Relation of the Big Five to the MBTI/Jung Model

Perhaps one of the reasons for the popularity of the MBTI has been that it closely resembles the empirically derived Five-Factor Model. Although the MBTI derives from theory and not experience, apparently Carl Jung and the MBTI test developers were closely attuned to human experience when defining their four dimensional model. The transition, then, from using the MBTI to using the FFM is a relatively easy one. McCrae and Costa (1989) in their watershed article--"Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality"--clearly highlight how the MBTI is both supported by FFM research and corrected by it. The principal points they make are:

1. The Judgment dimension (Thinking vs. Feeling) is unstable because of its failure to separate Need for Stability from Accommodation. The concept of thinking vs. feeling does not fit isomorphically to the FFM. In order to measure the thinking/feeling supertrait, one would need to piece together several different facet scores from among the thirty facets of the FFM (as defined by Costa and McCrae).

2. Because the distribution of factor scores is normal and not bimodal, the practice of dichotomizing respondents, for example, into extraverts and introverts, is unjustified. McCrae and Costa prefer speaking of degrees of extraversion. For convenience's sake, we speak of three levels, or regions, in which one might score--extraversion, ambiversion, and introversion.

3. The Judger/Perceiver preference does not identify one's primary. In fact, assuming, as sound psychometric practice requires, that one's primary function (from among sensing, intuiting, thinking, and feeling) would be the function with the highest score, then the J/P preference picks the highest function score at a rate no better than chance.

4. The type concept has no validity. Assuming the integrity of the sixteen four-letter types, one would expect to find consistent correlations among the types and other behavioral measures. This is not the case. Rather than reporting a five-letter type, then, the FFM simply reports five trait scores. Certainly, many behaviors are explained by the combinative effect of two or more FFM traits, such as authoritarian behavior being associated with high Need for Stability, low Originality, and low Accommodation. We call these behaviors with multi-trait explanations "themes" or interactive effects. The second and third sections in this monograph will discuss such thematic behaviors.

5. Introspection, or reflection, is not associated with introversion, but rather with the trait called intuition (by the MBTI) or Originality/Openness (by the FFM).

6. The judgment/perception scale does not measure one's decisiveness, but rather appears to measure one's need for structure.

7. The definitional problems with the thinker/feeler dimension are many, but they are resolved by adopting the two new dimensions, Need for Stability and Accommodation. A preference for reason and logic belongs to the Need for Stability (low) bucket, while a preference for harmony belongs to the Accommodation (high) bucket.

Because of the empirical origins of the FFM, no single theory is best supported by its structure. On the other hand, because the FFM is essentially an attempt to find the "lowest common denominators" among personality words across all languages, it is uniquely able to serve as a source for measuring the constructs defined by most other personality tests. By being in possession of FFM scores, for example, one could derive an individual's profile using such models as the FIRO, LIFO, AVA, MBTI, DISC, Holland Hexagon, and Social Styles Inventory, as well as such popular concepts as leadership style, conflict management style, and attributional style.

.......

Common Themes Among the Various Facets and Factors

A theme, as we use the term, is a trait which is attributable to the combined effect of two or more separate traits. Since the debut of Costa and McCrae’s long version test, many themes have emerged. However, we will be content to identify themes using mainly the five factors and common sense based on general (i.e., non FFM) research results. These themes are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Themes based on the Five-Factor Model.

A theme is a characteristic personality pattern which reflects the combined effect of two or more factors or facets. A plus (+) indicates a score above 55, a minus (-) indicates a score below 45, and a letter without either plus or minus indicates a score in the 45-55 range. The 45-55 range comprises one standard deviation in the middle of the population.

USING THE FFM IN INDIVIDUAL COACHING AND COUNSELING

We find that FFM scores are helpful from the outset when working with an individual client. These individuals have come for coaching or counseling for a variety of reasons:

• · borderline performance
• · difficulties with other employees
• · boredom with work
• · frustration with work
• · career exploration
• · desire for self-improvement
• · preparation for promotion opportunity
• · job search

One of our favorite cases was Henry, a free-lance television sports producer who was rich and miserable. His Big Five profile was N+, E+, O-, A, C+ He had plenty of work but was worn out. At 11:00 p.m., after wrapping up his evening's work broadcasting an NBA game, he found he couldn’t get to sleep until five or six in the morning, and then it was time to get up. The basketball games frazzled his nerves, and it took him a long time to calm down. He was good at his job, and he loved sports. He didn't know what was wrong with him but knew the quality of his life must change.

The key to understanding Henry’s job-person mismatch was Henry's N+. His scores on the other four dimensions were a perfect fit for the job, but live, on-the-air sports production, especially the fast pace of basketball, was no place for a reactive personality. The behind-the-scenes producer must be relatively resilient, calmly monitoring all the cameras and coolly giving instructions to guide the show's progress. His high reactivity in a stressful environment with no margin for error was a recipe for misery. He has since moved from producing live sports shows to producing sports documentaries, in which he can edit without the stress of real time. In addition, he has begun work on a Master’s Degree in Eastern Studies, as he hopes eventually to specialize in television documentaries of eastern culture, including sports, of course.

USING THE FFM IN A CLASSROOM SETTING

The FFM has proved to be ideal for use in a classroom setting. Having used several other instruments throughout our consulting careers, we knew the good news and bad news associated with providing test results. While many participants accepted their results readily, a substantial number questioned the appropriateness of their results. Some of the more common concerns were:

• · ”This description doesn’t sound like me at all.”
• · ”I’m equally extraverted and introverted--why do you have to call me one or the other?”
• · ”The last time I took this test, I scored Thinker--this time I scored Feeler. What gives?”
• · ”The world is not composed of opposites--it is composed of shades of gray.”
• · ”You know that the academic community is not in agreement on a common vocabulary for talking about personality, don’t you?”
• · ”Don’t put me in a box.”

Well, fret no more. We have found that these types of objections do not accompany Big Five feedback sessions. The degree of acceptance of Big Five test results has been remarkably high. Everyone--everyone--to whom we have provided FFM results has been comfortable with being placed in either the high, medium, or low areas of the five dimensions. Persons previously called introverts--but who were puzzled that their extraverted side was discounted--are now happy to be called Ambiverts. Persons previously called extraverts (the authors, for example)--but who were puzzled that their strong introversion was discounted-- are also now happy to be called ambiverts. Finally, with the FFM, the people who score in the middle of the bell curve are recognized as first class citizens!

We have used the FFM in many different kinds of training classes:

• · basic management development
• · team skill development
• · conflict management
• · leadership development
• · problem-solving and decision-making
• · communications
• · effective meetings
• · training design
• · customer service

In each case, we use the FFM to teach the vocabulary of individual differences. We then assist participants in using this vocabulary to explain their past and to plan for their future. For example, one who scores A+ will tend to be a conflict avoider. So, we help the individual understand how accommodation behaviors (trust, straightforwardness, altruism, deferring, humility, and empathy) have led to conflict avoidance in the past. Then, we help the individual plan to engage selectively with conflict in the future. We help the individual learn two strategies for managing conflict: development and compensation. We develop the individual by teaching her or him skills, and we help the person learn to compensate by learning how to involve others in assisting with conflict situations.

Meanwhile, all of the instruction keeps the persistent reality of personality traits foremost.