8), INFJ (5.1), ISFJ (5.1), INFP (5.7)

F

(Liveliness)

ESFP (7.0), ENFP (6.8), ENTP (6.6), ENFJ (6.5), ESFJ (6.5)

ISTJ (4.1), ISFP (4.1), INTJ (4.5), INFJ (4.9),

G

(Rule-consciousness)

ISFJ (6.0), INFJ (6.0), ISTJ (5.8), INTJ (5.4)

ENFP (3.6), ENTP (4.0), INTP (4.0), ESFP (4.2)

H

(Social Boldness)

ENTJ (6.8), ESTJ (6.8), ENFP (6.7), ENFJ (6.7)

ISFP (3.9), ISFJ (4.1), ISTJ (4.1), ISTP (4.5)

I (Sensitivity)

INFJ (7.2), ENFP (6.5), ESFJ (6.4), INFP (6.4)

ESTP (3.9), ESTJ (4.2), ISTP (4.5), ISTJ (4.6)

L

(Vigilance)

ISTP (4.8), ISTJ (4.5), INFJ (4.4), ISFP (4.1)

ENFJ (2.6), ENTJ (3.4), ENFP (3.4), ESFP (3.4)

M (Abstractness)

ENFP (6.9), INFP (6.9), ENTP (6.1), ISFP (6.0)

ESTJ (3.5), ESFJ (3.8), ISTJ (3.9), ISFJ (4.2)

N (Privateness)

ISTP (6.2), INTP (6.1), ISTJ (5.4), ISFJ (5.3)

ENFJ (2.4), ESFP (2.8), ESFJ (3.0), ESTP (3.3)

O (Apprehension)

INFJ (7.4), ISFP (6.4), ISFJ (6.1), ESFP (6.1)

ESTP (3.8), ESTJ (4.1), ENTP (4.4), ENTJ (4.4)

Q1 (Openness to Change)

ENTP (8.2), ENFP (8.2), ENFJ (8.0), ENTJ (7.9)

ISTJ (5.5), ISFP (5.7), ISFJ (6.0), ESFJ (6.1)

Q2 (Self-Reliance)

INTP (5.7), ISFP (5.7), ISTJ (5.6), INFJ (5.6)

ESFJ (3.2), ESTJ (3.7), ENFJ (3.7), ENTP (3.8)

Q3 (Perfectionism)

ISFJ (6.0), ESFJ (5.8), ESTJ (5.8), ISTJ (5.7)

ISFP (2.9), ENTP (3.2), ENFP (3.5), INFP (3.6)

Global Extraversion

ENFJ (8.0), ESFJ (8.0), ESFP (7.8), ENFP (7.8)

ISTJ (4.4), ISTP (4.5), INTP (4.6), ISFP (4.7)

Global Anxiety

INFJ (6.1), ISFP (6.0), ISFJ (5.5), ESFJ (5.2)

ESTP (3.4), ESTJ (3.7), ENTJ (3.9), ENTP (4.0)

Global Tough-mindedness

ISTJ (6.8), ESTP (6.2), ESTJ (6.2), ISTP (5.9)

ENFP (3.0), INFP (3.6), ENFJ (3.7), INFJ (3.8)

Global Independence

ENTP (7.5), ENTJ (7.1), ESTP (6.8), ESTJ (6.7)

ISFP (4.4), ISFJ (4.6), INFJ (5.0), ISTJ (5.00)

Global Self-control

ISTJ (6.5), ISFJ (6.4), ESTJ (6.0), INTJ (5.9)

ENFP (3.2), ENTP (3.5), INFP (3.9), INTP (4.25)

Note: these results should be treated with caution, as the sample sizes for some types – notably INFJ and ISFP – are small. See table 3.

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 19

February 13 th 2004

Figure 7: The Four “Highest Scoring” and the Four “Lowest Scoring” Types for each 16 Scale (except Q4 and IM)

Scoring” Types for each 16 Scale (except Q4 and IM) Four lowest means Factor A (Warmth)

Four lowest means

Factor A (Warmth)

Scale (except Q4 and IM) Four lowest means Factor A (Warmth) Four highest means Factor B

Four highest means

Factor B (Reasoning)

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

Factor C (Emotional Stability)

 

Factor E (Dominance)

 

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

 

Factor F (Liveliness)

 

Factor G (Rule-consciousness)

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

Factor H (Social Boldness)

 

Factor I (Sensitivity)

 

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

 

Factor L (Vigilance)

 

Factor M (Abstractness)

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

 

Factor N (Privateness)

 

Factor O (Apprehension)

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 20

February 13 th 2004

Figure 7 (continued)

Figure 7 (continued) Four lowest means Factor Q1 (Openness to Change) Four highest means Factor Q2

Four lowest means

Figure 7 (continued) Four lowest means Factor Q1 (Openness to Change) Four highest means Factor Q2

Factor Q1 (Openness to Change)

Four highest means

Factor Q2 (Self-Reliance)

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

Factor Q3 (Perfectionism)

 

Global Extraversion

 

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

 

Global Anxiety

 

Global Tough-mindedness

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

 

Global Independence

 

Global Self-control

 

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

Presenting the data in this form makes it easier for MBTI users who are accustomed to referring to type tables to see what is going on, and provides a way in which continuous scores such as 16PF raw scores or stens can be mapped against whole type. A possible further refinement is shown in figure 8 below:

Figure 8: Mean of Factor A for each Type

Factor A (Warmth)

ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

In this diagram, the depth of the shading for each type is exactly related to the mean on factor A for that type. ISTPs have the lowest mean, and ESFPs the highest.

Please note:

® 16PF is a registered trade mark of the Institute for Personality & Ability testing, Inc

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 21

February 13 th 2004

® MBTI and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator are registered trade marks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust. OPP Limited is licensed to use the trademark in Europe111

Relationship of the MBTI to the 16PF5

Page 22

February 13 th 2004