More than thirty years of publishing research articles related to the theory and

applications of psychological type and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® instrument.

Journal of Psychological Type® Issue 8 AUG 08

68

“
Ns and Ps reported significantly higher self-esteem than Ss and Js.
These results provide more evidence for personality characteristics
associated with high self-esteem in adolescence.

Adolescent Self-Esteem and Psychological Type

Eva Papazova
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Psychology
”
Eliana Pencheva
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Psychology

ABSTRACT RESEARCH REVIEW

The relationship between self-esteem and psychological
type among adolescents was investigated. The type pref-
erences and self-esteem were determined by the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) instrument and the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, respectively. The sample
consisted of 573 8th-, 9th-, 10th-, and 11th-grade
students in Bulgaria. Self-esteem was higher for N and
P types and lower for S and J types. The results are
consistent with type theory and other relevant studies.
Note: For the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) instrument, the eight preference categories
are the following: Extraversion (E) versus Introversion (I), Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N), Thinking
(T) versus Feeling (F), Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P).
During the period from 1987 to 1994, there were more
than 5,000 studies on various issues concerning the self
(Banaji & Prentice, 1994). On the other hand, the stud-
ies carried out with the MBTI instrument increased
from 337 in 1976 to 5,600 in 1997, and their number
is still rising (Martin, 1997). Despite this pronounced
interest, there still remain some unresolved and much-
discussed problems connected to the two constructs in
question. This article looks at the interaction between
self-esteem and psychological type among Bulgarian
adolescents aged between 15 and 18, with the intention

Published by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type

Thomas G. Carskadon, Ph.D., Editor C A P T ®

of broadening the basis for further studies.
Self-Esteem. The literature does not offer a clear,
precise, and universally accepted definition of self-
esteem as a psychological construct. Terms used inter-
changeably with self-esteem are self-reverence, self-
acceptance, self-respect, self-regard, self-worth, self-
feeling, self-confidence, self-love, self-satisfaction,
self-evaluation, and self-appraisal (Hattie, 1992; Wells
& Marwell, 1976). Self-concept and self-esteem are often
used as synonyms. Most studies of self-concept use
self-esteem tools, whereas self-esteem
scales include items involving both
69
adolescent (DuBois, Bull, Sherman, & Roberts, 1998).
Some authors argue that global self-esteem is
on the whole stable during adolescence and slowly
increases afterwards (Harter, 1998; Wylie, 1974).
Others, however, maintain that during adolescence,
self-esteem goes through a metamorphosis (Jegede,
1982). Longitudinal studies of adolescent self-esteem
show lower self-esteem among 11 year olds, relatively
low self-esteem between 12 and 13 (because of the
transfer to a junior high school and the beginning of
puberty), and then growing and
steadily improving self-esteem until

descriptive and evaluative aspects of
the self. This inconsistency of defini-
tion helps us understand the difficulty
and even the impossibility of empiri-
cally discriminating between self-
concept and self-esteem, terms
inevitably used in practice as inter-
changeable (Shalveson & Bolus,
1982). The solution to this problem
can be found, according to researchers,
in differentiating between the opera-
tional and the descriptive (essential)
definitions of the term self- esteem
(Steffenhagen & Burns, 1987).
Adolescent Self-Esteem. During
adolescence, self-esteem is character-
“
Analyses of self-esteem
and psychological
type have found
that Extraversion,
Intuition, Thinking,
and Judging are
more often connected
with high levels of
self-esteem, whereas
Introversion, Sensing,
and Perceiving are
related to lower levels.
high school graduation (McCarthy &
Hoge, 1982). In light of these obser-
vations, strict conclusions about
adolescents’ age and self-esteem can-
not be drawn.
Many studies have found differ-
entiation of self-esteem among adoles-
cents according to gender. Compared
to boys, girls seem especially vulnera-
ble in their general level of self-esteem.
As a whole, their attitude towards
themselves is considerably more
negative and their self-esteem is
much lower (Lynch-Polce, Myers,
Kliewer, & Kilmartin, 2001; Offer &
Ostrov, 1984; Quatman & Watson,

”
ized by ambivalence of emotions and
attitudes towards oneself. Researchers
explain the phenomenon by the wide
discrepancy between the needs and the means of ado-
lescents, this discrepancy becoming the key source of
their almost incessant inner conflicts and abrupt shifts
of temper (Wolman, 1998).
In order to overcome their anxiety, their sense of
ineptitude and inferiority, and to cope with depression,
adolescents often use vulgar language, engage in van-
dalism, play truant, and indulge in alcohol and drug
abuse. Associated with low self-esteem in adolescence,
these behaviors attract special scientific attention.
Researchers have also seen manifestations of adolescent
low self-esteem in lawbreaking, poor academic per-
formance, promiscuous sex, and suicidal thoughts and
behavior (Harter, 1990; Wolman, 1998).
High self-esteem, by contrast, is associated with
good academic performance and easy social adaptation.
High self-esteem is also considered a predictor of
achieved self-identity and defined self-concept of the
2001; Silguidjian, 1998; Tiggemann,
2001). Researchers tend to explain
girls’ lower self-esteem by their
stronger inclination to conform, whereas boys seem to
be more independent from other people’s opinions
(Gordon, 1962).
Psychological Type and Self-Esteem. In psychol-
ogy, the level of global self-esteem is an extremely impor-
tant and stable personal characteristic. Global self-esteem
is correlated with almost all personal characteristics
measured through a variety of multifactorial question-
naires (e.g., MMPI, 16PF). Individuals with different
levels of self-esteem in most cases show statistically
relevant differences in their measured dispositions or
studied behavior (Wells & Marwell, 1976). Here, we can
also include the studies looking for correspondences
between global self-esteem and psychological type as
viewed by C. G. Jung (Berry & Sipps, 1991; Clark, 2000;
Guyer, 1988; Harrison, 1986; Taylor, 1990).
Jung’s theory of type (Jung, 1995) has been devel-
oped and operationalized by Katharine Cook Briggs and

Adolescent Self-Esteem and Psychological Type

 70

Table 1. Split-Half Reliabilities of the MBTI Scales in the Study Sample.

Gender S–N T–F J–P E–I

Male .65 .57 .68 .47

Female .63 .60 .74 .48

Total .63 .60 .72 .48

her daughter Isabel Briggs-Myers (Myers, McCaulley, RESULTS

Quenk, & Hammer, 1998). Studying adolescents with
the MBTI instrument, researchers have found a stronger
preference for Extraversion (E) and Perceiving (P) in
comparison to other age groups. High academic scores
and achievements, however, are characteristic of
Introversion (I), Intuition (N), and Judging (J).
Analyses of self-esteem and psychological type
have found that Extraversion, Intuition, Thinking, and
Judging are more often connected with high levels
of self-esteem, whereas Introversion, Sensing, and
Perceiving are related to lower levels (Baxter & Baxter,
1994; Golden, 1996). In addition, Introverted and
Intuitive types have more negative self-esteem related
to body self-concept and are more prone to neurosis
(Tobacyk, Wells, & Springer, 1988).
METHOD
The sample consisted of 573 adolescents aged 15 to 18
(mean age = 16.5, SD = 1.03), 203 boys and 370 girls.
All were students in Bulgarian general education high
schools.
The MBTI questionnaire, Form G, adapted for use
in Bulgaria by Pencheva (Pencheva & Kazandjiev,
The results show a satisfactory internal consistency of
the Rosenberg scale (Cronbach’s Alpha = .6) TABLE 1
gives the split-half reliabilities of the four MBTI scales in
the sample studied.
The reliability coefficients for the MBTI instrument
were lower than those obtained during the process of
adapting the questionnaire for Bulgarian populations
(N = 464; ages 17–60), which were as follows: E–I, a =
.57; S–N, a = .72; T–F, a = .63; and J–P, a = 0.76
(Pencheva & Kazandjiev, 2001). The lower reliability
coefficients can be explained by the specific character of
the sample, which consisted of adolescents only.
According to type theory, adolescents may not have well
developed and clearly articulated typological prefer-
ences, which is reflected in the systematically lower reli-
ability coefficients in the adolescent samples compared
to other age groups (Myers et al., 1998).
FIGURE 1 shows the estimated distribution of
Figure 1. Frequency Histogram of Self-Esteem
Raw Scores.
100

2001), as well as the Rosenberg scale for measuring

global self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; 80
Jhonev, 1996) were employed. Rosenberg’s scale con-
sists of 10 statements, of which 5 are positive (e.g., “I
Adolescents

60
feel I am a valuable person at least as much as the rest,”
“On the whole I am satisfied with myself”) and 5 neg-
40
ative (e.g., “From time to time I definitely feel useless,”
“Sometimes I think I am good for nothing”). Each
statement receives points according to four degrees of 20

intensity, ranging from total disagreement, disagree-

ment, agreement, to total agreement. Global self-
10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0
esteem equals the sum of the scores of the separate
Self-Esteem
items. High scores indicate low self-esteem and low
scores indicate high self-esteem (Jhonev). Std. Dev. = 3.74 Mean = 20.2 N = 573

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 68, August 2008

 71
values on the Rosenberg scale, and it is symmetrical
(normal). Most adolescents fall within the frequency
range between 16 and 24 (M = 20.2; SD = 3.74). This
frequency range corresponds to the mid (moderate) lev-
els of self-esteem. The adolescents with levels above 24
fall within the low levels of self-esteem, whereas those
below 16 fall within the high levels of self-esteem
(Jhonev, 1996).
As has already been noted, the subgroup of adoles-
cents showing mid-levels of self-esteem is the most
numerous one. The reason may be that adolescents
from the analyzed sample have a realistic concept of
themselves (rather than markedly negative or positive
ones), which is associated with healthy personal func-
tioning (Cole et al., 1967) and is expressed in a larger
number of moderate evaluations of their own personal
characteristics.
Type Preferences of Adolescents With
Low, Mid, and High Self-Esteem
Three SRTT comparisons were made between the
observed frequencies of the psychological types in the
subgroups of adolescents with high, mid, and low self-
esteem, and the distribution of psychological types in
the whole sample (Granade, Myers, & Macdaid, 1987).
The results are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4.
TABLE 2 shows the distribution of psychological
types in the subgroup of adolescents with high self-
esteem (N = 93) compared with the whole sample.
Preferences for N (I = 1.94, p < .001) and P (I = 1.47,
p < .001) were significant. The most common two-letter
types were NP (I = 2.28, p < .001), EN (I = 2.27,
p < .001), EP (I = 1.97, p < .001), NF (I = 1.95,
p < .001), NT (I = 1.93, p < .001), and FP (I = 1.54,
p < .01). The significantly overrepresented four-letter
types were ENFP (I = 2.77, p < .001), ENTP (I = 2.35,
p < .01), and ENTJ (I = 2.05, p < .05).
As TABLE 3 (SEE PAGE 73.) shows, preferences for I
(I = 1.06, p < .05), J (I = 1.07, p < .01), and S (I = 1.06,
p < .05) were significant for the subgroup of adolescents
with mid self-esteem (N = 396). The most common
two-letter types were SJ (I = 1.09, p < .001), SF (I =
1.09, p < .05), IS (I = 1.08, p < .05), and EJ (I = 1.07,
p < .05). The four-letter types ESFJ (I = 1.19, p < .05)
and ISTJ (I = 1.15, p < .05) were overrepresented.
TABLE 4 (SEE PAGE 74.) for the subgroup of adoles-
cents with low self-esteem (N = 84) shows that ESTP
(I = 3.10, p < .01) and INFP (I = 2.73; p < .05) were
significantly overrepresented.
Adolescent Self-Esteem and Psychological Type
Correlations Between MBTI Continuous
Scores and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scores
A weak, but statistically significant, inverse correlation
was found between “global self-esteem” and S–N
continuous scores (r = -.108, p < .01). Thus, with an
increase in self-esteem, the S–N continuous scores also
rise slightly, the high self-esteem scores being connected
to Intuition, with the low scores connected to Sensing.
In addition, there was a weak, but statistically
significant, inverse correlation (r = -.135, p < .01)
between “global self-esteem” and the J–P continuous
scores. With increased self-esteem, the values of the J–P
continuous scores go up slightly, the higher values of
self-esteem being connected to P, the lower ones to J.
Type Preferences, Age, Gender, and Self-
Esteem of Adolescents—Results of the
ANOVA
Global self-esteem is significantly related to the S–N
scale (F = 8.067, p < .01). Higher self-esteem corre-
sponds to N, whereas lower self-esteem corresponds
to S. Age also influences the statistical parameters of
adolescent global self-esteem (F = 11.303, p < .001).
Increasing age leads to increased adolescent global
self-esteem. Gender was not statistically related to
adolescent global self-esteem.
DISCUSSION
A typological pattern has been delineated that corre-
sponds to high, middle, and low levels of adolescent
global self-esteem. High self-esteem corresponds to N,
P, NP, EN, EP, NF, NT, FP, ENFP, and ENTP. These type
preferences are marked by conviviality and sociability,
concentration on the future, optimism, love for innova-
tion, artistic bent, creativity, flexible and adaptive style
of life, and capability of attracting and organizing peo-
ple into actions aimed at change (Martin, 1997; Myers
et al., 1998). These are the possible indicators of ado-
lescent high self-esteem within the sample.
Adolescent mid self-esteem corresponds to I, S, J,
SJ, SF, IS, EJ, ESFJ, and ISTJ. These type characteristics
are distinguished by a tendency towards what is actual,
real, and pragmatic, a preference for a planned or orderly
way of life, solitary activities and reflection on ideas,
tactfulness towards others and exquisite sensitivity to
feedback, and a tendency to rely on past experience and
traditions, which are the possible indicators of adoles-
cent mid self-esteem (Martin, 1997; Myers et al., 1998)
The only types associated with low self-esteem
were ESTP and INFP. These types can be characterized
 72

Table 2. Adolescent High Self-Esteem Compared to Whole Sample.

The Sixteen Complete Types Dichotomous Preferences

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E 60 (64.5%) I = 1.12
n=7 n = 11 n=3 n=0 I 33 (35.5%) I = 0.84
(7.5%) (11.8%) (3.2%) (0.0%)
I = 0.63 I = 1.08 I = 1.68 I = 0.00 S 48 (51.6%) ***I = 0.69
+++++ +++++ +++ N 45 (48.4%) ***I = 1.94
+++ +++++
++ T 44 (47.3%) I = 0.93
F 49 (52.7%) I = 1.07

J 41 (44.1%) ***I = 0.71

P 52 (55.9%) ***I = 1.47
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
n=4 n=4 n=0 n=4
Pairs and Temperaments
(4.3%) (4.3%) (0.0%) (4.3%) IJ 21 (22.6%) I= 0.87
I = 0.70 I = 0.68 I = 1.00 I = 2.05 IP 12 (12.9%) I= 0.80
++++ ++++ ++++ EP 40 (43.0%) ***I = 1.97
EJ 20 (21.5%) **I = 0.60

ST 24 (25.8%) **I = 0.65

SF 24 (25.8%) *I = 0.72
NF 25 (26.9%) ***I = 1.95
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
NT 20 (21.5%) ***I = 1.93
n=4 n=6 n = 22 n=8
(4.3%) (6.5%) (23.7%) (8.6%) SJ 30 (32.3%) ***I = 0.61
I = 1.12 I = 1.12 I = 2.77*** I = 2.35** SP 18 (19.4%) I = 0.88
++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ NP 34 (36.6%) ***I = 2.28
+ + +++++ ++++ NJ 11 (11.8%) I = 1.33
+++++
+++++ TJ 24 (25.8%) *I = 0.74
++++ TP 20 (21.5%) I = 1.37
FP 32 (34.4%) **I = 1.54
FJ 17 (18.3%) *I = 0.68

IN 7 (07.5%) I = 1.08
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ EN 38 (40.9%) ***I = 2.27
n=9 n=3 n=0 n=8 IS 26 (28.0%) I = 0.79
(9.7%) (3.2%) (0.0%) (8.6%) ES 22 (23.7%) ***I = 0.59
I = 0.55* I = 0.26 I = 0.00 I = 2.05*
+++++ +++ +++++ ET 29 (31.2%) I = 1.06
+++++ ++++ EF 31 (33.4%) I = 1.17
IF 18 (19.4%) I = 0.92
IT 15 (16.1%) I = 0.76

n % Index n % Index n % Index

Jungian Types (E) Jungian Types (I) Dominant Types

E–TJ 17 18.3 0.84 I–TP 8 8.6 1.05 Dt. T 25 26.9 0.90

E–FJ 3 3.2 0.23 I–FP 4 4.3 0.54 Dt. F 7 7.5 0.34***
ES–P 10 10.8 1.12 IS–J 18 19.4 0.85 Dt. S 28 30.1 0.93
EN–P 30 32.3 2.64*** IN–J 3 3.2 1.03 Dt. N 33 35.5 2.31***

N = 93 + = 1% of N I = Selection Ratio Index *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001

Eva Papazova and Eliana Pencheva

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 68, August 2008

 73

Table 3. Adolescent Mid Self-Esteem Compared to Whole Sample.

The Sixteen Complete Types Dichotomous Preferences

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E 218 (55.1%) *I = 0.95
n = 54 n = 42 n=8 n=5 I 178 (45.0%) *I = 1.06
(13.6%) (10.6%) (2.0%) (1.3%)
I = 1.15* I = 0.96 I = 1.05 I = 1.03 S 316 (79.8%) ***I = 1.06
+++++ +++++ ++ + N 80 (20.2%) ***I = 0.81
+++++ +++++
++++ + T 199 (50.3%) I = 0.99
F 197 (49.7%) I = 1.01

J 262 (66.2%) **I = 1.07

P 134 (33.8%) **I = 0.89
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
n = 25 n = 30 n=6 n=8
Pairs and Temperaments
(6.3%) (7.6%) (1.5%) (2.0%) IJ 109 (27.5%) I= 1.06
I = 1.03 I = 1.21 I = 0.87 I = 0.96 IP 69 (17.4%) I= 1.07
+++++ +++++ ++ ++ EP 65 (16.4%) ***I = 0.75
+ +++ EJ 153 (38.6%) *I = 1.07

ST 162 (40.9%) I = 1.04

SF 154 (38.9%) *I = 1.09
NF 43 (10.9%) **I = 0.79
NT 37 (09.3%) *I = 0.84
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
n=8 n = 23 n = 23 n = 11 SJ 230 (58.1%) ***I = 1.09
(2.0%) (5.8%) (5.8%) (2.8%) SP 86 (21.7%) I = 0.99
I = 0.53*** I = 1.01 I = 0.68*** I = 0.76 NP 48 (12.1%) ***I = 0.75
++ +++++ +++++ +++ NJ 32 (08.1%) I = 0.91
+ +
TJ 147 (37.1%) I = 1.06
TP 52 (13.1%) *I = 0.84
FP 82 (20.7%) I = 0.93
FJ 115 (29.0%) I = 1.07
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
n = 75 n = 59 n=6 n = 13 IN 27 (06.8%) I = 0.98
(18.9%) (14.9%) (1.5%) (3.3%) EN 53 (13.4%) ***I = 0.74
I = 1.07 I = 1.19* I = 0.96 I = 0.78 IS 151 (38.1%) *I = 1.08
+++++ +++++ ++ +++ ES 165 (41.7%) I = 1.05
+++++ +++++
+++++ +++++ ET 107 (27.0%) I = 0.92
++++ EF 111 (28.0%) I = 0.99
IF 86 (21.7%) I = 1.04
IT 92 (23.2%) I = 1.09

n % Index n % Index n % Index

Jungian Types (E) Jungian Types (I) Dominant Types

E–TJ 88 22.2 1.02 I–TP 33 8.3 1.02 Dt. T 121 30.6 1.02
E–FJ 65 16.4 1.16* I–FP 36 9.1 1.13 Dt. F 101 25.5 1.15**
ES–P 31 7.8 0.82* IS–J 96 24.2 1.06 Dt. S 127 32.1 0.99
EN–P 34 8.6 0.70*** IN–J 13 3.3 1.05 Dt. N 47 11.9 0.77***

N = 396 + = 1% of N I = Selection Ratio Index *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001

Eva Papazova and Eliana Pencheva

Adolescent Self-Esteem and Psychological Type

 74

Table 4. Adolescent Low Self-Esteem Compared to Whole Sample.

The Sixteen Complete Types Dichotomous Preferences

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E 53 (63.1%) I = 1.09
n=7 n = 10 n=0 n=2 I 31 (36.9%) I = 0.87
(8.3%) (11.9%) (0.0%) (2.4%)
I = 0.70 I = 1.08 I = 0.00 I = 1.95 S 66 (78.6%) I = 1.05
+++++ +++++ ++ N 18 (21.4%) I = 0.86
+++ +++++
++ T 47 (56.0%) I = 1.11
F 37 (44.1%) I = 0.89

J 52 (61.9%) I = 1.00
P 32 (38.1%) I = 1.00
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
n=6 n=2 n=4 n=0
Pairs and Temperaments
(7.1%) (2.4%) (4.8%) (0.0%) IJ 19 (22.6%) I = 0.87
I = 1.17 I = 0.38 I = 2.73 I = 0.00 IP 12 (14.3%) I = 0.88
+++++ ++ +++++ EP 20 (23.8%) I = 1.09
++ EJ 33 (39.3%) I = 1.09

ST 40 (47.6%) I = 1.21
SF 26 (31.0%) I = 0.87
NF 11 (13.1%) I = 0.95
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
NT 7 (08.3%) I = 0.75
n = 10 n=4 n=4 n=2
(11.9%) (4.8%) (4.8%) (2.4%) SJ 44 (52.4%) I = 0.99
I = 3.10*** I = 0.83 I = 0.56 I = 0.65 SP 22 (26.2%) I = 1.19
+++++ +++++ +++++ ++ NP 10 (11.9%) I = 0.74
+++++ NJ 8 (09.5%) I = 1.07
++
TJ 29 (34.5%) I = 0.99
TP 18 (21.4%) I = 1.36
FP 14 (16.7%) I = 0.75
FJ 23 (27.4%) I = 1.01
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
n = 17 n = 10 n=3 n=3 IN 6 (07.1%) I = 1.02
(20.2%) (11.9%) (3.6%) (3.6%) EN 12 (14.3%) I = 0.79
I = 1.15 I = 0.95 I = 2.27 I = 0.85 IS 25 (29.8%) I = 0.84
+++++ +++++ ++++ ++++ ES 41 (48.8%) I = 1.23
+++++ +++++
+++++ ++ ET 32 (38.1%) I = 1.30
+++++ EF 21 (25.0%) I = 0.88
IF 16 (19.0%) I = 0.91
IT 15 (17.9%) I = 0.84

n % Index n % Index n % Index

Jungian Types (E) Jungian Types (I) Dominant Types

E–TJ 20 23.8 1.09 I–TP 6 7.1 0.87 Dt. T 26 31.0 1.03

E–FJ 13 15.5 1.09 I–FP 6 7.1 0.89 Dt. F 19 22.6 1.02
ES–P 14 16.7 1.74* IS–J 17 20.2 0.89 Dt. S 31 36.9 1.14
EN–P 6 7.1 0.58 IN–J 2 2.4 0.76 Dt. N 8 9.5 0.62

N = 84 + = 1% of N I = Selection Ratio Index *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001

Eva Papazova and Eliana Pencheva

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 68, August 2008

 75
as tolerant and open to a variety of experiences and
people and may not feel a need for structure and fol-
low-through in life. On the other hand, INFPs can also
be distinguished as caring, warm, and deeply valuing
relationships because commitment, loyalty, and love are
often of great importance to them (Martin, 1997; Myers
et al., 1998).
The concentration on future possibilities, con-
nected with innovation and change, optimism, discov-
ering creative potential, conviviality, and sociability are
the factors that the present study connects with high
self-esteem in adolescents. The higher values of self-
esteem are related to N and P, whereas the lower ones
correspond to S and J.
The affinity characteristic of N types for working
with abstract information in the realm of possibilities
and hypotheses, which in adolescence is a predictor of
high grades in all subjects (Myers et al., 1998) and of
high self-esteem (Baxter & Baxter, 1994; DuBois et al.,
1998; Golden, 1996), proved to be a predictor in the
present sample, also. A preference for concrete and
confined-to-the-facts information, which is characteris-
tic of S types, is not considered to be a predictor of
high grades in school and high self-esteem in adoles-
cence, and it was related to mid self-esteem among the
adolescents studied.
Adolescent Self-Esteem and Psychological Type
The orientation towards finding and receiving
information of P types, inclined towards a spontaneous,
unorganized, and flexible way of life, which during ado-
lescence manifests itself in independence, self-reliance,
and autonomy from adults, was associated with high
self-esteem. The preference for P is characteristic of ado-
lescent samples in general (Myers et al., 1998). Hence it
was not surprising that the adolescents’ less valued pref-
erence for J was paralleled with mid levels of self-esteem.
The older adolescents from the present study
(aged 17–18) demonstrated higher self-esteem than the
younger ones (aged 15–16). These results corroborate
the data of the longitudinal studies of adolescent self-
esteem, which show increasing and systematically
improving self-esteem from 13 to 18 years of age
(McCarthy & Hoge, 1982). The girls had no lower
self-esteem than the boys, which does not confirm the
relationship observed in other studies.
Self-esteem in adolescence is a theme that will
continue to excite researchers with its many facets.
Viewed in the context of the adolescent type prefer-
ences, it becomes essentially topical. The present study
stressed the universal aspects of adolescent self-esteem,
rather than particular or isolated features, which might
be determined by a number of factors other than
personality type.
 76
REFERENCES
Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). The self in social contexts.
Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 297–332.
Baxter, S. R., & Baxter, W. D. (1994). Student MBTI type-characteristic
behavior: Correlations with the Adjective Checklist; and
teacher and school psychologist judgment of social accept-
ance and emotional health. In Orchestrating educational change
in the 90’s: The role of psychological type (pp. 305–319).
Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.
Berry, G. W., & Sipps, G. J. (1991). Interactive effects of counselor-
client similarity and client self-esteem on termination type
and number of sessions. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
38(2), 120–125.
Clark, P. C. (2000). Self-esteem and type. Bulletin of Psychological
Type, 23(3), 1, 3–4.
Cole, C., Oetting, E. R., & Hinkle, J. (1967). Non-linearity of self-
concept discrepancy—the value dimension. Psychological
Reports, 21, 58–60.
DuBois, D., Bull, C., Sherman, M. D., & Roberts, M. (1998). Self-
esteem and adjustment in early adolescence: A social-contex-
tual perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 557–
583.
Golden, B. J. (1996). Self-esteem and psychological type:
Definitions, interactions, and expressions. In Proceedings of
the Second Biennial International Conference on Education (pp.
401–404). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of
Psychological Type.
Gordon, L. (1962). Human development: From birth through adoles-
cence. Gainesville, FL: The University of Florida.
Granade, J. G., Myers, I. B., & Macdaid, G. P. (1987). Selection
Ratio Type Table program [PC programming and documen-
tation]. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of
Psychological Type. (Original work published 1976)
Guyer, L. K. (1988). Relationships among self-esteem, psychologi-
cal type and weight history as a basis for individualizing
instruction in successful weight-reduction and maintenance.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(11), 3275A. (UMI No.
AAC88-17795)
Harrison, M. E. (1986). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a
supervisional tool to enhance self-esteem in clinical pastoral
education students. Masters Abstracts International, 25(02),
159. (UMI No. AAC13-29024)
Harter, S. (1990). Self and identity development. In S. Feldman &
G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescents
(pp. 156–166). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harter, S. (1998). Relational self-worth: Differences in perceived
worth as a person across interpersonal contexts among ado-
lescents. Child Development, 69, 756–766.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jegede, R. O. (1982). A cross-sectional study of self-concept devel-
opment in Nigerian adolescents. Journal of Psychology, 110,
249–261.
Jhonev, S. (1996). Social psychology (Vol. 2). Sofia, Bulgaria: Sofy—
R.
Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 68, August 2008
Jung, C. G. (1995). Psychological types. Sofia, Bulgaria: St. Kliment
Ohridski University Press. (Orginal work published 1921)
Lynch-Polce, M., Myers, B., Kliewer, W., & Kilmartin, C. (2001).
Adolescent self-esteem and gender: Exploring relations to
sexual harassment, body image, media influence, and emo-
tional expression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2),
225–244.
Martin, C. R. (1997). Looking at type: The fundamentals. Gainesville,
FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.
McCarthy, J., & Hoge, D. (1982). Analysis of age effects in longitu-
dinal studies of adolescent self-esteem. Developmental
Psychology, 18, 372–379.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L.
(1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the
Myers-Briggs type indicator (3rd ed.) Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Offer, D., & Ostrov, E. (1984). Patterns of adolescent self-image. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Pencheva, E., & Kazandjiev, R. (2001). Bulgarian translation of
MBTI materials: Problems and solutions. In Psychological type
and culture—East & West: A multicultural research conference.
Program and proceedings (pp. 73–79). Gainesville, FL:
Center for Applications of Psychological Type.
Quatman, T., & Watson, C. (2001). Gender differences in adoles-
cent self-esteem: An exploration of domains. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 162(1), 93–118.
Silguidjian, H. (1998). Self-concept and psycho-social identity: The life
transition to maturity. Sofia, Bulgaria: St. Kliment Ohridski
University Press.
Shavelson, R. J., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of
theory and methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,
3–17.
Steffenhagen, R. A., & Burns, J. D. (1987). The social dynamics of
self-esteem: Theory to therapy. New York: Praeger.
Taylor, F. L. (1990). The influence of an outdoor adventure recre-
ation class on the personality type, locus-of-control, self-
esteem, and selected issues of identity development of
college students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 (04),
1122A. (UMI No. AAC90-21974)
Tiggemann, M. (2001). The impact of adolescent girls’ life con-
cerns and leisure activities on body dissatisfaction, disor-
dered eating, and self-esteem. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
162(2), 133–143.
Tobacyk, J. J., Wells, D. H., & Springer, T. P. (1988). Jungian type
and self-concept in junior high school students at high risk
for dropout. Journal of Psychological Type, 16, 47–53.
Wells, L. E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its Conceptualisation
and Measurement. London: London Sage publications.
Wolman, B. B. (1998). Adolescence: Biological and psychosocial per-
spectives. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept. A review of methodological con-
siderations and measuring instruments (rev. ed.). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
 77
Eva Papazova, Ph.D. (INFP) is a research fellow in the department of Personality and Genetic Psychology at the
Institute of Psychology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. She is the author of 18 publications, 9 of them in the area of
MBTI® research, 4 in English. Her dissertation is on psychological type and adolescent self-esteem in which five
samples with different ethnic origins in Bulgaria are compared.

Eliana Pencheva, Ph.D. (INFJ) is an associate professor in Educational and Developmental Psychology and senior
researcher in the department of Personality and Genetic Psychology at the Institute of Psychology, Bulgarian Academy
of Sciences. She also teaches courses at Sofia University “Saint Kliment Ohridski.” Eliana Pencheva is a licensed prac-
titioner for the MBTI® (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®) instrument and a CEECAP (Central and Eastern European
Center for Applied Psychology) Director for Bulgaria. She is the author of 90 publications, 19 of them in the area of MBTI
research, 5 in English. Her latest book, Psychological Typology and Educational Practice, on psychological type and Bulgarian
educators, compares them with two other samples, the general Bulgarian population and American educators.

C O N TA C T
Eva Papazova, Ph.D.
Research Fellow
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Psychology
Akad. G. Bonchev Street, bl.6
1113 Sofia
Bulgaria
Phone & Fax: 359 2 870-32-17
Email: papazovae@hotmail.com

This Journal is being made available through the collaborative efforts of Dr. Tom Carskadon, Editor of the Journal of Psychological Type, and
the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc., CAPT, worldwide publisher. Dr. B. Michael Thorne serves as Executive Editor of the
Journal of Psychological Type.

Journal of Psychological Type is a trademark or registered trademark of Thomas G. Carskadon in the United States and other countries.

CAPT is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the meaningful application and ethical use of psychological type as measured through the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in
the United States and other countries.

Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. and CAPT are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Center for Applications of
Psychological Type in the United States and other countries.

Copyright © 2008 by Thomas G. Carskadon, Editor.

ISSN 0895-8750.

Adolescent Self-Esteem and Psychological Type