邁爾斯·布裏格斯性格分類法
维库，知识与思想的自由文库
6个分类: 正在翻譯的條目 | 性格分類 | Psychological tests | Jungian psychology | Personality typologies | 精神病和心理学小作品
MBTI（Myers-Briggs Type Indicator，邁爾斯·布裏格斯性格分類法）是性格分類的一種，靠問出四個問題把人分成十六類。
MBTI性格测试由美国的心理学家Katherine Cook Briggs (1875-1968) 和她的女儿，心理学家Isabel Briggs Myers根据心理分析学家荣格(Carl G. Jung)的心理类型理论和她们长期观察和研究而著成。经过了长达50多年的研究和发展，MBTI已经成为了当今全球最为著名和权威的性格测试。
教育學、團體動力學、顧員培訓、領袖訓練、婚姻咨詢及個人發展是幾個最常用到MBTI的領域。
學術派的心理學家在論文中曾批評MBTI理論缺乏可靠數據支持[1][2][3], 並指出這是巴納姆效應的例子[4]。
它的短語及縮寫的注冊商標使用權正由其出版社Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.所托管[5]
目录 |
[编辑] 測試元素
這四個問題是：
- 心理能力的走向：你是「外向」﹙Extrovert﹚﹙E﹚還是「內向」﹙Introvert﹚﹙I﹚？
- 認識外在世界的方法：你是「感覺」﹙Sensing﹚（S）還是「直覺」﹙Intuition﹚（N）？
- 倚賴甚麼方式做決定：你是「理性」﹙Thinking﹚﹙T﹚還是「情感」﹙Feeling﹚﹙F﹚？
- 生活方式和處事態度：你是「判斷」﹙Judging﹚（J）還是「理解」﹙Perceiving﹚（P）？
根據4個問題的不同答案，可將人的性格分為16個種類。
[编辑] 發展歷史
榮格 first spoke about typology at the Munich Psychological Congress in 1913. Katharine Cook Briggs began her research into personality in 1917, developing a four-type framework: Social, Thoughtful, Executive, and Spontaneous. The test was first taken by president Hoover and he didn't accept his results. Template:Verify source In 1923 Jung's Psychological Types was published in English translation (having first been published in German in 1921). Katharine Briggs's first publications are two articles describing Jung's theory, in the journal New Republic in 1926 (Meet Yourself Using the Personality Paint Box) and 1928 (Up From Barbarism). Katharine Briggs' daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, wrote a prize-winning mystery novel Murder Yet to Come in 1929, using typological ideas. She added to her mother's typological research, which she would progressively take over entirely. In 1942, the "Briggs-Myers Type Indicator®" was created, and the Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was published in 1944. The indicator changed its name to the modern form (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®) in 1956.[6][7]
[编辑] 關於MBTI
The indicator differs from standardized tests and others measuring traits, such as intelligence, instead classifying people's preferred types. According to Myers-Briggs Theory, while types and traits are both inborn, traits can be improved akin to skills, whereas types, if supported by a healthy environment, naturally differentiate over time. The indicator attempts to tell the order in which this occurs in each person, and it is that information, combined with interviews done with others who have indicated having the same preferences, that the complete descriptions are based on. The indicator then, is akin to an arrow which attempts to point in the direction of the proper description. The facet of the theory which posits that the features being sorted for are in fact types, and not traits which can be improved with practice, is hotly debated.
However, proponents of the indicator will explain that to learn about one's inborn traits is to create the opportunity to improve how one applies them in different contexts. In that sense, the MBTI can yield much personal change and growth.
The types the MBTI sorts for, known as dichotomies, are extraversion / introversion, sensing / intuition, thinking / feeling and judging / perceiving. Participants are given one of 16 four-letter abbreviations, such as ESTJ or INFP, indicating what their preferences are. The term best-fit types refers to the ethical code that facilitators are required to follow. It states that the person taking the indicator is always the best judge of what their preferences are and that the indicator alone should never be used to make this decision.
[编辑] Items and scoring
The MBTI includes 93 forced-choice questions, which means there are only two options. Participants may skip questions if they feel they are unable to choose. Using psychometric techniques, such as item response theory, the MBTI will then be scored and will attempt to identify which dichotomy the participant prefers. After taking the MBTI, participants are given a readout of their score, which will include a bar graph and number of how many points they received on a certain scale. Confusion over the meaning of these numbers often causes them to be related to trait theory, and people mistakenly believe, for example, that their intuition is "more developed" than their sensing, or vice versa.
During construction of the MBTI, thousands of items were used, and most were thrown out because they did not have high midpoint discrimination, meaning the results of that one item did not, on average, move an individual score away from the midpoint. Using only items with high midpoint discrimination allows the MBTI to have fewer items on it but still provide as much statistical information as other instruments with many more items with lower midpoint discrimination. The MBTI requires five points one way or another before it is nearly as sure it can statistically be concerning a preference.
[编辑] 性格動力學
| Dichotomies | |
| Extraversion | Introversion |
| Sensing | iNtuition |
| Thinking | Feeling |
| Judging | Perceiving |
| A dichotomy is a division of two mutually exclusive groups, or in this case, type preferences. | |
[编辑] 「外向」與「內向」
發洩及獲得心靈能量的方向。
- 外向型(E, Extraverts)偏向專注於外在的人和事, 傾向將能量往外釋放。
- 內向型(I, Introverts)則專注於自己的思想、想法及印象, 傾向將能量流往內。
[编辑] 「直覺」與「感覺」
是人們認識世界的非理性方法，即外界知覺，所說的是人們如何處理接收到的資料。
- 感覺型(S, Sensing)喜歡著眼於當前事物, 慣於先使用五官來感受世界。
- 直覺型(N, Intuition)則著眼未來, 著重可能性及預感, 從潛意識及事物間的關聯來理解世界。
[编辑] 「情感」與「思考」
情感及思考是下決定時內心鬥爭所側重的方向, 並配合以上的能量走向。
- 情感型(F, Feeling)偏好使用價值觀及自我中心的主觀評價來作決定。可以說成思考型使用頭腦來作決定, 而情感型則用內心來作決定。
- 思考型(T, Thinking)則偏好用「是-非」及「如果...就」的邏輯來作分析結果及影響, 或者作決定。
例子：外向的思考型(Te)及情感型(Se)傾向倚賴外在事物及為人接受的規則來作決定;反之, 內向的思考型(Ti)及情感型(Fi)則傾向於主觀, 倚賴自己的想法來構建邏輯組織及評價。
[编辑] 「判斷」與「理解」
處世態度及生活模式
- 判斷型(J, Judging)傾向於井然有序及有組織的生活, 而且喜歡安頓一切事物。
- 理解型(P, Perceiving)則傾向於自然發生及彈性的生活, 對任何意見都抱開放態度。
要注意的是, 判斷(Judging)並不等同決斷(Judgmental, 包含主觀及衝動的意思), 而理解(Perceiving)亦不解作感知(Perceptive, 指對感覺作出反應的程度)。
與認知功能的關係
- 判斷型的決定方式(T/F，即型態中第三項)是外向的，會受外界所影響。判斷型傾向使用遁序漸進(左腦主導：由零碎變為整體）的生活方式，依賴外在的規則及程序，並比較急進；其外界知覺則表現內向。
- 理解型的外向表現在於其外界知覺(S/N，即型態中第二項)，反之其決定方式是內向的；形成了躍變（右腦主導：從整體到零碎）的生活方式，依賴主觀的判斷及開放的態度。
對內向型而言，外界知覺是次要的認知功能，亦正是內向的解釋。用INFP作引例，它以內向思考(Ti)作為主要認知功能，但它最強烈的外界知覺是外向直覺(Ne)，因此它是一種理解型。〈與MBTI相似的人格理論－社會人格學中則對內向型持相反的解釋，J/P定形對該理論來說是指所有人格類型的主要認知功能。〉
[编辑] 性格動力學
| 16種型態 | |||
| ISTJ | ISFJ | INFJ | INTJ |
| ISTP | ISFP | INFP | INTP |
| ESTP | ESFP | ENFP | ENTP |
| ESTJ | ESFJ | ENFJ | ENTJ |
| 這個組織列表由Isabel Myers所創，其人被認為是一個INFP。 | |||
| 人口分佈 | |||
| ISTJ 11.6% |
ISFJ 13.8% |
INFJ 1.5% |
INTJ 2.1% |
| ISTP 5.4% |
ISFP 8.8% |
INFP 4.4% |
INTP 3.3% |
| ESTP 4.3% |
ESFP 8.5% |
ENFP 8.1% |
ENTP 3.2% |
| ESTJ 8.7% |
ESFJ 12.3% |
ENFJ 2.4% |
ENTJ 1.8% |
| 結果是從美國人口的性格取向推算所得 | |||
透過多個性格取向的併合，可以組成不同的性格類型，四個性格取向的組合則稱為「性格型態」。總括來說，MBTI包含16種不同的性格型態，當中由二至三個取向併合而成的類型各自有一個描述性名稱。此外，非正統的使用方法認為，每種性格與其他類型的互動關係都可以從組合間透悟出來。
完整的描述包括四個取向分別的互動方式，一般這些描述要由註冊心理學家根據眾多的面試及研究結果寫成。美國心理類型應用中心(The Center for Applications of Psychological Type)在互聯網上公開了這些描述的精簡版本[8]。而包括統計結果的深入版本則可以在MBTI手冊中找到。[9]
[编辑] 型態分類表
此分類表能為討論動力質素及各個型態組合的互動時，作為一個可視工具。它將會以各種型態的併合來分類及比較差異。 One of the most common and basic has been used to the right. 它由4個心理功能組成－分別是ST、SF、NF及NT, 以及著重於感知及判斷的組合。此外，如果我們以欄分組，將會得出IJ、IP、EP及EJ四種態度。還有更複習的組合，例如感知外界的組合，分別是SJ、SP、NP及NJ，或者是判斷外界的組合分別是TJ、TP、FP及FJ。
[编辑] 各型態的認知功能動力學
在各個類型裡，認知或心理的四種組合：感覺、直覺、思考與情感會被分配成不同次序。此類縮寫是一種快捷方式來描出這種內向與外向稍為不同的次序，需要記住的是，首末字母是導引出中間兩個字母的主要先後的。本條目之認知功能表便動態地列出了每種類型。
[编辑] 外向的
若然首字母是「E」，例如ESTJ，那麼其優勢主導便是外向。下一步驟便須找出中間適用哪兩個字母。假如最後字母為「P」，在此例子中，第二個字母會成為主導，即認知功能「感覺型(Sensing)」；若是「J」便會成為第三字母「判斷型(Judging)」，在此例子是「T」，思考型(Thinking)。因此，我們能夠指出ESTJ的第一或主導功能是外向思考(ET)，其次便是內向感覺(IS)。第三位乃輔助的相反，在此例子中是外向直覺(EN)，最下位則為內向情感(IF)。
[编辑] 內向的
若然首字母是「I」，例如INFP，那麼其優勢主導便是內向。得悉最後指明哪個是外向功能的字母，便能找出中間適用的兩個字母。If it is a P, then the introverted dominant function will be the third letter, which is the judging function, and if it is a J, then it will be the second letter, which is the perceiving function. (The process may seem backwards and slightly confusing for introverts.) Already it is possible to tell that the INFP has an introverted dominant, and since their perceiving function (iNtuition) is extraverted, the dominant must be the judging function (Feeling). Thus the dominant function is introverted feeling, and the second function (the auxiliary) is extraverted intuition.
The four functions alternate in orientation. For introverts, the sequence would proceed introverted, extraverted, introverted, extraverted. The third function (the tertiary) is the opposite of the second, and the fourth is the opposite of the first. For an INFP, with introverted feeling and extraverted intuition, the third function is introverted sensing, and the fourth is extraverted thinking.
[编辑] 認知功能表
| 型態 |
ISITEJ
|
ISIFEJ
|
INIFEJ
|
INITEJ
|
| 主導(第一位) | 內向 感覺(Si) | 內向 感覺(Si) | 內向 直覺(Ni) | 內向 直覺(Ni) |
| 輔助(第二位) | 外向 思考(Te) | 外向 情感(Fe) | 外向 情感(Fe) | 外向 思考(Te) |
| 第三位 | 內向 情感(Fi) | 內向 思考(Ti) | 內向 思考(Ti) | 內向 情感(Fi) |
| 最下位(第四位) | 外向 直覺(Ne) | 外向 直覺(Ne) | 外向 感覺(Se) | 外向 感覺(Se) |
| 型態 |
ISETIP
|
ISEFIP
|
INEFIP
|
INETIP
|
| 主導(第一位) | 內向 思考(Ti) | 內向 情感(Fi) | 內向 情感(Fi) | 內向 思考(Ti) |
| 輔助(第二位) | 外向 感覺(Se) | 外向 感覺(Se) | 外向 直覺(Ne) | 外向 直覺(Ne) |
| 第三位 | 內向 直覺(Ni) | 內向 直覺(Ni) | 內向 感覺(Si) | 內向 感覺(Si) |
| 最下位(第四位) | 外向 情感(Fe) | 外向 思考(Te) | 外向 思考(Te) | 外向 情感(Fe) |
| 型態 |
ESETIP
|
ESEFIP
|
ENEFIP
|
ENETIP
|
| 主導(第一位) | 外向 感覺(Se) | 外向 感覺(Se) | 外向 直覺(Ne) | 外向 直覺(Ne) |
| 輔助(第二位) | 內向 思考(Ti) | 內向 情感(Fi) | 內向 情感(Fi) | 內向 思考(Ti) |
| 第三位 | 外向 情感(Fe) | 外向 思考(Te) | 外向 思考(Te) | 外向 情感(Fe) |
| 最下位(第四位) | 內向 直覺(Ni) | 內向 直覺(Ni) | 內向 感覺(Si) | 內向 感覺(Si) |
| 型態 |
ESITEJ
|
ESIFEJ
|
ENIFEJ
|
ENITEJ
|
| 主導(第一位) | 外向 思考(Te) | 外向 情感(Fe) | 外向 情感(Fe) | 外向 思考(Te) |
| 輔助(第二位) | 內向 感覺(Si) | 內向 感覺(Si) | 內向 直覺(Ni) | 內向 直覺(Ni) |
| 第三位 | 外向 直覺(Ne) | 外向 直覺(Ne) | 外向 感覺(Se) | 外向 感覺(Se) |
| 最下位(第四位) | 內向 情感(Fi) | 內向 思考(Ti) | 內向 思考(Ti) | 內向 情感(Fi) |
以下是柯爾塞(David West Keirsey) [1]創立的柯爾塞氣質分類法中，各種MBTI型態所對應的心理學原型，總共有四種「氣質」: SP - 工匠、SJ - 監護人、NF - 理想主義者及 NT - 理性者.
|
ISITEJ
|
ISIFEJ
|
INIFEJ
|
INITEJ
|
| 調查員 | 保護者 | 諮詢師 | 策劃人 |
|
ISETIP
|
ISEFIP
|
INEFIP
|
INETIP
|
| 巧匠 | 作詞人 | 治療者 | 建築師 |
|
ESETIP
|
ESEFIP
|
ENEFIP
|
ENETIP
|
| 推銷員 | 表演者 | 優勝者 | 發明家 |
|
ESITEJ
|
ESIFEJ
|
ENIFEJ
|
ENITEJ
|
| 監督人 | 供給者 | 教師 | 陸軍元帥 |
[编辑] 氣質
| Temperament | |||
| SJ | SP | NF | NT |
| iStJ | iSfJ | iNFj | iNTj |
| iStP | iSfP | iNFp | iNTp |
| eStP | eSfP | eNFp | eNTp |
| eStJ | eSfJ | eNFj | eNTj |
| Keirsey's four temperaments within the MBTI. | |||
Note: The following information is drawn from the unique contributions regarding 'Temperament' by David W. Keirsey to the existing Myers-Briggs system, which is not directly associated with the official Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:
Hippocrates, a Greek philosopher who lived from 460-377 B.C., proposed four humours in his writings. These were blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile. Around A.D. 190, Galen corresponded these to four temperaments: sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric and melancholic. In 1978, David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates reintroduced temperament theory in modern form and identified them as Artisan, Guardian, Idealist, and Rational. After developing modern temperament theory, Keirsey discovered the MBTI, and found that by combining Sensing with the perceiving functions, SP (Artisan) and SJ (Guardian), and iNtuition with the judging functions, NF (Idealist) and NT (Rational), he had descriptions similar to his four temperaments.[10][11]
The Manual states on page 59 that, "It is important to recognize that temperament theory is not a variant of type theory, nor is type theory a variant of temperament theory." Keirsey later went on to develop the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, which was first included in his book Please Understand Me.
[编辑] 與其他分類方法之關係
McCrae & Costa [2] present correlations between the MBTI scales and the Big Five personality construct, which is a conglomeration of characteristics found in nearly all personality and psychological tests. The five personality characteristics are extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability (or neuroticism). The following study is based on the results from 267 men followed as part of a longitudinal study of ageing. (Similar results were obtained with 201 women.)
These data suggest that four of the MBTI scales are related to the Big Five personality traits. These correlations show that E-I and S-N are strongly related to extraversion and openness respectively. T-F and J-P are more weakly related to agreeableness and conscientiousness respectively. The emotional stability dimension of the Big Five is largely absent from the MBTI.
These findings lead McCrae and Costa to conclude "There was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types... Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it."
[编辑] Study of Scoring Consistency
Split-half reliability of the MBTI scales is good, although test-retest reliability is sensitive to the time between tests. However, because the MBTI dichotomies scores in the middle of the distribution, type allocations are less reliable. Within each scale, as measured on Form G, about 83% of categorisations remain the same when retested within nine months, and around 75% when retested after nine months. About 50% of people tested within nine months remain the same overall type and 36% remain the same after nine months. [12]
[编辑] 職業道德
Before purchasing the MBTI, practitioners are required to consent to an ethical code, in addition to meeting the educational requirements of class B and C psychological tests and assessments. After consenting to this code the usage of the indicator is largely unmonitored, which sometimes leads to abuses of the instrument. The ethical code contains, but is not limited to, the following points:[13][14]
- Results should be given directly to respondents and are strictly confidential, including from employers.
- Respondents should be informed of the nature of the test before taking it, and must choose to take it voluntarily.
- Allow respondents to clarify their results. They are always the last word as to which type is truly theirs. They should then be provided a written description of their preferences.
- The test must be used in accordance with The Manual.
In addition, the results of the instrument should not, ethically, be provided to a client without an accompanying consultative interpretation offered by the practitioner who administered the instrument. This interpretation may be conducted in person, via telephone or online. While the instrument and resulting interpretive report are a first step in determining MBTI personality type, the consultative interpretation guides and supports the client in ensuring they achieve a best-fit MBTI personality type.
[编辑] 爭議
[编辑] 確定性
The scientific basis of the MBTI has been questioned. Neither Katharine Cook Briggs nor Isabel Briggs Myers had any scientific qualifications and Carl Jung's theory of psychological type, which the MBTI attempts to operationalise, is not based on any scientific studies. Jung's methods primarily included introspection and anecdote, methods largely rejected by the modern field of cognitive psychology. [15]
The statistical validity of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has also been subject to criticism, in particular, the dichotomous scoring of dimensions. For example, it was expected that scores would show a bimodal distribution with peaks near the ends of the scales. However, scores on the individual subscales are actually distributed in a centrally peaked manner similar to a normal distribution. A cut-off exists at the centre of the subscale such that a score on one side is classified as one type, and a score on the other side as the opposite type. This fails to support the concept of type--the norm is for people to lie near the middle of the subscale. [16][4][17][2][3]
It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced for conferences of the Center for the Application of Psychological Type (which provides training in the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is edited by Myers-Briggs advocates) [18] and it has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny. [4][18]
[编辑] 可靠程度
The reliability of the test has been interpreted as being low, with test takers who retake the test often being assigned a different type. According to surveys performed by the proponents of Myers-Briggs, the highest percentage of people fell into the same category on the second test is only 47%. Furthermore, a wide range of 39% - 76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting weeks or years later, and many people's types also found to vary according to the time of the day.[4][17] Skeptics claim that the MBTI lacks falsifiability, which can cause confirmation bias in the interpretation of results with the terminology of the MBTI so vague that it allows any kind of behavior to fit any personality type, resulting in the Forer effect, where an individual gives a high rating to a positive description that supposedly applies specifically to them [4][15] so that when people are asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned by the MBTI only half of people pick the same profile. [19]
[编辑] 工具化
The relevance of the MBTI for career-planning has been questioned, with reservations about the relevance of type to job performance or satisfaction, and concerns about the potential misuse of the instrument in labelling individuals. [4][20]
[编辑] 參考條目
- Psychometrics
- 人格心理學
- Big five personality traits
- Holland Codes
- 社会人格学
- Aptitudes
- EQ SQ Theory
- Keirsey Temperament Sorter
- DISC assessment
- False dilemma
- Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
[编辑] Notes
- ↑ Hunsley J, Lee CM, Wood JM (2004). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Lilienfeld SO, Lohr JM, Lynn SJ (eds.). Guilford, ISBN 1-59385-070-0, p. 65.
- ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 McCrae, R R; Costa, P T (1989) Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1):17-40.
- ^ 3.0 3.1 Stricker, L J; Ross, J (1964) An Assessment of Some Structural Properties of the Jungian Personality Typology. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(1):62-71.
- ^ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Pittenger, D.J. (1993) Measuring the MBTI...And Coming Up Short (pdf). Journal of Career Planning & Placement.
- ↑ Consulting Psychologists Press (2004). Trademark Guidelines. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
- ↑ Geyer, Peter (1998) Some Significant Dates. Retrieved December 5, 2005.
- ↑ University of Florida (2003) Guide to the Isabel Briggs Myers Papers 1885-1992, George A. Smathers Libraries, Department of Special and Area Studies Collections, Gainesville, FL. Retrieved December 5, 2005.
- ↑ Martin, Charles Dr. (2004) The Sixteen Types at a Glance. The Center for Applications of Psychological Type. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
- ↑ Myers, Isabel Briggs; McCaulley Mary H.; Quenk, Naomi L.; Hammer, Allen L. (1998). MBTI Manual (A guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator). Consulting Psychologists Press; 3rd ed edition. ISBN 0-89106-130-4
- ↑ Keirsey, David (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Prometheus Nemesis Book Co Inc; 1st ed edition. ISBN 1-885705-02-6
- ↑ Keirsey, David (2001). Keirsey Temperament versus Myers-Briggs Types. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
- ↑ Harvey, R J (1996) Reliability and Validity, in MBTI Applications. A.L. Hammer, Editor. Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA. p. 5- 29.
- ↑ The Myers & Briggs Foundation. Ethical Use of the MBTI® Instrument. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
- ↑ The Center for Applications of Psychological Type. MBTI® Code of Ethics. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
- ^ 15.0 15.1 Carroll, Robert Todd (January 9, 2004). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®. The Skeptic's Dictionary. Retrieved January 8, 2004.
- ↑ Bess, T.L. & Harvey, R.J. (2001, April). Bimodal score distributions and the MBTI: Fact or artifact? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.
- ^ 17.0 17.1 Matthews, P (2004) The MBTI is a flawed measure of personality. bmj.com Rapid Responses. But see also Clack & Allen's response to Matthews.
- ^ 18.0 18.1 Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.
- ↑ Carskadon, TG & Cook, DD (1982). Validity of MBTI descriptions as perceived by recipients unfamiliar with type. Research in Psychological Type 5: 89-94.
- ↑ Druckman, D. and R. A. Bjork, Eds. (1992). In the Mind’s Eye: Enhancing Human Performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-04747-1.
[编辑] 參照書目
- Hunsley J, Lee CM, Wood JM (2004). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Lilienfeld SO, Lohr JM, Lynn SJ (eds.). Guilford, ISBN 1-59385-070-0
- Martin, Charles R. (2001); Role of Type in Career Mastery. "Quick Guide to the 16 Personality Types and Career Mastery: Living with Purpose and Working Effectively" (Fountain Valley CA: Telos Publications, 2001), 3
- Berens, Linda V.; and Nardi, Dario (1999); What Is Personality "Type?". "The 16 Personality Types: Descriptions for Self-Discovery" (Fountain Valley CA: Telos Publications, 1999), 2
- Berens, Linda V.; and Nardi, Dario (1999); What Is Best-Fit Type?. "The 16 Personality Types: Descriptions for Self-Discovery" (Fountain Valley CA: Telos Publications, 1999), 6
- Berens, Linda V.; and Nardi, Dario (1999); Ways to Describe Personality. "The 16 Personality Types: Descriptions for Self-Discovery" (Fountain Valley CA: Telos Publications, 1999), 2
- Berens, Linda V.; Cooper, Sue A.; Ernst, Linda K.; Martin, Charles R.; Myers, Steve; Nardi, Dario; Pearman, Roger R.; Segal, Marci; and Smith, Melissa A. (2001); Applications of Type in Organizations. "Quick Guide to the 16 Personality Types in Organizations: Understanding Personality Differences in the Workplace" (Fountain Valley CA: Telos Publications, 2001), 1
- Bess, T.L. & Harvey, R.J. (2001, April). Bimodal score distributions and the MBTI: Fact or artifact? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.
- Bourne, Dana (2005); Personality Types and the Transgender Community. Retrieved November 14, 2005
- Falt, Jack; Bibliography of MBTI/Temperament Books by Author. Retrieved December 20, 2004
- Geyer, Peter (1988); An MBTI® History. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
- Georgia State University; GSU Master Teacher Program: On Learning Styles. Retrieved December 20, 2004.
- Jung, Carl Gustav (1965); Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Vintage Books: New York, 1965. p. 207
- Matthews, Paul (2004); The MBTI is a flawed measure of personality. bmj.com Rapid Responses. Retrieved February 9, 2005
- Myers, Isabel Briggs (1970); Personal letter to Mary McCaulley. The MBTI Qualifying Program: The Center for Applications of Psychological Type, 2004. p. 20
- Myers, Isabel Briggs (1980); Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Davies-Black Publishing; Reprint edition (May 1, 1995). ISBN 0-89106-074-X
- Paul, Annie Murpy (2004); The Cult of Personality Testing. Free Press. ch. 5
- Personality Plus; Employers love personality tests. But what do they really reveal?
- Skeptics Dictionary "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" [2]
- The Myers & Briggs Foundation; Ethical Use of the MBTI® Instrument. Retrieved December 20, 2004
- Virginia Tech; The Relationship Between Psychological Type and Professional Orientation Among Technology Education Teachers. Retrieved December 20, 2004
- Alex Lukeman, Ph.D., 1998, Personality & Intelligence
- The Myers & Briggs Foundation: How Frequent Is My Type?
- Estimated frequencies compiled from a variety of MBTI® results from 1972 through 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CPP, Inc) and Stanford Research Institute (SRI).
- Thomas G. Long (October 1992). "Myers-Briggs and other Modern Astrologies". Theology Today 49 (3): 291-95.
[编辑] 外部链接
MBTI－问卷及分析
- MBTI：职业倾向测试：英文版，中文版（最后需填入用户名：haohaiz 密码：2CAL0J）
- 中国职业规划联盟:MBTI性格报告
- MBTI职业性格测试（Psytopic特别版）
- 自我评测MBTI人格类型的文档
- 凯尔西气质类型测试
My MBTI Personality Type
- The 16 MBTI Types -- Myers & Briggs
16 Personality Type Comparison
Publisher
Organization of Type Professionals & Type Enthusiasts
Criticism
- Information from the Skepdic's Dictionary
- Measuring the MBTI and Coming Up Short -- Commonly Cited Critique of the MBTI from an academic psychologist
