Variante 3 Creación de un carril de cambio de velocidad y de giro a la derecha para vehículos SU que acceden desde Santa Clara.

4.2.1 Criticism of psychological type theory

Bayne (1995) outlines ten criticisms of psychological type theory (p. 77-93). The first and most common criticism is that the theory is an insult to individuality and that it “puts people in boxes.” This criticism is one that is likely to be levelled at any model of individual differences. However, as Kluckhohn and Murray (1953) put it: “Every man [sic] is, in certain respects: [1] like all other men, [2] like some other men, and [3] like no other man.” Psychological type theory, like all personality theories, simply focuses on the second truth and in no way denies the first and third. As Francis (2005) writes, “type theory does not try to capture individuality, but rather provides a broad framework which helps move toward appreciating individuality” (p. 88). Although type theory does carry the risk of stereotyping individuals, this risk can be minimized by being aware of this danger and by understanding that the theory does not claim to be an exact science. As Baynes writes, “the preferences and types are reference points, not pigeon-holes” (p. 77).

The second criticism is that people behave differently in different situations and thus innate personality preferences do not exist. While it is true that human behaviour does vary and that it is impossible to predict how a person will act in any given situation, decades of social psychology research have demonstrated that over

time, human behaviours do show a high level of consistency. For example, an

introvert might, from time-to-time, behave in a very extroverted way. But on average, he or she is likely to tend towards more introverted behaviours. Thus, even though knowledge of personality preferences cannot predict what will happen in every situation, it can still be used to make broader, larger-scale predictions.

The third and fourth criticisms are that the results are skewed by the Forer effect (also known as the Barnum effect) because the type descriptions are too vague and too positive. The Forer effect is the tendency for people to think that certain descriptions of their personality and/or life are very specific and accurate when really they are vague and general enough to apply to most people. The best example of the Forer effect is the way in which some people take newspaper horoscopes seriously and believe that they accurately describe their lives. If psychological type theory were subject to the Forer effect, the instruments used to measure type would

demonstrate very low reliability. However, this is not the case when it comes to the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®and the Francis Psychological Type Scales (see Section 4.1.5 below). In one particular study of the MBTI®’s reliability, Carskadon (1982) administered the questionnaire and then one week later gave each participant five different results in a random order, including their actual result and the opposite of their result, and then instructed them to choose the one that described them most accurately. He found that 66% chose either their actual result or a type very close to their actual result (one in which their lowest scoring preference was reversed), whereas only 4% chose the exact opposite of their result.

The fifth and sixth criticisms are that psychological type theory as it exists today has departed from various aspects of Jung’s original theory. This observation is, in fact, true but is actually a point in the current theory’s favour. As Francis (2005) writes, “it has also to be recognized that some aspects of Jung’s theory are themselves

highly contentious and that it may be a serious error to take a fundamentalist attitude toward Jung’s own writings. Currently, there is much better empirical support for the model of personality assessment promoted by some of the type indicators than from basic Jungian views” (p. 89).

The seventh criticism is that self-report questionnaires cannot be trusted because they are too easy to fake. According to Costa and McCrae (1992b), there actually exists substantial evidence to the contrary; i.e. self-report questionnaires are in fact trustworthy, both in terms of indicating what a person is really like, as well as his or her self-concept. In fact, according to Bayne (1995), “even in situations where faking would be rewarded, people tend not to fake” (p. 90). The validity of

psychological type instruments has been found to be strong and this will be discussed further in Section 4.1.5.

The eighth criticism is that the numerical results given by the MBTI® are confusing. As mentioned earlier, type theories differ significantly from trait theories. In psychological type theory, the numerical results represent clarity of preference, not the degree to which an individual possesses a trait. A high score simply indicates that the result is likely to be correct, whereas a low score indicates that the result may change in a future assessment. If this distinction is adequately explained by those administrating the assessment, confusion can be reduced.

The ninth criticism is that psychological type theory is “just a racket for making money” (Bayne, 1995, p. 92). Although it is true that the MBTI®is a proprietary instrument and that taking the official inventory can be expensive, it can be argued that designing and maintaining a quality psychometric instrument requires adequate funds and that properly controlling and licensing its use greatly improves its reliability and validity. On the other hand, there are many other public domain measures of psychological type that have been shown to be reliable and valid as well.

Many of these, such as the Francis Psychological Type Scales, have been used exclusively for research purposes and not for making money.

The tenth and final criticism is that psychological type theory is just like astrology. However, as mentioned above, the Forer effect plays a major role in astrology, whereas it plays a much smaller role in type theory. In addition to this, astrology tends to be prescriptive in nature, whereas type theory is descriptive and based on an individual’s self-report.

4.2.2 The reliability and validity of psychological type theory

Two important concepts when it comes to assessing the value of a psychometric instrument are reliability and validity. Reliability refers to how consistent the instrument is, whereas validity refers to how accurate it is. Although the two concepts are related, they are not identical. For example, an archer could be consistent but not accurate by missing the target ten times in a row but hitting the same spot every time. On the other hand, the archer could be accurate but not consistent by hitting spots close to the target but hitting a different spot each time.

The two main types of reliability are internal consistency reliability and test- retest reliability. Internal consistency is determined by dividing the item pool in half and testing to see if each half produces a similar result. A statistical analysis of all possible item correlations results in a number between zero and one, known as the alpha coefficient. This number should be at least .7 if the instrument is to be considered very reliable, although alphas above .6 are also considered acceptable (DeVellis, 2003). According to the current MBTI® manual (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 2003), the MBTI® achieved the following alpha coefficients on each of its four scales: .91 for the E-I scale, .92 for the S-N scale, .91 for the T-F scale, and .92 for the J-P scale.. According to Francis, Craig, and Hall (2008), the

Francis Psychological Types Scales achieved the following alpha coefficients: .83 for the E-I scale, .76 for the S-N scale, .73 for the T-F scale, and .79 for the J-P scale. Thus, the two instruments can be considered to be internally consistent. The other type of reliability, test-retest reliability, is determined by giving the same participant the same instrument at a point in the future and testing to see if a similar result is produced. According to the current MBTI® manual (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 2003), a combined analysis of several studies measuring the test-retest reliability of the MBTI® found that 65% of participants (n = 424) got the exact same result one month later and 93% got either the same result or just one letter different (p. 163). It also found that higher clarity scores resulted in fewer changes in the retests. In other words, when a letter was changed, this was most often due to the fact that the participant achieved a low clarity score for that particular scale. These findings point to good test-retest reliability.

Tests of validity focus on whether or not an instrument is in fact measuring what it is supposed to be measuring. Two methods used to test validity are factor analysis and comparison to similar scales. Factor analysis is a statistical test in which correlations between items are measured to determine how many independent factors or scales the instrument is measuring. In the case of the MBTI®, there should be four independent scales. According to the current MBTI® manual (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 2003), several factor analysis studies of the MBTI® have confirmed that the instrument is indeed measuring the four scales it purports to be measuring (p. 172). In studies in which the MBTI® was taken alongside other personality instruments, each of the four MBTI® scales were found to be strongly correlated with other similar scales. For example, the E-I scale correlated with liveliness and social boldness on the 16PF and with sociability and social presence on the California Psychological Inventory (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 2003,

pp. 173-184). Most noteably, Costa and McCrae (1989) found that the MBTI® correlates strongly with the Big Five personality traits, with the E-I scale correlating with Extraversion, the S-N scale correlating with Openness, the T-F scale correlating with Agreeableness, and the J-P scale correlating with Conscientiousness. The connection between psychological type theory and the Big Five model of personality will be explored in greater detail in Chapter Five (Section 5.2.3).

This section demonstrated that psychological type theory stands up well to criticism and is both reliable and valid. The next section will focus on how the theory has been used within the realm of the Psychology of Religion.