From Carl Jung to internet quizzes, people often want to know their exact personality type and what it means for their lives. Tests like the Myers-Briggs test aim to standardize this practice and provide a framework for the understanding of self. Yet, in practice, these tests all fail the test of replication, validity, and reliability. While it would certainly be helpful to have a test that gives us all of the answers and a rule book for our individual needs, there is little reason to believe that this is any more than wishful thinking.
Jungian Personality Types
In Jungian analysis, the counsellor works toward bringing the conscious and unconscious together, toward what Jung referred to as actualization (Dehing, 1992). Much of the Jungian theory works toward a sense of self and being. To that end, Carl Jung’s Red Book laid out typology of personality types that is still used by many therapists today (Galipeau p. 36). Carl Jung identified and named eight different personality types: extraverted thinking, introverted thinking, extraverted feeling, introverted feeling, extraverted sensation, introverted sensation, extraverted intuition, and introverted intuition (Moore-Wilson, n.d.). Each of these personality types describes states of being that Jung believed described ways of thinking and doing in practical daily life.
This typology refers to what Jung believed to be types of consciousness (Beebe, 2006, p. 131). According to Jungians, “[f]or psychotherapists, an understanding of these different natural cognitive stances can be invaluable in the daily work of supporting the basic strengths of their clients’ personalities and of helping a particular consciousness to recognise its inherent limitations” (Beebe, 2006, p. 131). As such, the use of Jungian personality typology is not to strictly put people in boxes, but to help them organize their thoughts and behaviors in a way that can help them understand their own needs and limitations. For example, a person who is ‘introverted feeling’ could stop feeling guilt or shame that they do not enjoy family gatherings such as weddings or parties.
Personality types should not be something that dictates the way an individual lives their lives, nor should it be used to categorize persons and decide whether or not they are worthy of a role. Instead, personality types are a way for counsellors and clients alike to put words to what already exists and help the client to make choices that complement their pre-existing state of being. These personality types are also useful when considering how a client might be interacting with another person in their life. As noted in Galipeau:
Typological problems will usually arise when we come up against an opposite attitude or function. By nature, we do not easily understand or care to understand the other. This can prove problematic within the individual personality, in interpersonal relationships, and in theoretical and cultural differences. The extraverted and introverted attitudes conflict and don’t reconcile easily; thinking and feeling don’t see eye to eye; and sensation and intuition perceive very different worlds (2013, p. 35)
These personality types are a helpful way for the client and therapist to get on the same page when discussing behavior and personality, and thus is just a description not a prescription. Jungian analysis aims to help clients to learn to express their dominant function and attitude in order to live in a way that is fulfilling to the individual (Moore-Wilson, n.d.).
The Myers-Briggs Personality Test
The Myers-Briggs personality test was created by a mother and daughter in the 1940s. This mother and daughter duo used the work of Carl Jung to develop a personality test that became very popular worldwide, especially in the business communities. According to the notes of Galipeau, “Isabel Briggs Myers and Katherine Briggs […] developed Jung’s ideas to identify sixteen types, based not only on one’s attitude and primary function, but adding a secondary function, called the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator” (2013, p. 48). Although the Myers-Briggs test is not directly considered a method of Jungian counselling, the two are often intertwined, even in academic papers such as the work of Rickles (2021), which references the “Jung/Myers Model of Personality Type”, which conflates Carl Jung and Myers-Briggs. While it is true that Myers-Briggs was based on the 8 personality types identified by Jung, the addition of 8 more types significantly changes the end results of the typology. This is particularly important when we consider a lack of scientific basis for the Myers-Briggs personality test (Pittenger, 1993, p. 483).
The validity of Myers-Briggs has been under question for decades, as, “there is insufficient evidence to justify the specific claims made about the MBTI. Although the test does appear to measure several common personality traits, the patterns of data do not suggest that there is any reason to believe that there are 16 unique types of personality,” the same paper goes on to say that, “there is no convincing evidence to justify that knowledge of type is a reliable or valid predictor of important behavioral conditions” (Pittenger, 1993, p. 483),
Carl Jung’s own work may not support the Myers-Briggs personality test as the test aims to distill individuality to such a large degree, especially considering that, “Jung himself detested systematization […] he wished to avoid any indoctrination and dogmatism in the training of analysts” (Dehing, 1992, p. 42). Despite this, Myers-Briggs is a systematic way of introducing the Jungian personality types to the masses, often as checkboxes for employers looking to hire people in a standardized way (Nguyen, J, 2018, October 30). The exact opposite of what Jung believed in.
Pop-Culture Quizzes
Humans seem to have an inherent desire to categorize and understand their minds and selves. Internet personality quizzes such as, “which Disney princess are you?” or “which Hogwarts house do you belong to?” (Heller, 2019, February 28) are immensely popular. Digestion of quizzes is a helpful way for people to feel as though they belong, and to find meaning in their own personalities. Similarly, Jungian personality types and the Myers-Briggs test aim to find meaning in human characteristics and distill personalities into set types.
Internet quizzes on Buzzfeed and other social media platforms are often monetized (Berberick, 2016). While those who take it often do-so for fun, the creators of these quizzes are using ad revenue as a way to fund their business. Notably, Myers-Briggs is a trademark and a brand, and shows that the capitalization of personality quizzes is not restrained to pop-culture quizzes. This warning, while about Buzzfeed, could also be applied to online businesses and applications of a Myers-Briggs or Jungian type ‘quiz’ format: “BuzzFeed’s formula toward economic return may become a new model for capital exploits in a digital promotional culture, encouraging us to turn a critical eye to the implications of digital monetization aims that attempt to cash in on identity” (Berberick, 2016, p. 3436).
There is no need to provide academic resources on whether or not quizzes on the internet such as “Which Disney princess are you?” or “Which Hogwarts house do you belong to?” are scientifically valid. To suggest otherwise, would be as fantastical as the mythical worlds that are inhabited in these universes, and yet many individuals proudly wear their ‘Slytherin’ or ‘Gryffindor’ badges, and feel satisfaction at being labelled ‘Ariel’ or ‘Elsa’. These quizzes might not be scientific in origin, but they do show the inherent human desire to feel as though we belong, and to feel a sense of self and identity that is translatory outside of our own heads. Thus, it is no surprise that therapists might feel inclined to incorporate Myers-Briggs or another personality test, both for their own interest, and that of the client’s. It is interesting to note that the more playful style of internet quizzes might be more consistent with Carl Jung’s purpose of using personality types as an informal guideline.
Personality and Meaning
Who we are, and how we identify in the world is an important part of being a living, feeling, human-being. Some research shows that a sense of self helps an individual develop empathy (Krol, 2021). Empathy is important as it drives us to care for one another and fosters positive relationships. Humans are social beings by nature, and it is empathy that is the cornerstone of healthy human relationships. Empathy and self are interrelated and, “if one lacks a clear sense of self, and that for some individuals, augmenting the strength of the self-concept may be key to unlocking the prosocial behavior that is so vital to human social relationships” (Krol, 2021, p. 15).
The appeal of personality tests is that humans want to know where they belong, and they want to know who they are, what they are, and find meaning in their lives through introspection. The appeal of these quizzes is not necessarily a black and white answer, but the possibility of an answer that helps shed light on otherwise hard to define concepts of self-discovery. While we cannot know what kind of person we are on a cosmic or grand scheme, we can easily process the idea of being an Introverted Thinking personality type or being part of the brave and dependable Gryffindor Hogwarts house. However, just as identity is important, finding meaning in a hollow definition of self could be detrimental to a person’s sense of self.
Personality tests run the risk of being a self-fulfilling prophecy. These tests may not be answered carefully enough, or questions might be misunderstood. The results of these tests might therefore be inaccurate even by their own standards, and yet the person who has taken the test might believe that this is their personality. This runs the risk of the person feeling as though they are ego dystonic, and that their sense of self is separated from their actual personality type. If we take seriously the risks of an identity crisis, then we should be careful when presenting these tests to already vulnerable populations such as those seeking therapy.
Implications for Counsellors
Personality tests are often used by mental-health workers as a way to ‘understand’ what personality their clients have. These tests are given to unsuspecting clients who may believe that the test has some sort of scientific meaning or validity. In this sense, it might be unethical to give a client a personality test without explaining the background of these tests, the science involved, and the use of the personality test as part of therapy.
There is some evidence that personality tests can be helpful in a clinical setting. Rickles’s (2021) findings on depression and anxiety is one such case. The results of this study showed that, “personality type was strongly associated with both depression and anxiety, and that certain types were at significantly greater likelihood for depression and anxiety than others” (Rickles, 2021, p. 466). In this case, there is literature showing that there can be a positive use for personality tests. With that said, it is possible that people who have anxiety and depression go on to exhibit personality typology characteristics that were not present before the onset of the illness, and thus, the cause of depression and anxiety are not related to the typology.
Even if there is no significant proof that Jung’s psychological types are an authority, the use if these psychological types may help both the clinician and the client have framework for understanding basics of personality before moving on to appropriate interventions. However, Jungian personality types and Myers-Briggs is very rigid in its analysis and without a significant scientific backing, might not be a suitable choice for counselling. Instead, counsellors can find more reputable scales such as the “Big Five” (Bainbridge, 2022).
Counsellors should take special care when treating patients. This is especially true as psychology and neuroscience are evolving fields that quite literally change by the day. While this may seem overwhelming, it is important that therapists are not bound to one ideology and are willing to consider new approaches to counselling. Personality tests that go back to Carl Jung are especially concerning considering he died in the 1960s, well before many of today’s counsellors were born. By not considering these developments we run the risk that using personality tests in practice is actually a pseudoscience based on repetition of past psychotherapists instead of evidence-based treatment (Aafjes-van Doorn, 2022).
Future Research
While counsellors are unlikely to use Buzzfeed style quizzes in their practices, a comparative study on the use of these quizzes versus a Myers-Briggs or Jungian personality typology would be helpful in comparing the usefulness of these personality quizzes for therapeutic practice. Further studies on whether or not quizzes provide a confirmation bias for personality traits that are already present or perceived by the quiz-taker could also shed new light on the practical clinical use of personality quizzes, both in a therapeutic sense, and as a tool for entertainment and self-discovery. Another avenue of research that should be undertaken is more analysis on whether psychological illnesses that are correlated with personality types are due to personality type, or due to symptoms of the illness causing symptoms that imitate the personality type.
Conclusion
Jungian personality types, the Myers-Briggs test, and pop-culture quizzes such as “which Disney princess are you?” all have in common the goal of explaining and categorizing human personality and identity. While the scientific mileage varies from likely none to some replicable merit, all three types of quizzes currently show no real scientific consensus. That said, there is some evidence that Jungian personality traits and the Myers-Briggs test can have positive implications for therapeutic relationships.
References
Aafjes-van Doorn, K., & Prout, T. A. (2022). Changing attitudes toward evidence-based psychodynamic psychotherapy. Psychoanalytic Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pap0000397.supp (Supplemental)
Bainbridge, T. F., Ludeke, S. G., & Smillie, L. D. (2022). Evaluating the Big Five as an organizing framework for commonly used psychological trait scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(4), 749–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000395
Beebe, J. (2006). Psychological types, ch. 6 in The Handbook of Jungian Psychology, ed. Papadopoulos, R. K., London: Routledge.
Berberick, S. N., & Mcallister, M. P. (2016). Online quizzes as viral, consumption-based identities. International Journal of Communication (19328036), 10
Dehing, J. (1992). The therapist’s interventions in Jungian analysis. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 37, 29-47. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.libraryservices.yorkvilleu.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=url,cookie,ip,uid&db=a9h&AN=12234171
Galipeau, S. (2013). The red book and Jung’s typology. Psychological Perspectives, 56, 34-49. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=a9h&AN=86010007&site=eds-live&custid=s7439054
Heller, S. (2019, February 28). Do you identify as one of the ‘friends’ or feel passionately about your hogwarts house? here’s why. Insider. Retrieved June 19, 2022, from https://www.insider.com/why-we-like-personality-quizzes-2019-2
Krol, S. A., & Bartz, J. A. (2021). The self and empathy: Lacking a clear and stable sense of self undermines empathy and helping behavior. Emotion
Moore-Wilson. (n.d.). Typology. Society of Analytical Psychology. Retrieved July 10, 2022, from https://www.thesap.org.uk/articles-on-jungian-psychology-2/about-analysis-and-therapy/typology/
Nguyen, J. (2018, October 30). How companies use the Myers-Briggs system to evaluate employees. Marketplace. Retrieved July 10, 2022, from https://www.marketplace.org/2018/10/30/business/big-book/myers-briggs-system-evaluate-employees/
Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 467–488.
Rickles, N., Olson, A. W., Tieger, P. D., Schommer, J. C., & Brown, L. M. (2021). Use of the Jung/Myers model of personality types to identify and engage with individuals at greatest risk of experiencing depression and anxiety. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 48(3), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-020-09724-2