Select an article from the folder below and write an article review of it. Be sure to follow the article review instructions.? In general, the stru

Seeking truth in personality science: reconciling trait theory and psychological type John B. Lloyd

School of Pharmacy, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK

ABSTRACT Two rival paradigms compete for acceptance as representing objective reality concerning the structure of the human personality: the Five- Factor (Trait) model and the Myers-Briggs (Type) model. In this review, the common features of the two schemes are identified and the points of difference examined. It is concluded that a harmonised scheme could be achieved if both sides gave some ground. The Type community could relinquish its contention that every individual has a clear either-or preference for (for example) Extraversion or Introversion. It could also acknowledge the speculative nature of Type Dynamics. The Trait community could relinquish the value- judgements inherent in its current scheme and accept that (for example) introversion is not merely a deficit of extraversion but a distinct quality with positive potential. Given the many similarities of the two present paradigms, a unified approach would have a good claim to be the best current portrayal of personality.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 7 June 2021 Accepted 5 December 2022

KEYWORDS Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI™); Big Five; Five- Factor model; personality traits; Psychological Type

Introduction

This review examines and evaluates a long-running conflict in personality psychology: that between advocates of the Five-factor Trait-based model and those of the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI™) approach. Both models have a long history, and within their respective communities both have the settled status of what Kuhn (1962) designated a “paradigm”, a theoretical framework that can be deployed with no need for recurrent justification. Both models are widely used in academia and the corporate world. Within the academic community Trait dominates, continually providing the basis for numerous empirical investigations. Type is much used in staff development by corporate human resources departments, and in some religious contexts.

The author is a retired biochemistry academic, with a lifetime’s exposure to controver- sies in his own specialism and a fascination with how they are eventually resolved. One such, now half a century ago, is still vivid in his memory. The battle was fierce and wound- ing, raging for two decades. The two principal protagonists were both intelligent and dis- tinguished scientists, one a respected establishment figure; the other a more unconventional character who ran a personally-owned laboratory. Eventually, the latter won the day and his theory now forms the basis for the accepted orthodoxy.

Some features of the Trait-Type divide are not unusual: one side can be designated mainstream (Trait), the other fringe (Type); and debate can become heated and lose

© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT John B. Lloyd [email protected]

MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 2022, VOL. 25, NO. 9, 817–828 https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2022.2158794

objectivity. But other features are less common. Among these are a high degree of com- monality in their explanatory models, an overlap that neither side seems keen to acknowl- edge. Each group appears to accept and use its own theoretical basis as a largely unquestioned paradigm. The published literature of each group rarely contains any mention of its opponents; comparative studies of the two models are sparse.

There is an asymmetry in the relationship of the two groups. Mainstream personality psychology is scornful and dismissive of the MBTI™, frustrated by what it sees as the unwillingness of the Type community to acknowledge its scheme’s flawed nature; and irri- tated by the continued popularity of Type among human resources personnel serving businesses and non-profit organisations (see Moyle & Hackston, 2018). The Type commu- nity’s response to this antagonism has been understandably defensive. Rebuttals of the criticisms have been attempted, but, judging by the paucity of citations, these rarely penetrate beyond the boundaries of the Type community itself. An exception is the recent work of Moyle and Hackston (2018), which robustly challenges some of Type’s detractors. Despite the hostile climate Psychological Type remains stubbornly convinced that it offers a truer description of reality than the Five-Factor model of personality. Its fol- lowing is loyal and committed. At the present time dialogue between the two camps is almost non-existent. A notable exception is the extensive research output of Adrian Furnham (see Furnham, 2022), which consistently acknowledges the integrity and validity of the MBTI™.

Norcross et al. (2006) publishedanevaluationof an extensive rangeofpsychological treat- ments and tests. A panel of “experts”was asked to indicate how “discredited” they regarded each item, using a five-point scale from “1, not at all discredited” to “5. certainly discredited”. MBTI™ was ranked the fourth least discredited of the 25 psychological tests. This seeming endorsementof its validity is surprisingandseemsatoddswith currentprofessionalopinions.

Before proceeding to a more detailed analysis, a further point must be made. Much of the hostility between Trait and Type centres around their deployment in staff evaluation and staff development. Psychological Type is clear and explicit that the MBTI™ should never be used for staff selection, but this has not prevented it being criticised for its unsuitability in this context. Moyle and Hackston (2018) devote much of their defence of Type to this issue. However, the focus of the present review is different. The goal of all science is to describe reality as accurately as possible. We are here concerned with whether the infinite variety of the human personality can meaningfully be subject to classification. All theories are valueless unless they begin to account for what is regularly observed. As the physicist-theologian John Polkinghorne (1930–2021) put it: epistemology models ontology. Certainly that should be its intention.

This review follows the author’s previous commentaries on the Trait-Type controversy. Lloyd (2007, 2012a) examined the criticisms levelled at Psychological Type by, respect- ively, some Christian theologians and the mainstream personality psychology community. Conversely, Lloyd (2015) reviewed criticisms of the Five-Factor model. Some overlap with these papers in the present writing is inevitable but is kept to a minimum.

Clearing the ground

The two models of human personality considered here both assume that the study and classification of human personality is a study of something real. In the second half of

818 J. B. LLOYD

the twentieth century serious doubts were expressed about this. Indisputably individual people behave in different ways, but personality implies that there are relatively stable predispositions in each of us that influence our behaviour. But is this the case? This is a large issue that spawned a huge literature that was well documented and evaluated by Krahé (1992). Currently, there is wide agreement that personality differences are real but are not the sole determinants of a person’s behaviour, which is also influenced by each situation encountered. Behaviour on every occasion is not a mechanical sequence of cause and effect determined solely by personality. Behaviour is chosen, often in defiance of our predispositions, because we know what the situation requires. Neverthe- less, at least as often, an individual’s personality shows through in their behaviour.

Another criticism of attempts to classify human personality asserts that because every individual is unique, the endeavour is futile. Paul’s (2004) The Cult of Personality is a com- prehensive condemnation of the evils of personality testing: it is equally negative about Psychological Type and the Five-Factor model. Its principal focus is on the misuse of these instruments in the recruitment and deployment of staff, a concern equally vociferously expressed in the official Psychological Type literature, which emphasises that its use in companies should be limited to staff development and employee self-understanding. A fascinating feature of Paul’s book is the detailed account of the personal histories of the principal players in twentieth-century personality psychology. Similar in style, but focusing solely on Psychological Type is Emre’s (2018) What’s Your Type? This too majors on a detailed biography of Myers and Briggs and their work, is unremittingly nega- tive and polemical about Psychological Type, but disappointingly light on detailed criti- cism of the instrument itself.

The discipline of taxonomy has been of immeasurable value in the development of bio- logical science. Noticing and recording similarities between groups of plants, animals and microorganisms were fundamental to the subsequent formulation of evolutionary theory. To place a species in a family of similar species in no way negates its uniqueness. This is why the attempt to classify human personalities is laudable. It will not directly generate theories about the origin of personality characteristics but, if successful, may eventually lead to such.

Trait and type: similarities and differences

The Five-Factor model of personality postulates five independent components of person- ality, each designated a Trait. These Big Five Traits are Extraversion, Openness %

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.