Self-Monitoring and Social Desirability as Factors Associated with Discrepancy Between Indicated Type and True Type on t...

Permanent Link:

Material Information

Title: Self-Monitoring and Social Desirability as Factors Associated with Discrepancy Between Indicated Type and True Type on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Filippi, Katherine
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2009
Publication Date: 2009


Subjects / Keywords: Personality
Personality Type
Social Desirability
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) consistently indicates the type preferences of the majority of people, but many feel that their "indicated type" (the type preferences as identified by the Myers Briggs Type Indicator) does not reflect their true type preferences. This study examined type discrepancy (the amount of difference between indicated and true type) in relation to social desirability and self-monitoring to determine whether these two forms of self-presentation would predict levels of type discrepancy. College students (N=187) at a small liberal arts college indicated their type preferences using the MBTI and then the Best-Fit Questionnaire (a written measure in which respondents read descriptions of each of the four dimensions of the MBTI and then select the type which they feel is the "best fit" for themselves, or closest to their "true type"). They then took the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the 18-item Self- Monitoring Scale. A majority of the sample (N=123) had discrepancies between their indicated and best-fit type. However, social desirability and self-monitoring were not found to predict type discrepancy in the sample. Implications of the results and directions for future research are discussed.
Statement of Responsibility: by Katherine Filippi
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2009
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Barton, Michelle

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2009 F4
System ID: NCFE004093:00001

Permanent Link:

Material Information

Title: Self-Monitoring and Social Desirability as Factors Associated with Discrepancy Between Indicated Type and True Type on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Filippi, Katherine
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2009
Publication Date: 2009


Subjects / Keywords: Personality
Personality Type
Social Desirability
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) consistently indicates the type preferences of the majority of people, but many feel that their "indicated type" (the type preferences as identified by the Myers Briggs Type Indicator) does not reflect their true type preferences. This study examined type discrepancy (the amount of difference between indicated and true type) in relation to social desirability and self-monitoring to determine whether these two forms of self-presentation would predict levels of type discrepancy. College students (N=187) at a small liberal arts college indicated their type preferences using the MBTI and then the Best-Fit Questionnaire (a written measure in which respondents read descriptions of each of the four dimensions of the MBTI and then select the type which they feel is the "best fit" for themselves, or closest to their "true type"). They then took the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the 18-item Self- Monitoring Scale. A majority of the sample (N=123) had discrepancies between their indicated and best-fit type. However, social desirability and self-monitoring were not found to predict type discrepancy in the sample. Implications of the results and directions for future research are discussed.
Statement of Responsibility: by Katherine Filippi
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2009
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Barton, Michelle

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2009 F4
System ID: NCFE004093:00001

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


Self Monitoring and Social Desirability as Factors Associated with Discrepancy Between Indicated Type and True Type on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator By Katherine Filippi A Thesis submitted to the Division of Social Sciences New College of Florida, 2009 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Arts under the sponsorship of Professor Michelle Barton Sarasota, Florida January, 2009


Self Presentation of Type ii Dedicated to Mom and Chris ithout you


Self Presentation of Type iii Acknowledgments First and foremost, I have to thank my professor and thesis sponsor, Dr. Michelle Barton, for all of her time, patience, and help; I literally could not have finished this project if she had not be so wonderful and helpful. Next, I ha ve to thank my roommates, Chris, Brit, and Dano for putting up with me while I was going crazy and having major mood swings because of my thesis. I also have to thank both my roommates and my friends Patrick Marjorie and Katie for listening to me spo ut p ersonality type jargon and acting like they understood me. I also really have to thank my Mom and Chris, who were both instrumental in keeping me on track, keeping me sane, and in proofreading and helping me edit the full thesis. I thank you guys so much f or that. I also have to thank Jamie Johnson, the librarian at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type for all of her help in finding data and studies related to my topic. Her help was instrumental in finding any information on socioeconomic stat us, as well as finding much of the information I found on race. Thank you, Jamie. Also I have to thank my Bacc Committee of Professors Michelle Barton, Char Callahan, and Heidi Harley for being willing to wait for me to finish the thesis, for reading my t hesis, for listening to me at my Bacc, and for being so supportive Finally, thank you to anyone that I talked to during the two years I have been working on this project and to all of the participants who took my survey I truly appreciate the encouraging words, the time you spent listening to me work through my ideas and taking my rather long survey and the ideas you all suggested to me. Thank You, Kat Filippi


Self Presentation of Type iv Table of Contents Page Dedication ii Acknowledgments i ii List of Tab les and Appendices v Abstract vi Review of the Literature 1 Trait Theory 1 Type Theory 2 Type Research 7 Issue of True Types 10 Social Desirability 16 Self Monitoring 19 Current Study 22 Method 23 Participants 23 Materials 24 Myers Brigg s Type Indicator 24 Best fit Type 25 Self M onitoring 25 Social Desirability 2 6 Demographics 26 Debriefing Materials 27 Procedure 27 Data Analysis 28 Results 29 Type Discrepancy 29 Type Discrepancy and Self Presentation 30 Type Discrepancy and Typ e Preferences 30 Type Discrepancy and Demographic Variables 32 Self Presentation 32 Type Preferences and Demographic Variables 33 Discussion 34 Type Discrepancy 34 Self Presentation and Type 38 Type Distribution and Concerns with the Sample 40 Futur e Directions and Conclusions 43 Tables 46 Figures 59 Appendices 63 References 83


Self Presentation of Type v List of Tables and Appendices Table s Page 1. Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by MBTI Indicated Type and Reported Best Fit Type 4 6 2. Frequency (and Percent) of P articipants by Type Discrepancy and Self Presentation 4 7 3. Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Type Discrepancy and MBTI Indicated Type 4 8 4. Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Type Discrepancy and Reported Best Fit Type 4 9 5. Frequen cy (and Percent) of Participants by Type Discrepancy and Demographic Variables 5 0 6. Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Social Desirability and MBTI Indicated Type 5 1 7. Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Social Desirability and Report ed Best Fit Type 5 2 8. Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Social Desirability and Demographic Variables 5 3 9. Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Self Monitoring and MBTI Indicated Type 5 4 10. Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Self Monitoring and Reported Best Fit Type 5 5 11. Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Self Monitoring and Demographic Variables 5 6 12. Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by MBTI Indicated Type and Demographic Variables 5 7 13. Frequency (an d Percent) of Participants by Reported Best Fit Type and Demographic Variables 5 8 Appendices A. Best Fit Questionnaire 5 9 B. Self Monitoring Scale 6 4 C. Marlowe Cr owne Social Desirability Scale 6 6 D. Demographic Questions 6 8 E. Type Results Handout 6 0 F. Informed Consent 6 2 G. Type Tables 6 5


Self Presentation of Type vi Self Monitoring and Social Desirability as Factors Associated with Discrepancy Between Indicated Type and True Type on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator Katherine Filippi New College of Florida, 2009 ABSTRACT The M yers Briggs Type Indicator (M BTI ) consistently indicate s the type preferences of the majority of people but many feel that their "indicated type" (the type preferences as identified by the Myers Briggs Type Indicator) does not reflect their true typ e preferences. This study examined type discrepancy (the amount of difference between indicated and true type) in relation to social desirability and self monitoring to determine whether these two forms of self presentation would predict levels of type dis crepancy. College students (N=187) at a small liberal arts college indicated their type preferences using the MBTI and then the Best Fit Questionnaire (a written measure in which respondents read descriptions of each of the four dimensions of the MBTI and Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the 18 item Self Monitoring Scale. A majority of the sample (N=123) had discrepancies between their indicated and best fit type. However, social desirability and self monitoring were not found to predict type discrepancy in the sample. Implications of the results and directions for future research are discussed. Michelle Barton Socia l Sciences


Self Monitoring and Social Desirability as Factors Associated with Discrepancy Between Indicated Type and True Type on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator Personality is a term with many definitions but which generally describes the characteristics or patter (Mischel, 1999) Personality is what makes individuals different from one another, and knowledge of personality will t (Mischel, 1999, p. 4) In order to understand and predict behavior, psychologists must ensure that they identify correctly, but they are not always successful. One example of this is that, though the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has been shown to be both reliable and valid for many varied cultures ( Myers, McCaulley, Quenck, & Hammer, 2003 ) African Americans are significantly more likely to disagree with the results of the Inv entory than are Caucasian Americans (Levy Murphy, & Carlson, 1972 ; Battle, 1991; Demoran, 1996 ). This thesis will attempt to discover potential reasons for th is type of inconsistent measurement when using the MBTI To do so, it is necessary to explore per sonality theory with a focus on type theory, to examine the existing research on the problem in question, and to postulate about likely causes of inconsistent behaviors on self reports, specifically self monitoring and socially desirable response sets. Tr ait Theory There are many different theories in psychology about exactly how personality should be studied (Mischel, 1999; Reynierse, 2000; Jung, 1971) One of the more commonly used personality theories is Trait Theory. According to the Trait Theory of pe rsonality individuals are a composite of a set of characteristics or which guide their actions (Mischel, 1999 ). Traits are used both in everyday language and psychology research to describe and account for


Self Presentation of Type 2 consistenc y in one behavi or across situations and differences between many s in a single situation. Many trait theories put a single trait on a continuous scale such that an individual displays a lot or a little of a specific trait (like friendliness) (Mischel 1999) In contr a st, the most commonly used personality trait measures set two opposing traits (like introverted and extroverted) on a single continuous scale (McCrae & Costa, 1992; Eysenck, 2000). Most trait theorists differentiate between the multitude of traits that describe specific behaviors and the basic or core traits that are the underlying dimension s behind them ( Mi s chel, 1999). However, there is debate about the number and nature of the basic traits. For example, Eysenck (2000) found three main t rait dimensions: Extraversion Neuroticism and Ps y choticism, while Cattell (1956) found 16 separate trait factors Regardless of how many traits are found they are viewed as stable across time and situations, and are believed to influence various behavior s in consistent ways (Zhang, 2007) Type Theory Type Theory was first conceived of by Carl G. Jung (1971) and then further developed by Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers (Myers, et al. 2003). Type Theory is similar to Trait Theory in that it examines the underlying personality traits of individuals in order to gain insight into and predict the behaviors of the individual. However, trait theories view traits as a continuum between two opposing traits or a single trait that an individual displays to a high o r low degree. Typologies, on the other hand, view individuals as preferring either one trait or the other in a pair of opposite traits (Mischel, 1999 ) ; r ather than trying to quantify individual personalities by a multitude of traits, Type Theory focuses on sorting individuals by qualitative differences in personality types (Scanlon, 1998; Myers et al., 2003). Pr ior to his work with types, Carl G. Jung studied personality under Sigmund Freud. In


Self Presentation of Type 3 this context, Jung was able to observe the disagreements that o ther psychologists had with Freud's theories and the reasons behind those disagreements (Bennet, 1967) Jung noticed that Freud based his theories on things external to the self, while many of th os e who disagreed with Freud based their theories on internal processes. Thus was Jung's theory of introverted and extraverted psychological types first conceived (Jung, 1971; Bennet, 1967). Further observation led to a theory which involved two basic attitudes or orientations and four basic functions, creating toge ther eight basic types (Jung, 1971; Myers et al 2003). Jung's basic attitudes were the Introverted and Extraverted attitudes. The attitudes are differentiated by the direction of one's conscious orientation to the world (Bennet, 1967; Myers et al 2003 ). Introverts are oriented toward their inner world and place their focus on the subjective, the self, the conscious ego. Extraverts are oriented toward the external world and place their focus on the external and objective, sometimes to the point of ignor ing the subjective experience. Jung described his types according to the conscious and unconscious self; he felt that the unconscious self was the reverse of the conscious self (Jung, 1971). Accordingly, an introvert consciously focuses on the subjective, but unconsciously focuse s on the object Conversely, t he extravert consciously focuses on the object, but unconsciously focuses on the subjective. Since the unconscious is repressed in this conception, if the unconscious self gains to o much power over the individual then the introvert may become obsessive and fearful of external objects, while the extravert may become selfish and egocentric (Jung, 1971). Jung (1971) additionally spoke of four functions, Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, and Intuition, that gui de an individual's attention. Thinking and Feeling are the Rational Types, describing methods of judgment, whereas Sensation and Intuition are the Irrational Types, describing methods of perception. Each function can be either Extraverted or Introverted an d Dominant or Unconscious, but everyone uses all four functions to some degree (Jung, 1971;


Self Presentation of Type 4 Myers et al., 2003). The rational types are characterized by the value they place on reasoning and judg ment Everything individuals of th e rational type consciously and intentionally do is done following reason, and anything irrational or accidental is deliberately avoided. To the Introverted rational type, objects are simply a stimulus for subjective analysis; to the extraverted rational type, objects are the purpos e and the focus of objective analysis (Jung, 1971). The thinking function generally refers to all logical and factual thought and the decisions, judgments, and conclusions derived from them. Thinkers are analytical, equal minded, and objective; they strive for truth On the other hand, Feeling types make decisions based on value judgments; these value judgments appear as stable and important to Feelers as facts do to Thinkers. Feelers are empathetic, tolerant, and gen erally approachable; they want to achieve harmony in their interactions and (Jung, 1971; Rogers, 1997; Myers, 1998 ). The irrational types are governed by the intensity of their perception. They are called irrational because their perception is directed by events as they happen; they have no control over, or desire to control, what is perceived. Sensation is guided by the five senses and its focus is the experience of these sensations. Th e sensing type trie s to live life (the internal or the external life) to the fullest, and experience as much as possible, though they may not make use of that experience beyond the sensation of it. Intuition is an inherently unconscious process which is represented in consci ousness as expectancy, vision, or penetration. Dominant Intuition is an active creative process which functions to portray images or perceptions of relations between objects. The intuitive see s the possibilities in every current state but "always stop s at perception; perception is his main problem... and [shapes] his perception" (Jung, 1971, p 401). Intuitives focus on the new and unexplored ; th is type quickly perc ei ve s underlying processes,


Self Presentation of Type 5 causes, or possibilities, but may not make the connection between ob ject and subject (Jung, 1971; K e i rsey & Bates, 1984 ; Myers et al., 2003 ). Perhaps the greatest benefit of Jung's typology is that it describes eight equally valuable types (Scanlon, 1998) each of which h as equally positive and negative aspects (Jung, 1 971; Myers et al 2003 ). The preference for one type or the other is often likened to the preference for writing with the left or right hand; neither is better or worse than the other, but simply a natural inborn trait (Myers et al 2003 ; Keirsey & Bates 1984 ). This idea was revolutionary at the time that Jung developed it (Keirsey & Bates, 1984 ) and is still rare today when the "Big Five" (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ( Hathaway & McKinley 1989) describe pers onality as having more or less of specific positive or negative traits. For instance, where Type Theory describes the opposite of Extraversion as Introversion, a focus on the private, inner world, the Big Five describes the opposite of Extraversion as a pa ssive, unfeeling loner (Scanlon, 1998 ). Also of benefit is that each type has the potential to be developed in vastly different ways for each individual while still displaying the core characteristics of the type (Jung, 1971; Keirsey & Bates, 1984 ). The ba sic causes for this diversity within types are the interactions of the dichotomies, the influence of personal environment on what functions work best at different times, and the degree of preference for one type over another (Myers et al 2003 ). Some of t his variability of type is distinguishable by the relationships of dominant and auxiliary types, and this is where Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers most contributed to the theory of Typology. According to Jung (1971), "as a rule, one or the other function predominates, in both strength and development" (p. 346), but he does speak briefly about an auxiliary function that works to support each type's dominant function, providing both balance and variability to


Self Presentation of Type 6 personality types. In this model, if a judging function is dominant, then the auxiliary function is perception and vice versa (Jung, 1971). However, Jung does not go into very much depth in regards to the interactions of dominant and auxiliary type. Briggs and Myers expanded on and incorporate d the ideas of dominant and auxiliary functions by adding a fourth dimension to Type Theory. This fourth dimension is the Judging Perceiving dichotomy and reflects one's orientation toward the world This dimension can be used both as a pointer indicating the dominant function and as a function in its own right. As a pointer, it indicates which of the two original functions guides an individual's cognitions. In this case, Judging indicates a dominant focus on the rational judging functions of Th inking and Feeling, whereas Perceiving indicates a dominant focus on the irrational perceiving functions of Sensation and Intuition (Myers et al, 1998; Keirsey & Bates, 1984 ). As a function, this dimension reflects the ways an individual prefers to go thro ugh life. Judging types prefer to be neat a nd organized, like making lists and plan ning ahead, and place emphasis on project completion. Judging types want to structure, plan, and control the path of their lives. Perceiving types are more likely to "go wit h the flow" as their focus is on spontaneity flexibility, tolerance, and resourcefulness. Perceiving types want to experience and understand life and the things around them ( Rogers, 1997 ; Myers, 1998; Myers et al 2003) In addition to the inclusion of this fourth indicator, Katharine Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers further developed a scale by which all of these types could be measured, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) ( Myers et al 1998 ). The MBTI sorts people according to their preferences on ea ch of the four dichotomies into one of 16 distinct types. Each type is represented by a different four letter code reflecting the four preference dichotomies. The


Self Presentation of Type 7 Extraversion Introversion (E I) dichotomy is first, followed by Sensation Intuition (S N), 1 T hinking Feeling (T F), and then Judging Perceiving (J P). 2 For example, an individual that prefers Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, and Judging would be represented by the type E STJ. Type Research Due to the benefits inherent in a non pathologizing person ality scale, the need for every scale to be studied for reliability and validity, 3 and the debate over the definition and nature of personality, Type Theory and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator have been the focus of a significant amount of research. In add ition to research comparing the MBTI to other personality scales ( Furnham, 1996; Scanlon, 1998; Furnham, Jackson, Forde, & Cotter, 2001 ), research using Type Theory has included, but is by no means limited to, cognitive style (Isaksen, Lauer, & Wilson, 200 3), career preferences (Myers et al 2003), coping strategies (Reid, 1999), satisfaction (Marioles, Strickert, & Hammer, 1996), attraction (Hester, 1996), and specific personality traits, such as assertiveness (Williams & Bicknell Behr, 1992). Several ex amples of research using the MBTI involve the behav iors of individuals in specific situations and under certain stressors. An example of this is a study by Williams, Verble, Price, and Layne (1995) on the relationship between time management practices and personality type. By definition, Judging types have better time management strategies and are more effective at time management than are Perceiving types, but other type dimensions had not previously been associated with effective time management. Williams et al. (1995) asked participants to take the Time Management Questionaire, with the three factors of Short range 1 Intuition i s represented by the letter N because the letter I is used for the Introverted preference. Because of this, the N preference is often written out iNtuition in order to be clear. Preferences are represented by letter and by word interchangeably in the MBTI literature. 2 Individual results used for purposes other than research are given in terms of whole types. Research analyses of MBTI results examine potential correlations using all possible combinations of the four preferences (singly, in dyads, in triads, and by whole types) using Type Distribution Tables (see Methods for more detail and appendices for examples). 3 See reliability and validity information for the MBTI in the Methods section.


Self Presentation of Type 8 planning, Long range planning, and Time Attitudes, in connection with the MBTI Form G. As expected, the study confirmed the relationship betwe en judging types and time management, finding that the Judging Perceiving dimension of personality was the greatest predictor of reported time management. The authors additionally noted that Sensing types had better time management skills than Intuitive ty pes, especially on the long range planning subscale (Williams et al., 1995), which may reflect the intuitive preference to keep one's options open to future possibilities (DiRusso, Carney & Bryan, 1995). The results also showed Extraverts having better tim e management in short range planning, but this difference was no longer significant when the effects of social desirability (SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) were removed (William et al., 1995). A related study (DiRusso et al., 1995) examined the career decis iveness of different personality types in education majors. That study found that Extraverted types and Sensing types tended to be more decisive about their career choices, but that ISTJs and ISTPs were very likely to be less decided about their career cho ices. Interestingly, the Judging Perceiving scale did not reflect decisiveness, and the Thinking Feeling scale only reflected decisiveness in that females were more likely to be Feelers and decisive about their decision to teach than the males in that samp le. The authors noted, though, that the total scores on the Career Decision Scale (CDS) seemed to reflect participants' decision making processes and attitudes about deci sion making. For example, the Extraverted Sensing type (highly represented in the more decisive group) is considered the "realistic doer" who is "action oriented and less wavering once a decision is made" (DiRusso et al., 1995, p 41). On the other hand, Introverted Perceiving and Introverted Sensing types are "intr ospective and cautious" w hile iNtuitive Perceiving types are "unconventional and prefer to keep options open" (p 42), all of which lead to slower and less confident decision making, thus contributing to these groups' overrepresentation in the less


Self Presentation of Type 9 decisive group. The authors also noted that the decisiveness score did not reflect future success as a teacher, as ESFs and ISTs were equally highly present in national representative samples of teachers (Myers et al 2003; DiRusso et al., 1995). Teachers, future teachers, and learne rs at all levels of education have been the subject of many type studies because of Type Theory's focus on methods of receiving and processing information, and the subsequent relationship with learning. The most prominent research has involved the interact ions of learning styles and teaching styles. Several studies have found the Sensing, Feeling, and J udging preferences, with their enjoyment of the traditional, practical, repetitive, and detail oriented tasks to be the most comm on type for elementary teach ers (Williams et al 1995; Di Russo et al., 1995 ; Reid, 1999). ESFJ is also the most frequent type for education majors. Secondary teachers have been found to be more equally distributed across the dimensions such that ISFJ, ENFP, NTJ types are also foun d frequently in middle and high school teachers (Myers et al., 2003; Williams et al., 1995; Keirsey & Bates, 1984). At the college level, though, in tuitive types are consistently found to be the overwhelming majority of professors (Willing, Guest, & Morfor d, 2001). Additionally, there has been a recent push to have more innovative and forward thinking ( i.e. iNtuitive ) teachers and programs in schools in hopes that these qualities will lead to new and better ways of teaching students (Willing et al 2001; Rushton, Morgan, & Richard, 2007). Though teachers have predictable types, the students they are expected to educate come in all shapes and sizes. This can cause a problem because people have a tendency to te ach in ways that reflect their own learning styl e and to have difficulty or forget to teach in ways that speak to the other preference s (Myers et al 2003). Th u s when teachers and students have different types, it may be difficult for the student to learn anything or for the teacher to be able to enga ge the student. For example, t he main preference of concern in learning style literature


Self Presentation of Type 10 is the Sensing iN tuition dichotomy, the method by which new information is perceived (Little Soldier, 1989). Since the majority of elementary teachers prefer sensing, they may be more likely to use step by step, practical, experiential, repetitive, and concrete methods in the classroom and make clear connections between the material and life ( Myers et al., 2003). Th is kind of learning would be easily managed by Sensing students, while iN tuitive types are required to learn early in their academic career to adapt to doing and learning from assignments they may find repetitive and constricting. Then, in middle and high school, teachers may be more likely to ask students to work in more conceptual, theoretical, independent, innovative, and reflective ways (Myers et al., 2003 ). This may be a welcome adjustment for the intuitive learners who flourish in this environment and ask for more op portunities to guide their own learning (Myers et al., 2003). The Sensing types, however, are suddenly required to learn a new way of learning but are expected to already know how to learn, and thus may not be given the time to adapt. The differences in te aching and learning styles can have serious consequences for the student. Indeed, Sensing individuals have been found in remedial classes and dropout populations m ore frequently than have their iN tuitive counterparts in both high school and college populat ions (Myers et al 2003) The Issue of True Types As stated above, Type Theory expects that the exact presentation of the types varies based on how well the individual has developed each function, but that individuals in each of the 16 types naturally be have in predictably similar ways (Myers et al 2003) However, i t is commonly found that if the degree of preference in one dichotomy is very slight for a respondent, respondents may switch to the opposite function or attitude when re taking the Myers Bri ggs Type Indicator (Walck, 1992) For instance, a respondent who types ESFJ the first time he or she takes the inventory with only a slight preference for J udging over P erceiving will


Self Presentation of Type 11 often switch to ESFP the next time he or she takes the inventory. Accord ing to type theory, everyone is expected to use all eight poles of the four dichotomies but only one pole is the most natural response for the individual. Switching might be expected for individuals with slight preferences because the development of speci fic preferences is influenced by the environment and someone can develop both poles of a dichotomy approximately equally, or use different preferences in different situations (i.e. work vs home) This is one reason why MBTI respondents are encouraged to t interaction). Yet switching is problematic for research b ecause while the degree or clarity of a preference may change with level of development, the natural type preferences should not. To deal with this issue, type verification has become standard procedure in MBTI administration (Myers et al., 2003; Bathurst, 2000). It is assumed in the type community that only the individual can know his or her own true type and that the MBTI results are a gui de for an individual in the process of finding their true type. Type verification is t he process of consists of an individual being taught about type and the four dichotomies, then asked which preference he or she feels is m ost accurate. There are a number of ways to achieve type verification. In counseling situations and when possible in research, type verification involves the MBTI practitioner sitting down with the respondent and working together to determ ine the individua l's true type (Walck, 1992; Myers et al., 2003). This process generally includes telling the respondent the results of his or her MBTI, and can consist of one or many counseling sessions (Walck, 1992; Bathurst, 2000; Myers et al., 2003). A written Best Fit Questionaire has also been developed 4 in order to allow type verification when individual sessions are not 4 The Best Fit Questionnaire was developed by recognized Type exp ert Jean Kummerow for McCarley (1994). Kummerow is author or Co author of several type publications, including most notably A Methodology for Verifying Type: Research Results (Kummerow,


Self Presentation of Type 12 possible by asking respondents to approximate their true type directly after taking the MBTI ( McCarley, 1994 ). Though not all current research makes use of type verification, it is now strongly encouraged whenever MBTI results are given, and the Center for Applications of Type ( CAPT ) reminds all of its customers that type is personal and the MBTI results are a guide but only the individual can determi ne their true type (Myers et al., 2003; CAPT website) Most of the research done on the discrepancy between indicated type and true type was done before the most recent edition of the MBTI, Form M. Type verification research using Form G and the counselin g method tended to find an average of 65 85% whole type agreement (Kummerow, 1988; Walck, 1992; Bathurst, 1999 Bathurst, 2000 ) McCarley (1994) did not report whole type agreement results, but showed approximately 80 85% accuracy for each individual type preference using the Best Fit Questionnaire and Form G of the MBTI. Form M was developed and became available in 1998, but little published research has been done on true type verification using Form M (, 2008). The issue of best fit or true types has been found to be especially important in African American respondents. In the first study of ethnic differences using Type Theory, Levy et al. (1972) examined Black college students at Howard University (a n historically black univer sity) and compared them to the W hite college students on which the MBTI was normed. It was found that the Black students tended to type STJ regardless of gender, whereas the white students were more likely to be NFP. Test retest reliability after 2 months was also higher f or the African American sample than it was for the white comparison group. The authors felt that this consistency was suspicious and questioned how the experience of Blacks living as a minority in a white majority dominated culture affected the development of black personality. Specifically, 1988), Introduction to Type in Organizations (Hirsch & Kummerow, 200 1), and LifeTypes (Hirsch & Kummerow, 1989), as well as a frequent speaker. See Methods for a more detailed description of the Best Fit Questionnaire.


Self Presentation of Type 13 the authors suggested the perhaps the intuitive perceptive preferences were "concealed behind a mask of socially appropriate responding on self report inventories"(p 649) or that a response set that presents a stereoty pic version of black individuals may be responsible for the consistent typing. Further research has found that African American s have strong preference for the Sensing types and that the ISTJ and ESTJ type s are significantly overrepresented in African Ame rican samples For example, Malone (1988) found that African American managers type d STJ more often than either Hispanic or W hite managers. Also, Hill and Clark (1993) replicated Levy et al. (1972) in a new population of African American college students and found that the differences in frequency of type had not changed significantly over the intervening 20 years, with the African Americans still typing ISTJ most frequently Pat Clark Battle (1992) explored the possibility that the MBTI was not accuratel y portraying type for African American populations. Through anecdotal and interview based evidence, she developed a phenomenological theory in which the African American person lives in two worl ds, two societies, and two cultures According to her theory, African Americans develop a mask that hide s their true selves in order to survive in the white middle class culture that dominates America. This mask presents a personality that African Americans feel is expected by or safe for the dominant culture. Ba tt le (1992 ) suggested that African Americans who took the MBTI showed preferences for I ntroversion S ensing T hinking and J udging because the personality being measured is the one shown to the world; t he mask Demoran (1996) also explored the consistency i ssue by comparing the types that Black and White students indicated on the MBTI with their true types. Demoran (1996) used the Best fit Question n aire to briefly educate participants about type and to allow them to determine what they felt were their true t ypes According to the MBTI, blacks were more likely to type ISTJ,


Self Presentation of Type 14 ISFJ, and ENTJ, and less likely to type Extraverted Perceiving than were whites. However, when true types were compared to indicated types, it was found that Introversion, Sensing, Thinking and J udging were overrepresented on the MBTI for all groups, such that ENFP was the most frequent true type for all groups T he only significant racial difference in the true type analyses was that blacks were slightly more often INTJ and slightly less o ften ESFP than were whites. Thus, the Sensing preference, which was the strongest and most consistent preference found in African American populations in previous research, was no t different from whites when true type was considered, and most people though t of themselves as ENFP, regardless of race. Posey Thorne, and Carskadon (1999) used the indicated and true type data that Demoran (1996) collected to compare the consistency (degree of agreement) of indicated and true type preferences between blacks and whites. D ue to sample size, black males were not analyzed, but a significant movement (change) away from ISTJ was found in both black females and in white males when the indicated type was compared to best fit type. T he authors found that B lack females we re significantly less consistent on the E xt r a version preference (more blacks switched to E xtraversion ) than were W hite females Posey et al (1999) concluded that "minority respondents are more likely to report ISTJ on the MBTI when that is not really thei r type" (p. 19) Posey et al (1999) suggest ed that African Americans may not be the only minority group that portrays themselves on the MBTI in a way that they For instance, St alikas, Casas, and Carson (1996) examined the effect of minority status on personality type in Canada and found that Canadian French speakers in both Ontario and Quebec generally preferred Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, and Judging, while English speaker s in both areas generally preferred iNtuition, Feeling, and P erceiving Many minority groups in the US have been found to have different type distributions from the white middle class as well including Japanese A mericans (Levy & Ostrowski, 1983 )


Self Presentation of Type 15 Hispanic s (Malone, 1988; Kaufman, Kaufman, & McLean, 1993; Lundberg, Osborne & Miner, 1997), and Native Americans (Simmons & Barrineau, 1994; Nuby & Oxford, 1998). These tend to be in the direction of Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, and Judging, though some have strong cultural preferences for one type, such as Perceiving in Native American culture. To date, no studies that examined type consistency, discrepancy or validation in any minority group other than African Americans have been published However, it is r easonable to think that if minority status is the reason that the MBTI is consistent but not accurate for African Americans then other minority groups may show a similar trend Specifically, other minority groups may have consistent responses on the MBTI, but this consistency may be due to an attempt to portray a specific self image or may be context driven. For example, the in a study by Nuby and Oxford (1998) said they responded to the MBTI as though they were i nteracting with people of their own culture, rather than with people While it is important to be aware of who shows this type discrepancy, especially since the who seems to be large ly underprivileged or minority groups, it is potentially even more important to understand why the discrepancy occurs in the first place. The MBTI is most commonly used in education, corporate organizations, and career counseling. It is used in these conte xts for both research and decision making purposes. If the results of the MBTI are not accurate for large groups of people in these contexts, then the decisions or adjustments made based on the results may not have the desired outcome. One possible explan concern with self presentation. The tendency of respondents to attempt to portray themselves favorably on self report inventories has been a long standing concern for researchers, especiall y in the areas of personality and behavioral constructs (Wiggins & Rumrill, 1959; Paulhus, 1991). If


Self Presentation of Type 16 respondents answer items according to particular biases or styles of responding (response biases) instead of according to their true beliefs or behaviors, then the result of their responses does not accurately reflect the intended construct. Several methods of examining and controlling the effects of response biases have been developed in order to ensure to the validity of findings in self report measures th at are particularly prone to response sets. One of the most prominent and extensively studied response biases is social desirability. Social Desirability Social Desirability is a response bias that causes individuals to respond to self report items in cult urally sanctioned ways so as to appear more socially acceptable (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Holden & Fekken, 1989; Paulhus, 1991). Several measures have been developed to measure socially desirable responding and the effects that it has on various scales. Man y of these, such as the L and K scales of the MMPI, are included in larger inventories and intended for use with one specific scale (Paulhus, 1991). Many more were developed for use with any scale, but have slightly varying concepts of desirable items. One such scale is the Edwards Social Desirability Scale created using items from the MMPI with very high or very low social desirability ratings (Paulhus, 1991). Another scale, the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC SDS), was developed with a focus on avoiding psychopathology in the scale items (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Another example, the Ford Social Desirability Scale, was created by pairing desirable but improbable statements with undesirable but probable statements from other social desirability scales in a forced choice format to reduce the possible effects of acquiescence (Ford, 1964). Despite different methods or purposes, all of these scales focus on items which are rated by judges as highly desirable but which are uncommon in actuality or ra ted as highly undesirable but which are readily found in the population (Edwards, 1953 ; Paulhus, 1991). It is assumed that individuals who consistently agree with the desirable items and disagree with the


Self Presentation of Type 17 undesirable items are responding based more on the social desirability of the items than on actual beliefs or behaviors. This is of particular concern when a researcher or counselor intends to measure behaviors or attitudes that are generally dissapproved of in society. An example of this is research inv olving aggression and aggressive attitudes. For instance, in a study of humor preferences, Hetherington and Wray (1964) examined the effects that alcohol, aggression and social desirability had on participants' ratings of aggressive and nonsense cartoons. The authors generally found that a high aggressive drive was correlated with a higher rating of the aggressive cartoons and that a low aggressive drive was correlated with a preference for the nonsense cartoons. The differences between the aggressive and n onsense ratings was increased in the presence of alcohol for the high aggressive drive group. Further examination revealed that social desirability had an inhibitory effect on the rating of aggressive cartoons and an exaggerating effect on the rating of no nsense cartoons, but the inhibitory effects were reduced in the presence of alcohol (Hetherington & Wray, 1964). This implies a strong interaction between social desirability scores and an inhibition of the willingness to express aggressive attitudes. Thi s is also of concern for individuals in situation s where they are being qualitatively evaluated for some position or award. For example, Dalton (1994) found that couples applying to adopt children from private adoption agencies had elevated scores on both the MMPI social desirability scales and the MC SDS, though interviews and additional tests showed no psychological disorders. In addition, the females had very low Masculinity Femininity scores (indicating a more classically submissive femininity) and both sexes had very low Social Introversion scores (indicating a more extraverted tendency) on the MMPI. These combined results suggest that adoption applicants, especially females, are put into a situation in which they become defensive about their suitabilit y as parents and are likely to answer in ways


Self Presentation of Type 18 intended to make them appear more desirable (Dalton, 1994). The large number of scales that have been developed for the measurement of socially desirable responses has necessitated research that compares each o f them in terms of reliability, validity, dimensionality, correlations between scales and potential alternative meanings in a search for "the real social desirability scale" (Strosahl, Linehan, & Chiles, 1984). This research involved several factor analyse s of social d esirability items. Paulhus (1984 1991) found that there are two types of social desirability items, and subsequently two types of socially desirable responding. The first type has been dubbed self deceptive positivity and revolves around the idea that the respondent is not aware of the fact that the answers being given are not true. Self deceptive positivity is assumed to be a consistent response style in which the respondent gives what he believes to be honest responses but which are actuall y more positive than accurate. The second type, called impression management, represents the more traditional view of socially desirable responding that involves the intentional portrayal of a "socially conventional, dependable person" (Paulhus, 1991, p 2 1). Impression management is assumed to be a self presentation purposefully misrepresenting the self based on the perceived audience of their responses. Different social desirability scales typically measure one or the other factor, but some, such as the B alanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) and the MC SDS, measure both (Paulhus, 1991). Some scales have also been used to measure specific alternate constructs as well as or instead of social desirability. One commonly referred to example of this is that the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale has been found to measure a variable dubbed "need for approval," (Crowne & Liverant 19 64), in which the social desirability measure reflects the respondent's need to appear desirable in order to obtain approval from an other. Later authors likened this variable to "defensiveness" or an avoidance of negative evaluations (Ford, 1964;


Self Presentation of Type 19 Ballard, 1992), and the scale is currently used to measure either construct (Paulhus, 1991). 5 It has been suggested by some researchers and type theorists that certain personality types are encouraged and potentially seen as more desirable by American culture ( Hedegard & Brown, 1969; Golden & Lesh, 200 1 ). It can be hypothesized, then, that individuals with high need for approv al or social desirability may be likely to exaggerate or inhibit their natural personality type in order to portray a socially desirable impression of themselves. This type of exaggeration and inhibition has already been seen in the inhibition of aggressio n (Hetherington & Wray, 1964) and in the exaggeration of extraversi on (Dalton, 1994) If this hypothesis is true, one would expect that Extraversion Sensing, Thinking, and J udging, which have been asserted by Isabel Myers (see Golden & Lesh, 2001) to be f avored in American culture to be more frequent on the Myers Briggs than in personal interactions. Partial support for this was found by Demoran (1996), who found that the MBTI overrepresented the STJ type as compared to true type in black and white popul ations. However, that study did not include social desirability in its examination, and few, if any, studies have looked at the effects of social desirability on type except as type is related to other constructs (i.e. time management in Williams et al., 1995). Self Monitoring A similar theory of why and how people present themselves in socially determined ways deals with the construct of self monitoring. Self monitoring is the act of observing and presentation (Snyder, 1974). S elf monitoring is a form of impression management that is considered to be both semi conscious and automatic (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003) Goals of self monitoring may be to appear more socially acceptable or likeable. High self monitors are greatly concerned with how they present themselves and will alter their behavior 5 The current study uses the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) pr imarily because it is one of the most commonly used scales (Beretvas, Meyers, Lette, 2002) and integrates both the self deceptive and impression management factors of so cial desirability (Paulhus, 1984 ).


Self Presentation of Type 20 based on the situation in order to present themselves in the way that they perceive to be most appropriate (Snyder, 1974; Leone & Corte, 1994; Turnley & Bolino, 2001; Flynn, Reagans, Amanatull ah, & Ames, 2006) Low self monitors, on the other hand, have more natural and consistent self presentations in that they express the emotions or beliefs that they are experiencing (Snyder, 1974; Snyder & Gangestad, 1986; Bono & Vey, 2007) and are more foc used on staying true to themselves and their own self image than on how socially appropriate their behavior might appear (Leone & Corte, 1994; Kuptsch, Kleinmann, & Koller, 1998; Renner, Laux, Schutz, & Tedeschi, 2004) The self monitoring individual is g enerally found to be confident, outgoing, friendly, and adaptable (Snyder, 1974; Lennox & Wolfe, 1984; Allen, 1986) Snyder (1974) first developed a definition of self monitoring as consisting of five integral characteristics of the self monitoring individ presentation, (b) attention to social comparison information as cues to appropriate self presentation an d expressive behavior, (d) the use of this ability in particular situations, and (e) the extent to which self presentation and expressive behavior is consistent or variable (Snyder, 1974) In a sequence of studies, Snyder (1974) created a 25 item true fals e questionnaire of self monitoring, the Self Monitoring Scale (SMS), and tested its validity 6 in actors, psychiatric inpatients, and college students by 6 Studies on the validity of the SMS found that the ability to measure the single construct of self monitoring. Several studies found three or four components which might be any combination of expressive self control, social stage performance, other directed self presentation, (1974) original concept of self monitoring, th sure it s intended construct was brought into question. Because of this Lennox and Wolfe (1984) developed a 13 monitoring to eliminate four of the five original concepts of self monitoring, retaining only the concept of modifying self presentation. However, while Snyder and Gangestad (1986) agreed that the SMS is not perfect and that a revised scale could both refine the definition of self mo nitoring and improve its measurement, the Lennox and Wolfe (1984) revision was not seen to actually measure the construct of self monitoring. Thus, Snyder and Gangestad (1985) re examined the SMS scale and eliminated those items with poor discriminatory ab ility. The resulting 18 item scale has better internal


Self Presentation of Type 21 expres s and perceive various arbitrary emotions facially and vocally. One of the methods of testing the Self Monitoring Scale (SMS) involved asking participants to repeatedly say a single phrase in order to convey each of seven different emotions (anger, happine ss, sadness, surprise, disgust, fear, and guilt or remorse) while being video recorded. Judges were then asked to determine which emotion was being expressed by hearing a voice recording or view ing a muted video recording of the participants saying the phr ase. Since both participants and judges took the SMS, it was found that high self monitors (those scoring high on the SMS) were better at both communicating (in the participant phase) and perceiving (in the judging phase) emotional expressions than were lo w self monitors (those scoring low on the SMS). High self monitors are seen as adept at changing their behavior based on the situation in order to create and maintain positive impressions of themselves (Snyder, 1974; Flynn et al., 2006; Turnley & Bolino, 2001; Gardner & Martinko, 1988) For example, i n impression management research, high self monitors are generally found to use impression management tactics more frequently and more successfully than low self monitors ( Gardner & Martinko, 1988 ; Turnley & B olino, 2001). Additionally, of the fi ve basic me thods of impression management (ingratiation self promotion, exemplification, supplication and intimida tion ) 7 h igh s elf monitors are likely to only use those that portray a positive image of the self ( ingr atiation, self promotion, and exemplification ), while low self monitors use impression management tactics less discriminately (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). validity and more discriminatory ability than either of the previous scales. More recent research has supported the use of this 18 item scale for its uni dimensionality and especially for use in cross cultural studies (Gudykunst et al., 1989) 7 Ingratiation is used in order to be liked; Self promotion is used to appear capable; Exemplification is used in order to seem dedicated or productive; Supplication is used in order to appear needy and get help; I ntimidation is used to appear threatening. Of the five, ingratiation, self promotion, and exemplification are perceived to be generally positive, while supplication and intimidation are perceived to be generally negative.


Self Presentation of Type 22 Self monitoring scores have been shown to have a positive correlation with need for social status (Flyn n et al, 2006), and high self monitors tend to behave in ways designed to raise their own social status (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003; Flynn, et al, 2006). W hen social partners are someone that a high self monitor wants to be affiliated with or accepted by, a h igh self monitor will modify his or her behavior to a greater extent in order to achieve a likeable impression (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003). These social status seeking behaviors may be concious or unconcious (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003) and can take many forms including mimicry (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003) and generosity (Flynn et al., 2006) Tobacyk, Driggers, and Hourcade (1991) studied whether certain personality types were more likely to self monitor than other types. As expected, the au thors found that Extrave rsion, iN tuition, and Perception were significantly and positively related to self monitoring and that Introversion, Sensation, and Judgement were significantly and negatively correlated to self monitoring. Thinking and Feeling were not significantly corre lated with the total self monitoring score, but Feeling types did have a significant negative correlation with the Acting subscale, indicating that Feelers are not as capable of or not as willing to mask their emotions as are Thinkers. If a tendency to sel f monitor correspondingly influences the likelihood of inconsistent type scores, then the Extraverted, iN tuitive, Perceiving types that are more prone to self monitoring may be more likely to switch between types as they report traits that they perceive to be more applicable in different environments while Feeling types may be less likely to report different type s in different situations Current Study The current study will examine factors related to differential presentation of "indicated type" (the typ e prefer ences as identified by the Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and "best fit type" ("true type" as indicated by the Best Fit Questionaire) in several demographic groups with a


Self Presentation of Type 23 focus on the influential effects of social desirability and self monitoring. Th e current study will be a continuation of the literature on discrepancy research in African American Type Theory (Battle, 1992; Demoran, 1996; Posey et al., 1999) However, t he particular aim of this study is to add to the available literature by exploring factors that may increase the likelihood of inconsistent typing and by expanding the potential relevant population Specifically, t his study examines whether s e l f monitoring and social desirability can predict type discrepancy. Though the sample is small, this study will also explore which type preferences are more likely to yield discrepancies, which type preferences are most related to social desirability and self monitoring, and, if possible, what demographic groups show more discrepancy. To do this, pa rticipants will be categorized based on the number of type preferences that shift between indicated and best fit type, thus giving a measure of type discrepancy Type discrepancy will then be examined in relation to participants' social desirability (SD) s core s and self monitoring (SM) score s Social d esirability and self monitoring are both constructs related to altering self presentation in order to achieve social acceptance. Social Desirability has previously been studied primarily as a third factor vari able when related to type theory and Self monitoring has only been examined once using type theory, but neither has been studied in relation to indicated type true type comparisons. It is hypothesized that there will be a greater discrepancy between the My ers Briggs indicated type and best fit type ("type discrepancy") for individuals in the high S ocial D esirability and high S elf M onitoring groups. Method Participants Two hundred college students from a liberal arts college in central Florida were survey ed. After excluding participants on the basis of unfinished surveys or age, there were 187


Self Presentation of Type 24 participants (74 male, 111 female, 2 no gender specified) aged 18 24. The participants were pri marily White (77%), Hispanic (10.7 %), or of mixed race ( 7.6 %). Materi als Survey packets contained (in order) the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Form M question booklet (Myers et al., 2003), an MBTI Form M template scored answer sheet Myers et al., 2003), the Best Fit Questionnaire (McCarley, 1994), the 18 item Self Moni toring Scale (Snyder, 1985), the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), and demographic questions. Myers Briggs Type Indicator The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Form M is the most current and streamlined version of the MBT I in use. It consist s of 93 forced choice questions: 46 phrases and 47 word pairs. For the phrase questions, participants are asked to select which of participants are asked to think about the meaning of each word and select the word in each pair that appeals to them more. Previously reported internal consistency reliabilities of individual Form M scales range from .86 to .95 (Myers, et al., 2003) The answer sheets used for this study are designed to be template scored by hand for each of the four dichotomies. For template scoring, the transparent template is placed on top of the answer sheet and the researcher counts the number of responses corresponding to each of the eight preferences. The determined to be the four preferences with the higher number of corresponding responses. Using the template scoring technique, a researcher can score the after completion of the Indicator. This method of scoring was chosen because it is the fastest and least expensive method for scoring the MBTI, as well as allowing the participant to receive his or her results instantly An


Self Presentation of Type 25 unforeseen problem with this m ethod of scoring 8 though, is that three of the four dichotomies (Sensing iNtuition, Thinking Feeling, and Judging Perceiving) each have an even number of questions assigned to them for scoring, which allows for an equal score on each pole. For example, so meone might answer 11 questions in the Judging direction and 11 questions in the Perceiving direction, and thus not be categorizable by their MBTI responses. When this occurred, chotomy. Best Fit Type The Best Fit Questionnaire was taken from McCarley (1994) to serve as type verification for this survey. The Questionnaire consists of four pages, each briefly informing the respondent about each of the eight type preferences and t hen asking them to decide which type he or she is. Each page contained two single paragraph descriptions of the characteristics definitive of a person who preferred each pole of one dichotomy, comprehension questions, and a fill in the blank sentence stati ng the preference the participant felt more closely resembled his or her own behavior or preference. For example, the first page contained one paragraph about Extroverts followed by one paragraph about Introverts. Participants were then asked (on the same page) to answer six questions about whether introverts or extroverts were more likely to enjoy being active, prefer quiet for concentration, etc. Participants were then eel 9 This questionnaire was developed for McCarley (1994) and used by Demoran (1996) to determine best fit type immediately after taking the MBTI. A copy of the Best f it questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. Self Monitoring. The Self Monitoring Scale (SMS) consists of 18 true false statements 8 This is not a problem in other forms of scoring because when CPP, Inc. scores the answer sheets, a computerized weighting system is used. 9 fit Questionnaire, and were treated the same as if they


Self Presentation of Type 26 indicating the amount of self monitoring an individual engages in (Snyder & Gangestad, 1985) Each response in the keyed direction is scored as one point; points are added up with a possible range of 0 18 with h igh scores indicat ing more self monitoring. High Self Monitorin g and Low Self Monitoring categories are determined by mean splits of the data. Snyder and Gangestad (1986) report an internal consistency (coefficient alpha) of .70. The SMS is included as Appendix B. Social Desirability The Marlowe Crowne Social Desira bility Scale (MC SDS) consists of 33 true more socially desirable than is accurate on a self report questionnaire (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960 ) The scale contains items such my ability t Each response not in the keyed direction is scored as one point; points are add ed up with a possible range of 0 33 with high scores indicating more socially desirable responding High Social Desirability and Low Social Desirability categories are determined by mean splits of the data. The internal consistency is reported to be .88 (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The MC SDS is included in Appendix C. Demographics Demographic questions included age, race, sex, and questions about perceived and actual socioeconomic status (SES). For race, participants were asked to check all that apply for more accurate analyses of cultural groups and minority status that might affect the results. Perceiv ed class consisted of seven categories including poverty, lower, lower middle, middle, upper middle, upper and wealthy classes. Actual s ocioeconomic status data consisted of


Self Presentation of Type 27 five items: income level, number of siblings and income earners, parental occupati on, parental education level, and head of household. Income leve l consisted of eleven groupings designed to resemble the breaks used by the Federal Census Bureau (n.d. ) and to contain more levels than the perceived class question to avoid matching answers. 10 The last question on the demographics page asked whether or not the participant had previous knowledge of the MBTI in order to note possible effects of previous knowledge on type preferences. The demographic questions are included as Appendix D. Debriefi ng Materials After their participation, participants were given a Results sheet that contained a type table briefly describing the 16 types, information about type and where to and best fit type. This sheet also contained a brief thank you note with contact information for the researcher should the participant have any questions or desire information on the composite results of the study. A copy of this sheet can be found in App endix E. Procedure Participants were approached by the researcher in on campus areas to take the survey. Participants either took the survey at that time, or set up an appointment to meet with the researcher at a time more convenient for the participant. After reading and signing an informed consent (Appendix F) participants were given the packet of materials and a copy of the consent form. No additional oral instructions were given. Taking the survey took an average of 30 minutes. After completion or ter mination of the survey, the researcher scored the Myers Briggs Typology Indicator and the Best fit scale, and the participant was thanked and debriefed, then given a small thank you gift for participation as well as the results of the Indicator and the Typ e Table Sheet. 10 The SES data were not analyzed in this study, but were collected to be as thorough as possible.


Self Presentation of Type 28 Data Analysis Respondents were excluded from analysis if they did not complete the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, left more than five questions unanswered on the rest of the survey, indicated an age below 18 or over 30, or did not indicate an age. Only one participant was over the age of 30 and was excluded as an outlier. Four participants indicated that they were age 17 and three more did not indicate an age, though they completed the rest of the survey. Two respondents did not return surveys and three did not finish the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. This left a total of 187 usable participants, 77 of whom were missing at least one piece of data. Usable participants were included in as many analyses as possible to maximize validity. Type discr epancy was calculated by adding the number of preferences that were different between the MBTI type and the Best fit type to give a raw discrepancy score between swi tch for this score. 11 Participants who indicated no preference on the MBTI or Best fit dichotomies were excluded from analyses using the specific dichotomy on which they had no preference, but were included in all other analyses. 12 Self monitoring (SM) and social desirability (SD) scores were split into high and low categories by the mean. 13 Participants scoring 11 or higher on the Self Monitoring Scale (SMS) ( M = 10.44, SD = 3.74) were considered High Self Monitoring (HMS). Participants scoring 19 or 11 ck, analyses w ere run using both calculation methods. However, the only analysis where this difference changed the result was when the Sensing iNtuition dichotomy was examined in relation to type discrepancy. Thus, all results reported use the stricter definition, and t he difference in the type relationship will be detailed in the results section. 12 All analyses involving discrepancy scores were run multiple times to discover how best to treat participants who indicated no preference. Analyses were done once including a ll participants, once excluding all participants who indicated no preference on one or more dichotomies, and once excluding only those participants who indicated no preference for the dichotomy being examined. Analyses were also run once counting no prefer ence as discrepant, and once counting no preference as not discrepant. None of these treatments made any real difference in the results, so the method described above was used in order to allow for maximu m usability of participants while being as cautious as possible in discrepancy scoring. 13 Since some previous studies use median splits while others use mean splits, t he mean and median splits for both SM and SD were compared but were found to divide the sample in the same way.


Self Presentation of Type 29 higher on the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC SDS) ( M = 18.81, SD = 5.07) were considered high in social desirability (HSD). This split the participants such that there were 99 HSM, 88 LSM, 95 HSD, and 92 LSD participants. Analyses using SM and SD w ere run using both the mean splits (chi squared tests) and the raw scores (T tests). 14 Significance tests were done using the SPSS statistical package using an alpha of .05. Results The most frequent whole types were INFP, ENFP, INTP, and ENTP on both the MBTI and Best fit Questionaire. This is due to a majority of iNtuitve (N=155, 85%) and iNtuitive Perceiving (NP, N=108, 65%) types in this sample. Full type tables can be found for the MBTI an d Best fit res ults in Appendix G Total number of switches, incl (18.7%) for Extraverted Introverted, N=52 (27.8%) for Sensing Intuition, N=64 (34.2%) for Thinking Feeling, and N=47 (25.1%) for Judging Perceiving. Despite the high percentage of discrepant responses, 2 (indicated type) x 2 (best fit type) chi squared analyses showed that the MBTI indicated preferences on each of the four type dichotomies are strongly correlated with the corresponding best fit preferences all p <.001 ( see Table 1 ) These analyses also showed that the indi cated preferences on any one dichotomy were not correlated with preferences on any other dichotomy, all p see Table 1 ) Type Discrepancy Participants were categorized by type discrepancy in two ways. According to the first method, participants were categorized by their raw score as not discrepant (no change in type, N=60), discrepant (a change in one type preference, N=67), or very discrepant (two or more changes in type preference, N=60). This created an approximately even split of participants int o 14 There was no difference be tween these two tests, except when correlating Self monitoring and Social Desirability to each other. Thus, unless otherwise specified, only the chi squared results are reported here.


Self Presentation of Type 30 the three groups. According to the second method, participants were categorized as either not discrepant (a score of zero, N=60) or discrepant (a score of 1 4, N=127). All analyses were done using both methods, but the results were only different in one case Since the participants are more evenly split in the first method and there was no real difference in the results between the two methods, only the results of the first method will be reported here, except in the one case where the results differed be tween methods; both sets of results will be given in that case. Type Discrepancy and Self presentation The primary purpose of this study was to examine whether type discrepancy could be predicted by the two forms of self presentation examined. Thus two se parate 3(discrepancy) x 2(self presentation) chi squared comparisons were done for the two f orms of self presentation (see T able 2 ). Although 43.5% of participants low in social desirability were in the discrepant group (N=40), compared to 28.4% (N=27) of the HSD group, t ype discrepancy was not found to be predictable by Social Desirability scores, 2 (2, N =187)=4.609, p = .100 (see Figure 1) The rest of the participants in each SD group were distributed evenly between not discrepant and very discrepant When the participants were grouped into high self monitors and low self monitors, they were more evenly distributed between the three discrepancy categories, making it no surprise that high and low self monitors were also no different in level of type discrepancy, 2 (2, N =187) = 1.105, p = .576 (see Figure 2) Type Discrepancy and Type Preferences The relationships between type discrepancy and type preferences were analyzed on the level of individual dichotomies to allow for a series of 3(discrepancy) x 2(type) chi squared analyses Analyses were done separately for indicated type (see T able 3 ) and bes t fit type (see T able 4 ) The Introversion/ Extraversion dichotomy was the only one on which all participants indicated a preference on both the MBTI and the Best Fit Questionnaire and thus the only


Self Presentation of Type 31 dichotomy on which the full sample was able to be analyz ed There were approximately equal numbers of Introverted and Extraverted participants, and they were approximately equally distributed into the three discrepancy categories, thus Introversion and Extraversion did not predict type discrepancy using either the MBTI indicated type, 2 (2, N =187)=2.202, p =.332, or the Best fit type, 2 (2, N =187)=.148, p =.929. The only time when the method of calculating discrepancy had a real effect on the results was in using the indicated type preference on the Sensing iNutition dichotomy. According to the 2(discrepant) x 2(indicated type) analysis (see Table 3 ) participants who typed Sensing were less likely to be discrepant than expected, while participants who typed iNutitive were more discrepant than expected in the two category method, 2 (1, N = 181)=3.890, p =.049. Using three categories in the 3(discrepant) x 2(indicated type) analysis, the significance of this trend was reduced to nearly significant, 2 (2, N =181)=4.989, p =.083. However, this result was the trend became insignificant in both the 2(discrepant) x 2(indicated type) analysis, 2 (1, N =181)=2.638, p =.104, and the 3(discrepant) x 2(indicated type) analysis, 2 (2, N =181)=3.265, p considered discrepant. Interest ingly, the trend was reversed, regardless of method, in the best fit analysis (see Table 4 ) as participants who reported a best fit preference for Sensing tended to have higher levels of discrepancy than those who reported a best fit preference for iNtuit ion, 2 (2, N =183)=24.075, p =.000. 15 Thinking and Feeling preferences were approximately evenly distributed in the 3 (discrepancy) x2(indicated type) (see Table 3 ) analysis 2 (2, N =175)=.064, p =.969 In the best fit type analysis (see Table 4 ) more Thinking par ticipants were in the discrepant category ( N =41, 40.4%), but the Thinking/Feeling dichotomy was nonetheless not related to type discrepancy 15


Self Presentation of Type 32 using best fit type, 2 (2, N =183)=1.716, p =.424. Using indicated type (see Table 3 ) the much higher number of Perc eiving types in comparison to Judging types means that higher percentages of Judging types in the discrepant (N=20, 43.5%) and very discrepant (N=14, 30.4%) categories are insignificant in comparison to the percentage in the not discrepant category (N=12, 26.1%). Thus, the 3 (discrepancy) x2(indicated type) analysis suggests that the Judging/ Perceiving dichotomy is not related to type discrepancy, 2 (2, N =172)=2.723, p =.256. On the other hand, the increased numbers of Judging types in the 3(discrepancy) x 2(best fit type) analysis (see Table 4 ) showed that participants who reported a perceiving preference were less likely to be discrepant than were participants who reported a judging preference, 2 (2, N =185)=8.940, p =.011. Type Discrepancy and Demographic variables Demographic variables were also checked to see if they predicted type discrepancy (see T able 5 ) Due to the small number of nonwhite res pondents, participants were categorized by race as white (N=145) or non white (N=39). With this categorization, both categories were approximately evenly distributed between the discrepancy groups, and a 3(discrepancy) x 2(race) chi squared test showed no difference in level of discrepancy between white and non white participants, 2 (2, N =184)=.526, p =.769 (see Figure 3) While there were more females than males, both genders were distributed approximately evenly among the discrepancy groups. Likewise, a 3(discrepancy) x 2 (gender) chi squared showed that there was also no effect o f gender, 2 (2, N =185)=1.412, p =.494 (see Figure 4) Self Presentation A secondary goal of this study was to relate individual type preferences with the self presentation constructs. First, a Pearson correlation showed that the Social Desirability Scale


Self Presentation of Type 33 a nd Self Monitoring Scale were significantly but slightly correlated, r ( 185 ) =.140, p=.055. Since this meant that two different constructs were being measured, a 2(self presentation) x 2(type preference) chi squared analysis was done individually for each ty pe dichotomy with each self presentation construct, and for both the best fit and the indicated type. Participants high in socially desirable responding tended to indicate a thinking preference, whereas participants low in socially desirable responding te nded to indicate a feeling preference, 2 (1, N =175)=7,889, p =.005 (see Table 6 ) 16 S ocial desirability was also related to gender such that males tended to have high social desirability scores and females tended to have low social desirability scores, 2 (1 N =185)=6.358, p =.012 (see Table 8 ) The re were no other significant relationships between type preferences and social desirability in this study, p As expected based on Tobacyk et al. (1991) high self monitors were more likely to be extraverted while low self monitors were likely to be introverted, 2 (1, N =187)=33.450, p =.000 (see Table 9 ) 17 However, self monitoring was not related to any of the other three dichotomies in either the indicated or best fit type analyses all p .114 Type Pref erences and Demographic Variables As has been found in most Type studies females tend to indicate Feeling preferences and males tend to report thinking preferences, 2 (1, N =173)=8.354, p =.004 on the MBTI (see Table 12) 18 The J udging P erceiving dichotomy w as related to both sex and race in the indicated type analyses (Table 12). The sample had a strong preference for Perceiving with approximately two thirds of participants indicating a Perceiving preference on both the MBTI and the Best fit 16 This is the chi squared result using indicated type. Using best fit type: 2 =4.694, p =.030; see Table 7. 17 This is the chi squared result using indicated type. Using best fit type: 2 =14.129, p =.000; see Table 10. 18 The best fit result is not significant, 2 =2.054 p =.152 (See Table 13) because several males in this sample swit ched their best fit types such that there was a more even split between Thinking males and feeling males. The distribution of the female preferences remained the same


Self Presentation of Type 34 questionnaire. H owever, this was also the dichotomy (N=15, 8%). Thus, using indicated type, more females and fewer males than expected were Judging, 2 (1, N =171)=4.181, p =.041, but using the best fit type (Table 13) this result disappears because the number of Judging preferences was increased in both the male and female population, 2 (1, N =183)=2.223, p =.136. On the other hand, the influx of Judging types in the best fit preferences revealed a racial difference. While the analysis using indicated types was not significant, 2 (1, N =169)=2.372, p =.124, using best fit types revealed that non white participants were less likely to be Judging types than we re white participants, 2 (1, N =182)=4.743, p =.029. Discussion Type Discrepancy Overall, type discrepancy was not predictable using the variables measured in this study. The only variables that were significantly related to type discrepancy were preference s on the Sensing iNtuition and Judging Perceiving dichotomies. The two forms of self presentation, Self Monitoring and Social Desirability, did not predict or affect discrepancy This could mean a variety of things. First, t aking the results at face value, it would mean that neither social desirability nor self monitoring is related to type discrepancy. This interpretation has direct implications for the "mask theory" purported by Battle (1992) and others about why individuals type one way when they have a different type. Battle (1992) thought that African Americans wear masks that they show the greater world. Based on the description of these masks, the hypothesis in the current study was that the self presentational constructs of self monitoring or social desirability might be related to differential indicated and best fit types. If this were the case, self presentation would be related to both race and type discrepancy, or would be a mediator of the two. However, self presentation as


Self Presentation of Type 35 studied here was not related to either race or discrepancy. This might indicate that self presentation was not related to the masks Battle referred to, except that the current sample included only three black participants, and two black white mixed participants, limiting the fact, the majority of non white participants were actually Hispanic (N=17), and, though they are generally considered a minority group, Hispanics are also considered to be of the white ra ce (Census Bureau, n.d. ), which may additionally limit how differently they behave from other white populations (e.g. Hispanic, Italian, and Irish are all considered white). Overall, this means that the current sample was not sufficient to discover whethe r or not self presentation is related to type discrepancy in minority groups. What this study does suggest is that self presentation is not related to type discrepancy in white populations. However, even this may be too broad a generalization. This study used only participants age 18 24 at one small liberal arts college in Florida where a majority of participants were white (77.5%), female (59.4%) and preferred iNtuition (82.9% MBTI, 60.4% best fit) and Perception (67.4%, 66.3%). Thus, another possible rea son for the current results is that social desirability and self monitoring are related to type discrepancy, but too slightly or too specifically for this study to reveal. The current sample does appear to be a good representation of the current student po pulation at the college from which the sample was taken, since the college currently enrolls approximately 800 primarily white (80%) students (New College of Florida, 2008). However, the type distribution of the current sample greatly differs from the coll ege student norm published in the Atlas of T ype Tables (MacDaid, McCaulley, & Kainz, 1986), in which the most frequent types were the Sensing Judging 19 types (39.32 %). Since the two populations are exactly opposite each other in this preference, the result s are probably not generalizable to 19 The national representative sample has approximately 70% Sensing types and 54% Judging types.


Self Presentation of Type 36 other college student populations S ince the national representative sample (Myers et al., 2003) is more similar to the college student norm than to this sample the results are likely not generalizable to other white po pulations either Thus, it is possible that social desirability or self monitoring would show a relationship with type discrepancy using a less specific sample that included participants from multiple schools, a broader age range, and with a more balanced distribution of personality types. While the potential specific effects of the type skew will be addressed below, it is important to recognize that because of the how strong the type skew is in comparison to the national sample s it may be premature to ru le out the hypothesis that self presentation and type discrepancy are related to each other. Yet, there is also another possibility: the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the 18 item Self Monitoring Scale may not measure the type of self presen tation that is related to type discrepancy. Since their creation, the concepts of social desirability and self monitoring have both been the subject of several scale debates, resulting in multiple scales for each construct. This study used the 18 item SMS because it was the most recent scale of self monitoring in common use. The MC SDS was used in large part because it has been thought of Paulhus (1987, 1991) su ggests, the various different social desirability scales can be measuring different constructs at times, and Lennox and Wolfe(1984) modified the definition of self monitoring in the development of their scale. Thus, although both the SMS and the MC SDS hav e been found in the past to be reliable scales, alternative social desirability and self monitoring scales may produce different results. Additionally social desirability and self monitoring are only two of many forms of self presentation. It is possible that a different self presentation construct is related to type discrepancy while social desirability and self monitoring are not. Some other forms of self


Self Presentation of Type 37 presentation mentioned previously are impression management, social approval and other views of so cial desirability Other self presentation constructs may include those related to self disclosure, self concept, and other forms of social interaction. While closely related, these constructs all use slightly different theories and may reveal a relationsh ip between self presentation and type discrepancy not found by the two scales used in this study. This will be an important area of study for future researchers, as self theory cannot be either supported or refuted u ntil all forms of self presentation have been studied in relation to type discrepancy. While examining the results concerning discrepancy scores, it is important to note that the current sample has what first seems to be an abnormally large percentage of i ndividuals with type discrepancy. However, this is generally in line with the earlier Demoran (1992) sample in which nearly 64% of white participants had discrepant responses between the MBTI and Best fit Questionnaire. In the current sample, 65.7% of the sample had discrepant responses. The fact that nearly two thirds of the samples in studies using the Best fit scale 20 had discrepancy scores suggests that there is something wrong with the ability of either the MBTI or the Best fit Questionnaire (or both) t methods for true type verification and allowed participants to know their MBTI results before determining true type, the number of participants with discrepant types was in the 25% 35% range (Walck, 1992; Bathurst, 2000). This may suggest that the problem lies with the Best fit Questionnaire, though there are, unfortunately, no other empirically tested written type indicators at this time. An alternative possibility, though, is that tel ling participants their MBTI results before asking them to determine their own type influences them in their self assessment. Participants may perceive any psychological assessment as more insightful than their own 20 The McCarley (1994) sample did not give whole type discrepancy scores.


Self Presentation of Type 38 perception and feel that they are more li ke the result than they would be otherwise. C ommon 21 own percepti on. 22 Future studies should both examine alternative methods of written type verification, and compare written and counseling based verification procedures. Self Presentation and Type It is also important to mention the relationship between the two self pr esentation constructs examined in the current study. Specifically, the Pearson correlation showed that self monitoring and social desirability were significantly correlated. However, the effect size is very small (r 2 =0.0196), and a graph of the results sho ws no clear pattern. Thus, while technically significant ( p =.055) the correlation between self monitoring and social desirability is not meaningful. This implies that the SMS and the MC SDS are measuring separate constructs. Further support for this idea is that scores on the SMS and the MC SDS were differentially related to other variables in this study. Social desirability was related to gender and to the Thinking Feeling preference, which were also related to each other. The relationship between gender and the Thinking Feeling preference was the same as that consistently found in type studies; females tend to have Feeling preferences and males tend to have Thinking preferences (Hammer & Mitchell, 1996; Myers et al, 2003). Social desirability has not bee n studied in relation to type, though, and a relationship between social desirability and gender has not previously been reported. Thus, it is unclear exactly how the relationship between SD and gender and the relationship between SD and the Thinking Feeli ng preference are related to each other. One possible explanation is that 21 Results of both the MBTI and the Best Fit Questionnaire were given to participants at the same time, after the entire survey had been taken. 22 All participants were told tha t they were the only ones that could know their true type and that the MBTI was to be used only as a guide, not as the end all determining answer.


Self Presentation of Type 39 Feelings types (or females) more easily recognize the socially desirable questions because of their preference for values, morals, and emotions, all of which are major focuses of the social desirability scale. They may then place more value on their own self knowledge and honesty questions, they may answer more strictly than Thinkers, who may gene ralize their responses despite the absolutes. Another possibility is that when the Feelers (or females) recognize a response as socially desirable, they automatically respond in the opposite direction, trying to perfect than they are. This possibility should be investigated further, because if participants are more socially desirable to be less socially desirabl e, then the construct of social desirability needs to be rethought again. Self monitoring, on the other hand, was related to the Extraversion Introversion preference. This was not an unexpected finding based on the perception of a self monitoring person as someone who is outgoing and friendly (Snyder, 1974), as well as previous studies that correlate self monitoring and extraversion (Tobacyk et al., 1991; Bono & Vey, 2007). However, it was also noted that the items of the SMS seem to assume Extraversion in the self monitoring individual by their content. Most of the items on the SMS refer to parties, social gatherings, and entertaining others, things which overlap with the Extraversion responses on the MBTI. Thus, the concerns of previous researchers over th e construct being measured by the SMS (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984; see Snyder & Gangestad, 1985, 1986) may be valid at least in that the scale may be too closely related to Extraversion. If so, perhaps the use of a different self monitoring scale would have been better. However, the self monitoring construct itself somewhat necessitates some amount of extraversion. Self monitors need to be focused on their external environment and must be attentive to the reactions of other individuals in order to know how to alt er their


Self Presentation of Type 40 behavior, and it is assumed that they do this in order to be more accepted in their current interactions with others. Thus, this assumption may not be detrimental to the usefulness of the scale, and a self monitoring scale that did not include elements of Extraversion may not be as valid as one that is related to Extraversion. With this in mind, it may still be true that a self presentation construct no t related to a particular type preference would have been more likely to be related to type discrepancy, since individual types do not seem particularly related to type discrepancy. Type Distribution and Concerns with the Sample In evaluating the results of this study, the question of how to use and generalize the current sample is not clearly answered. The cost of the MBTI and time constraints necessitated limiting the participant sample to 200 respondents from one college. The result was a sample of 187 participants from a relatively small college with strong preferences for iNtuition (82.9% MBTI, 60.4% Best Fit) and Perception (67.4%, 66.3%), and thus different from the national ution. The high percentage of iN tuitive types was expe ct ed and the high percentage of P unconventional, intellectual, open 23 for its academic program, descriptions that correspond to an iNtuitive Perceiving preference (DiRusso et al., 1995; Myers et al., 2003). Additionally, a previous study using the same college found that there was a higher percentage of intuitive types tha n other colleges (Mosca, 2005). It was originally assumed that this difference in type distribution would not affect the relation between self presentation and type discrepancy. However, there were two possible 23 ebsite describing its students (see New College of Fl orida, 2008)


Self Presentation of Type 41 tuitive types. 24 The first side effect relates to the significant results between type discrepancy and the Sensing iNtuition and Judging Perceiving dichotomies. Both relationships were due in large part to the much higher numbers of iNtuitive types and Perc eiving types than Sensing or Judging types on the MBTI. In the Sensing iNtuitive dichotomy, nearly 30% switched to Sensing on the Best Fit Questionnaire while only three participants switched from Fit Questionnaire. However, the small number of Sensing participants in this sample (N=26) emphasis on iNtuitive types, suggests that the significance of this difference may be amplified, resulting in a significant, but not reliable relationship. The Judging Perceiving dichotomy showed a similar trend wi th twice as many people switching Perceiving on the MBTI to Judging on the Best Fit Questionnaire as switch ing Judging on the MBTI to Perceiving on the Best Fit Questionnaire. Nearly 25% of the 46 participants who typed Judging on the MBTI switched their type, while only 15% of the participants who ty ped Perceiving on the MBTI switched their type. influences some participants with naturally Sensing (or Judging) preferences to type iNtuitive (or Perceiving) on the MB TI or to feel that they are really iNtuitive (or Perceiving) types on the Best Fit Questionnaire. Alternatively, it may be that participants with naturally Judging (or Sensing) preferences have developed their Perceiving (or iNtuitive) side to such a level that it is unclear to them which reaction is most natural. These participants would type evenly, or may type based on their environmental demands, on the MBTI, but then may switch on the Best Fit 24 It is valuable to note that iNtuition is a Perceiving preference, so an emphasis on iNtuition may include a minded learning.


Self Presentation of Type 42 Questionnaire to either reflect their true type, or reflect the type that they feel is natural, but not allowable in their current environment. While these explanations should be supported by a relation to the self presentation constructs, it is possible that, as stated above, the SMS and MC SDS do not address the particular type of self presentation that results in this behavior. iNtuitive students were able to quickly perceive the purpose of the survey and the constructs being exa mined. Intuitives tend to be very good at quickly perceiving underlying processes, purposes, and possibilities (Jung, 1971). This may have made it significantly easier for this population to perceive some part of the purpose of the study, making the likeli hood of altered responding higher. As college students, especially at the small, research focused liberal arts college used, the participants are also likely to be more aware of particular assessments. In fact, a number of the participants, after returning the survey, correctly guessed which constructs were being measured by the self presentation scales. Such awareness may also increase the likelihood of altered responding caused by a desire to help the researcher by responding in the expected way or by a d esire to resist fitting into categories (which was a concern many participants mentioned in relation to the Best Fit Questionnaire). However, the possibility that altered responding is responsible for the results is not likely for three reasons. First, it is unlikely that participants were able to perceive the entire purpose of the study while taking the MBTI, or the hypothesis of the study while taking the Best Fit scale. Thus, they would not have known in which direction to skew their responses to work to wards or against the researcher. Second, the data shows a full range of responses on all scales, suggesting that, even if some participant responses were affected by demand characteristics, they were not all affected in the same direction. Third, the means of the SMS ( M = 10.44, SD = 3.74) for the current study are similar to those from previous research ( M =9.0 3.9, Tobacyk et


Self Presentation of Type 43 al., 1991), suggesting that even if a demand characteristic was affecting the results, this study measured the same self monitoring as other studies. The mean for the MC SDS ( M = 18.81, SD = 5.07) was higher than in other studies ( M =13.72, SD =5.78, Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), but this may have been due in part to the higher percentage of female participants (59. 4%) Thus, while intention ally altered responding is possible, it is not likely, and even if it did occur, it did not affect all participants in the same way, and does not appear to have greatly affected the overall results. Two additional sample related concerns in this study are its size and racial homogeneity. The main concern with sample size is that type data could only be analyzed on the level of single preferences. A much larger study may be able to examine how whole type preferences interact with self presentation and type d iscrepancy. Additionally problematic with this sample was the fact that there was not enough diversity in the participants. The participants were primarily white with very few participants of any other racial group. While this did allow for a clearer pictu re of the self presentation x discrepancy relationship in white populations, it leaves a lot of room for speculation about the relationship between self presentation and type discrepancy in minority populations. Future research should examine this relation ship using several different minority populations. Future Directions and Conclusions In addition to using a larger and more diverse sample, future research should examine more self presentation constructs and more type validation methods. There is some ca use for concern about both the indicated and best fit type measurements in this study. Indicated type was calculated based on a template scoring system developed for the MBTI, but this method is


Self Presentation of Type 44 not considered to be as accurate as the full profile computer ized scoring. 25 One reason for this is have equal scores on one dichotomy. On the other hand, the profile scoring weights individual responses based on a predetermi ned scoring method 26 possible. Best fit type was reported by participants based on their understanding of type from the Best fit Questionaire. However, it is possible that this is not the best possible method of writ ten type validation. Many books and websites that describe type include self scorable type indicators (Kiersey & Bates, 1984; Page, 1997; Baron, 1998;, 2006). It is possible that one of these is a better indicator of best fit type than the Best fit Questionaire. It is also possible that the only way to determine true type is through counseling, though it is unclear what the effect of telling participants their indicated type has on their conclusion about their best fit type. Future studies should examine all of these possibilities and examine how different combinations of MBTI scoring, written type validation and type counseling affect type discrepancy scores. One additional area of research not examined in this study is the definition of m inority populations. Previous type research dealing with minorities has focused on racial minorities. However, especially if type discrepancy is related to minority status as suggested by Posey et al. (1999), minorities other than racial or ethnic minoriti es should also be examined. For instance, these minority groups may include gender, socioeconomic status, religious minorities, or individuals with disabilities. Socioeconomic status is an especially important variable to study because racial minorities ar e more likely to be in the lower socioeconomic classes and a significant portion of racial minority individuals are in poverty (Census Bureau, n.d. ). A number 25 There is no research on this, just a general feeling among the people who work with type (personal communication, 2008) 26 This method was not available without paying for the computerized scoring.


Self Presentation of Type 45 of studies have also found that controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) can reduce and sometim es eliminate statistically significant differences between groups (Levy & Ostrowski, 1983, see Hill & Clark, 1993). Additionally, the only study of the distribution of Type across socioeconomic status (MacDaid, McCaulley, & Granade, 1995) found individuals in the low income group were more likely to be Introverted and Sensing than the middle and high income groups, showing that individuals from low income groups display the same trend as racial minority groups. This suggests that socioeconomic status may ha ve a similar correlation with how individuals respond to the MBTI as does race. Though the current study did not analyze socioeconomic status, this is an issue that future studies should pay particular attention to. In sum, the current study was not able t o fully answer the question of whether self presentation was related to type discrepancy. However, the current study was able to discover that social desirability and self monitoring do not appear to be related to type discrepancy in white, iNtuitive Perce iving college students. Further studies are needed in order to completely answer this question and discover how and what constructs are related to type discrepancy. Psychologists, occupational counselors, and education researchers draw conclusions about pe ople and make decisions about programs and organizational structures based on personality research and predictions of how people act and interact due to their personalities Thus, it is imperative that personality is identified correctly both in research, and in predicting individual behavior. Reliable and accurate type descriptions and type measures are an invaluable asset in this process, but inaccurate typing can lead to misunderstanding and potentially harmful predictions (especially in the area of mino rity education). Therefore, future studies should aim to increase understanding of inaccurate typing and type discrepancy and find improved methods of type measurement and type verification.


Self Presentation of Type 46 Table 1 Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by MBTI Indica ted Type and Reported Best F it Type MBTI Type Best Fit Type E/I S/N T/F J/P E I S N T F J P Extraversion/Introversion E 69 (0.842 ) 13 (0.158 ) 32 (0.39 0) 50 (0.61 0) 32 ( 0. 395) 49 (0.60 5) 17 (0.21 3) 63 (0.78 7) I 22 (0.209 ) 83 ( 0. 791) 39 ( 0.38 2) 63 (0.61 8) 49 ( 0. 480) 53 ( 0. 520) 44 ( 0. 419) 61 ( 0. 581) Sensing/iNtuition S 15 ( 0. 57 7 ) 11 ( 0.42 3) 25 ( 0. 96 1) 1 ( 0. 0 3 9) 17 ( 0.65 3) 9 ( 0.34 7) 10 ( 0.38 5) 16 ( 0.62 5) N 72 (0.464 ) 83 (0.536 ) 42 ( 0. 27 6) 110 ( 0. 72 4) 62 ( 0. 408) 90 ( 0.59 2) 48 ( 0.31 4) 105 ( 0.68 6) Thinking/Feeling T 37 (0.44 0) 47 (0.56 0) 35 (0.42 2) 48 (0.57 8) 56 ( 0. 675) 27 ( 0. 32 5) 34 (0.40 5) 50 (0.59 5) F 46 (0.50 5) 45 (0.45 5) 32 (0.35 9) 57 (0.64 1) 20 ( 0. 227) 68 ( 0. 773) 26 (0.29 2) 63 (0.70 8) Judging/Perceivi ng J 20 (0.43 5) 26 (0.56 5) 24 (0.52 2) 22 (0.47 8) 24 ( 0. 533) 21 (0.46 7) 34 ( 0. 75 6) 11 ( 0. 24 4) P 68 (0.53 9) 58 (0.46 1) 43 (0.34 9) 80 (0.15 1) 50 (0.40 7) 73 (0.59 3) 19 ( 0. 15 2) 106 ( 0. 84 8) Note : Colored cells indicate significant 2 (indicated type) x 2(best fit type) chi squared analysis ( p<.001) All other cells: p>.10


Self Presentation of Type 47 Table 2 Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Type Discrepancy and Self Presentation Self Presentation Type Discrepancy Not Discrepant Discrepant Very Discrepant S ocial Desirability (N=187) High 34 (0.28 4) 27 (0.28 4) 34 (0.35 8) Low 26 (0.28 3) 40 (0.43 5) 26 (0.28 3) Self Monitoring (N=187) High 35 (0.35 4) 33 (0.33 3) 31 (0.31 3) Low 25 (0.28 4) 34 (0.38 5) 29 (0.33 0) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 48 Table 3 Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Type Discrepancy and MBTI Indicated Type Self Presentation Type Discrepancy Not Discrepant Discrepant Very Discrepant Extraversion/Introversion (N=187) Extraversion 30 (0.36 6) 30 (0.36 6) 22 (0.26 8) Introversion 30 (0.28 6) 37 (0.35 2) 38 (0.63 3) Sensing/iNtuition (N=181) Sensing 13 (0.50 0) 9 (0.34 6) 4 (0.15 4) iNtuition 47 (0.30 3) 56 (0.36 1) 52 (0.33 5) Thinking/Feeling (N=175) Thinking 31 (0.34 1) 33 (0.36 3) 27 (0.29 7) Feeling 29 (0.34 5) 29 (0.34 5) 26 (0.31 0) Judging/Perceiving (N=185) Judging 12 (0.26 1) 20 (0.43 5) 14 (0.30 4) Perceiving 48 (0.38 1) 40 (0.31 7) 38 (0.30 2) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 49 Table 4 Freque ncy (and Percent) of Participants by Type Discrepancy and Reported Best Fit Type Best Fit Type Type Discrepancy Not Discrepant Discrepant Very Discrepant Extraversion/Introversion (N=187) Extraversion 30 (0.33 0) 33 (0.36 3) 28 (0.30 8) Introversio n 30 (0.31 2) 34 (0.35 4) 32 (0.33 3) Sensing/iNtuition (N=184) *** Sensing 13 (0.18 3) 21 (0.29 6) 37 (0.52 1) iNtuition 47 (0.41 6) 45 (0.39 8) 21 (0.18 6) Thinking/Feeling (N=183) Thinking 31 (0.30 4) 41 (0.40 2) 30 (0.29 4) Feeling 29 (0.35 8) 25 (0.30 9) 27 (0.33 3) Judging/Perceiving (N=185) Judging 12 (0.19 7) 22 (0.36 1) 27 (0.44 3) Perceiving 48 (0.38 7) 44 (0.35 5) 32 (0.25 8) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 50 Table 5 Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Ty pe Discrepancy and Demographic Variables Participant Variable Type Discrepancy Not Discrepant Discrepant Very Discrepant Gender (N=185) Male 26 (0.35 1) 28 (0.37 8) 20 (0.27 0) Female 33 (0.29 7) 39 (0.35 1) 39 (0.35 1) Race (N=184) White 47 (0.3 2 4) 53 (0.36 6) 45 (0.31 0) Non White 13 (0.33 3) 12 (0.30 8) 14 (0.35 9) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 51 Table 6 Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Social Desirability and MBTI Indicated Type Indicated Type Social Desirability Low High Extraversion/Introversion (N=187) Extraverted 41 (0.50 0) 41 (0.50 0) Introverted 51 (0.48 6) 54 (0.51 5) Sensing/iNtuition (N=181) Sensing 10 (0.38 5) 16 (0.61 5) iNtuition 78 (0.50 3) 77 (0.49 3) Thinking/Feeling ( N=175) ** Thinking 32 (0.38 1) 52 (0.61 9) Feeling 54 (0.59 3) 37 (0.40 7) Judging/Perceiving (N=172) Judging 24 (0.52 2) 22 (0.47 8) Perceiving 60 (0.47 6) 66 (0.52 4) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 52 Table 7 Frequ ency (and Percent) of Participants by Social Desirability and Reported Best Fit Type Best Fit Type Social Desirability Low High Extraversion/Introversion (N=187) Extraverted 46 (0.50 5) 45 (0.49 5) Introverted 46 (0.47 9) 50 (0.52 1) Sensing/iNtui tion (N=184) Sensing 31 (0.43 7) 40 (0.56 3) iNtuition 58 (0.51 3) 55 (0.48 7) Thinking/Feeling (N=183) Thinking 33 (0.40 7) 48 (0.59 3) Feeling 33 (0.42 9) 44 (0.57 1) Judging/Perceiving (N=185) Judging 30 (0.49 2) 31 (0.50 8) Perceiving 62 (0.50 0) 62 (0.50 0) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 53 Table 8 Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Social Desirability and Demographic Variables Participant Variable Social Desirability Low High Gender (N=185) Male 28 (0.37 8) 46 (0.62 2) Female 63 (0.56 8) 48 (0.43 2) Race (N=184) White 70 (0.48 3) 75 (0.51 7) Non White 22 (0.56 4) 17 (0.43 6) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 54 Table 9 Frequency (and Percent) of Partici pants by Self Monitoring and MBTI Indicated Type Indicated Type Self Monitoring Low High Extraversion/Introversion (N=187) *** Extraverted 19 (0.23 2) 63 (0.76 8) Introverted 69 (0.65 7) 36 (0.34 3) Sensing/iNtuition (N=181) Sensing 15 (0.57 7) 11 (0.42 3) iNtuition 70 (0.45 2) 85 (0.54 8) Thinking/Feeling (N=175) Thinking 37 (0.44 0) 47 (0.56 0) Feeling 46 (0.50 5) 45 (0.49 5) Judging/Perceiving (N=172) Judging 23 (0.50 0) 23 (0.50 0) Perceiving 56 (0.44 4) 70 (0.55 6) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 55 Table 10 Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Self Monitoring and Reported Best Fit Type Best Fit Type Self Monitoring Low High Extraversion/Introversion (N=187) *** Extraverted 30 (0.32 9) 61 (0 .67 1) Introverted 58 (0.60 4) 38 (0.39 6) Sensing/iNtuition (N=184) Sensing 38 (0.53 5) 33 (0.46 5) iNtuition 47 (0.40 2) 66 (0.59 8) Thinking/Feeling (N=183) Thinking 37 (0.45 7) 44 (0.54 3) Feeling 48 (0.47 1) 54 (0.52 9) Judging/Perceiving (N=185) Judging 32 (0.52 5) 29 (0.47 5) Perceiving 56 (0.45 2) 68 (0.54 8) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 56 Table 11 Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Self Monitoring and Demographic Variables Participant Variabl e Self Monitoring Low High Gender (N=185) Male 30 (0.40 5) 44 (0.59 5) Female 57 (0.51 4) 54 (0.48 6) Race (N=184) White 69 (0.47 6) 76 (0.52 4) Non White 18 (0.46 2) 21 (0.53 8) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 57 Table 12 Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by MBTI Indicated Type by Demographic Variables Indicated Type E/I S/N T/F J/P E I S N T F J P Gender Male 31 (0.41 9) 43 (0.58 1) 10 (0.13 8) 62 (0.86 2) 42 ** (0.60 9) 27 ** (0.39 1) 13 (0.18 6) 57 (0.81 4) Female 51 (0.45 9) 60 (0.54 1) 16 (0.14 9) 91 (0.85 1) 40 ** (0.38 5) 64** (0.61 5) 33 (0.46 5) 68 (0.53 5) Race White 61 (0.42 0) 84 (0.58 0) 21 (0.14 8) 121 (0.85 2) 64 (0.46 4) 74 (0.53 6) 38 (0.28 8) 94 (0.71 2) No n White 20 (0.51 3) 19 (0.48 7) 5 (0.13 2) 32 (0.86 8) 18 (0.52 9) 16 (0.47 1) 6 (0.16 2) 31 (0.83 8) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 58 Table 13 Frequency (and Percent) of Participants by Reported Best Fit Type by De mographic Variables Best Fit Type E/I S/N T/F J/P E I S N T F J P Gender Male 36 (0.48 6) 38 (0.51 4) 24 (0.32 4) 50 (0.67 6) 37 (0.50 0) 37 (0.50 0) 20 (0.27 0) 54 (0.73 0) Female 55 (0.49 5) 56 (0.50 5) 46 (0.42 6) 62 (0.57 4) 42 (0.39 3) 65 (0.60 7) 41 (0.37 6) 68 (0.62 4) Race White 68 (0.46 9) 77 (0.53 1) 55 (0.38 7) 87 (0.61 3) 66 (0.46 2) 77 (0.53 8) 52 (0.36 4) 91 (0.63 6) Non White 21 (0.53 8) 18 (0.46 2) 14 (0.35 9) 25 (0.64 1) 13 (0.34 2) 25 (0.65 8) 7 (0.17 9) 32 (0.82 1) Note: p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001


Self Presentation of Type 59 Figure 1: Discrepancy as a function of Social Desirability


Self Presentation of Type 60 Figure 2. Discrepancy as a function of Self Monitoring


Self Presentation of Type 61 Figure 2. Discrepancy as a function of Race


Self Presentation of Type 62 Figure 2. Discrepancy as a function of Gender




Self Presentation of Type 64 The following pages each describe two different personality types. Both are equally normal and equally healthy, but some people prefer one, and some prefer the other, just like some people prefer to write with one hand and some prefer to write with the other. Please read the material below carefully, and then indicate which type on each page more accurately describes your natural preference. That is, not what you may have to do in certain situations, but what you genuinely prefer to do when the choice is entirely up to you. There are two ways of gaining energy: an outward way (Extraverted) or an inward way (Introverted). Extraverts receive energy through doing things with others or being actively engaged with their environment. They might enjoy long discussions with friends, playing team sports, and being active. They are likely to seek out parties and other opportunities for social engagements wi th others. The key is that they enjoy being in that outer environment. They not only prefer to spend their time in outside activities, but they find they gain energy through the activities as well. They are likely to prefer to talk things over with others answers. Introverts, on the other hand, prefer to direct their energy inward and reflect on ideas, facts and impressions inside of themselves. When they have a problem to solve, they like thinking it through by themselves and prefer to involve others late in the process, if at all, rather than earlier. They may enjoy reflec ting on their day by thinking through key happenings. They often talk internally to themselves. (Extraverts would generally rather tell other people about their day than think about it by themselves or talk to themselves.) Quiet for concentration is desira ble for Introverts. Introverts often enjoy time by themselves, and their privacy and their space is very important to them. They most likely don't enjoy large parties, but would rather spend time with their close friends; if they do go to large parties, th ey like being somewhat anonymous in picking and choosing what to do and who to talk with. They rarely feel alone because their focus is an internal one. Extravert and an Introvert might like to spend their days at school. The Extra verts most likely enjoy eating all meals with their friends, describing what they'd like to do during the day, who they might like to be with, and then later discussing events of the day and their feelings and reactions to those events. They likely keep th emselves busy with their activities and friends and spend a great deal of time with others. Even their studying, if possible, is likely to be with others. The Introverts on the other hand, might prefer some of their meals alone where they have time to re flect or to be with only one or a few close friends. They likely have some time by themselves built into to be with those they know well and after they have had a chance to think over the events first. Now, test yourself: Place an E next to the characteristics listed below that best describe Extraverts and an I next to the characteristics that best describe Introverts. Only one letter per character istic, please. ___ enjoy being active ___ prefer to talk things over with others ___ prefer quiet for concentration ___ if possible, likely to study with others ___ direct their energy inward ___ often enjoy time spent alone To be sure that you really understand these concepts, refer back to the text above and check your answers. Correct any that are wrong. Now, think about yourself and complete the following statement: Based on the description I have jus t read, I would say that my overall preference is to be (circle one) an extraverted type / an introverted type.


Self Presentation of Type 65 This page relates to the ways one may perceive situations and the data that they may attend to or notice first: Sensors, the details, an d Intuitives, the big picture. Both are equally normal and equally healthy, but some people prefer one, and some prefer the other, just like some people prefer to write with one hand and some prefer to write with the other. Please read the material below c arefully, and then indicate which type overall more accurately describes your natural preference. That is, what you genuinely prefer to do when the choice is entirely up to you. Sensors pay attention to the facts and the details. They notice reality and w hat is. They seldom make errors of fact. They may note the practical aspects of a situation and want to solve problems in the here and now, focusing on the issue at hand. They may be more aware of traditions and what has worked well in the past. They are n ot likely to change things unless they believe change is necessary to make things better. At their worst, they keep doing the same things over and over in the Intuitives notic e first the big picture and the possibilities. They are more likely to read between the lines and think what might be, and thus not stick closely to the presenting facts. They are likely more focused on the future and the theory rather than the present and the practicality in the trees, whereas their Sensing counterpa rts see the trees and may not get to the forest. Sensing students generally like to know sp not speculate but would rather report what is. They want to be grounded in reality and prefer the concrete. Intuitives may prefer courses that are more theoretical an d abstract in nature. In a paper assignment, they prefer a wide range of topics and even some ambiguity that allows them different options. Knowing the number of pages expected may feel stifling to them. They would like conjecturing about what might be, no t just reporting the facts as others have seen them. Now, test yourself: Place an S next to the characteristics listed below that best describe Sensors and an N next to the characteristics that best describe Intuitives. Only one letter per characteristic, please. ___ notice the big picture first ___ pay attention to facts and details ___ more focused on the future ___ may prefer courses that are theoretical ___ more focused on the present ___ may prefer courses that are practica l To be sure that you really understand these concepts, refer back to the text above and check your answers. Correct any that are wrong. Now, think about yourself and complete the following statement: Based on the description I have just read, I would say that my overall preference is to be (circle one) a sensing type / an intuitive type.


Self Presentation of Type 66 This page describes two different ways of making decisions: Thinking and Feeling Both are equally normal and equally healthy, but some people prefe r one, and some prefer the other, just like some people prefer to write with one hand and some prefer to write with the other. Please read the material below carefully, and then indicate which type overall more accurately describes your natural preference. That is, what you genuinely prefer to do when the choice is entirely up to you. Thinkers make their decisions based on a logical, impersonal analysis of the data that they have. They step back from the situation and note the pros and cons of the alternat ive solutions. The are aware of the consequences of different courses of action. Thinkers often evaluate and critique events happening around them. They attempt to apply an objective standard to their decisions and may be seen as tough minded and firm. Alt hough Thinkers will use their values as a piece of data to weigh, ultimately their values will just be a part of the decision, not the deciding factor. They want the decision to be objective and thus fair and just. Thinkers decisions can be flawed when th ey use an irrelevant standard of truth. Feelers make their decisions based on a personal, values oriented system, a system some might call subjective. They become actively involved with decisions and note how they and others feel about the alternatives. T hey consider the extenuating (special) circumstances, the emotions involved, and how each alternative will affect the people involved. They tend to be aware of liking or disliking something. Feelers often praise and compliment people around them because t hat promotes harmony, something that is prized by Feelers Although they may be aware of the logical consequences of the alternatives, their decisions must be in line with values, regardless of logical considerations. They often seek harmony (and avoid con flict) in their decisions, and they may be seen as tender hearted. Feelers decisions can be flawed, when their values are self centered ones. Let's look at how a Thinker and Feeler might decide on a roommate. A Thinker might be more likely to look at objective criteria. What are the roommate's study habits, sleep habits, etc., and will they interfere with mine? What hassles might we have? Can the roommate afford the rent? A Feeler might consider the following: Do I like the person? Do I feel we are co mpatible? Do we share common values, morals, etc.? Can we be comfortable together? Both the Thinker and the Feeler might come to the same conclusion and want the same roommate, but they would have made their decisions in different ways. Now, test yourse lf: Place a T next to the characteristics listed below that best describe Thinkers and an F next to the characteristics that best describe Feelers. Only one letter per characteristic, please. ___ make decisions based on logic ___ often praise and compliment others ___ value harmony ___ often seen as tough minded and firm ___ value fairness and objectivity ___ often seen aw tender hearted To be sure that you really understand these concepts, refer back to the text above and check your answers. Correct any that are wrong. Now, think about yourself and complete the following statement: Based on the description I have just read, I would say that my overall preference is to be (circle one) a thinking type / a feeling type.


Self Presentation of Type 67 This page has to do with a preference for living a structured, organized life (Judging) or an open ended, flexible life (Perceiving). Both are equally normal and equally healthy, but some people prefer one, and some prefer the other, just like some people prefer to write with one hand and some prefer to write with the other. Please read the material below carefully, and then indicate which type overall more accurately describes your natural preference. That is, what you genuine ly prefer to do when the choice is entirely up to you. Judging people prefer their lives to be organized, orderly, and decided. They seek closure and thus often structure their activities and set goals. They are likely to be the list makers of the world. They develop schedules and routines to help them organize and reach closure. They plan ahead and focus on completion of a task, usually working steadily towards finishing whatever it is they are working on. They are pleased when they have a product to show for their work. They likely have clear boundaries between work and play. Perceivers prefer to keep things open and spontaneous. They seek openness, not closure, and become concerned when they must make a decision before they have had time to gather infor mation. They would rather just let life happen, and they are often open to surprises and change. They like to just go with the flow. They may like to juggle multiple tasks and wait until the last minute to complete things. They are often seen as more flexi ble and adaptable, since following a structure is not as important to them. Often their work must be playful, and they do not separate work and play; it all blends together. Judging person and a Perceiving person might handle long ter m assignments. Judging students likely have assignment deadlines written on the calendar and work steadily toward completion of projects. They like the feeling of closure when they turn something in. They are less likely to pull an "all nighter" in gettin g assignments done. Doing an assignment due on Thursday on a Wednesday night feels like "last minute." The Perceiving student may also have his or her calendar full but is less likely to refer to it to stay on track. He or she often waits until the last mi nute to get things done, keeping open to new information and possibilities; that makes school more exciting! Remember that Thursday due date? Working at the last minute for a Perceiver is doing the assignment on Thursday morning! Both may get excellent r esults when they hand in their work, but they've done it in different ways. Now, test yourself: Place a J next to the characteristics listed below that best describe Judging types and a P next to the characteristics that best describe Perceivers. Only on e letter per characteristic, please. ____ prefer order and structure ______ prefer openness and spontaneity ____ often seen as flexible and adaptable ______ prefer to plan ahead ____ work steadily to get things done ______ often wait to the last minut e to get things done To be sure that you really understand these concepts, refer back to the text above and check your answers. Correct any that are wrong. Now, think about yourself and complete the following statement: Based on the description I have just read, I would say that my overall preference is to be (circle one) a judging type / a perceiving type.




Self Presentation of Type 69 The following statements refer to personal attitudes, opinions, everyday actions and traits. Read each item carefully and decide whether the statement is True or False as it pertains to you personally. Please answer as honestly as possible. ____ 1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people. ____ 2. At parties and social gat herings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like. ____ 3. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe. ____ 4. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost no information. ____ 5. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain others. ____ 6. I would probably make a good actor. ____ 7. In a group of people I am rarely the center of attention. ____ 8. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons. ___ 9. I am not particularly good at making other people like me. ____ 10. I'm not always the person I appear to be. ____ 11. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone or win their favor. ____ 12. I have considered being an entertainer. ____ 13. I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational acting. ____ 14. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations. ____ 15. At a party I let others keep the jokes and s tories going. ____ 16. I feel a bit awkward in public and do not show up quite as well as I should. ____ 17. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for a right end). ____ 18. I may deceive people by being friendly when I rea lly dislike them.




Self Presentation of Type 71 The following statements refer to personal attitudes, opinions, everyday actions and traits. Read each item carefully and decide whether the statement is True or False as it pertains to you personally. Please answer as honestly as possible. ___ 1. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates. ___ 2. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. ___ 3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work, if I am not encouraged. ___ 4. I have never intensely disliked anyone. ___ 5. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. ___ 6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. ___ 7. I am always careful about my manner of dress. ___ 8. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. ___ 9. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen, I would probably do it. ___ 10. On a few occasions, I h ave given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. ___ 11. I like to gossip at times. ___ 12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. ___ 13. No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener. ___ 14. I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something. ___ 15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. ___ 16. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. ___ 17. I always try to practice what I preach. ___ 18. I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people. ___ 19. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. ___ 20. When I don't know something I don 't at all mind admitting it. ___ 21. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. ___ 22. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. ___ 23. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. ___ 24. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings. ___ 25. I never resent being asked to return a favor. ___ 26. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. ___ 27. I never make a long trip without ch ecking the safety of my car. ___ 28. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. ___ 29. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. ___ 30. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. ___ 31. I have never felt that I was punished without cause. ___ 32. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. ___ 33. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings.




Self Presentation of Type 73 On this page, you will be asked to answer several questions about yourself and your family life while you were growing up. Please answer all questions as accurately as possible. If a question is not Age: ____ Sex: Male Female Race: Circle all that apply: White Black Hispanic Asian Middle Eastern Alaskan Native/Native American Other ________________ College Major: ______________________ What economic class would you say your family fit into when you were growing up? Poverty Lower Class Lower Middle Class Middle Class Upper Middle Class Upper Class Wealthy Class Please estimate the average annual household income of your parents as you were growing up. $0 $10,000 $10,001 $20,000 $20,001 $30,000 $30,001 $40,000 $40,001 $50,000 $50,001 $70,000 $70,001 $100,000 $100,001 $150,000 $150,001 $200,000 $200,001 $350,000 $350,001 $500,000 $500,001 + How many siblings do you have? ___ ___ How many people were living in your household? _____ Not Applicable Some High School GED High School Diploma Some College Associates Degree Specialist/ Doctor al Degree Not Applicable Some High School GED High School Diploma Some College Associates Degree Specialist/ Doctoral Degree cupation while you were growing up? _____________________ If known, what is your intended occupation when you get out of school? ______________________ Have you ever taken the Myers Briggs Type Indicator or studied Type Theory before this? Yes No


Self Presentation of Type 74 APPENDIX E TYPE RESULTS HANDOUT


Self Presentation of Type 75 Thank you for participating in this research study. Your participation will be of great help in learning more about factors associated with personality and personality types. For your future reference and use, below is your indicated personality type from the Myers Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) and the personality type that you indicated when asked what you thought fit you best. Beneath your type results is a brief synopsis of what the various types mean. Remember that every type is normal and no type is better or worse than any other type. These types simply describe general preferences of people. Only you can decide wh at you true type is. For more information on type and on how types relates to other types, you can visit or pick up the books LifeTypes (1989) by Sandra Hirsh and Jean Kummerow, WorkTypes (1997) by Jean Kummerow, Nancy Barger, and Linda Kirby, or What Type Am I? Discover who you really are (1998) by Renee Baron from your local library or bookstore. If you have any questions or concerns about this research or wish to learn about the results of the stu dy, feel free to contact the researcher, Katherine Filippi, at or 352 538 9484. Again, thank you for your participation. Your MBTI Indicated Type : ___ ___ ___ ___ Your Indi cated Best fit Type : ___ ___ ___ ___ I =Introverted, E =Extroverted; S =Sensing, N =iNtuition; T =Thinking, F =Feeling; J =Judging, P =Perceiving ISTJ Dependable, exacting, logical, organized, practical, realistic, factual, reliable, reserved, sensible steadfast, thorough. ISFJ Accommodating, loyal, patient, detailed, practical, devoted, quiet, meticulous, responsible, organized, traditional, protective. INFJ Compassionate, loyal, intense, conceptual, intimate, creative, determined, deep, methodical, r eflective, idealistic, sensitive. INTJ Analytical, organized, autonomous, firm, original, determined, private, theoretical, systems minded, global, independent, visionary. ISTP Adaptable, practical, adventurous, applied, expedient, factual, independent, l ogical, realistic, resourceful, self determined, spontaneous. ISFP Adaptable, caring, modest, observant, cooperative, sensitive, gentle, spontaneous, harmonious, trusting, loyal, understanding. INFP Adaptable, gentle, committed, idealistic, curious, imagin ative, deep, intimate, devoted, loyal, reticent, empathetic. INTP Autonomous, precise, cognitive, skeptical, self determined, logical, detached, independent, speculative, theoretical, spontaneous, original. ESTP Activity oriented, outgoing, adaptable, per suasive, pragmatic, adventurous, alert, quick, spontaneous, easygoing, energetic, versatile. ESFP Adaptable, outgoing, casual, cooperative, playful, practical, easygoing, sociable, enthusiastic, friendly, talkative, tolerant. ENFP Creative, imaginative, cu rious, independent, energetic, original, enthusiastic, restless, expressive, versatile, spontaneous, friendly. ENTP Adaptive, enterprising, analytical, outspoken, challenging, strategic, questioning, clever, resourceful, theoretical, independent, original. ESTJ Decisive, organized, direct, responsible, efficient, systematic, gregarious, practical, logical, task focused, objective, structured. ESFJ Conscientious, sociable, responsible, cooperative, responsive, harmonious, sympathetic, loyal, planful, tradit ional, personable, tactful. ENFJ Appreciative, idealistic, congenial, diplomatic, loyal, enthusiastic, organized, energetic, personable, expressive, responsible, supportive. ENTJ Challenging, objective, controlled, opinionated, straightforward, logical, to ugh minded, planful, methodical, decisive, strategic, energetic. 1998 Sandra Hirsh and Jean Kummerow from Introduction to Type in Organizations


Self Presentation of Type 76 APPENDIX F INFORMED CONSENT


Self Presentation of Type 77 Informed Consent Information for persons 18 years of age or olde r who take part in a research study The following information is being presented to help you decide whether or not you want to take part in a research study. Please read this carefully. If there is anything you do not understand, feel free to ask the p erson in charge of the study. Title of research study: Personality Types in the United States Person in charge of study: Katherine Filippi Invitation to Participate: You are being asked to participate because you are a student college student age 18 or older. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this research study is to examine factors associated with personality type in college students. Procedure In this study, you will be asked to respond on paper to a series of written survey questions and to read paragraphs about personality type preferences. These questions consist of approximately160 multiple choice questions and statements about personality, including questions from the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), other personality constructs, and demogr aphics questions. Completion of this study should take approximately 30 50 minutes. Compensation for Participation As a thank you for your time and effort in participating in this study, you will be given your choice of a pen, your choice of a candy bar or bag of chips, and a list of methods to obtain more information about type. If for any reason you do not or are not able to complete the survey, you will still be given this form of compensation. In addition, after taking the survey, your Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) responses will be scored and you will be given your MBTI type and your best fit type. If you do not complete the MBTI, these responses cannot be scored, but you will be still be given information about type and ways to learn more about ty pe. Benefits of Being a Part of this Research Study By taking part in this study, you will increase your overall understanding of personality type as defined by the Myers Briggs Type Indicator and a greater understanding of your own type. You will also be given a paper with information on type in general, information on how different types act, and a record of your type as indicated by this survey. Risks of Being a Part of this Research Study There are no known risks associated with this study. If for any r eason you feel uncomfortable taking the survey, please stop, return the materials to the researcher, and tell her that you were not able to finish. You will still receive the snack and pen and information about type as compensation, but will only learn you r MBTI indicated type if you have finished that portion of the survey.


Self Presentation of Type 78 Confidentiality of Your Records Your privacy and research records will be kept confidential to the extent of the law. Authorized research personnel, employees of the Department of Healt h and Human Services, and the NCF Institutional Review Board may inspect the records from this research project. However, no names or other identifying data will be collected as part of this research project and your data will be analyzed only in combinati on with the large set of data collected for this project. The results of this study may be published. However, the data obtained from you will be combined with data from others in the publication. The published results will not include your name or any oth er information that would personally identify you in any way. Volunteering to Be Part of this Research Study Your decision to participate in this research study is completely voluntary. You are free to participate in this research study or to withdraw at any time. There will be no penalty or loss of benefits you are entitled to receive, if you stop taking part in the study. Questions and Contacts If you have any questions about this research study, including requests for a summary of the results, contact Katherine Filippi, the primary researcher, at (352)538 9484 or by email at If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may conta ct the Human Protections Administrator of New College of Florida at (941) 487 4649 or by email at Consent to Take Part in This Research Study By signing this form, I agree that: I have fully read or have had r ead and explained to me this informed consent form describing this research project. I have had the opportunity to question one of the persons in charge of this research and have received satisfactory answers. I understand that I am being asked to particip ate in research. I understand the risks and benefits, and I freely give my consent to participate in the research project outlined in this form, under the conditions indicated in it. I have been given a copy of this informed consent form, which is mine to keep. _________________________ __ _________________________ ___________ Signature of Particip ant Printed Name of Participant Date Investigator Statement I have carefully explained to the subject the nature of the above resea rch study. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the subject signing this consent form understands the nature, demands, risks, and benefits involved in participating in this study. ___________________ ______ ___________________________ ___________ Signature of Investigat or Printed Name of Investigator Date


Self Presentation of Type 79 APPENDIX G TYPE TABLES


Self Presentation of Type 80 Appendix G .1 Type Distribution Using MBTI Indicated Type N=187 += 1% of N The Sixteen Complete Types ISTJ N=5 2. 7% +++ ISFJ N=1 0.5% + INFJ N=9 4.8% +++++ INTJ N=9 4.8% +++++ ISTP N=4 2.1% ++ ISFP N=2 1.1% + INFP N=32 17.1% +++++ +++++ +++++ ++ INTP N=25 13.4% +++++ +++++ +++ ESTP N=6 3.2% +++ ESFP N=2 1.1% + ENFP N=26 13.9% +++++ +++++ +++ ENTP N=1 7 9.1% +++++ ++++ ESTJ N=0 0.0% ESFJ N=3 1.6% ++ ENFJ N=5 2.7% +++ ENTJ N=11 5.9% +++++ + Dichotomous Preferences E N=82 43.9% I N=105 56.1% S N=26 13.9% N N=155 82.9% T N=84 44.9% F N=91 48.7% J N=46 24.6% P N=126 67.4% Pairs an d Temperaments IJ N= 26 13.9 % IP N= 67 35.8 % EP N= 61 32.6 % EI N= 19 10.2 % ST N= 16 8.5 % SF N= 7 3.8 % NF N= 78 41.7 % NT N= 67 35.8 % SJ N= 10 5.3 % SP N= 14 7.5 % NP N= 108 57.8 % NJ N= 34 18.2 % TJ N= 26 13.9 % TP N= 52 27.8 % FP N= 65 34.8 % FJ N= 18 9.6 % IN N= 88 47.1 % EN N= 67 35.8 % IS N= 14 7.5 % ES N= 12 6.4 % ET N= 35 18.7 % EF N= 38 20.3 % IF N= 51 27.3 % IT N= 49 26.2 % Jungian Types (E) N % E TJ 11 5.9% E FJ 8 4.3% ES P 8 4.3% EN P 48 25.6% Jungian Types (I) N % I TP 29 15.5% I FP 35 18.7% IS J 7 3.8% IN J 18 9.6% Dominant Types N % Dt. T 40 21.4% Dt. F 43 22.9% Dt. S 15 8.0% Dt. N 66 35.3%


Self Presentation of Type 81 Appendix G .2 Type Distribution Using Reported Best fit Type N=187 += 1% of N The Si xteen Complete Types ISTJ N=12 6.4 % +++ ++ + ISFJ N=4 2.1% + + INFJ N=12 6.4 % +++++ + INTJ N=11 5.9% +++++ + ISTP N= 9 4.8 % ++ +++ ISFP N= 8 4.3 % + +++ INFP N= 23 12.3 % +++++ +++++ ++ INTP N= 13 7.0 % +++++ ++ ESTP N= 10 5.3 % +++ ++ ESFP N= 11 5.9 % + ++++ + ENFP N= 33 17 6 % +++++ +++++ +++ ++ +++ ENTP N= 13 7.0 % +++++ ++ ESTJ N= 8 4.3 % ++++ ESFJ N= 7 3.8 % ++ ++ ENFJ N= 2 1.1 % + ENTJ N= 4 2.1 % ++ Dichotomous Preferences E N=91 48.7 % I N=96 51.3 % S N=71 38.0 % N N=113 60.4 % T N=81 43.3 % F N=102 54.5 % J N=61 32.6 % P N=12 4 66.3 % Pairs and Temperaments IJ N= 40 21.4 % IP N= 56 29.9 % EP N= 68 36.4 % EI N= 21 11.2 % ST N= 39 20.9 % SF N= 30 16.0 % NF N= 71 37.9 % NT N= 41 21.9% SJ N= 32 17.1 % SP N= 39 20.9 % NP N= 82 43.9% NJ N= 29 15.5 % TJ N= 3 5 18.7 % TP N= 46 24.6 % FP N= 76 40.6 % FJ N= 25 13.4 % IN N= 59 31.6 % EN N= 54 28.9 % IS N= 35 18.7 % ES N= 36 19.3 % ET N= 35 18.7 % EF N= 55 29.4 % IF N= 47 25.1 % IT N= 46 24.6 % Jungian Types (E) N % E TJ 12 6.4% E FJ 9 4.8% ES P 21 11.2% EN P 46 24.6% Jungian Types (I) N % I TP 23 12.3% I FP 31 16.6% IS J 17 9.1% IN J 23 12.3% Dominant Types N % Dt. T 35 18.7% Dt. F 40 21.4% Dt. S 38 20.3% Dt. N 69 36.9%


Self Presentation of Type 82 Appendix G.3 Atlas of Type: Traditional Age College Students: Composi te N=27156 += 1% of N The Sixteen Complete Types ISTJ N=2573 9.47 % +++ ++ ++++ ISFJ N=2352 8.66 % + ++++ ++++ INFJ N=885 3.26 % +++ INTJ N=997 3.67 % ++++ ISTP N= 1216 4.48 % ++ ++ ISFP N= 1351 4.97 % + ++++ INFP N= 1495 5.51 % +++++ + INTP N= 1142 4.21 % ++++ ESTP N= 1257 4.63 % +++ ++ ESFP N= 1767 6.51 % + ++++ ++ ENFP N= 2496 9.19 % +++++ ++++ ENTP N= 1363 5.02 % +++++ ESTJ N= 2879 10.60 % +++++ +++++ + ESFJ N= 2875 10.59 % ++ +++ +++++ + ENFJ N= 1309 4.82 % +++++ ENTJ N= 1199 4.42 % ++ ++ Dichotomous Preferences E N=15145 55.77 % I N=12011 44.22 % S N=16270 59.91 % N N=10886 40.09 % T N=12626 46.49 % F N=14530 53.51 % J N=15069 55.49 % P N=12087 44.51 % Pairs and Temperaments IJ N= 6807 25.07 % IP N= 5204 19.16 % EP N= 6883 25.35 % EI N= 8262 30.42 % ST N= 7925 29.18 % SF N= 8345 30.78 % NF N= 6185 22.78 % NT N= 4701 17.31% SJ N= 10679 39.32 % SP N= 5591 20.59 % NP N= 6496 23.92% NJ N= 4390 16.17 % TJ N= 7648 28.16 % TP N= 4978 18.33 % FP N= 7109 26.18 % FJ N= 7421 27.33 % IN N= 4519 16.64 % EN N= 6367 23.45% IS N= 7492 27.59 % ES N= 8778 32.32 % ET N= 6698 24.66 % EF N= 8447 31.11 % IF N= 6083 22.40 % IT N= 5928 21.83 % Jungian Types (E) N % E TJ 4078 15.02 % E FJ 4184 15.41 % ES P 3024 11.14 % EN P 3849 14.21 % Jungian Types (I) N % I TP 2358 8.68 % I FP 2846 10.48 % IS J 4925 18.14 % IN J 1882 6.93 % Dominant Types N % Dt. T 6436 23.70 % Dt. F 7030 25.89 % Dt. S 7949 29.27 % Dt. N 5741 21.14 % Composite of Traditional Age Male and Traditional Age Female Type Distribution Tab les from The Atlas of Type Tables by Macdaid, McCaulley, and Kainz (1986)


References Allen, J. J. (1986). A developmental approach to self monitoring behavior. Communication Monographs, 53 277 288. Ballard, R. (1992). Short forms of the Marlowe Crowne social desirability scale. Psychological Reports,71, 1155 1160. Baron, R. ( 1998 ). What type am I? Discover who you really are. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Bathurst, J. (1999, July). Best fit type versus reported type: Demographic and environmental effect s on the accuracy of the MBTI. Handout from presentation at APT XIII, the Thirteenth Biennial International Conference of the Association for Psychological Type, Scottsdale, AZ. Bathurst, J. (2000). The Relationship between reported type and best fit type: Evidence for administrator bias? Journal of Psychological Type, 54, 5 11. Battle, P. C. (199 2 ). Two warring ideals in one dark body:A phenomenological journey toward appreciating the lifeworld of the African American experience. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer sity of Maryland College Park, Maryland. (UMI No. 9234521) Bennet, E. (1967). What Jung r eally s aid. New York, New York: Schocken Books. Beretvas S. N. Meyers, J. L., & Lei te, W. L., ( 2002 ). A reliability generalization study of the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 570 589 Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression m anagement. Journal of Management, 29 141 160. Bono, J. E., & Ve y, M. A. (2007). Personality and emotional performance: Extraversion, neuroticism, and s elf monitoring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12 177 192. CAPT (2008). Center for Applications of Psychological Type Website:


Self Presentation of Type 84 Cattell, R. PF questionnaire. Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 257 278. Census Bureau (n.d.). Historical poverty tables. Retrieved August 12, 2008 from U. S. Census Bureau Website: http://www.census.go v/ hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html Census Bureau (n.d. ) Table 668: Money income of h ouseholds Pe rcent distribution by i ncome level, race, and H ispanic o rigin, in Constant (2005) Dollars: 1980 to 2005 Retrieved August 12, 2008 from U. S. Census Bureau Website: /hhes/www/income/histine/h17.htm/ Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Self monitoring without awareness: Using mimicry as a nonconscious affliliation strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 1170 1179. Costa, Jr., P. T., & McCrae R. R., (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653 665. Crowne, D. P., & Liverant, S., (1964). Conformity under varying conditions of personal commitment. Journal of Abnormal and So cial Psychology, 66, 547 555. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349 354. Dalton, J.E. (1994). MMPI 168 and Marlowe Crowne profiles of adoption appli cants. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 863 865. Demoran, A.M. (1996). Differential validity of the Myers Briggs type indicator for blacks and whites: an DiRusso, L., Carney, J. V., & Bryan, B. (1995). Psychological type of education majors and career decisiveness. Journal of Psychological Type, 32, 36 42. Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship b etween the judged d esirability of a t rait and the probabilit y that


Self Presentation of Type 85 the t rait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37 90 93. Eysenck, H. J., (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773 790. Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E. Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. (2006). Helping one's w ay to the top: Self monitors achieve status through helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91 1123 1137. Ford, Jr., L.H. (1964). A forced choice, acquiescence free, social desirability (defensiveness) scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 475. Furnham, A., (1996). The big five versus the big four: the relationship between the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO PI five factor model of p ersonality. Personality and Individual Differences,21, 303 307. Furnham, A., Jackson, C. J., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (2001). Correlates of the Eysenck Personality Profiler. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 587 594. Gardner, W. L., & Mart inko, M. J. (1988). Impression management: A n observational study linking audience characteristcs with verbal self presentations. Academy of Management Journal, 31 42 65. Golden, B. J., & Lesh, K. (2001). Building self esteem: Strategies for success in school and beyond (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gudykunst, W. B., Gao, G., Nishida, T., Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Wang, G., et al. (1989). A c ross cultural comparison of self monitoring. Communications Research Reports, 6 7 12. Hammer, A. L. & Mitch ell, W. D. (1996). The distribution of MBTI types in the US by gender and ethnic group. Journal of Psychological Type, 37, 2 15. Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C. ( 1989 ) MMPI 2 Manual for Adm inistration and Scoring, 5th Ed


Self Presentation of Type 86 Minneapolis, MN : University of M innesota Press. Hedegard, J.M. & Brown, D.R. (1969). Encounters of some Negro and W hite freshman with a public multiversity. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 131 144. Hester, C. (1996). The relationship of personality, gender, and age to adjective check list profiles of the ideal romantic partner. Journal of Psychological Type, 36, 28 41 Hetherington, E. M. & Wray, N.P. (1964). Aggression, need for social approval, and humor preferences. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 685 689. Hill, O. W. & Cla rk, J. L. (1993). The personality typology of B lack college students: Evidence for a characteristic cognitive style? Psychological Reports, 72 1091 1097. Hirsch, S. K. & Kummerow, J. M. (1989). LifeTypes: Understand yourself and make the most of who you a re. New York: Warner Books. Hirsh, S. K. & Kummerow, J. M. (2001). Introduction to type in organizations (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Holden, R. R. & Fekken, G. C. (1989). Three common social desirability scales: Friends, aquai ntances, or strangers? Journal of Research in Personality,23 180 191. ( 2006 ). Jung Typology Test. Retrieved February 2006, from HumanMetrics Website: win/JType2.asp Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., & Wilson, G V., (2003). An examination of the relationship between personality type and cognitive s tyle. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 343 354. Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman, N. L. & McLean, J. E (1993). Profiles of Hispanic adolescents and a dults on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 628 630.


Self Presentation of Type 87 K e i rsey D. & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me: Character & temperament types. Del Mar, CA: Promethe us Nemesis Book Company. Kummerow, J.M. (1988). A methodolog y for verifying type: Research r esults. Journal of Psychological Type, 15, 20 25. Kuptsch, C., Kleinmann M., & Koller, O. (1998). The chameleon e ffect in a ssessment c enters: The i nfluence of cros s s ituational b ehavioral consistency on the c onvergent v alidity of assessment c enters. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13 103 116. Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the Self Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social P sychology, 46 1349 1364. Leone, C., & Corte, V. (1994). Concern for s elf presentation and self congruence: self monitoring, machiavellianism, and social conflicts. Social Behavior and Personality, 22 305 312. Levy N., Murphy C & Carlson R. (1972) Personality types among Negro college s tudents. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32 641 653. Levy, N. & Ostrowski, B. (1983). A comparison of the distribution of Jungian personality types among Hawaiians of Japanese and Caucasian ancestry. Rese arch in Psychological Type, 6, 54 57. Little Soldier, L. (1989). Cooperative learning and the Native American student. Phi Delta Kappan, 161 163. Lundberg, D. J., Osborne, W. L., & Miner, C.U. (1997). Career maturity and personality preferences of Mexica n American and Anglo American adolescents. Journal of Career Development, 23, 203 213. Macdaid, G. P., McCaulley, M. H. & Granade, J. G. (1995, July). Looking at MBTI scores: Psychometric studies from the CAPT databank. Paper presented at APT XI, the Eleve nth Biennial Conference of the Association for Psychological Type, Kansas City, MO.


Self Presentation of Type 88 Macdaid, G. P., McCaulley, M. H. & Kainz, R. I. (1986). Myers Briggs Type Indicator: Atlas of type tables. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type. M alone, Jr., O. (1988). Psychological type differences between minorities and majorities in an organizational setting. Journal of Psychological Type, 14, 15 24. Marioles, N. S., Strickert, D. P., & Hammer, A. L. (1996). Attraction, satisfaction, and psychol ogical types of couples. Journal of Psychological Type, 36, 16 27. McCarley, N.G. (1994) Validity of the Four Myers Briggs Type Indicator Scales as a function of preference score strength s (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, 1993) Disser tation Abstracts International, 54(08) 2957A. (UMI No. AAC94 00493) Mischel, W. (1999). Introduction to Personality (6th Edition ed.). Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Publisher. Mosca, A. (2005). Personality type as a correlate of success in traditional and non traditional colleges: A person environment congruence perspective. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, New College of Florida. Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenck, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (2003). MBTI Manual: A G uide to the Development and Use of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (3rd Edition ed.). Mountainview, California: CPP. New College of Florida, Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (2008). Fact book 2007 2008. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from New College of Florida, Office of Insti tutional Research and Assessment Website: books ira Nuby, J. F., & Oxford, R. L. (1998). Learning style preferences of Native American and African American Secondary students. Journal of Psychological Type, 44, 5 19.


Self Presentation of Type 89 Page, E. C. (1997). Looking at type: A description of the preferences reported by the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (3 rd ed.). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type. Paulhus, D. L., (1984). Two c omponent m odels of s ocially d es irable r esponding Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598 609 Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias In J.P.Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightman (Eds.), Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes: Vol. 1. Measur es of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. (pp. 17 41). New York: Academic Press. Posey, A. M., Thorne, B. M., & Carskad on, T. G. (1999). Differential v alidity and c omparative type d istributions of Blacks and Whites on the Myers Briggs Type Indi cator. Journal of Psychological Type, 48, 6 21. Reid, J. (1999). The realtionships among personality type, coping strategies, and burnout in elementary teachers. Journal of Psychological Type, 51, 22 33. Renner, K. H., Laux, L., Schutz, A., & Tedeschi, J. T. (2004). The Relationship between self presentational styles and coping with social stress. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17 1 22. Reynierse. (2000). The combination of preferences and the f ormation of MBTI Types. Journal of Psychological Type, 52 18 31 Rogers, J. (1997). Sixteen personality types at work in organisations London: Management Futures Ltd. Briggs personality profiles: Identifying effective teacher personality traits. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 432 441. Scanlon, S. (1998). The MBTI and other personality theories: Part 2 PI. The Type Reporter, 72, 1 8. Simmons, G. & Barrineau, P. (1994) Learning style and the Native American. Journal of Psyc hological Type, 28, 3 9.


Self Presentation of Type 90 Snyder, M. (1974). Self monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology 30 526 537. S nyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1985). "To carve nature at its joints": On the existence of discrete classes in p er sonality. Psychological Review,92, 317 349. Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of s el f monitoring: Matters of a ssessment, matters of v alidity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 125 139. Stalikas, A., Casas, E. & Carson, A. D. (1996). In the shadow of the English: English and French Canadians differ by psychological type. Journal of Psychological Type, 38, 4 12. Strosahl, K. D., Linehan, M. M., & Chiles, J.A., (1984). Will the real social desirability please stand up? Hopelessn ess, depression, social desirability, and the prediction of suicidal behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52 449 457. Tobacyk, J. J., Driggers, E. C., & Hourcade, J. (1991). Self monitoring and psychological type: A social cognitive in formation processing model. Journal of Psychological Type, 22, 33 38. Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C (2001). Achieving d esired i mages w hile a voiding u ndesired i mages: Exploring the r ole of s elf monitoring in i mpression m anagement. Journal of Applied Psych ology, 86 351 360. verification process. Journal of Psychological Type, 23, 17 21. Wiggins, J. S., & Rumrill, C. (1959). Social desirability in the MM PI and Welsh's factor scales A and R. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23, 100 107. Williams, R. L., Verble, J. S., Price, D. E. & Layne, B.H. (1995). Relationship between time management practices and personality indices and types. Journal of Psychologi cal Types, 34, 36 42. Williams, S. B. & Bicknell Behr, J. (1992). Assertiveness and psychological type. Journal of Psychological


Self Presentation of Type 91 Type, 23, 27 37 Willing, D. C., Guest, K., & Morford, J. (2001). Who is entering the teaching profession? MBTI profiles of 5 25 Master in Teaching students. Journal of Psychological Type, 59, 37 59. Zhang, L., (2007). Do personality traits make a difference in teaching styles among Chinese high school teachers? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 669 679.