Home       SAPA Project Test       Papers


NEEDS, CIRCUMPLEXES, AND MODELS FROM A JUNGIAN PERSPECTIVE

John C. Gonsowski

IBM Endicott, NY

ABSTRACT

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality inventory commonly used by businesses. IBM offers a one day workshop on the MBTI for intact teams, process teams or other team configurations that have the need to interact with each other to meet their goals and objectives. The MBTI provides individuals an opportunity to gain insight into themselves and others. Through the workshop individuals discover areas of strength and weakness and put plans in place to appropriately manage these areas. In spite of its usefulness in business, the MBTI and the Carl Jung personality theory on which the MBTI is based are often criticized in popular academic journals. A case study is analyzed to show how Jungian theory can provide additional insight when utilized along with methods more popular in the academic community.

INTRODUCTION

Carl Jung (Singer, 1984) coined the terms extravert and introvert to describe people who are outwardly and inwardly focused, respectively. Jung also saw people as primarily interacting through one of the perceiving traits (sensing or intuition) or through one of the judging traits (thinking or feeling). Myers (Myers & McCauly, 1985) developed a personality inventory, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), based on Jung's theory. For the inventory, Myers assigned the letters E and I to correspond to the Jungian bipolar opposites extravert and introvert. T and F were assigned to thinking and feeling, S and N were assigned to sensing and intuition, and J and P were assigned to judging and perceiving. Keirsey (1984) developed a shorter, nonproprietary inventory for the Jungian bipolar opposites and provided detailed descriptions for the 16 possible combinations involving four Jungian bipolar opposite anchors. Jung, Myers, and Keirsey also focused on temperaments created using only two Jungian anchors. Keirsey provided detailed descriptions for four of these two-factor types (SJ, SP, NT and NF). Keirsey also provided descriptors for eight three-factor types (STJ, SFJ, STP, SFP, NTJ, NTP, NFJ and NFP). A table based on Keirsey's two-, three-, and four-factor descriptions follows:

Table 1:Descriptors for Jungian Two-, Three-, and Four-Factor Types

STJ Monitors STP Expediters NTJ Coordinators NTP Engineers

Extra/Introvert
Perceiving
Judging
Acting
Ex/In Perceive
Ex/In Judging
Ex/In Acting
Jung Primary
Perceive/Judg
Per/Jud Input
Per/Jud Output
Judging/Acting
Jud/Act Input
Jud/Act Output
Act/Perceive
Act/Per Input
Act/Per Output

Supervisor/Inspector
Sense (Concrete)
Think (Logic)
Judge (Decisive)
Know/Experience
Justified/Analyze
Send/Prepare
Justified/Experience
Entrepreneurs Lead
Loyal Customers
Direct & Implement
Deployers Organize
Ready Details
Carefully Perfect
Guardians Defend
Cooperative Needy
Maintain By Challenge

Promoter/Operator
Sense (Concrete)
Think (Logic)
Perceive (Flexible)
Know/Experience
Justified/Analyze
Excite/Search
Know/Analyze
Entrepreneurs Lead
Loyal Customers
Direct & Implement
Evolvers Progress
Discovered Challenge
Growth & Change
Artisans Master
Capable & Utilitarian
Ready Big Picture

Mobilizer/Mastermind
Intuition (Abstract)
Think (Logic)
Judge (Decisive)
Cause/Unusual
Justified/Analyze
Send/Prepare
Justified/Unusual
Rationals Strategize
Utilitarian Needs
Dutiful Checking
Deployers Organize
Ready Details
Carefully Perfect
Gurus Advise
Directible Students
Unify & Change

Inventor/Designer
Intuition (Abstract)
Think (Logic)
Perceive (Flexible)
Cause/Unusual
Justified/Analyze
Excite/Search
Cause/Analyze
Rationals Strategize
Utilitarian Needs
Dutiful Checking
Evolvers Progress
Discovered Challenge
Growth & Change
Debuggers Solve
Broken Details
Inform Customers

SFJ Conservators SFP Improvisors NFJ Mentors NFP Advocates

Extra/Introvert
Perceiving
Judging
Acting
Ex/In Perceive
Ex/In Judging
Ex/In Acting
Jung Primary
Perceive/Judg
Per/Jud Input
Per/Jud Output
Judging/Acting
Jud/Act Input
Jud/Act Output
Act/Perceive
Act/Per Input
Act/Per Output

Provider/Protector
Sense (Concrete)
Feel (Values)
Judge (Decisive)
Know/Experience
Righteous/Sympathize
Send/Prepare
Righteous/Experience
Nurturers Encourage
Uninformed Students
Growth & Care
Saviors Aid
Broken Big Picture
Dutiful Implementing
Guardians Defend
Cooperative Needy
Maintain By Challenge

Performer/Composer
Sense (Concrete)
Feel (Values)
Perceive (Flexible)
Know/Experience
Righteous/Sympathize
Excite/Search
Know/Sympathize
Nurturers Encourage
Uninformed Students
Growth & Care
Saviors Aid
Broken Big Picture
Dutiful Implementing
Artisans Master
Capable & Utilitarian
Ready Big Picture

Teacher/Counselor
Intuition (Abstract)
Feel (Values)
Judge (Decisive)
Cause/Unusual
Righteous/Sympathize
Send/Prepare
Righteous/Unusual
Idealists Dream
Capable&Cooperative
Discover Perfection
Harmonizers Settle
Loyal Checking
Maintain Unity
Gurus Advise
Directible Students
Unify & Change

Enthusiast/Supporter
Intuition (Abstract)
Feel (Values)
Perceive (Flexible)
Cause/Unusual
Righteous/Sympathize
Excite/Search
Cause/Sympathize
Idealists Dream
Capable&Cooperative
Discover Perfection
Harmonizers Settle
Loyal Checking
Maintain Unity
Debuggers Solve
Broken Details
Inform Customers

THE CASE STUDY

As part of a case study, Wiggins (1997) created an Interpersonal Circumplex Model (ICM) for Dodge Morgan, who circumnavigated the globe by himself, using Morgan's T score results on the Jackson (1974) Personality Research Form (PRF). Wiggins matched up Murray needs from the PRF with the octants of the ICM.

Two Murray needs (rejection and infavoidance) had estimated T scores since the PRF did not test for these needs. The ICM looked as follows:

Figure 1:Dodge Morgan's ICM With PRF Murray Need T Scores

The eight Murray needs were placed on the ICM according to positions dictated by the bipolar orthogonal dimensions (agency-passive and dissociation-communion). This resulted in four bipolar opposites using the eight Murray needs (dominance-infavoidance, aggression-abasement, affiliation-rejection, and autonomous-nurturance).

CASE STUDY FROM JUNGIAN PERSPECTIVE

Murray needs are certainly not the only personality inventory results that can be placed on an ICM. The 12 non-extraversion Jungian two-factor temperament types can be placed on an ICM also. These 12 types match up with Murray needs and ICM octants as follows:

Table 2:Matching Terms for Jungian Two Factor Types, Murray Needs and ICM Octants

Jungian Two Factor Type Murray Need ICM Semi-Octant

TJ Deployer
SJ Guardian
NJ Guru
FJ Savior
SF Nurturer
NF Idealist
FP Harmonizer
NP Debugger
SP Artisan
TP Evolver
NT Rational
ST Entrepreneur

Cognitive Structured
Aggression
Affiliation
Harmavoidance
Nurturance
Infavoidance
Play
Abasement
Rejection
Autonomy
Achievement
Dominance

Assured
Exhibitionistic
Socialable
Warm
Trusting
Submissive
Unassured
Inhibited
Aloof
Cold
Competitive
Dominant

The organizing Deployers use cognitive abilities to create structure. Our defending Guardians can certainly be aggressive. The Gurus like unity and affiliation. Harmavoidance is a priority for the Saviors who help, not harm, others. Nurturers and nurturance of course go together. The Idealists tend toward submission to a higher power. The Harmonizers are easy going and playful. The Debuggers are inhibited, preferring to inform rather than direct. The Artisans reject the routine status quo. The Evolvers are autonomous types who do their own thing. The Rationals include scientists and generals who strive to achieve success. The Entrepreneurs are surely dominant. The process of placing the two factor types on the ICM becomes a mathematical exercise when using the individual factors underlying the two-factor types. The ICM looks as follows:

Figure 2:Dodge Morgan's ICM with Jungian Two-Factor Types, Murray Needs and T scores

The "mathematics" is such that adding up the positions (number of steps from the middle in horizontal and vertical directions) of the types not independent of the type in question and dividing by two will give you the position of the type in question. For example, let's look at the TJ type. STs, SJs, NTs and NJs are the only other types that can contain TJs. The position for these four are: (-1,2), (1,2), (-2,1) and (2,1). Adding them up and dividing by two gives (0,3), the TJ's position. The analysis using Jungian two-factor types adds four new Murray needs to the ICM. Two of the needs produce a new bipolar opposite (cognitive structured-play). The cognitive structured types use agency to get everything how it should be while the play types just leave things alone. The other two new Murray needs actually break up one of the original bipolar opposites (autonomous-nurturance) and create two new ones (autonomous-harmavoidance and achievement-nurturance). The autonomous types are risk takers while the harmavoidance types do not want to do anything to put the commune at risk. The achievement types are more concerned with utilitarian gains than personal feelings of others while the personal feelings of others in the commune are very important for the nurturance types. The two-factor type analysis also swaps the relative positions of two of the original bipolar opposites (aggression-abasement swaps with dominance-infavoidance). This makes sense since dominance implies a detached, dissociated air of superiority while aggression implies interaction with the commune (though the interaction may be unwanted). Also, abasement implies a shy independence and is more at home on the dissociate side while infavoidance implies not wanting to make a mistake noticed by the commune. For the remaining bipolar opposite (affiliation-rejection), affiliation is certainly at home with the commune and rejection is at home with dissociation. The transition of the T scores as one goes around the new ICM are smoother than with the original ICM. In particular, the dominance T score no longer seems too high, as Wiggins (1997) mentioned for the original ICM. Figure 2 also shows organismistic field lines that show T score patterns on the ICM in much the same way that lines of elevation show mountains on topographical maps.

FIVE-FACTOR MODEL FROM JUNGIAN PERSPECTIVE

Morgan's PRF Z score results were used to determine his Five-Factor Model (FFM) results (Nasby & Read, 1997). The Jungian two factor types can also be used for the FFM. The extraversion scale of the FFM obviously matches up with the E-I Jungian scale. The PRF Murray need exhibition seems the only one related to the extraversion scale without being highly related to other Jungian scales. Other Murray needs for extraversion can be selected by picking extravert-introvert pairs that are adjacent on the ICM, thus minimizing the affects of the other Jungian scales. The agreeableness scale of the FFM matches with the Jungian FP-TJ scale where there are the FP harmonizer as one anchor and the cognitive structured, this-is-the-way-it-is-going-to-be, TJ at the other anchor. The openness scale of the FFM matches the Jungian STJ-NFP scale with the STJ rigid conservative corporate executive at one anchor and the NFP head-in-the-clouds special-interests advocate at the other anchor. The conscientiousness scale of the FFM matches with the J-P Jungian scale where there is the quick-to-judge, decisive and focused J at one anchor and the always perceiving, flexible, and easily sidetracked P at the other anchor. The neuroticism scale of the FFM matches with the Jungian STP-NFJ scale with the unflappable STP airline pilot, sharpshooter, or surgeon at one anchor and the heavily-burdened-by-world-problems NFJ cult leader, social activist, or idealistic academician at the other anchor. Because neuroticism has bad connotations, emotionality might be a better name for this scale; being passionate about a cause can be a good thing. This produces the following comparison of FFMs, before and after the Jungian analysis:

Table 3: Comparison of Dodge Morgan's FFMs Before and After Jungian Analysis

Extraversion
(before)
Z
score
Agreeableness
(before)
Z
score
Conscientiousness
(before)
Z
score
Neuroticism
(before)
Z
score
Openness
(before)
Z
score

Affiliation
Exhibition
Nurturance
Play
Succorance
Desirability


AVERAGE

-0.57
1.92
-0.42
-1.10
-1.65
0.76

-------
-0.18

Abasement
Aggression
Defendence
Dominance
Nurturance

0.10
-0.17
1.06
-1.21
-0.42


-------
-0.13

Achievement
Cognitive Struct.
Endurance
Impulsivity
Order
Desirability

1.65
0.91
1.74
0.43
-0.48
0.76

-------
0.84

Aggression
Autonomy
Defendence
Social Recognit.
Succorance

0.17
-2.44
-1.06
-1.91
-1.65


-------
-1.38

Achievement
Autonomy
Change
Dominance
Harmavoidance
Sentience
Understanding

1.65
2.44
-0.67
1.21
1.42
-0.55
0.13
-------
0.80

Extraversion
(after)
Z
score
Agreeableness
(after)
Z
score
Conscientiousness
(after)
Z
score
Neuroticism
(after)
Z
score
Openness
(after)
Z
score

Exhibition
Rejection
Abasement
Nurturance
Infavoidance
Harmavoidance
Affiliation




AVERAGE

1.92
0.17
-0.10
-0.42
0.57
1.42
-0.57



-------
0.43

Play
Abasement
Infavoidance
Rejection
Nurturance
Cognitive Struct.
Dominance
Aggression
Achievement
Affiliation

-1.10
0.10
-0.57
0.17
-0.42
-0.91
-1.21
-0.17
-1.65
0.57
-------
-0.51

Cognitive Struct.
Aggression
Affiliation
Harmavoidance
Autonomy
Rejection
Abasement
Play

0.91
0.17
-0.57
-1.42
-2.44
-0.17
-0.10
1.10


-------
-0.32

Infavoidance
Harmavoidance
Affiliation
Dominance
Autonomy
Rejection

-0.57
-1.42
-0.57
-1.21
-2.44
-0.17




-------
-1.06

Play
Abasement
Infavoidance
Cognitive Struct.
Dominance
Aggression

-1.10
0.10
-0.57
-0.91
-1.21
-0.17




-------
-0.64

The Jungian theory as related to the FFM has the advantage that as long as the Jungian theory as related to the ICM comes out looking smooth one can be confident in the accuracy of the Jungian FFM (with the exception of the extraversion scale, which is independent of the agency-passivity and communal-dissociation dimensions of the ICM). Nasby and Read (1997) described Morgan as not being very open in spite of the (before) FFM score for openness; the benefit provided by Jungian theory can be seen in Morgan's openness score after Jungian analysis.

DEFENSE OF JUNG

McCrae and Costa (1989) in comparing the MBTI to the FFM had several complaints about the MBTI and the Jungian theory upon which the MBTI is based. One complaint is that the MBTI does not expand enough on the meaning of its scales while the FFM offers lots of key words to go with each scale. Keirsey gives very detailed descriptions for the 16 possible combinations using the anchors of the four MBTI scales. These descriptions are much better than just a list of traits. Even the Figure 2 short summation based on Keirsey's descriptions shows occupational names, occupational verbs, and inputs and outputs for the occupations such that the words form linked processes instead of just a list of traits.

The concentration on the anchors of the scales is another criticism of the MBTI. This is done to make writing about various personalities easier to do since one ends up with 16 instead of infinitely many. Jung himself said that people can end up in between the anchors, and Keirsey suggests that for those who score near the middle of a scale one should look at both of the resulting personalities for descriptions that might match a person. Psychologists, unlike the general public, are experienced at dealing with raw scores and can certainly do so with the MBTI (or with PRF scores for the Jungian two-factor types). Neither the FFM nor Jungian inventories have an inherent advantage in supplying descriptors for the area halfway between the anchors of the scales. The FFM offers ambivert to describe the halfway point on the extraversion scale. Moderate is halfway on the openness scale; negotiator is halfway on the agreeableness scale; balanced is halfway on the conscientiousness scale; and responsive is halfway on the neuroticism scale. Ambivert is also applicable for the halfway point on the Jungian extraversion scale. Descriptors for halfway points for the other one-, two-, and three-factor Jungian types are shown in the following table:

Table 4:Halfway Descriptors for Jungian Types

XXX Moderate SXX Dealer NXX Editor XTX Debater XFX Preacher

Perceiving
Judging
Acting
Perc/Judge
Judge/Act
Act/Perc

Common Sense
Evaluate (Merit)
Balanced Process
Realist
Negotiator
Asserter

Sense (Concrete)
Evaluate (Merit)
Balanced Process
Ally
Negotiator
Manipulator

Intuition (Abstract)
Evaluate (Merit)
Balanced Process
Enhancer
Negotiator
Consultant

Common Sense
Think (Logic)
Balanced Process
Persuader
Constructor
Asserter

Common Sense
Feel (Values)
Balanced Process
Motivator
Comforter
Asserter

XXJ Arbitrator XXP Forecaster STX Delegator NTX Developer XTJ Manager

Perceiving
Judging
Acting
Perc/Judge
Judge/Act
Act/Perc

Common Sense
Evaluate (Merit)
Judge (Decisive)
Realist
Trainer
Announcer

Common Sense
Evaluate (Merit)
Perceive (Flexible)
Realist
Enabler
Experimenter

Sense (Concrete)
Think (Logic)
Balanced Process
Entrepreneur
Constructor
Manipulator

Intuition (Abstract)
Think (Logic)
Balanced Process
Rational
Constructor
Consultant

Common Sense
Think (Logic)
Judge (Decisive)
Persuader
Deployer
Announcer

XTP Prototyper SXJ Coach SXP Contractor NXJ Instructor NXP Researcher

Perceiving
Judging
Acting
Perc/Judge
Judge/Act
Act/Perc

Common Sense
Think (Logic)
Perceive (Flexible)
Persuader
Evolver
Experimenter

Sense (Concrete)
Evaluate (Merit)
Judge (Decisive)
Ally
Trainer
Guardian

Sense (Concrete)
Evaluate (Merit)
Perceive (Flexible)
Ally
Enabler
Artisan

Intuition (Abstract)
Evaluate (Merit)
Judge (Decisive)
Enhancer
Trainer
Guru

Intuition (Abstract)
Evaluate (Merit)
Perceive (Flexible)
Enhancer
Enabler
Debugger

SFX Preserver NFX Agent XFJ Enlightener XFP Reformer

Perceiving
Judging
Acting
Perc/Judge
Judge/Act
Act/Perc

Sense (Concrete)
Feel (Values)
Balanced Process
Nurturer
Comforter
Manipulator

Intuition (Abstract)
Feel (Values)
Balanced Process
Idealist
Comforter
Consultant

Common Sense
Feel (Values)
Judge (Decisive)
Motivator
Savior
Announcer

Common Sense
Feel (Values)
Perceive (Flexible)
Motivator
Harmonizer
Experimenter

Another criticism is that the MBTI shows no verification of Jung's theory that people behave in ways opposite to their earlier personality as they get older. Jung's theory actually is that a person is born with a certain innate personality and that personality never changes. What does change is behavior. Innate personality is what a person likes or is naturally inclined to do. Persons can behave differently from their innate personality. As persons get older, they can become more responsible or more confident and do more things that are not natural for them, but according to Jungian theory their innate personality is not going to change. The MBTI is a self-report personality inventory that measures innate personality preferences, not behavior, so one would not expect the changes in behavior as one gets older to show up in the MBTI.

Another criticism is that Jung associated the same activities with multiple scales in a seemingly incorrect way. For example, Jung associated tough-mindedness and moral conservatism with extraversion, when these traits seem more at home with traits other than extraversion. Although other traits may set the level of tough-mindedness, an extravert will seem more tough-minded than an introvert since the extravert does not retreat into a shell like the introvert does. Introverts can be just as tough-minded on the inside, they just do not have the need to show this to everyone. Jung often described behavior perceptions, not just innate personality. An extravert may also behave more morally conservatively than an introvert, since the extravert is more interested in being perceived by others. Jung wrote his personality theory in the 1920s when society was more morally conservative; today peer pressure may actually be making a lot of extraverts behave less morally conservatively. The FFM's extraversion scale itself is not immune from the affects of traits outside of extraversion. Warm-heartedness is a characteristic listed for FFM extraverts, yet there are certainly extraverted occupations like military generals that are not usually associated with warm-heartedness.

Another criticism is that the MBTI J/P scale does not correspond with Jungian theory. The Js put great stock in judgments made by thinking or feeling and are thus ready to act decisively while the Ps are naturally inclined to be ready to act on new things perceived through the five senses or intuition and are thus flexible. There is no disagreement between Jung and the MBTI here. Jung and the MBTI do claim one of the Judging/Perceiving functions (thinking, feeling, sensing, intuiting) are supposed to be "primary." Jung used the word "primary" to refer to the one trait a person uses the most; it is not necessarily the favorite (as determined by the MBTI highest F, T, S or N score) or necessarily the one relied on (as determined by the MBTI higher F or T score if J score is higher than P score or higher S or N score if P score is higher than J score). Extraverted Perceivers (EPs) like to get their scientific, idealistic, or artistic perceiving out in view for all to see, so what they rely on is actually what they use; the same is true for Extraverted Judgers (EJs) who like to get their business, military, or teaching judgments out in view for all to see. Introverted Perceivers (IPs) like to keep their relied-on process out of view and thus get lost in making judgments on their scientific, idealistic, or artistic perceptions. Introverted Judgers (IJs) also like to keep their relied-on process out of view and thus get lost in perceiving new developments in inspecting, planning, and teaching.

Another criticism is that the MBTI T/F scale does not correspond with Jungian theory. Specifically, the claim was made that Murray needs like dominance, aggression, affiliation, and nurturance are correlated with the MBTI T and F scales and this correlation does not support Jungian theory. F is for Jungian feeling judgments based on values while T is for Jungian thinking judgments based on logic. ST dominance is surely based more on logic than values and SF nurturance is surely based more on values than logic. NJ affiliation and SJ aggression are not represented by the MBTI T/F scale, so it is not surprising that Jungian theory does not support the correlation. There can be an NJ military general who wants affiliation or unity among his or her troops and who judges using logic, or there could be an NJ religious cult leader who also wants affiliation or unity among his or her followers but judges using values. For the SJ there could be the SJ political conservative who aggressively attacks the logic of left-wing political ideas or there could be the SJ little league mom who aggressively goes after those whom her value system judges to be unfair to her child. That there might be a correlation between the MBTI T/F scale and NJ affiliation and SJ aggression is not too surprising since a look at our Figure 2 ICM you will indicate that NJ affiliation is one step away from F needs and SJ aggression is one step away from T needs.

Because lots of interesting nuances can be lost when combining a lot of data together, single case studies provide a useful avenue to understanding personality. Two people can have the same trait for different reasons as a result of having different personalities. For example, the NF idealist is a perfectionist as a result of personal altruistism while the TJ deployer is a perfectionist as a result of cognitive-structured means to an end. Lumping all perfectionists together would loose the information about why they are perfectionists. Also, extraverts tend to be extraverted when doing their thing but can act rather introverted when outside of their area of interest. For example, the military general can be quite extraverted when giving orders and striving for military success but can seem rather aloof and blunt at a social gathering. Generals tend to be extraverted agency types not extraverted communal types. Lumping all extraverts together looses the information about what activity is extraverted. Also, one has to keep in mind that people can be more proficient and experienced in areas outside of what their innate personality might be attracted to. F males for example can end up specializing in T areas due to school and societal influences. Single case studies make it easier to separate characteristics due to competencies from characteristics due to goals.

REFERENCES

Costa, Paul T., Jr. and Robert R. McCrae (1988). "From Catalog to Classification: Murray's Needs and the Five Factor Model," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55:258-265.

Jackson, Douglas N. (1974). Personality Research Form Manual (Rev. Ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.

Jung, Carl G. (1971). Psychological Types (H. G. Baynes, Trans., revised by R. F. C. Hull). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1923).

Keirsey, David and Marilyn Bates (1978). Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books.

Kiesler, Donald J. (1983). "The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for Complementarity in Human Transactions," Psychological Review, 90:185-214.

McCrae, Robert R. and Paul T. Costa Jr. (1987). "Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52:81-90.

McCrae, Robert R. and Paul T. Costa Jr. (1989). "Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality," Journal of Personality, 57:17-40.

Morgan, Dodge M. (1989). The Voyage of the American Promise. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Murray, Henry A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Wily.

Murray, Henry A. (1943). The Thematic Apperception Test: Manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Myers, Isabel B. (1980). Introduction to Type (3rd Ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, Isabel B. and Mary H. McCaulley (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nasby, William and Nancy W. Read (1997). "The Life Voyage of a Solo Circumnavigator: Integrating Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives," Journal of Personality, 65:785-1068.

Robinson, Forrest G. (1992). Love's Story Told: A Life of Henry A. Murray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Singer, June K. (1994). Boundaries of the Soul: the Practice of Jung's Psychology. New York: Anchor Books.

Wiggins, Jerry S. (1995). Interpersonal Adjective Scales: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Wiggins, Jerry S. (1997). "Circumnavigating Dodge Morgan's Interpersonal Style," Journal of Personality, 65:1069-1086.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

John C. Gonsowski is an electrical engineer at IBM in Endicott, NY and graduate of Carnegie Mellon University. He is currently part of an optical test process team derived from development, programming and manufacturing intact teams.