Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

By David J. Pittenger. 2005

190 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/35d72787392d1d8d60ae08193b4eaf0734193d99

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. Adam M. Grant
2. Yvonne D. Burger
3. E. D. Haan
4. Alexander B. Swan
5. Randy Stein
6. Martin Plöckinger
7. Per-Olof Eriksson
8. Roman Rohatschek

In Social Psychology

1. Adam M. Grant
2. Yvonne D. Burger
3. Per-Olof Eriksson
4. E. D. Haan
5. Alexander B. Swan
6. Randy Stein
7. M. Hiebl
8. N. Bellé

Citations in the corpus

• The influence of individual executives on corporate financial reporting: A review and outlook from the perspective of upper echelons theory (2016, background): “Although the latter has been criticized for its low reliability and validity (see Pittenger, 2005), both methods are popular in scienti fi c research and practice to measure individual psychographic characteristics (Renner, Menschik-Bendele, Alexandrovicz, & Deakin, 2014) and provide a more detailed…”
• A large-scale study of executive and workplace coaching: The relative contributions of relationship, personality match, and self-efficacy. (2016, methodology): “We fully recognize the limitations of a self-reported personality type based on recall, and we are aware of the various controversies surrounding the use of the MBTI in research settings (Pittenger, 2005).”
• Evaluating the validity of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology (2019, methodology): “Infamously, they do not (e.g., Pittenger, 2005).”