The Dark Side of the MBTI: Psychological Type and Interpersonal Derailers

doi:10.4236/psych.2014.52026

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2014. Vol.5, No.2, 166-171

Published Online February 2014 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.52026

OPEN ACCESS

166

The Dark Side of the MBTI: Psychological Type and

Interpersonal Derailers

Adrian Furnham1,2, John Crump1

1Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London,

London, UK

2BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

Email: [email protected]

Received December 1st, 2013; revised January 2nd, 2014; accepted February 3rd, 2014

Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all

Over 4000 British adults completed the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) (Hogan & Hogan, 1997)

which measures eleven potential derailment behaviours (“dark side” traits) based on the personality disor-

ders and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Briggs & Myers, 1987) a famous measure of “normal” person-

ality functioning. In all, five of the eleven “dark side” traits were correlated with the Extraversion-Intro-

version dimensions, none with Sensing-Intuition, seven with Thinking-Feeling and four with the Judg-

ing-Perceiving scale. Correlations were modest. Regressions with the four MBTI scales as criterion vari-

ables showed nine of the HDS factors were related to the T-F scale and accounted for 12% of the variance.

Thinking types tended to be Sceptical, Reserved and Diligent. Overall correlations were low suggesting

the MBTI assesses some aspects of dark side traits.

Keywords: MBTI; Psychological Type; Derailers; Personality Disorders

Introduction

This study looked at the “dark side” personality correlates of

the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Briggs & Myers,

1987). The concept of “dark side” traits has come to be asso-

ciated with measures of subclinical personality disorders or

derailers (Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004).

Dark side traits measured by the Hogan Development Survey

(HDS) have been investigated recently in a large number of

studies (De Fruyt, Wille, & Furnham, 2013; Furnham, Hyde, &

Trickey, 2013; Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011; Zibarras, Port,

& Woods, 2008).

This study is part of a programmatic series of concurrent and

discriminant validity studies that attempt to investigate the rela-

tionship between “normal” personality traits (usually the Big

Five but here the Big Four) and the personality disorders. There

are various studies and reviews in this area but none have used

the very popular MBTI preferring to look at Big Five correlates

of disorders (Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Widiger, 2011).

The MBTI

The most widely known and used personality test is the

Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Paul, 2004). It is based on Jun-

gian theory and is a four factor model which allows people to

be described by four letters (e.g. ENTJ, ISFP) representing their

particular type. The scale yields eight scores (one for each type)

which can be considered on four typological opposites (i.e.

Introversion or Extraversion).

According to McCrae and Costa (1989), the MBTI is unusual

among personality assessment devices for three reasons: it is

based on a sophisticated and established theory (Jungian); it

purports to measures types rather than traits specified on a con-

tinuous scale; and it is widely used to explain individuals’ per-

sonality characteristics not only to professionals but also to the

individuals themselves, as well as their co-workers, friends, and

families. They also point out its limitations; the original Jun-

gian concepts are distorted and even contradicted; there is no

bi-modal distribut ion of prefere nce score s; studies usi ng the MTBI

have frequently not confirmed either the theory or the measure.

Various studies have looked at the location of the MBTI in

personality factor space as well as the relationship between the

MBTI and the Big Five factors. Saggino and Kline (1996)

looked at correlations between the MBTI and Cattell’s 16PF as

well as Eysenck’s EPQ. Their factor analysis of the MBTI

yielded five, not four, factors. They argued the EI (Extraver-

sion-Introverson) dimension is clear, but the TF (Thinking-

Feeling) dimension is “not sufficiently pure” because it loads

onto different factors.

McCrae and Costa (1989) found the four MBTI indices

measures aspects of four of the Big 5 dimensions of personality.

More specifically, they found that EI was correlated with

Extraversion, SN with Openness, TF with Agreeableness and

JP (Judging-Perceiving) with Conscientiousness. These results

were replicated by MacDonald, Anderson, Tsagarakis and Hol-

land (1994). Furnham (1996) also provided evidence support-

ing these results, but found further that Neuroticism was corre-

A. FURNHAM, J. CRUMP

OPEN ACCESS

167

lated to both EI and TF. The highest correlations were between

EI and Extraversion facets of Gregariousness, Warmth, and

Positive emotions, between SN and Openness facets Ideas,

Fantasy and Aesthetics, between TF and Agreeableness facets

of Tender-mindedness, Trust and Altruism, between JP and

Conscientiousness facets of Order, Deliberation and Self-Dis-

cipline and between EI and Neuroticism facets of Self-con-

sciousness, Depression and Vulnerability (Neuroticism). Furn-

ham, Moutafi and Crump (2003) found similar results.

There have been a number of studies that have related the

Big Five personality traits to the personality disorders suggest-

ing significant overlap (Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Bastiaansen,

Rossi, Schotte, & De Fruyt, 2011). Some studies have related

the MBTI to dark side traits which is the focus of this paper

(Janowsky, Morter, & Hong, 2002). It should be noted however

that proponents of the MBTI insist that the measure was never

designed to, nor does it measure “pathology” or mental illness

of any form (Quenk, 2009). The line has always been “gifts

differing” and that there is no right or wrong, better or worse

type (Myers & Myers, 1990). However, the question remains as

to the correlates of the various 16 MBTI types and whether this

indicates that some of the types and dimensions are clearly

related to psychopathology of one sort or another. This study,

in part, tests this assumption: i.e., that MBTI scores are not

measures of pathology

The Dar k Side

There are various self-report measures available to assess

Personality Disorders (Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield, 1985;

Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Widiger & Coker, 2001). This stu-

dy used the Hogan “dark side” measure (HDS) which is now

extensively used in organisational research and practice to

measure personality disorders in the “normal population” (De

Fruyt et al., 2009, 2011; Furnham & Crump, 2005; Hogan &

Hogan, 1997, Zibarras, Port, & Woods, 2008). It is one of the

tests that measures all the disorders from a non-clinical pers-

pective with evidence of good psychometric qualities (Furnham,

Trickey, & Hyde, 2012). The scale measures dysfunctional in-

terpersonal tendencies that may be debilitating for people over

time and thus increasing their likelihood of derailing. Its aim is

partly to help selectors and individuals themselves diagnose

how they typically react under work stress. It has the advantage

of being psychometrically valid (Hogan, Hogan, & Warrenfeltz,

2007); of measuring all the personality disorders and being

appropriate for a “normal” population.

The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) was explicitly based

on the DSM-IV-TR Axis II Personality Disorder (American

Psychiatric Association, 1994, 2000). The HDS focuses only on

the core construct of each disorder from a dimensional perspec-

tive (Hogan & Hogan, 2001: p. 41). Using the concepts of Hor-

ney (1950) they categorised the dysfunctional interpersonal

tendencies into 3 categories: “Moving Against People” (aggres-

sion and manipulation); “Moving Away from People” (with-

drawal and intimidation); and “Moving Toward People” (com-

pliance and ingratiation).

This Study

Very few published studies have related MBTI traits to per-

sonality disorders or related measures (Pierson, 2007). An ex-

ception is the study by Coolidge, Segal, Hook, Yamazaki and

Elliot (2000) who tested a convenience sample of 332 young

Americans. They completed a 225 item self-report measure of

the personality disorders (CATI) (Coolidge, 1984) and the

MBTI. Many correlations were significant. Correlational results

(with r > .25) showed the E-I scale (with Introversion being

high) correlated positively significantly with Avoidant, Obses-

sive-Compulsive, Paranoid, Schizoid and Schizotypal and neg-

ative with Histrionic. The S-N dimensions showed it to be posi-

tively correlated with Borderline. The T-F scale was signifi-

cantly negatively correlated with Antisocial, Paranoid, Sadistic,

Schizoid and Schizotypal disorder. Finally, there were two

significant correlations with the J-P dimension: Antisocial (pos-

itive) and Obsessive-Compulsive (negative). Two disorders had

correlations with all four dimensions: Schizotypal people had

an INTP profile whereas Obsessive compulsives had an ISTJ

profile. Antisocial and Sadistic people were NTP whereas Pas-

sive-Aggressive people were INP. The authors noted “...it ap-

pears that the MBTI may have heuristic value in understand-

ing personality disorders” (p. 35).

This study extends the above study in two ways. First, it has

a population 15 times the size of the above study using a much

more representative adult sample. Second, it uses the HDS

rather than the CATI which appears to be a much better psy-

chometrised instrument.

Neuroticism is a central component in the personality dis-

orders but not assessed in the MBTI. Thus it was predicted that

overlap would not be considerable between these two measures.

It was predicted (H1) that of the four MBTI dimensions, the

T-F dimension will be most closely related to the HDS scales.

This is because previous studies linking the MBTI and Big Five

measures have shown the Feelings scale to be most closely

linked Domain Neuroticism and its facets. Next, that the HDS

factors Reserved and Colourful and Diligent (H2) would be

most related to the MBTI factor extraversion-introversion,

while the factors of Diligent and Mischievous (H3) would be

related to the judging-perceiving MBTI dimensions (Furnham

& Crump, 2005).

Method

Participants

In total 4812 British working adults took part in this study of

which 948 were females and 3864 males. Their mean age was

32.53 years (SD = 8.14 years) with the range being between 23

and 65 years. In all 70% were between 30 and 50 years. They

were nearly all (over 95%) graduates and in middle class occu-

pations with English as their mother tongue.

Measure

Mye rs-Briggs Type Indicator-Form G (MBTI: Briggs & My-

ers, 1987). The Myers-Briggs indicator is a Jungian-based in-

ventory that uses a paper-and-pencil self-report format. It is

composed of 94 forced-choice items that yield scores on each

of the eight factors as well as the famous four dimensions: In-

troversion-Extraversion, Sensation-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling

and Judging-Perceiving. Respondents are classified into one of

16 personality types based on the largest score obtained for

each bipolar scale (e.g. a person scoring higher on Introversion

than Extraversion, Intuition than Sensation, Feeling than Think-

ing and Judging than Perceiving would be classified as an In-

troverted Intuitive Feeling Judging). The test provides linear

A. FURNHAM, J. CRUMP

OPEN ACCESS

168

scores on each dimension which are usually discussed in terms

of types based on cut-off scores. Thus the Extraversion-Intro-

version dimension has a normal distribution with high scores

being considered Extraverted and low Introverted (See Table 1).

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been the focus of exten-

sive research and substantial evidence has accumulated sug-

gesting the inventory has satisfactory concurrent and predictive

validity and reliability (Furnham & Stringfield, 1993).

Hogan Development Survey (Hogan & Hogan, 1997) con-

sists of 154 items that are concerned with how the respondent

typi cally interacts with family, friends and co-workers. There

are 11 scales, each grouping 14 items. Higher scores on most

scales correspond to an increased risk on specific interpersonal

problems in the workplace. Numerous factor analyses have

show three higher order factors in the scale labelled moving

toward, away from and against others. (Furnham et al., 2012,

2013). The HDS has been cross-validated with the MMPI per-

sonality disorder scales. Correlations (n = 140) range from .45

for Antisocial to .67 for Borderline (Hogan & Hogan, 2001).

Fico, Hogan and Hogan (2000) report coefficient alphas be-

tween .50 and .70 with an average of .64 and test-retest reliabil-

ities (n = 60) over a three-month interval ranging from .50

to .80, with an average of .68 There were no mean-level differ-

ences between sexes, racial/ethnic groups, or younger versus

older persons (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Various studies have

used the HDS and have shown it to be a robust, reliable and

valid instrument (Carson, Shanock, Heggestad, Andrew, Pugh,

& Walter, 2012; De Fruyt et al., 2009; Furnham, 2006; Furn-

ham & Crump, 2005; Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011; Khoo &

Burch, 2008; Rolland & De Fruyt, 2003).

Procedure

Participants were tested by a British based psychological

consultancy over a 10-year period. Each participant was given

personal feedback on their scores. They were nearly all em-

ployed as middle to senior managers in British companies.

They took this test as part of an assessment exercise. Inevitably

this could have affected their results because of issues such as

impression management and dissimulation. However, the HDS

has a scale (called the validity scale) which can be used to con-

trol for this problem.

Results

Table 1 shows the correlations (with Bonferroni corrections)

between the four MBTI and the eleven HDS scores. The results

provide support for all the hypotheses. With a very big N, cor-

relations r > .05 are significant so those r > .08 are highlighted

in bold. The first column indicated that those who scored high

on MBTI Extraversion tended to be low on Cautious, and Re-

served but high on Bold, Mischievous and Colourful. Essen-

tially none of the dark side measures correlated with the MBTI

Sensing-Intuitive (SN) dimension. The results from the Think-

ing-Feeling Dimension were interesting. Those with a high

Thinking scores tended to be high on Sceptical, Reserved, Bold,

Mischievous and Diligent but low on Cautious and Dutiful. The

final set of correlations indicated that the higher the participant

scored on the MBTI Judging scale the lower they scored on

Mischievous, Colourf ul, and Imagi native but higher on Dilig ent.

Table 2 shows a finer grained analysis. Here, partial correla-

tions were computed with sex and age and reliability (impres-

sion management) partialled out, and with the eight scales.

Eight sets of correlations were >.30. The highest correlations

showed Extraverts were low on Reserved and high on Colour-

ful, with Introverts being the opposite. Equally Judging types

tended to be high and Perceiving types low on Diligence.

Table 3 shows the results from the step-wise multiple re-

gressions. First, sex and age were entered then the eleven dark

side variables. Regression of the predictor variables onto the

MBTI Extraversion-Introversion (E-I) dimension showed three

factors accounted for 5% of the variance. Extraverts were likely

to be less Reserved and more Colourful as well as scoring

higher on the Social Desirability scale. With the S-N scale as

the criterion variable it seemed four “dark side” were involved

but that they only accounted for 1% of the variance.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations for the two scales and correlations. Correlations r > .08 (p < .001) are s hown in bold.

EI SN TF JP

x 22.84 22.19 27.41 23.36

x SD SD 14.87 14.60 15.76 14.54

1. Excitable

3.09 2.61 −05 −01 −04 −02

2. Sceptical

4.52 2.49 −03 00 15 02

3. Cautious

3.36 2.78 −12 03 −14 06

4. Reserved

4.63 2.23 −18 01 13 02

5. Leisurely

4.86 2.19 −05 00 00 03

6. Bold

7.34 2.81 10 −03 11 02

7. Mischievous

6.95 2.50 09 −03 08 −15

8. Colourful

7.85 2.99 18 02 00 −08

9. Imaginative

5.54 2.37 06 00 −02 −09

0. Diligent 8.89 2.45 −02 −05 08 14

11. Dutiful

7.04 2.05 −02 −02 −18 02

12. Social Desirability

5.18 1.47 03 00 01 03

N = 3208; Cor re la ti o ns in b old are p < .001 Bonferonni corrected.

A. FURNHAM, J. CRUMP

OPEN ACCESS

169

Table 2.

Partial correlations between each of the eight personality measures and the 11 dark side variables.

E I S N T F J P

1. Excitable

−.16 .10 −.00 −.06 −.05 .01 −.05 −.02

2. Sceptical

−.05 .05 .10 −.10 .19 −.11 .04 −.03

3. Cautious

−.48 .50 .17 −.15 −.13 .12 .11 −.10

4. Reserved

−.58 .59 .10 −.08 .14 −.09 .05 −.04

Leisurel y −.23 .23 .10 −.08 .01 .00 .02 −.01

6. Bold

.19 −.21 −.11 .09 .12 −.10 −.05 .06

7. Mischievous

.30 −.34 −.27 .27 .10 −.04 −.34 .36

8. Colourful

.49 −.52 −.28 .28 .01 .02 −.20 .22

9. Imaginative

.20 −.22 −.34 .33 .01 .05 −.20 .22

0. Diligent −.08 .10 .30 −.30 .09 −.09 .52 −.54

11. Dutiful

−.05 .06 .20 −.21 −.17 .13 .14 −.16

12. Social Desirability

−.00 .01 .00 −.01 −.01 .04 .03 −.03

N = 3014; Cor re la ti o ns in b old are p < .001 Bonferonni corrected.

Table 3.

Partial correlations between each of the eight personality measures and the 11 dark side variables.

Myers-Briggs Scale

EI SN TF JP

Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t

Sex

01 .69 −02 1.07 −10 6.07** −03 1.87

Age

00 .20 04 2.08 00 .07 02 .90

1. Excitable

−02 .81 −03 1.65 −03 1.56 −03 1.58

2. Sceptical

−03 1.45 01 .52 14 7.62*** 02 1.08

3. Cautious

00 .19 05 2.19* −18 8.42*** 02 .90

4. Reserved

−13 6.59*** −01 .48 16 8.04*** −03 .30

5. Leisurely

00 .39 00 .39 −01 .72 00 .38

6. Bold

03 1.28 −02 1.01 05 2.71** 07 3.54***

7. Mischievous

00 .37 −06 2.94** 05 2.50** −13 6.23***

8. Colourful

13 5.70*** 05 2.37* −02 1.01 −02 .79

9. Imaginative

00 .34 01 .47 −07 3.44*** −05 2.61**

0. Diligent 02 .95 −06 2.89** 10 5.34*** 10 5.11***

11. Dutiful

00 .24 −04 1.89 −11 5.98*** −03 1.51

12.

Social Desirability 04 2.22* 02 .82 −04 2.44*** 03 1.87

F(14, 3198) = Adj R

2 13.17*** .06 2.53*** .01 30.69 .12 10.14 04

***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

The third regression onto the Thinking-Feeling (T-F) scale

showed most variance accounted for. Thinking types were

Sceptical, Reserved, and Diligent but Incautious and not Dutiful.

They also tended to be male, and modestly high on Bold and

Mischievous dimensions of the Dark side measure. Clearly it is

this dimension of the MBTI that is most clearly linked to the

darkside variables. The final regression with Judging-Perceiv-

ing (J-P) as the criterion variables showed Judging types are

likely to be Bold and Diligent, but low on Mischievous and

Imaginative.

Next, the eleven dark side variables were subjected to an or-

thogonally rotated factor analysis. As has been shown many

times before, three factors emerged that accounted for over fifty

percent of the variance (Furnham & Trickey, 2011). Indeed

they were almost identical to that of Furnham, Trickey and

Hyde (2012), who used a different data set labelled moving

against, moving away from and moving towards. Following

that four stepwise regressions were then computed with sex and

age in the first block and the three factor scores in the second

block. With the criterion variable of E-I the regression was

significant (F(5,3215) = 29.86, AdjR2 = .04). This showed

Introverts were more likely to move against (Beta .14, t = 8.16,

A. FURNHAM, J. CRUMP

OPEN ACCESS

170

p < .001) but less likely to move away from others (Beta −.15, t

= 8.57, p < .001). The regression for the S-N variables was not

significant. The regression for the T-F variables was significant

(F(5,3215) = 26.05, AdjR2 = .04). Those who scored high on

Thinking were more likely to move against others (Beta .11, t =

6.49, p < .001) Away from (Beta .07, t = −4.18, p < .001) but

not towards (Beta −.07, t = 4.05, p < .001) others. The final

regression with JP as the criterion variable was computed

(F(5,3215) = 12.79, AdjR2 = .02). Those who scored high on

Judging were likely to score high on moving toward others

(Beta .11, t = 6.23, p < .001) but low on moving against others

(Beta −.07, t = 3.92, p < .001).

These regressions were then repeated with two differences.

First, after sex and age were entered in the first step, the im-

pression management scale from the HDS was then entered,

followed by the eleven HDS scales. All the regressions were

significant but accounted for little of the variance (<5%).

However, the regression with TF as the criterion scale ac-

counted for 12% of the variance. Indeed all except two of the

HDS scales were significant predictors, the most significant of

which were Cautious (Beta = −.18, t = 8.41, p < .001), Re-

served (Beta = .16, t = 8.04, p < .001) and Sceptical (Beta = .14,

t = 7.62, p < .001).

A second series of regressions were then performed. Here the

criterion variables were the three higher order groupings of the

HDS factors. The regressions were step-wise with first sex and

age being entered; then the impression management score from

the HDS and finally the four MBTI scores. For the first factor

“Moving Away from People” the regression was significant

(F(7,3206) = 24.25, p < .001, Adj R2 = .05). Age and sex were

not significant but impression management was (Beta = .18, t =

10.65, p < .001) and accounted for 3% of the variance. The

only significant MBTI factor was EI (Beta = −.13, t = 7.61, p

< .001) indicating that Introverts moved away from people. The

regression for the second factor “Moving Against People” was

significant (F(7,3205) = 25.81, p < .001, Adj R2 = .05). The

impression management factor was a significant predictor (Beta

= .10, t = 5.67, p < .001) as were three MBTI factors: EI (Beta

= .13, t = 7.40, p < .001); TF (Beta = .08 , t = 4.67, p < .001) and

JP (Beta = −16, t = 9.05, p < .001). The regression with “Mov-

ing Towards People” as the criterion variable was significant

(F(7,3206) = 16.65, p < .001; Adj R2 = .03). The impression

management factor was a significant predictor (Beta = .08, t =

4.81, p < .001) as were three MBTI factors: SN (Beta = −.04, t

= 2.17, p < .05); TF (Beta = −.16, t = 8.94, p < .001) and JP

(Beta = .06, t = 3.08, p < .01).

Discussion

Previous studies showed that MBTI scores are logically cor-

related with less adaptive personality traits like Neuroticism

(Furnham et al., 2003; McCrae & Costa, 1989; MacDonald et

al., 1994) as well as the personality disorders (Coolidge et al.,

2001). The results seem to indicate that trait Neuroticism (meas-

ured that both the domain and facet level) was correlated most

consistently with MBTI Feelings and Introversion.

This study showed a number of logical but modest, signifi-

cant correlations. The three hypotheses were confirmed. The

correlation results suggest that the MBTI scored Extravert has a

tendency to being Bold and Colourful, and the Introvert Cau-

tious and Reserved. Equally those classified as “Thinking

Types” tended to be Sceptical, Reserved and Diligent as well as

Bold and Mischievous but not at all Cautious or Dutiful.

Equally, Perceiving types were likely to be Mischievous, Co-

lourful, Imaginative but not Diligent. Six of the dark side di-

mensions related to two or more MBTI factors: thus Mischiev-

ous scorers tended to be NTJ, Cautious scorers ITP, and Dili-

gent STJ. It is however important to point out that overall the

correlations were low accounting for little of the variance,

though the pattern was clearer in the analysis in Table 2 com-

pared to Table 1. In this the results suggest, as MBTI research-

ers insist that it is not a measure of pathology, at least of the

personality disorders

Perhaps the most interesting and important part of the study

lies in the regression results. Here it was apparent that while

some of the dark side factors (i.e. Excitable and Leisurely) were

unrelated to any of the four MBTI factors, a few (i.e. Mi-

schievous and Diligent) were significantly related to all three.

Some of the findings seem clearly interpretable. Thus MBTI

Extraverts are likely to be Colourful (animated, expressive and

dramatic) while Introverts may be very Reserved (aloof, de-

tached and solitary). Judging types may be Bold (narcissistic,

self-confident, arrogant) and Diligent (Self-confident, Con-

scientious and Perfectionistic) while Perceiving types maybe

prone to being Mischievous (antisocial, adventurous) and Im-

aginative (adventurous, risk-taking and creative). Equally those

who score very high on Thinking may be prone to being rather

too Sceptical and Cynical, detached and uncommunicative,

meticulous and precise, but also self-confident and adventur-

ous.

The final set of regressions attempted to overcome some

Type II errors by using the “higher order” classification of the

HDS as done in other studies (Carson et al., 2012). In one set of

regression the HDS factors were the independent variables and

the four MBTI dimensions the dependent variables and in the

other analysis this was reversed. For nearly all, the amount of

incremental variance accounted for after demographic variable

and impression management was small (usually less than 5%)

suggesting little overlap between these measures. Second, the

results were always perfectly understandable in terms of the

description of the types and traits. Thus, for instance, Introver-

sion was associate d wit h moving away from people.

Some reviewers of the MBTI are happy to discuss the possi-

ble “shortcomings” of a particular type. Thus Rogers (1997)

notes that the common ENTJ type which is often the profile of

leaders and managers lists a wide range of issues where their

personal style may bring them problems: they can be overbear-

ing, hard on what they see as unenthusiastic or self-indulgent

people, over-controlling, impatient if others do not follow, very

competitive, restless and demanding etc. Yet Hirsch and Kum-

merow (1998) paint a very different picture of the ENTJ person

at work: “ENTJs are logical, organised, structured, objective

and decisive about what they view as conceptually valid. They

enjoy working with others, especially when they can take

charge and add a stra tegic plan” (p. 25).

One of the disadvantages of a typological rather than a di-

mensional measure is loss of variance. Thus a person may be

very or simply marginally extraverted to qualify as being cate-

gorised an extravert. The HDS is based on the spectrum hypo-

thesis that suggests it is only (very) high scores that present

possible risks to individuals, so it would seem much more use-

ful for both researchers and clinicians, counsellors and trainers

to use dimensional scores to get better use out of the instrument,

particularly when trying to detect potential derailers.

A. FURNHAM, J. CRUMP

OPEN ACCESS

171

This study like all others had limitations. This was a large,

but not a community, sample which has implications for gener-

alisation of the data.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical

manual of mental di s or ders (3rd ed.). Washington DC: APA.

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical

manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington DC: APA.

Bastiaansen, L., Rossi, G., Schotte, C., & De Fruyt, F. (2011). The

structure of the personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disord-

ers, 25, 378-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.378

Briggs, K., & Myers, I. (1987). Myers-Briggs type indicator form G.

Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Carson, M., Sh anock, L. , Heggesta d, E., Andre w, A., P ugh, S., & Wal -

ter, M. (2012). The relationship between dysfunctional interpersonal

tendencies, derailment potential behaviour, and turnover. Journal of

Business and Psy chology, 27, 291-304.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9239-0

Coolidge, F. (1984). Coolidge axis II inventory. Washington DC.

Coolidge, F., Segal, D ., Hoo k , J. , Yamazaki, T., & Elli ott, J. (2 00 1). An

empirical investigation of Jung ’s psychological types and personality

disorder features. Journal of Psychological Type, 58, 33-36.

De Clercq, B., & De F ru yt, F . (2 00 3). Perso nality dis or d er s y mptoms in

adolescence: A five-factor model perspective. Journal o f Personality

Disorders, 17, 269-292.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.17.4.269.23972

De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B., Milley, J ., Rollan d, J . P., J u n g , S. C ., T aris,

R., Furnham, A., & Hiel, A. (2009). Assessing personality at risk in

personnel selection and development. European Journal of Perso-

nality, 23, 51-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.703

De Fruyt, F., Wille, B. , & Furnham, A. (20 13). Assessing aberrant per -

sonality in managerial coaching. European Journal of Personali t y.

Fico, J., Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2000). Interpersonal compass manual

and interpretation guide. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment System.

Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2005). Personality traits, types and disord-

ers. European Journal of Personality, 19, 167-184.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.543

Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: The relationship

between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PT five

factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences,

21, 303-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00033-5

Furnham, A. (2006). Personality disorders and intelligence. Journal of

Individual Differences, 27, 42-45.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.27.1.42

Furnham, A., & Stringfield , P. (1993). Personality and o ccupational be-

haviour: Myers-Briggs type indicator correlates o f manage ment pra c-

tices in two cultures. Human Relations, 46, 827-848.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600703

Furnham, A., & Trickey, G. (2011). Sex differences in the dark side

traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 517-522.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.021

Furnham, A., Hyd e, G., & Trickey, G. (2013). Do your dark side traits

fit? Dysfunctional personalities in different work sectors. Applied

Psychology, In Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apps.12002

Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Crump, J. (2003). The relationship be-

tween the revised NEO-personality inventory and the Myers-Briggs

type indicator. Social Behavior and Pers onality, 31, 577-584.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.6.577

Furnham, A., Trickey, G., & Hyde, G. (2012). Bright aspects of dark

side traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 908-913.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.025

Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader develop-

ment and the dark side of personality. Leadership Quarterly, 22,

495-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.007

Hirsch, S., & Kummerow, J. (1998). Introduction to type in organisa-

tions. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan development survey manual.

Tulsa, OK: HAS.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Warrenfelz, R. (2007). The Hogan guide.

Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the

dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-

51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00162

Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and h uman growth. New York: Norton.

Janowsky, D., Morter, S., & Hong, L. (2002). Relationship of Myers

Briggs type indicator personality characteristics to suicidality in af-

fective disorder patients. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 36, 33-39.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3956(01)00043-7

Khoo, H., & Bu rch, G. (2008 ). The “dark side” of leadership personal-

ity and transformational leadership. Personality and Individual Dif-

ferences, 44, 86-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.018

MacDonald, D., Anderson, P., Tsagarakis, C., & Holland, J. (1994).

Examination of the relationship between the Myers-Briggs type in-

dicator and the NEO personality inventory. Psychological Reports,

74, 339-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.74.1.339

McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs type

indicators from the perspective o f the five-factor model of personali-

ty. Journal of Personality , 57, 17-40.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x

Morey, L., Waugh, M., & Blashfield, R. (1985). MMPI sca les for DSM-III,

personality disorders: Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Per-

sonality Assessment, 49, 245-251.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4903_5

Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. (2004). “Dark Side” personality scales as

predictors of task, contextual, and job performance. International Jour-

nal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 356-362.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00290.x

Myers, I., & Myers, P. (1990). Gifts differing. Palo Alto: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Paul, A. (2004) . The cult of personality. New York: Free Press

Pierson, B. (2007). Personality types and personality disorders. Unpub-

lished Thesis, Muncie: Ball State University.

Quenk, N. (2009). Essential of Myers-Briggs type indicator assessment.

Cichester: Wiley.

Rogers, J. (1997). Sixteen personality types at work in organisations.

Cambridge, UK: Managers Futures.

Rolland, J. P., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). The validity of FFM personality

dimensions and maladap tive traits to predict negative af fect at work.

European Journal of Personality, 17, 101-121.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.485

Saggino, A., & Kline, P. (1996). The locatio n of the Myers-Briggs type

indicator in personality factor space. Pers onality and Individual Dif-

ferences, 21, 591-597.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00009-8

Samuel, D., & Widiger, T. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the rela-

tionships between the f ive factor model and DSM-IV-TR personalit y

disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326-1342.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002

Widiger, T. (2011). Integrating n ormal and abnormal personality struc-

ture. Journal of the Personality Disorders, 25, 338-363.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.338

Widiger, T., & Coker, L. (20 01). Assessing person ality disorders. In J.

N. Butcher (Ed.), Clinical personality assessment: Practical ap-

proaches (2 nd ed., pp. 407-434). New York: Oxford University Pres s.

Zibarras, L., Port, R., & Woods, S. (2008). Innovation and the “Dark

Side” of personality. Journal of Creative Be haviour, 42, 201-215.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01295.x