H. D.
Elphinstone Secondary School
Gibsons, BC, Canada1
Background
In 1943 the Myers-Briggs personality test was developed in the United States by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers. When Isabel introduced her fiance to her mother Katherine, she began researching people’s different temperaments. Katherine found that Isabel’s fiance didn’t view the world as her family did. In her research, Katherine came across Carl Jung’s publication of Psychological Types and found her theories to be similar. Isabel then set out to form a questionnaire for psychological types. She contacted universities and psychometricians to form an accurate test that she could publish. The test was finally published by the Educational Testing Service. Today, the Myers-Briggs personality test is used by many therapists and counselors. It has become the most widely used personality indicator, with about two million completing it every year.
The Myers-Briggs personality test sorts people into sixteen personality types. The test indicates your personality type by separating your personality into four dimensions. One of two letters is assigned to each dimension to indicate your personality type. The four dimensions are: where you focus your attention, the way you take in information, how you make decisions, and how you deal with the world. The way in which you focus your attention is assigned the letter E, or I. The E represents extraversion, and the I represents introversion. The way you take in information is assigned the letter S, or N, with S representing sensing, and the N representing intuition. How you make decisions is represented by T, or F. T is representative of thinking and the F represents feeling. Then, how you deal with the world is assigned J, or P. The J represents Judging and the P represents Perceiving.
The National Academy of Sciences committee has reviewed twenty Myers-Briggs studies. They concluded that the extraversion and introversion aspect is valid through the comparison with other personality tests. However, the S-N and T-F show rather low validity. In career counseling where it is most used, the committee concluded that the Myers-Briggs test does not have enough validity. Overall, the committee concluded that the Myers-Briggs test shows adequate validity.
Other personality evaluators such as the five factor model (FFM) are commonly used to assess personalities. The five factor model or sometimes referred to as the “Big Five personality traits” uses adjectives to separate different personality aspects. These adjectives are put under one of the five personality traits which include: conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness to experience.
During the 1980s, psychologists tried to develop upon the idea that instantaneous behavior cannot accurately be predicted. The researchers realized that they could predict behavior across time. This led to the acceptance of personality. Once personality was generally accepted as an idea, it created a large interest in the field. This is when Lewis Goldberg started his study that emphasized what he thought were five common personality traits. After this study, he continued to work on his model and labelled it the “Big Five”. In Honolulu in 1980, a meeting was held with four psychology researchers, including Lewis Goldberg. The event was used to assess the current personality evaluators. After this event, the five factor model was widely accepted. The five factor model has also recently been concluded as valid by a study that used clinicians to rate its accuracy. In this study, the five factor model was able to account fifty percent of domains of functioning.
Today there are many personality tools and tests to help with identifying personalities. However, the Myers-Briggs test and the Big Five personality traits are the most widely accepted. The Myers-Briggs test provides a four letter code that resembles your prominent characteristics out of the eight they account for. The five factor model gives a percentage of the prominence of each of the five factors in an individual’s personality. Both of these tests limit the individuals and the observer’s perception of that person. However, these tests form the basis for further analysis of personality. In this study, the basis of further analysis will be altered for the individual’s self perception and participants will be able to see how feedback can alter one’s self perception.
Review of Literature
Harris and Greene examined the ability for college students to discriminate between actual, trivial, and inaccurate personality feedback. The students found that the trivial personality feedback was less accurate than the actual or inaccurate feedback. It was inaccurate feedback that was perceived higher than both actual, and trivial feedback for perceived information value. Trivial feedback was however rated as more accurate than actual or inaccurate personality feedback. The study also found that defensiveness was not a main factor in the interaction with the feedback. Mitchell E. Harris, and Roger L. Greene found that actual and inaccurate personality results are perceived as more useful and informative than trivial results.
Dies planned to perform a further and more rigorous look into the “fallacy of personal validation”. Dies did this by using a PRF (Personality Research Form) which has proven more accurate results than other personality studies used in similar previous studies. He gave this form to two groups of university students. After a week, Dies returned the test scores to the students. However, without knowing it, some students were given false personality results. In one group of students the results were falsified randomly. In the second group the results were changed deliberately to contradict the original results. Then, after all the results were given, the students were asked three questions about the validity of the results. There were no significant results in the students interpretation of validity for the accurate and false results. This indicates that participants were not able to distinguish between authentic and falsified personality results.
C.R. Snyder and Cheryl L. Newburg expanded the Barnum effect to a group setting. Previous studies on the barnum effect have always been on a one-to-one basis. Now, personality feedback accuracy can be seen within a group of eight subjects. Snyder and Newburg tested the subject’s perception of “source status”. This allowed them to see the difference of social status and perceived qualification of the test administer. They found that feedback accuracy was rated higher when the feedback was given by a group leader than a group member. In the results, C.R. Snyder and Cheryl L. Newburg saw that while the acceptance rate was high, the accuracy rating by the subjects was slightly lower. It was also found, just as in previous Barnum effect studies, that positive feedback was rated as more accurate than negative feedback. The positive feedback was not remembered as well as the negative feedback however. This means over a period of time both negative and positive feedback had the same result on the subjects.
The three studies suggest that subjects are not able to distinguish between false and accurate personality feedback. However, in Harris, M. E., & Greene, R. L. study, subjects could determine trivial personality feedback.
Methods
This study used a Myers-Briggs personality test to administer false personality results. Students at Elphinstone Secondary were asked as a class if anyone would like to participate. Unfortunately, groups based on age or personality type could not be tested due to the participants being volunteering students. The test was administered by a student in a psychology class within different classrooms. The participants took the test and were assessed. Once the test was assessed, the administer gave the opposite result of their Myers-Briggs type back to the participant. The test administrator did this with a predetermined list of opposite Myers-Briggs types. The false test result and real test results were recorded. Once the results were given back to the student, they left to continue on with their day. This process continued on with a number of students with different ages at Elphinstone Secondary. The goal was to acquire a variety of personality types and ages. This allowed us to see if there was any difference between personality type and age in self perception.
A day later, the same participants were asked to take the test. The test was given with the goal to see if there were any changes. By doing this, it could be seen that false personality feedback can alter self perception. After this new test was given, the same false results from the original test were given. By doing this, the false personality tests could be reinforced.
A few days later, the same test was given to the same participants again. This was the final test given to the participants. The results of each test were then given to the participant. If there was any variation among the tests the participant was informed. The participants were then asked a few questions about their thoughts on the personality tests and if one test result was more accurate than another. They were also asked if they noticed a change in their behavior or perception of themselves. These questions and answers were also recorded by the test administrator. Finally, all the data was collected and organized to form a conclusion of any change in self perception from the personality tests.
| Opposite Personality Types Based on Type Functions | |
| ESTJ | INFP |
| ENFP | ISTJ |
| ISFJ | ENTP |
| ESFJ | INTP |
| ISTP | ENFJ |
| ESTP | INFJ |
| INTJ | ESFP |
| ENTJ | ISFP |
Data
| Name: | Test 1 (Real): | Test 2 (Real): | Notes: |
| Liam Fulkerson (Male, 17) | ENTJ → ISFP | ISFP → ENTJ | First (May 4) reacted to competitiveness, high school dropout rate, and “dead inside”Second Test May 17 |
| Saleah Billig (Female, 18) | ESTJ → INFP | INFP → ENTJ | First (May 4) Aware of general horoscope feedback studiesSecond Test May 17 |
| Lucy Shick | ENFJ → ISTP | Felt that questions were “so me” Thought introverted (May 11) | |
| Hunter Mensink | ISTP → EFJ | First (May 11)Thought it was “interesting” | |
| Dave Ravina | ESFJ → INTP | INTP → ESTP | First (May 15) said “I like it”Second (May 31) |
| Celeste Evans | INTP → ESFJ | ESFJ → ESTP | First (May 15) said “seems kinda odd” and thought it might be falseSecond (May 31) |
| Maya F. | ESFJ → INTP | INTP → ESFJ | First (May 15)Second (May 31) |
| Sally | ENFJ → ISTP | ISTP → ENFP | First (May 15) possibility of offended – didn’t look satisfied |
| Shelly | INFJ → ESTP | ESTP → | First (May 15) was aware of real personality results at the bottom of the page |
| Gerard | ISFJ → ENTP | ENTP → | First (May 15) was aware of real personality results at the bottom of the page from talking to Shelly |
Discussion
The data shows that the majority of personality results have changed after the false results were given. Two of the participants’ personality results didn’t change after the false results, and four participants’ personality results did change. Although the changes in personality results did vary, the most likely trait letters to change were P/J or N/S. The P in the Myers-Briggs personality test, as stated before in the methods section, stands for perceiving, and the J stands for judging. The N stands for intuition and the S stands for sensing.
It is not surprising that the most likely trait letter to change was the last (P/J). This is because the trait perceiving or judging can vary depending on emotions. The other letters are less likely to change because they are more of a description of how one thinks. Also on the scale of personality type functions the last two letters are smaller than the other three. This means that the last two letters are more likely to switch to its opposite function.
Interestingly one the letters N and S changed equally as much as P and J. This was not expected to happen because the personality type function chart has sensing and intuition at the top of each personality type (S and N). This may be due to the participants not taking the test seriously, not thinking about the questions hard enough, or not understanding some of the questions.
Conclusion
This study provided a start in studying the changes in personality from valid false personality feedback. The study proved that the most likely traits to change within the Myers-Briggs assessment were N/S and P/J. The change of the P/J could have been a change from the false personality results or a change due to the individual having this trait being closer to the fifty-percent mark (meaning it is more likely to change). The change of the N/S awas surprising because theoretically the N/S should be the least likely to change. This is because the N/S is the highest up on the scale of personality type functions, which means that it is the strongest trait that contributes to processing information.
It is hard to conclude to what extent false personality feedback can change perception from this study. This is because the personality trait letters that did change may have been the traits that were not as strong as the others for the individual. The change of percentage would have been able to be determined if the percentage of each of the personality traits were recorded. This was a mistake in the data collection process. To provide sufficient information to conclude that personalities can alter due to feedback, this study should be carried out with more people, over a longer period of time. Unfortunately, there were not enough participants, nor enough tests given, to assert that personalities can change from false personality feedback.
References
Dies, R. R. (1972). Personal gullibility or pseudo diagnosis: A further test of the “fallacy of personal validation.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(1), 47-50.
Harris, M. E., & Greene, R. L. (1984). Students’ perception of actual, trivial, and inaccurate personality feedback. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(2), 179-184.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T.. Big Five personality traits. Wikipedia. Retrieved 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
OPP. (n.d.). Myers-Briggs history. OPP. Retrieved 2018, from https://www.opp.com/en/tools/MBTI/Myers-Briggs-history
Psychometric Success. (n.d.). Popular personality tests. Psychometric Success. Retrieved 2018, from https://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-popular-tests.html
Snyder, C. & Newburg, C. (1981). The Barnum effect in a group setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45(6), 622.