The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and First-Year College Achievement: A Look Beyond Aptitude Test Results K. Terry Schurr Virgil E. Ruble Ball State University

A thorough study of an entire entering col/ege class shows that Is and Ns tend to have both higher aptitude and

achievement scores than Es and Ss; Js and Ps are similar in aptitude, but Js tend to achieve more.

Further findings are presented, and implications for col/ege teaching are discussed.

This report summarizes results of a one­year follow-up of the academic achievement of 2,713 students who entered Ball State University in the 1983 autumn quarter, and how their achievement was related to psychological type. The students were freshmen who were administered the MBTI during the 1983 summer orientation program, and for whom Scholastic Aptitude Test scores were available. Their type distribu­tions appear below.

Academic achievement was assessed through the grades earned in most courses that would meet these students' general studies requirements. Both an average grade (GEN) and the grades in different subject matter areas were examined. Grades in the subject matter areas were studied because the MBTI theory suggests that certain per­sonality characteristics might be related to success in some areas, while other characteristics might be related to success in other areas. Additionally, course difficulty was considered because the influence of the MBTI characteristics might be more or less prevalent for courses varying in difficulty.

Student gender (SEX) and high school graduating class percentile (HSPER), as well as the Scholastic Aptitude Test verbal (VER) and mathematics (MATH) scores, were used in the project. These variables were included for three purposes. First; VER, MATH, and HSPER were needed as control variables in order to assess whether the M BTl provided information about student achievement beyond that provided by their past achieve­ment. Secondly, the relationships between the MBTI characteristics and VER, MATH,

and HSPER were of interest. If there is a rela­tionship between personality and achieve­ment, it already would have been manifested in different types of students' VER and MATH scores and their past academic perfor­mance (HSPER). The question about a cause and effect relationship between personality and achievement is unanswerable, but it seems more likely that personality causes achievement, rather than that achievement causes personality-perhaps, a non­recursive relationship would be tenable. Thirdly, the relationships between VER, MATH and HSPER, as well as SEX, and achievement in different areas were of in­terest. SEX was considered because the psychological literature indicates there are many differences between the psychological characteristics of males and females: Impor­tant for this study is the finding that females usually demonstrate higher academic achievement than males.

Interest in administering the MBTI to the freshmen stemmed from two sources. Much has been written that purports that MBTI types react differently to (a) formal educa­tion, (b) different instructional procedures, and (c) study in different content areas (Myers, 1980). Secondly, research (Nisbet, Ruble, & Schurr, 1982b), as well as practical experience (Nisbet, Ruble, & Schurr, 1982a), have indicated that the MBTI can yield predictive information about the academic achievement of academically high-risk students. Additionally, the MBTI characteristics were found to be associated with introductory English composition grades of a heterogeneous group of students (Schurr, Houlette, & Ellen, 1986).

Journal of Psychological Type, Volume 12, 1986 Page 25

Ball State University Entering Freshmen: All Students (Males and Females)

ISTJ n=262 (9.7%) 11111 11111

ISTP n=78 (2.9%) III

ESTP n= 161 (5.9%) 11111 I

ESTJ n=320 (11.8%) 11111 11111 II

N=2713 1=1% of N

ISFJ n=239 (8.8%) 11111 III

ISFP n=82 (3.0%) III

ESFP n= 125 (4.6%) 11111

ESFJ n=362 (13.3%) 11111 11111 III

INFJ n=82 (3.0%) III

INFP n= 101 (3.7%) 1111

ENFP n=232 (8.6%) 11111 1111

ENFJ n= 193 (7.1 %) 11111 II

INTJ n=64 (2.4%) II

INTP n=91 (3.4%) III

ENTP n=201 (7.4%) 11111 II

ENTJ n= 130 (4.8%) 11111

E 63% S 60% T 48% J 61 % I ~% N ~% F ~% P ~%

IJ 24% IP 13% EP 26% EJ 37%

ST 30% SF 30% NF 22% NT 14%

SJ 44% SP 16% NP 18% NJ 17%

T J 29% TP 20% FP 20% FJ 32%

IN 13% EN 27% IS 24% ES 35%

ET 30% EF 34% IF 19% IT 18%

Analyses. A five categorical variable regres­sion model, in which the interactions were examined, was used to assess the relation­ships of the MBTI and SEX with GEN, VER, MATH, and HSPER. A five categorical variable model which included VER, MATH and HSPER was used to assess whether the

Page 26 Journal of Psychological Type

Ball State University Entering Freshmen:

ISTJ n= 155 (13.4%) 11111 1111 III

ISTP n=52 (4.5%) 11111

ESTP n=96 (8.3%) 11111 III

ESTJ n= 161 (13.9%) 11111 11111 1111

Males N = 1160 I = 1 % of N

ISFJ n=78 (6.7%) 11111 II

ISFP n=34 (2.9%) III

ESFP n=36 (3.1%) III

ESFJ n=81 (7.0%) 11111 II

INFJ n=26 (2.2%) II

INFP n=42 (3.6%) 1111

ENFP n=75 (6.5%) 11111 II

ENFJ n=35 (3.0%) III

INTJ n=34 (2.9%) III

INTP n=69 (5.9%) 11111 I

ENTP n=117 (10.1 %) 11111 11111

ENTJ n=69 (5.9%) 11111

E ~% S 00% T ~% J ~% I ~% N ~% F ~% P ~%

IJ 25% IP 17% EP 28% EJ 30%

ST 40% SF 20% NF 15% NT 25%

SJ 41 % SP 19% NP 26% NJ 14%

T J 36% TP 26% FP 16% FJ 19%

IN 15% EN 26% IS 28% ES 32%

ET 38% EF 20% IF 15% IT 27%

MBTI and SEX provided information about student achievement beyond that provided by their past achievement (VER, MATH, HSPER). Appropriate combinations of the SoN, T-F, and J-P scales were formed in the latter analyses to reflect the four SP, SJ, NT, and NF temperaments described by Keirsey

Ball State University Entering Freshmen:

ISTJ n= 107 (6.9%) 11111 II

ISTP n=26 (1.7%) II

ESTP n=55 (3.5%) 1111

ESTJ n=159 (10.2%) 11111 11111

Females N = 1553 I = 1 % of N

ISFJ n= 161 (10.4%) 11111 11111

ISFP n=48 (3.1 %) III

ESFP n=89 (5.7%) 11111 I

ESFJ n=281 (18.1 %) 11111 11111 11111 III

INFJ n=56 (3.6%) 1111

INFP n=59 (3.8%) 1111

ENFP n= 157 (10.1 %) 11111 11111

ENFJ n= 158 (10.2%) 11111 11111

INTJ n=30 (1.9%) II

INTP n=22 (1.4%) I

ENTP n=84 (5.4%) 11111

ENTJ n=61 (3.9%) 1111

E ~% S M% T ~% J ~% I ~% N ~% F ~% P ~%

IJ 23% IP 10% EP 25% EJ 42%

ST 22% SF 37% NF 28% NT 13%

SJ 46% SP 14% NP 21 % NJ 20%

T J 23% TP 12% FP 23% FJ 42%

IN 11% EN 30% IS 22% ES 38%

ET 23% EF 44% IF 21 % IT 12%

and Bates (1978) and used by many re­searchers in education, including those at Ball State.

A regression model that reflected the systematic GEN variation attributable to VER, MATH, HSPER, the MBTI, and SEX was used to determine if characteristics associated with achievement in particular subject matter areas varied from those associated with the overall achievement (GEN). The model was constructed so that in­teractions could be interpreted in simple terms (or "simple effects"). It was necessary to rescale the GEN regression model accord­ing to the standard deviation of each subject matter area because the variability of the grades in the areas differed, and because the grade variability in all areas was larger than the variability for the average grades. Area difficulty was determined by the difference between the GEN mean and the area mean after the latter was adjusted for the characteristics of the students enrolled in the subject matter area courses.

Results

GEN, VER, MATH, HSPER with MBTI and SEX. GEN, VER, MATH, and HSPER means for both the males and females of the 16 MBTI types are contained in Table 1. Most notable in the variability among the MBTI type GEN means are the high means of the I NT J and IN FJ types (2.79 and 2.79) and the low means of the opposite ESTP and ESFP types (2.12 and 2.07). When SEX is con­sidered, the GEN means range from a low of 1.94 for ESFP males to a high of 3.08 for INT J females. Female means were higher than male means for most of the MBTI groups.

A casual inspection of the VER, MATH, and HSPER means reveals considerable variability for the MBTI types and SEX, and that some of this variability corresponds to the variability in the GEN means. This cor­respondence is partially revealed in Table 2 which summarizes the major sources (p~.01) of the variability among the GEN, VER, MATH, and HSPER means for the separate M BTl scales and for SEX.

The data in Table 2 indicate that: (1) the female performance exceeded the male per­formance for both the GEN and HSPER achievement measures, but not for the stan­dardized test VER and MATH aptitude­achievement measures; (b) the performance of the Js exceeded the performance of the Ps for the achievement and GEN and HSPER measures, but not for the standardized VER

Journal of Psychological Type Page 27

Table 1. Total Group, Male and Female of Means of the First Year General Studies Courses Grades (GEN), the Scholastic Aptitude Verbal (VER)

and Mathematics (MATH) Scores, and High School Graduating Class Percentiles (HSPER) for the 16 MBTI Types

Type N GEN

Total M F Total M F

VERa

Total M F

MATHa

Total M F

HSPER

Total M F

All 2713 1160 1553 2.37 2.33 2.42 40.4 40.4 40.3 43.9 45.7 41.0 .66 .59 .71

1ST J 262 155 107 2.48 2.44 2.53 38.6 38.9 38.1 43.5 44.3 42.2 .67 .61 .75

ISFJ 239 78 161 2.55 2.51 2.57 39.7 38.3 40.4 44.846.943.7 .72 .65 .76

INFJ 82 26 56 2.792.792.80 47.045.642.7 48.450.1 47.6 .77 .70 .80

INT J 64 34 30 2.79 2.56 3.08 45.7 44.1 47.5 48.1 49.0 47.1 .73 .65 .82

ISTP 78 52 26 2.162.042.38 38.738.239.6 43.245.1 39.5 .61 .55 .73

ISFP 82 34 48 2.222.132.29 39.940.839.2 44.046.941.2 .69 .66 .72

INFP 101 42 59 2.61 2.65 2.58 45.6 45.4 45.7 46.8 48.2 45.9 .70 .68 .72

INTP 91 69 22 2.332.21 2.70 46.045.1 48.7 48.349.046.2 .62 .57 .77

ESTP 151 96 55 2.122.092.18 37.4 36.4 39.2 41.242.339.2 .57 .53 .64

ESFP 125 36 89 2.07 1.942.13 38.1 37.538.3 41.542.541.1 .61 .52 .65

EN FP 232 75 157 2.28 2.34 2.26 43.3 44.9 42.5 44.5 49.4 42.2 .64 .60 .66

ENTP 201 117 84 2.32 2.27 2.39 43.1 42.5 44.0 46.1 47.1 44.9 .61 .55 .68

EST J 320 161 159 2.31 2.23 2.38 37.3 37.6 37.0 42.2 43.7 40.6 .64 .57 .71

ESFJ 362 81 281 2.28 2.28 2.28 37.0 38.0 36.7 40.9 43.1 40.3 .66 .56 .68

ENFJ 193 35 158 2.51 2.482.52 42.842.4 42.9 44.5 45.5 44.3 .71 .66 .73

ENT J 130 69 61 2.50 2.63 2.67 42.5 42.2 42.9 45.7 46.9 44.3 .66 .59 .74

aSAT verbal and mathematics scores are reported with only the two leading digits, e.g., aVER score of 450 is reported as 45.

and MATH measures; (c) the performance of the Is exceeded the performance of the Es, and the performance of the Ns exceeded the performance of the Ss, for all four measures; and (d) the T-F scale provided significant in­formation only for males, and only for the GEN and HSPER achievement measures. One clear conclusion from these data is that Es and Ss were apparently least prepared for

Page 28 Journal of Psychological Type

college achievement, while Is and Ns were apparently best prepared; that is, Is exceed­ed Es, and Ns exceeded Ss, with respect to the means of all three of the traditional VER, MATH, and HSPER predictors of college achievement. Additionally, the J-P scale and SEX were more related to actual academic performance, GEN and HSPER, than to scores obtained on the VER and MATH tests.

Table 2. Major Sources of Variability on the GEN, VER, MATH, and HSPER Means

for the MBTI Scales and SEX.

Variable GENa

SEX Females (2.42) Males (2.31)

J-P Js (2.45) Ps (2.26)

E-I Is (2.50) Es (2.30)

SoN Ns (2.46) Ss (2.32)

T-F Male F (2.38) Male T (2.27) (No difference for Females.)

VERa MATHa

Females (42.6) Males (45.7)

Is (41.5) Is (45.3) Es (39.8) Es (43.1)

Ns (43.9) Ns (46.0) Ss (38.0) Ss (42.5)

HSPERa

Females (.71) Males (.59)

Js (.68) Ps (.63)

Is (.69) Es (.64)

Ns (.68) Ss (.64)

Male F (.62) Male T (.56) (No difference for Females.)

aMeans are shown in parentheses. Data have been treated as in Table 1.

In fact, if the J-P scale was examined by itself instead of in conjunction with the other scales, the VER mean of the Ps was higher than the mean of the Js.

Relationship Between GEN and VER, MATH, HSPER, the MBTI, and SEX. A breakdown of the deviations of the GEN means from the overall GEN mean (GENDEV) for the 16 male and female MBTI types is shown in Table 3. The 16 types are grouped by combinations of E-I and SoN: ES, IS, EN, and IN. These group­ings reflect the variation in the academic preparation of the different MBTI groups, where the ES students were least well prepared and the IN students were best prepared.

The unique portions (identified through regression analyses) of the GENDEV varia­tion that could be attributed to the VER and MATH scores (SAT), HSPER, and the MBTI characteristics (PER) also are shown in Table 3. The SAT portion was a computed sum from a VER weight of .017 and a MATH weight of .016; the standardized weights were .192 and .210, respectively. The HSPER weight was 1.268, a standardized weight of .367. These standardized weights indicate that the uni­que contributions of MATH and VER in predicting GEN were nearly equal, while the

unique contribution of HSPER was somewhat larger.

The values for PER reflect the unique con­tributions due to the MBTI characteristics that could not be attributed to VER, MATH, and HSPER. Statistically significant con­tributions of the MBTI characteristics in ac­counting for GEN were (a) among the ES, IS, EN, and IN groups (F (3, 2697) = 3.49, p ..... 01) and (b) between the Js and Ps for each of the four groups: ES (t = 3.10, p ..... OO +), IS (t = 5.23 p ..... OO+), EN (t=3.21, p ..... OO+) and IN (t= 2.82, p ..... OO +). All four the J-P dif­ferences indicated that the Js achieved more than the Ps, but the J-P difference was larger for the IS group than for the other three groups (t=2.11, p ..... 04). Unquestionably, the most consistent difference in achievement was between the Js and Ps.

Differences between the Ts and Fs also were included in computing the PER values. The difference between the Ts and Fs was neither significant for the total group nor significant for any of the ES, IS, EN, or IN groups. However, Ts tended to achieve more than the Fs for the ES, IS, and EN groups, but less than the Fs for the IN group (t = -2.23, p ..... 03). This difference, in conjunction with the Keirsey and Bates assertion about the differential achievement of Ts and Fs in dif-

Journal of Psychological Type Page 29

Table 3. Deviations of GEN from the Overall Mean (GENDEV) and the Portions of the Deviations Attributable to VER, MATH, (ACH),

HSPER and the MBTI (PER)

Type Male8

GENDEVb ACH SAT HSPER

ESTJ ·13 -05 -11 ESTP -27 -10 -16 ESFJ -08 -06 -12 ESFP -42 -07 -17

ISTJ 08 -01 -07 ISTP -32 -02 -13 ISFJ 14 01 -01 ISFP -23 06 00

ENTJ -00 08 -08 ENTP -09 09 -14 ENFJ 12 06 00 ENFP -02 17 -08

INTJ 20 15 -02 INTP -15 17 -10 INFJ 43 19 05 INFP 30 16 02

ferent subject matter areas, made it ad­visable to retain the T-F scale when achieve­ment in the different subject matter areas was examined.

The data from Table 3 are summarized in Table 4. Essentially, this summary confirms what would be expected from the Simple comparisons of the means that were shown in Table 2.

1. Females achieved more than males, and most of this difference could be predicted from females achieving more in high school than males; that is, differences in SAT scores and/or MBTI characteristics were not factors in their differential achievement.

2. The largest portion of the variation in the achievement of the ES, IS, EN, and IN groups could be attributed to corresponding dif­ferences in these groups' SAT and HSPER scores. The SoN difference was the major MBTI characteristic associated with the SAT accounting for the differences in achieve­ment, while the E-I difference was the major MBTI characteristic associated with HSPER accounting for the differences in achieve­ment. The difference in the HSPER of the Es and Is was particularly interesting, as the Is

Page 30 Journal of Psychological Type

Female8

PER GENDEVb ACH PER SAT HSPER

06 02 -11 06 07 -06 -18 -10 -02 -06 00 -08 -12 03 02 -12 -23 -08 -01 -11

15 18 -07 12 16 -12 01 -09 09 -11 10 21 -00 12 11

-17 -08 -05 07 -16

07 31 05 10 08 -06 03 08 08 -05 02 15 05 08 03

-11 -10 01 00 -11

08 68 18 21 09 -09 34 18 14 -09 18 44 19 18 18 00 22 12 08 01

also achieved more than Es in college, even after their difference in the HSPER was con­sidered. That is, whatever behaviors of the Is that led to their superior performance in high school also led to a superior performance in college.

3. The largest independent contribution (magnitude of an achievement difference) of an MBTI characteristic in accounting for col­lege achievement was due to Js achieving more than Ps. Js also achieved more than Ps in high school, but the SAT scores were not higher for the Js than the Ps. Thus, as it was observed for the superior college perfor­mance of the Is, whatever behaviors of the Js that led to their superior high school perfor­mance also led to a superior performance in college. However, a difference between the contributions of the E-I and J-P characteristics (other than their relative magnitudes) is that the SAT scores of the Is were higher than the Es, while the SAT scores of the Js were not higher than the Ps. Therefore, it appears that the J-P scale is in­dicative of the personality characteristic that is most uniquely associated with college in­structors' evaluation of achievement.

Table 4. Summary of the SAT (VER and MATH) HSPER, and PER (MBTI) Influences on the Overall Achievement (GEN).

Group

SEX M F

E-I/S-N ES IS EN IN

E-I/S-N:J-P, T-F ES J P

T F

IS J P

T F

EN J P

T F

IN J P

T F

GEN

2.33 2.48

2.19 2.36 2.41 2.67

2.29 2.08

2.22 2.16

2.51 2.21

2.35 2.37

2.51 2.32

2.42 2.40

2.80 2.54

2.63 2.71

GENDEva

-03 12

-17 00 05 31

-07 -28

-14 -21

15 -15

-01 01

14 -05

06 04

44 18

27 35

SATa

05 02

-09 -02 07 17

-09 -09

-09 -08

-02 -03

-05 00

06 09

07 07

18 16

17 17

HSPERa

-07 08

-06 02

-01 07

-03 -09

-06 -07

04 01

00 04

03 -05

-02 00

11 03

06 08

PERa

-00 00

-02 00 -02 05

04 -09

00 -05

13 -14

02 -03

05 -08

01 -04

13 -04

00 09

aValues have been rounded to two places and multiplied by 100.

4. There were no consistent differences for the comparison of the Ts and Fs on either the SAT or HSPER. As previously noted, the Fs tended to achieve more than the Ts for the academically best prepared IN group, while Ts tended to achieve more than Fs for the other three groups.

Overall, these data indicate that combina­tions of the E-I and SoN scales (ES, IS, EN, and IN) were the MBTI characteristics that

were most associated with achievement that could be predicted from the SAT and HSPER, while combinations of the E-I and J-P scales (EP, IP, EJ, and IJ) were the MBTI characteristics that were most associated with achievement that could not be predicted from the SAT and HSPER. On the average, IJs achieved about .11 greater than what would be expected from the SAT and HSPER, and the EPs achieved about .11 less

Journal of Psychological Type Page 31

than expected. The difference of .22 in the achievement of

the IJs and EPs (+ .11 versus -.11) cor­responds to a difference of about 130 pOints on SAT scores (where the theoretical mean is 500 with a standard deviation of 100) on either the VER or MATH tests, or to a dif­ference in HSPER of about 18 percentile points. Of course, such a difference on one measure and not the other two measures would be unlikely because of the positive correlations among VER, MATH, and HSPER. The .22 difference in the achievement of the IJs and EPs more reasonably corresponds to differences of about one-half of a standard deviation on all three measures: 40 points on the VER and MATH tests, and 10 percentile points on HSPER.

Finding the IJ achievement to be the highest and the EP achievement to be the lowest (after controlling for VER, MATH, and HSPER) is not surprising. Essentially, the finding concurs with the common sense no­tion that students who live in a planned, systematic manner and who relate easily to the inner world of ideas (and perhaps, are less distracted by others) achieve more than students who live in a spontaneous manner and who relate better to (and enjoy) inter­acting with others. However, it is enlighten­ing that the MBTI identifies these characteristics, particularly after the other major contributors to (or predictors of) achievement have been controlled.

It might be inappropriate to extend the in­terpretation of the data beyond what has already been summarized, but there was one interesting trend that should be noted for the Ts and Fs. The tendency of the Fs to achieve more than the Ts for the INs, as opposed to Ts achieving more than Fs for the other three groups, was due mostly to the males. Essen­tially, the male INTs, and particularly the male INTPs, had the SAT scores to predict above average achievement in both high school and college, but relative to the scores these males did not achieve well in either. This suggests that there may be an in­congruence between the male INT personali­ty and the formal education process, which may indicate that these males represent a potentially underdeveloped student resource. The variety of subject matter areas and instructional methods involved in the general studies program precludes a defini­tion of "formal education," but the descrip-

Page 32 Journal of Psychological Type

tions of the 16 types (Myers, 1980) suggest why the INT males might not do as well as the INF males: INTs are skeptical and in­dependent, and they have sharply defined in­terests, while the INFs, who are equally bright, are full of enthusiasm and put their best efforts into their work. SUCCinctly stated, both the male INTs and INFs should experience little difficulty in courses; but the INTs may do very well only in areas that in­terest them, while the INFs may do well in a greater number of different areas.

Subject Matter Areas. The analysis of the subject areas determined if the (a) VER, MATH, and HSPER regression weights, and (b) differences attributable to the J-P and T-F scales, SEX, and ES, IS, EN, and IN group­ings that were obtained in the analysis of GEN, could account for the relationships of these variables with achievement in the in­dividual subject areas. The courses used in the subject areas are shown in Table 5. The mean grade of the courses included in an area was used as the indicator of achieve­ment. While there were several differences due to SEX and MBTI characteristics, dif­ferences in the VER, MATH, and HSPER weights accounted for the most variability among the areas.

SEX and MBTI Characteristics_ There were seven subject areas in which there was a dif­ference between the achievement of males and females. After controlling for VER, MATH, and HSPER, the males achieved more in business (BUS), biology (BIO), astronomy­physics (ASTPHY), political science (POLS), and history (HIST) courses, while females achieved more in the English (ENG) and philosophy-religion (PHILREL) courses. These differences appear to conform to the gender vocational stereotypes, where males are relatively more represented in practical, concrete and/or scientific vocations, while females are more represented in aesthetic­type vocations.

There were four subject areas in which the relationship between achievement and the ES, IS, EN, and IN groupings differed from the relationship that was observed for GEN. In interpreting these data, as well as assess­ing possible trends that included other areas, the focus was the relative achievement of the ESs and the INs; these represented, respec­tively, students who apparently were least

well prepared for academic achievement and students who apparently were best prepared. The ESs did relatively better than the INs in the (a) music, art, and theatre history (ARTS), (b) business (BUS), and (c) economics (ECON) courses, while the INs did relatively better in the anthropology (ANTH) courses. A possible implication of these findings is that ESs may experience more success in courses that are more factual, practical, con­crete and/or applied than in courses that are abstract and theoretical, while the reverse might be true for the INs. Support for such an interpretation was provided by the tendency of the ESs to do relatively better in the speech and journalism (COM) and the political science (POLS) courses, while INs did relatively better in the astronomy-physics (ASTPHY), psychological science (PSY), biology (BIO), and natural resources (NR) courses.

There were three subject areas in which the differences between the Js and Ps varied from the relationships that were observed for GEN: the classical culture (CC), history (HIST), and mathematics (MATH) courses. However, Ps achieved more than Js for only the (a) ESs in the mathematics courses, (b) INs in the classical culture courses, and (c) ENs and INs in the history courses. In addi­tion to these four differences that favored the Ps, there were only four of the remaining 68 J-P comparisons that favored the Ps. Thus, although many of the differences were quite small, the finding for GEN in which Js achiev­ed more than the Ps was very consistent for the different subject areas.

Astronomy-physics (ASTPHY) was the only subject area in which the relationship for the T-F scale differed from those observed for GEN: Ts achieved more than the Fs for the ISs and INs. Additionally, there were no ap­parent trends in that data with regard to the T-F scale. Thus, in conjunction with finding only non-significant relationships between the T-F scale and GEN, it appears that the T-F preference is not an important function in students' achievement-at least, not in those survey type courses that are found in the general studies curriculum.

Course Difficulty and Correlations. The sub­ject area difficulty (deviation of the subject area mean from the GEN), and the VER, MATH, and HSPER correlations and stan­dardized regression weights are shown in

Table 5. The order of presentation of the areas, from top to bottom, reflects the unique verbal (VER) and quantitative (MATH) ap­titude that might be inherent to achieving in the areas. The uniqueness is indicated by the relative magnitudes of the standardized VER and MATH weights. In the extreme cases for PHILREL and MATHGRD, VER contains unique information about the PHILREL achievement (.23), while MATH contains unique information about achievement in mathematics courses (.43). Negative and small positive weights should not be inter­preted as indicating either a negative rela­tionship or a trivial, positive relationship. Clearly, the simple correlations indicate moderate positive relationships of VER, MATH, and HSPER with achievement in all areas. The regression weights indicate a unique characteristic beyond the common aptitude-achievement component which underlies the scores on all three of the VER, MATH, and HSPER measures.

Some observations about the data contain­ed in Table 5 are as follows:

1. Too much reliance on the VER score-as a predictor of students' achievement may neglect other readily available information about a student's academic potential. While the VER simple correlations are larger than the MATH correlations in certain areas (PHILREL through ANT H), there is virtually no difference in other areas (COM through CC), and in some areas VER is not as good a predictor as MATH (GEO through MATH). In fact, VER does not predict GEN as well as MATH (.46 versus .49). Additionally, HSPER was a better predictor than VER in 13 of the 18 subject areas that are listed.

2. HSPER, which is sometimes treated as supplementary information about a student, is the most consistent predictor of the student's achievement. In 12 of the 18 sub­ject areas, the HSPER correlation equalled or was larger than both of the VER and MATH correlations. In 14 of the areas, the HSPER regression weight was larger than the VER and MATH weights. There also was less variation among the HSPER weights than among either the VER or MATH weights. Thus, independent of the common aptitude­achievement component underlying the VER, MATH, and HSPER scores and the unique VER and MATH components, HSPER pro­vides additional information about the achievement of students. A cognitive

Journal of Psychological Type Page 33

Table 5. Subject Matter Area Difficulties, Correlations, Regression Weights, and Coursesa.

PHILREL

HSC ENG ARTS

PSY HIST

ANTH COM

BIO NR POLS SOC

ASTPHY CC

GEO BUS ECON MATHGRD

GENc

Simple Correlations

VER MATH HSPER

31

41 35 26

41 36

33 24

38 34 36 33

30 26

21 33 42 21

46

23

38 31 22

38 30

31 24

38 36 37 33

33 25

30 41 48 48

49

40

50 45 40

39 32

42 32

38 49 41 32

30 45

36 41 44 46

56

Multiple Correlations

rb VER MATH HSPER

45

59 50 43

50 43

46 36

52 52 50 41

41 45

42 51 57 59

64

23

27 21 17

26 24

18 12

25 14 18 15

15 -02

08 10 12 -10

20

-09

08 05 01

12 10

07 07

20 09 17 18

18 05

17 25 30 43

19

34

39 36 35

24 21

33 26

26 39 29 19

20 44

30 29 29 36

40

Deviations of Area Means

27

15 01 32

-14 -05

-12 32

01 -01 -12 14

16 67

04 -27 -29 -35

aValues have been rounded to two decimal places and multiplied by 100. bMultiple correlation coefficients. cThese values were computed without consideration of SEX and the MBTI.

psychologist might interpret HSPER as be­ing an indicator of motivation, of which achievement has been and will be an out­come. A behavioral psychologist might inter­pret the result for HSPER as meaning that the best predictor of future behavior is the past behavior. Certainly, a degree of background knowledge in an area is required, but HSPER generally adds to that measure of knowledge in predicting subsequent achievement.

3. There were no consistent trends in the data regarding subject area difficulties, but it is quite -clear that there was considerable variation in the difficulty of the subject areas. However, an interesting question is why the

Page 34 Journal of Psychological Type

three areas associated with the most unique MATH aptitude (BUS, ECON, and MATHGRD) were also the three most difficult areas. Con­versely, three of the four areas associated with the most unique VER aptitude (PHILREL, HSC, and ARTS) were among the least difficult areas.

Ideally, data such as presented in this report might be used to advise students regarding individual courses and majors. However, while it is important for individuals working with students to be aware of the reported trends, there is sufficient "noise" in the data to advise one to use the data judiciously. Additionally, certain results are nearly paradoxical. For example, ESs are less

well prepared academically, but relative to other courses they do well in business courses, which happen to be among the most difficult courses-that is, they may do relatively well but still obtain a low grade.

One source of the "noise" is that dif­ferences in factors such as class size, in­structional methods, and instructor grading surely influenced the results. A second source is that there was considerable variability in the results for sections of the same course-for example, average grades-as well as among courses that were grouped into subject areas. Thirdly, results for subject areas might be different in courses for majors than they were in the survey courses. But, even in light of this "noise," there were conceptually meaningful trends that have practical implications. For example we would not advise a low-VER, ES­P (Extraverted, Sensing, Perceiving) student to take both PSY and ANTH during the same quarter. At the other extreme, we would not overload even the best academically prepared student-for example, enrolling a high-MATH INJ (Introverted, Intuitive, Judg­ing) student in the three most difficult courses, MATH, ECON, and BUS.

Discussion

Some cautions must be expressed when a report of this type is presented because of the possible misinterpretation by people who are unfamiliar with the Myers-Briggs Type In­dicator. It certainly should not be viewed as a selection tool to be used in conjunction with the SAT scores and high school class rank, but it can provide some useful information after students have matriculated to the university. The MBTI is based upon a dynamic theory of personality in which a per­son's natural preferences may be determin­ed, but it allows for a person's ability to recognize when lesser preferred functions are necessary, and for the person's ability to develop and utilize the lesser preferred func­tions. All types identified by the MBTI have value in certain situations, and the results of this study simply demonstrate which at­titudes and functions are most valuable in a collegiate environment. In other words, the current approach to presenting material and structuring learning (teaching style) is better suited in general to learners (a) who are able to work alone efficiently, concentrate well,

and avoid outside distractions (Introverted); (b) who tend to be global learners, have a natural flair for abstract thinking and have a tolerance for theory (Intuitive); and (c) who like to live life in a planned, orderly, and organized way (Judging). The environment is not as rewarding for learners (a) who have broad interests and a natural flair for interper­sonal interactions (Extraverted); (b) who like to work with known facts and respond to con­crete examples and practical application (Sensing); and (c) who like to live life in a flex­ible, spontaneous, and adaptable manner (Perceptive). However, one can see how these latter functions and attitudes may be valuable in other types of settings. The positive way of viewing the results is through realizing that both teaching styles and learner behaviors can be modified. Ideally in­structors could add techniques that might reach more students, and students could be guided through workshops and individual ad­vising sessions to develop their understand­ing of, and perhaps modify their academic behaviors according to, the functions and at­titudes that are associated with success within a university environment. Such pro­cedures can be implemented without value judgments regarding desirable versus undesirable instructional methods and/or personalities, by focusing on the concept that the effectiveness of different behaviors, whether they be the instructor's or student's, may vary according to many things, among them psychological type.

According to Lawrence (1979), typical in­structional practices are generally biased toward introversion and intuition and against extraversion and sensing, which might par­tially explain certain outcomes of this study. If Lawrence's statement about the bias of typical instructional practices is applicable to this institution, then an appreciable amount of the institution's instructional practices may not be congruent with situa­tions in which a large percentage of our students might do their best work. For exam­ple:

1. People who prefer extraversion do not perform as well academically as introverts at Ball State University. Yet, 64% (n = 1714) of the 1983 entering class preferred extraverted activities.

2. People who prefer the sensing function do not perform as well academically as in­tuitives. Yet, 59% (n = 1619) of the 1983 enter-

Journal of Psychological Type Page 35

ing class were sensing types. 3. People who prefer introversion and intui­

tion perform best academically, while those who prefer the extraversion and sensing do least well. Yet, 35% (n = 958) of the 1983 entering class preferred extraverted-sensing as compared to 12% (n = 328) who preferred introverted-intuition.

Lawrence furnishes situations in which extraverted-sensing students might do their best work. Situations which:

- produce practical results and useful products.

- involve other people and group effort. - have goals set in advance which can be

worked toward in an orderly manner. - are real and not just dealing with theory. - give a clear picture of what other people

are doing and what they regard as important. - have realistic schedules that don't expect

too much too soon. - allow first-hand experiences. - use practical skills and known facts. - involve a regular work schedule but in-

clude variety and socialization time. - work with concrete examples and hands­

on materials. - allow thinking aloud with other people.

Undoubtedly, all such activities cannot be included in most college classes. However, an understanding of different learning preferences might assist instructors in presenting subject matter that apparently is not being mastered by a particular group of students, and it could help advisors in recommending electives and general studies courses for different types of students. Con­sideration of different learning preferences certainly does not excuse the student from the responsibility of developing the at­titudes, functions, and skills that are necessary to master the requirements of a college education. The results of this study indicate quite clearly that for students to im­prove their chances of success early in col­lege, they should strive to avoid outside distractions, and to develop their concentra­tion and abstract reasoning skills, a tolerance for theory, and a systematic, organized, orderly approach to study.

The results also indicated that the judging­perceiving preference accounted for the greatest amount of variation in academic per­formance, independent of the aptitude-

Page 3& Journal of Psychological Type

achievement measures, with perceiving types performing Significantly lower than judging types. The judging-perceiving preference may be the most controllable preference by a student, and it is the respon­sibility of perceiving type students to develop better organizational and time management skills. Data regarding the judging-perceiving students on our campus are as follows:

1. People who prefer a perceptive ap­proach to life do not perform as well academically as judging individuals. Yet, 39% (n = 1001) of the 1983 entering class preferred the perceptive approach.

2. People who prefer a perceptive ap­proach, and prefer extraversion, tend to per­form less well academically than people with judging and introverted preferences-after controlling for aptitude-achievement measures. Of the 1983 entering class, 24% (n = 647) presented IJ preferences while 26% (n = 709) presented EP preferences.

3. People who prefer a perceptive ap­proach, and prefer both extraversion and sensing, find themselves in a very foreign en­vironment and are likely to experience academic difficulty in college unless ad­justments are made. Of the 1983 entering class, 10% (n = 276) presented all three of these preferences.

4. People who prefer a judging approach, and prefer both introversion and intuition, find themselves in a very comfortable en­vironment. Yet, only 5.4% (n = 146) of the 1983 entering class presented these preferences by nature.

It is important to note that perceiving types are as academically capable as the judging types. Data from this study indicated the SAT scores for the perceiving types to be slightly higher than the scores for the judg­ing types. Additionally, a group of Rhodes Scholars (Myers, 1980) was 64.4% perceiving and 36.6% judging, and a group of female Na­tional Merit Finalists was 55.5% perceiving and 44.5% judging. It may be that typical in­structional practices are not compatible with the learning preferences of most perceiving types. Lawrence (1979) suggests learning preferences and effective learning en­vironments for the perceiving types, such as the following.

- They have a strong need for autonomy

and real choice. They will accept structure and a system of accountability if they have choices within the structure, especially if they can have a hand in deciding and protect­ing the structure.

- They have a need for variety, novelty, and change. More flexible classrooms are naturally more suited to perceiving students.

- They have a need for opportunities to be spontaneous and free-wheeling to follow their curiosity. The instructor alert to this need could possibly find tasks that let them explore new facts or possibilities for the class to use.

A possible implication from this study would seem to be that the attrition rate could be reduced, and achievement enhanced, if (a) teaching styles could be broadened (not changed) to help reach the natural learning styles of the. large number of extraverted and sensing individuals on campus and (b) students could be encouraged to stretch their learning styles by utilizing the attitudes and functions within their repertoires that have been shown to be related to academic success.

One must remember that this initial report simply addresses academic achievement in courses of a general studies nature, and follow-up studies may show that the relation­ship between personality and achievement changes greatly as students are able to select majors that more nearly match their natural preferences.

References

Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1978). Please Understand Me. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books.

Lawrence, G. (1979). People Types and Tiger Stripes. Gainesville, FL: Center For Applications of Psychological Type, Inc.

Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nisbet, J., Ruble, V., & Schurr, K. T. (1982a). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A key to diagnosing learning styles and developing desirable learning behaviors in high-risk college students. In L. Noel & R. Levitz (Eds.), How to succeed with ,pcademically underprepared students. National Center for Advancement of Edu­cation Practices.

Nisbet, J., Ruble, V., & Schurr, K. T. (1982b). Predictors of academic success with high risk college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1982, 23, 227-235.

Schurr, K. T., Houlette, F., & Ellen, A. (1986). The effects of instructors and student Myers-Briggs Type Indicator characteristics on the accuracy of grades predicted for an introductory English composition course. Educational and Psychol­ogical measurement, 1986, 46, 158-167.

Journal of Psychological Type Page 37