learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Section 5<br />
Stable personality type<br />
LSRC reference<br />
page 46/47<br />
Introduction<br />
The instruments and models grouped in this family<br />
have a common focus upon <strong>learning</strong> style as one part<br />
of the observable expression of a relatively stable<br />
personality type, a theory primarily influenced by the<br />
work of Jung (1968). The most prominent theorists who<br />
operate ‘at the interface of intelligence and personality’<br />
(Grigorenko and Sternberg 1995) are Myers-Briggs<br />
(Myers and McCaulley 1985) and Jackson (2002),<br />
although they share certain key characteristics with<br />
measures developed by Bates and Keirsey (1978),<br />
Harrison and Bramson, (1982, 1988) and Miller (1991).<br />
While debates continue within psychology about<br />
the appropriate descriptors for personality traits<br />
and, indeed, how many factors underpin individual<br />
differences (see eg Furnham 1995; Jackson et al.<br />
2000), the theorists in this family are concerned<br />
with constructing instruments which embed <strong>learning</strong><br />
<strong>styles</strong> within an understanding of the personality traits<br />
that shape all aspects of an individual’s interaction<br />
with the world.<br />
The descriptors of personality are, in taxonomic<br />
terms, polythetic – that is, grouping together observed<br />
phenomena with shared features, but not excluding<br />
from groups phenomena which share some, but not all,<br />
of the relevant features (Eysenck 1997). This approach<br />
is both a strength, since it allows for reasonable<br />
variation, and a weakness, since ‘numerical solutions<br />
are essentially indeterminate in the absence of causal<br />
relations’ (Eysenck 1997, 23). Eysenck makes the<br />
argument for a distinction between the reliability<br />
of personality factors, such as those in the ‘big five’<br />
(see Section 5.1 below), which is relatively consistent<br />
and their validity, which is dependent upon a theoretical<br />
construction which allows for the causal nature<br />
of personality factors to be experimentally tested.<br />
An alternative approach – to explore genetic markers<br />
for specific, observable personality traits – has proved,<br />
as yet, elusive (Stevenson 1997) and it is therefore<br />
more difficult to trace the heritability of personality<br />
compared, for example, to measures of IQ, though<br />
there are some indications that strong traits towards<br />
extraversion overcome environmental effects in<br />
adoption and twin studies (Loehlin 1992).<br />
5.1<br />
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) ®8<br />
Introduction<br />
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was designed<br />
by Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel<br />
Briggs Myers. They began to develop their instrument<br />
in the early 1940s with the avowed aim of making<br />
Jung’s theory of human personality understandable<br />
and useful in everyday life: ‘Jung saw his theory as<br />
an aid to self-understanding, but the application of the<br />
theory (like the theory itself) extends beyond the point<br />
where Jung was content to stop.’ (Myers, quoted by<br />
Mosley 2001, 8). This resulted in the publication of the<br />
first MBTI manual in 1962, the subsequent versions<br />
of which (Myers and McCaulley 1985, 1998) are most<br />
frequently referred to in studies drawn on for this review.<br />
The MBTI focuses more upon the description of normally<br />
observed types, rather than idealised theoretical<br />
types which, as Jung himself argued, would rarely be<br />
met in everyday life (Jung, quoted by Mosley 2001, 3).<br />
In terms of academic heritage, the MBTI has often<br />
been strongly linked to personality instruments<br />
using the ‘big five’ personality factors (extraversion,<br />
openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness and<br />
neuroticism – the last of which is not included in<br />
the MBTI), exemplified by the most popular instrument<br />
in personality testing in the UK and the US, the<br />
NEO-Personality Inventory (McCrae and Costa 1987).<br />
However, the MBTI differs strongly from the NEO-PI<br />
and other instruments in that it is, according to<br />
Quenck (2003):<br />
a theory-based instrument grounded in Jung’s typology<br />
rather than an empirically derived trait instrument …<br />
neuroticism is not part of the MBTI because Jung did<br />
not include such a dimension in his typology, which was<br />
meant to reflect normal, non-pathological personality<br />
differences. It is for that reason that the opposite<br />
poles of each of the dichotomies are conceptualized<br />
as qualitatively distinct and opposite to each other,<br />
with each pole defined as legitimate in its own right.<br />
One pole is never described as indicating a ‘deficit’<br />
in the opposite pole, or [as being] more valued than<br />
the other pole, as is the case in the NEO-PI and other<br />
trait conceptions of personality.<br />
8<br />
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and MBTI are registered trademarks of CPP Inc,<br />
Palo Alto, California.