The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality inventory (Myers & McCaulley, 1985) commonly used by businesses. The MBTI provides individuals an opportunity to gain insight into themselves and others. In spite of its usefulness in business, the MBTI is often criticized (McCrae & Costa, 1989) in popular academic journals for deficiencies relative to the five-factor model. This criticism suggests that perhaps the MBTI should be sold with a disclaimer of not being complete. The MBTI is mapped on to the five-factor model and on to circumplex models to show the sound construction of the MBTI scales and Jackson (1974) PRF scores are used to illustrate the mappings. Other assessment tools are mentioned that mirror the MBTI's mapping on to circumplexes.

Introduction

skip to main body

Carl Jung (Singer, 1994) coined the term extravert for people who try to stay in public view and coined the term introvert for people who try to stay private. Jung also saw people as primarily interacting through one of the perceiving traits (concrete sensing or abstract intuition) or through one of the judging traits (logical thinking or values based feeling). Myers (Myers & McCaulley, 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 traits 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. McCrae & Costa (1989) in comparing the MBTI to the five-factor model (FFM) had complaints about the MBTI. The FFM is derived using a lexical approach where the five factors selected are those found to be most encoded in our language. This lexical approach yielded five personality scales: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. McCrae & Costa claim the MBTI does not measure for neuroticism. Assessment tools like the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Wiggins, 1995) are sold with the disclaimer that they are not complete relative to the FFM. The McCrae & Costa criticism suggests that the MBTI may require this disclaimer as well. I will attempt to show neuroticism is a trait measured by the MBTI by mapping the MBTI on to the FFM. The FFM is considered an ideal model by many due to its scales having a circumplex structure (Hofstee, deRaad & Goldberg, 1992) so before mapping the MBTI to the FFM I will attempt to show the MBTI also has scales with a circumplex structure. The circumplex model is the result of work done by Leary (1957) where 5000 cases (psychiatric, medical and normal control) were studied and diagnosed at the Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Oakland, California. A circumplex implies circular order such that traits that fall close together are more related than traits that fall further apart on the circle with opposite traits being negatively related and traits at right angles (orthogonal) being unrelated for the personality traits defined by the X and Y axes the circumplex is centered on.

The first requirement for constructing a circumplex is to choose your X and Y axes. I will use axes derived from three known circumplexes. The first known circumplex axes I will use are the ones for the RIASEC themes. The RIASEC themes are assessment scales based on Holland's (1985) theory which was first developed in the early 1960s. The Self-Directed Search (Holland, 1994) is an assessment tool that uses the RIASEC themes (realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising and conventional) to find the best fits with a list of over 1300 occupation codes. It is based on a normative sample of 2602 students and working adults. One RIASEC axis has the trait "people" at one end and the trait "things" at the other end (Rounds & Tracey, 1993) while the other axis has "data" at one end and "ideas" at the other end. I prefer to use words that highlight how different people affect their environment. People into people create a cooperative environment, people into things create a utilitarian environment, people into ideas create an informative environment and people into data create an environment directed by the cold hard facts or numbers. Thus my first circumplex will have cooperation, utility, informing and directing at the endpoints of the X and Y axes. These four axes endpoint descriptors are categories that Keirsey (1998) separates the MBTI types into. The Wiggins (1997) axes endpoint names communion, dissociation, passivity and agency also correspond with cooperation, utility, informing and directing. These axes are also the ones that the FFM maps on to (Hofstee, deRaad & Goldberg, 1992).

The second set of circumplex axes I will use are derived from the Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI). The OCI circumplex (Szumal, 1998) is a conceptual model created by Dr. J. Clayton Lafferty to bring order to a complex array of factors related to the effectiveness of people and the systems they create. The OCI circumplex axis has "power" at an endpoint of one axis and "affiliation" at the other endpoint and for the other axis has "achievement" at one endpoint and "dependent" at the other endpoint. I will use challenge in place of power since people into power create a challenging environment. Unity will replace affiliation since those into affiliation create a unified environment, change will replace achievement since those into achievement create an environment of change, and maintenance will replace dependent since those dependent on the current environment strive to maintain it. Thus my second circumplex will have challenge, unity, change and maintenance at the endpoints of the X and Y axes.

The third set of circumplex axes I will use come from the Capability Snapshot (Capability Snapshot Inc., 1998). Dr. Max Garfinkle began research for the Capability Snapshot in the spring of 1992 and following extensive beta testing it was launched in the fall of 1994. The Capability Snapshot circumplex has "present" at one axis endpoint and "future" at the other endpoint and for the other axis has "inward" at one endpoint and "outward" at the other endpoint. I will replace present with care and future with discovery since those into the present care for the existing environment while those into the future create an environment of discovery. I will replace inward with perfection and outward with growth since those looking inward at the immediate environment strive to perfect the immediate environment while those looking outward create an environment of growth into new areas. Thus my third circumplex will use care, discovery, perfection and growth at the endpoints of the X and Y axes. Another circumplex of sorts, the Enneagram, also fits on these axes. The Enneagram (ennea in Greek means nine) is an ancient system (Millennium, 1999) that describes the underlying motivations of human behavior. It starts at the trait 1 perfectionist who uses quality standards to care for the present environment and proceeds to traits 2 through 8 (helper, achiever, connoisseur, observer, questioner, visionary, and boss) and ends with the trait 9 mediator who discovers ways for all to grow peacefully into each other's territory.

Mapping the MBTI

skip to conclusion

With the circumplex axes having been chosen, the next step will be to place MBTI traits on each circumplex at points such that the MBTI traits line up with or are in between the axes endpoint trait(s) that best describe the MBTI trait. I will be using MBTI traits made from two MBTI factors because this gives you more points on the circumplex than one factor MBTI traits while still having trait definitions that are much simpler than the three and four factor MBTI traits. For my third circumplex, Enneagram trait numbers will be mapped to a two factor MBTI trait and also placed on the circumplex. After placing an MBTI trait on each of the three circumplexes I will assign an example trait score to it. Assigning trait scores allows one to see how personality patterns are visually displayed on a circumplex model. I will provide further assistance for visually viewing personality patterns on the circumplex by adding organismistic field lines to the circumplex. Organismistic field lines connect points on a circumplex that have equal value and show personality patterns on the circumplex in much the same way as lines of elevation show mountains on a map.

The example trait scores I will assign will be Jackson (1974) PRF T scores (for a sailor/businessman named Dodge Morgan) instead of actual MBTI scores. I do this for a couple of reasons. One reason is that these Jackson PRF T scores have been verified by Wiggins (1997) as valid for mapping on to circumplexes and another reason is that these Jackson PRF scores also include Z scores which I will later use to provide example FFM scores to illustrate my mapping of the MBTI on to the FFM. For T scores, 50 is about average and over 60 is high and under 40 is low. For Z scores, zero is average and over 1 is high and under -1 is low. The Jackson (1994) PRF, based largely upon Murray's (1938) framework for the description of personality, is designed to yield scores for personality traits relevant to the functioning of individuals in a wide variety of situations. The PRF manual cites evidence for convergent and discriminant validity using peer ratings and hundreds of studies. The PRF scales include: abasement, achievement, affiliation, aggression, autonomy, change, cognitive structure, defendence, dominance, endurance, exhibition, harmavoidance, impulsivity, nurturance, order, play, sentience, social recognition, succorance, understanding, infrequency and desirability. In order to use the Jackson PRF T scores on my circumplexes, I will have to match up each MBTI trait definition with a Jackson PRF scale name.

After verifying that the MBTI factors can be placed on circumplexes just like what is done with the FFM and other assessment tools, I will proceed with the actual mapping of the MBTI on to the FFM to verify that the five FFM factor traits (especially neuroticism) can be represented by an MBTI trait. I will do this mapping by matching up an MBTI trait definition with each FFM factor trait. This mapping technique is not the one usually used for comparing different assessment tool traits. The normal mapping technique is the one used by McCrae & Costa (1989) where both assessment tools in question are given to the same large group of people and the scores are compared statistically. The problem with this method is that it is only as good as the assessment tools being used. From the point of view of the MBTI, assessment tools for the FFM are flawed due to the way the FFM is built up from subordinate traits. Unfortunately, FFM subordinate traits and the FFM factor they are subordinate to often do not map to the same MBTI trait. For example, FFM neuroticism which I will map to NFJ includes the subordinate trait aggression (Costa & McCrae, 1988) which I will map to SJ. FFM extraversion which I will map to E has the subordinate trait play which I will map to FP; FFM openness which I will map to NFP has the subordinate trait dominance which I will map to ST; FFM agreeableness which I will map to FP has the subordinate trait abasement which I will map to NP and FFM conscientiousness which I will map to J has the subordinate trait achievement which I will map to NT. Mapping by matching up trait definitions may not be the normal method but it is a commonly used method. Keirsey (1998) uses trait definitions to map the MBTI up with ancient Greek, ancient Roman and early 20th century personality theories. Keirsey used trait definitions instead of test scores since those old personality theories did not have tests associated with them.

After mapping an MBTI trait to an FFM factor, I will illustrate how my MBTI mapping technique can affect test scores for the FFM factor. I will do this, as I hinted at earlier, by using Jackson (1974) PRF Z scores. First I will calculate a Z score for the FFM factor using an algorithm provided by Costa & McCrae (1988) and then I will calculate a Z score for the same FFM factor based on the MBTI trait I mapped to this FFM factor. I will use the MBTI to PRF trait mapping done for my circumplexes to calculate this Z score. I will then comment on the similarities and differences between the Costa & McCrae algorithm based Z score and my MBTI trait based Z score. The example Z scores I am using were validated by Nasby & Read (1997) as being usable for the Costa & McCrae algorithm.

ST Leading

The first MBTI two factor trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is ST. This trait includes the STJ corporate executive who leads those who work for her and includes the STP hands-on battlefield commander who literally leads his troops into battle. The ST fits between the axes endpoints directing and utility on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits at the challenge endpoint on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits between the axes endpoints care and growth on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for ST leading: direct a challenge for utilitarian care and growth. For an example test score I am using the dominance T score of 62 provided by Wiggins (1997). STs dominate by challenging others to follow their lead. ST leading is also a characteristic of the Enneagram trait 8 boss. Both S (Geldart, 1998) and T (Fudjack & Dinkelaker, 1997) have been mapped to trait 8 previously.

TJ Organizing

The second MBTI trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is TJ. This trait includes the STJ corporate executive who organizes her business and includes the NTJ battlefield strategist who organizes his army. The TJ fits at the directing endpoint on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits between the axes endpoints challenge and change on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits between the axes endpoints care and perfection on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for TJ organizing: direct a challenge for perfect care and change. For an example test score I am using the cognitive structure T score of 59 provided by Wiggins (1997). TJs organize by creating cognitive structure in their environment. A structured environment is also a characteristic of the Enneagram trait 1 perfectionist. Both T (Duniho, 1998) and J (Fudjack & Dinkelaker, 1997) have been mapped to trait 1 previously.

SJ Guarding

The third MBTI trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is SJ. This trait includes the STJ corporate executive who is the guardian of her business and includes the SFJ elementary school teacher who is the guardian of her students. The SJ fits between the axes endpoints directing and cooperation on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits between the axes endpoints challenge and maintenance on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits at the care endpoint on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for SJ guarding: direct a challenge for cooperative care and maintenance. For an example test score I am using the aggression T score of 52 provided by Wiggins (1997). SJs are most aggressive in caring for their environment, challenging others to do the right thing. Aggressive guarding of a position is also a characteristic of the Enneagram trait 6 questioner who questions things that go against the status quo. S and J have been previously mapped to trait 6 (Fudjack & Dinkelaker, 1997).

NJ Advising

The fourth MBTI trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is NJ. This trait includes the NTJ battlefield strategist who advises on military strategy and includes the NFJ counselor who advises others on how to deal with their problems. The NJ fits between the axes endpoints directing and cooperation on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits between the axes endpoints unity and change on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits at the perfection endpoint on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for NJ advising: direct to unify for perfect cooperation and change. For an example test score I am using the affiliation T score of 44 provided by Wiggins (1997). NJs create an environment of affiliation by advising others on unity and cooperation.

FJ Helping

The fifth MBTI trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is FJ. This trait includes the SFJ elementary school teacher who helps her young students to learn and includes the NFJ counselor who helps those dealing with problems. The FJ fits at the cooperation endpoint on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits between the axes endpoints unity and maintenance on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits between the axes endpoints care and perfection on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for FJ helping: unify to cooperate for perfect care and maintenance. For an example test score I am using the harmavoidance T score of 36 provided by Wiggins (1997). FJs are into helping not harming their environment. Enneagram trait 2 is also known as a helper. F and J have been previously mapped to trait 2 (Fudjack & Dinkelaker, 1997).

SF Nurturing

The sixth MBTI trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is SF. This trait includes the SFJ elementary school teacher who nurtures the minds of her young students and includes the SFP artist who nurtures the environment through art. The SF fits between the axes endpoints informing and cooperation on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits at the maintenance endpoint on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits between the axes endpoints care and growth on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for SF nurturing: inform on cooperative care, maintenance and growth. For an example test score I am using the nurturance T score of 46 provided by Wiggins (1997). SFs are nurturers of the environment.

NF Idealizing

The seventh MBTI trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is NF. This trait includes the NFJ counselor who helps others to find an ideal way of life and includes the NFP philosopher who searches for ideal answers to life's mysteries. The NF fits between the axes endpoints informing and cooperation on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits at the unity endpoint on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits between the axes endpoints discovery and perfection on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for NF idealizing: discover and inform on perfect unity and cooperation. For an example test score I am using the infavoidance T score of 44 provided by Wiggins (1997). Infavoidance implies not wanting to make a mistake and NFs are idealists who don't want to be in error. The Enneagram trait 4 connoisseur is also an idealist who likes to see things be as good as they can be. N and F have been previously mapped to trait 4 (Duniho, 1998).

FP Harmonizing

The eighth MBTI trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is FP. This trait includes the SFP artist who creates harmony through works of art and includes the NFP philosopher who creates harmony through ideas. The FP fits at the informing endpoint on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits between the axes endpoints unity and maintenance on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits between the axes endpoints discovery and growth on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for FP harmonizing: discover for and inform on the maintenance and growth of unity. For an example test score I am using the play T score of 39 provided by Wiggins (1997). FPs prefer harmony and are thus playfully undemanding of others. The Enneagram trait 9 mediator also wants to see harmony. F and P have been previously mapped to trait 9 (Fudjack & Dinkelaker, 1997).

NP Theorizing

The ninth MBTI trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is NP. This trait includes the NTP scientist who develops scientific theories and includes the NFP philosopher who develops philosophic theories. The NP fits between the axes endpoints informing and utility on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits between the axes endpoints unity and change on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits at the discovery endpoint on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for NP theorizing: discover and inform on unification and utilitarian changes. For an example test score I am using the abasement T score of 51 provided by Wiggins (1997). Abasement implies an environment of ridicule and NPs often invite ridicule with their wild theories. Wild theories are also often the territory of the Enneagram trait 7 visionary. N and P have been previously mapped to trait 7 (Duniho, 1998).

SP Mastering

The tenth MBTI trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is SP. This trait includes the STP hands-on battlefield commander who is a master at using weapons and tactics and includes the SFP artist who is a master at using paints and brushes. The SP fits between the axes endpoints informing and utility on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits between the axes endpoints challenge and maintenance on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits at the growth endpoint on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for SP mastering: maintenance of, growth through and informing about utilitarian challenges. For an example test score I am using the rejection T score of 52 provided by Wiggins (1997). SPs are masters at performing their particular skill and tend to reject those who get in the way of the performance.

TP Progressing

The eleventh MBTI trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is TP. This trait includes the STP hands-on battlefield commander who forces progress on the battlefield and includes the NTP scientist who makes scientific progress in the laboratory. The TP fits at the utility endpoint on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits between the axes endpoints challenge and change on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits between the axes endpoints discovery and growth on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for TP progressing: discovery of and growth through challenging utilitarian changes. For an example test score I am using the autonomy T score of 74 provided by Wiggins (1997). TPs are autonomous in that they are interested in continually making progress even if others in the environment are not. Autonomy is also a characteristic of the Enneagram trait 5 observer who is seen by others to be analyzing the environment instead of interacting socially. T and P have been previously mapped to trait 5 (Fudjack & Dinkelaker, 1997).

NT Strategizing

The twelfth and final MBTI trait I am placing on my three circumplexes is NT. This trait includes the NTJ battlefield strategist who provides military strategy and includes the NTP scientist who provides strategies for scientific gains. The NT fits between the axes endpoints directing and utility on my Figure 1 circumplex; it fits at the change endpoint on my Figure 2 circumplex and it fits between the axes endpoints discovery and perfection on my Figure 3 circumplex. Using these axes endpoint traits creates this fitting description for NT strategizing: discover and direct to perfect utilitarian changes. For an example test score I am using the achievement T score of 67 provided by Wiggins (1997). NTs have achievement as the end goal for their strategies. Enneagram trait 3 is also known as an achiever. T has been mapped to trait 3 before and though N has not been this could be due to S/N blindness problems with Enneagram testing (Fudjack & Dinkelaker, 1997).

The Enneagram Circumplex

Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 with MBTI traits, example test scores and organismistic field lines illustrate that MBTI traits can be placed on circumplexes just like what is done with the FFM and other personality assessment tool traits. Figure 3 also shows Enneagram trait numbers. Displayed on a circumplex, the Enneagram is seen to have two paths for traversing the personality spectrum between trait 1 and trait 9. There is the path that progresses with traits 2, 6 and 8 through the care and growth axes endpoints and there is the path that progresses with the traits 4, 3, 7 and 5 through the perfection and discovery axes endpoints. Though the numbering of the Enneagram traits could use some minor changes from a circumplex point of view, the numbering isn't bad when you consider it was created by an ancient culture with no circumplex research to rely on. Even today most personality theorists would be hard pressed to place the Enneagram traits on a circumplex and I certainly don't claim infallibility with my circumplex modeling either. With my circumplex mapping completed, I will now proceed with the actual mapping of MBTI traits to the five FFM factor traits.

MBTI Mapping to FFM Neuroticism

FFM neuroticism is the first FFM trait I will map the MBTI to since this is the FFM trait that McCrae & Costa (1989) claim can not be represented by an MBTI trait. The MBTI equivalent of neuroticism is the three factor trait NFJ. NFJs include the heavily burdened by world problems cult leaders, social activists and idealistic academicians. The MBTI three factor trait STP is inversely related to neuroticism. STPs include the unflappable airline pilot, sharpshooter and surgeon. For example test scores for FFM neuroticism I will use two algorithms to calculate Z scores. One algorithm is supplied by Costa & McCrae (1988) and the other algorithm is based on the MBTI two factor components of the three factor MBTI traits NFJ and STP that are related and inversely related to FFM neuroticism. For both the Costa & McCrae algorithm and the MBTI two factor component mapping algorithm, actual Z scores will be used for traits that are related to neuroticism and the negative of the actual Z scores will be used for traits that are inversely related to neuroticism. The Costa & McCrae algorithm averages aggression (with a Z score weighting of 0.17), autonomy (-2.44), defendence (-1.06), social recognition (-1.91) and succorance (-1.65) to produce a Z score for FFM neuroticism of -1.38. Using the two factor components of NFJ and STP gives you NF (with an infavoidance Z score weighting of -0.57), NJ (affiliation weighting -0.57), FJ (harmavoidance weighting -1.42), ST (dominance weighting -1.21), SP (rejection weighting -0.17) and TP (autonomy weighting -2.44). Averaging these weightings together gives a neuroticism Z score of -1.06. Both the Costa & McCrae and MBTI two factor component mapping Z scores for FFM neuroticism are highly negative. Earlier I mentioned aggression as a Costa & McCrae FFM subordinate trait that does not match well with neuroticism and indeed aggression has a slightly positive Z score weighting instead of the highly negative weightings for the other Costa & McCrae algorithm Z scores.

MBTI Mapping to FFM Extraversion

FFM extraversion is the second FFM trait I will map the MBTI to. The MBTI equivalent of extraversion is the one factor trait E. I will again use the Costa & McCrae (1988) algorithm and an MBTI trait based algorithm to calculate example Z scores for extraversion. Costa & McCrae average Z score weightings for exhibition (1.92), affiliation (-0.57), nurturance (-0.42), play (-1.10), succorance (-1.65) and desirability (0.76) for an extraversion Z score of -0.18. For the MBTI trait based Z score, the Z score for exhibition (1.92) supplies the Z score for extraversion since it is the only Z score related to extraversion from an MBTI point of view. Costa & McCrae produce a slightly negative Z score for FFM extraversion while MBTI mapping produces a highly positive Z score. Earlier I mentioned play as a Costa & McCrae FFM subordinate trait that does not match well with extraversion and indeed play (along with other weightings related to the MBTI single factor F) helps add a highly negative bias to the Costa & McCrae extraversion Z score especially when compared with the highly positive exhibition Z score used for the MBTI trait based algorithm.

MBTI Mapping to FFM Openness

FFM openness is the third FFM trait I will map the MBTI to. The MBTI equivalent of openness is the three factor trait NFP. NFPs include the always searching, open to new experiences philosopher. The MBTI three factor trait STJ is inversely related to openness. STJs include rigid conservative corporate executives. I will again use the Costa & McCrae (1988) algorithm and an MBTI trait based algorithm to calculate example Z scores for openness. Costa & McCrae average Z score weightings for achievement (1.65), autonomy (2.44), change (-0.67), dominance (1.21), harmavoidance (1.42), sentience (-0.55) and understanding (0.13) for an openness Z score of 0.80. Using the two factor components of NFP and STJ gives you NF (infavoidance weighting -0.57), NP (abasement weighting 0.10), FP (play weighting -1.10), ST (dominance weighting -1.21), SJ (aggression weighting -0.17) and TJ (cognitive structure weighting -0.91). Averaging these weightings together gives an MBTI trait based openness Z score of -0.64. The Costa & McCrae Z score for openness is fairly highly positive while the MBTI two factor component mapping Z score for openness is fairly highly negative. Earlier I mentioned dominance as a Costa & McCrae FFM subordinate trait that does not match well with openness and indeed dominance (along with other weightings related to the MBTI single factor T) helps add a highly positive bias to the Costa & McCrae openness Z score especially when compared with the fairly highly negative Z score calculated using the MBTI trait based algorithm.

MBTI Mapping to FFM Agreeableness

FFM agreeableness is the fourth FFM trait I will map the MBTI to. The MBTI equivalent of agreeableness is the two factor type FP. FPs are playful harmonizers. The MBTI two factor type TJ is inversely related to agreeableness. TJs have a cognitive structured this is the way things are going to be approach. I will again use the Costa & McCrae (1988) algorithm and an MBTI trait based algorithm to calculate example Z scores for agreeableness. Costa & McCrae average Z score weightings for abasement (0.10), aggression (-0.17), defendence (1.06), dominance (-1.21) and nurturance (-0.42) for an agreeableness Z score of -0.13. Averaging Z score weightings for the two factor types FP (play weighting -1.10) and TJ (cognitive structure weighting -0.91) gives an MBTI trait based Z score of -1.01. The Costa & McCrae Z score for agreeableness is slightly negative while the MBTI mapping Z score is highly negative. Earlier I mentioned abasement as a Costa & McCrae FFM subordinate trait that does not match well with agreeableness and indeed abasement (along with other weightings not related to the MBTI single factor F) helps add a positive bias to the Costa & McCrae agreeableness Z score especially when compared with the highly negative Z score calculated using the MBTI trait based algorithm.

MBTI Mapping to FFM Conscientiousness

FFM conscientiousness is the fifth and final FFM trait to map the MBTI to. The MBTI equivalent of conscientiousness is the one factor type J. Js conscientiously stick to passing judgment on the task at hand. The MBTI one factor type P is inversely related to conscientiousness. Ps are easily distracted from the task at hand by other things they perceive in the environment. I will again use the Costa & McCrae (1988) algorithm and an MBTI trait based algorithm to calculate example Z scores for conscientiousness. Costa & McCrae average Z score weightings for achievement (1.65), cognitive structure (0.91), endurance (1.74), impulsivity (0.43), order (-0.48) and desirability (0.76) for a conscientiousness Z score of 0.84. Using the two factor types with a J or P gives you TJ (cognitive structure weighting 0.91), SJ (aggression weighting 0.17), NJ (affiliation weighting -0.57), FJ (harmavoidance weighting -1.42), TP (autonomy weighting -2.44), SP (rejection weighting -0.17), NP (abasement weighting -0.10) and FP (play weighting 1.10). Averaging these weightings together gives an MBTI trait based conscientiousness Z score of -0.32. The Costa & McCrae Z score for conscientiousness is rather highly positive while the MBTI mapping Z score is slightly negative. Earlier I mentioned achievement as a Costa & McCrae FFM subordinate trait that does not match well with conscientiousness and indeed achievement (along with other weightings related to the MBTI single factor T) helps add a highly positive bias to the Costa & McCrae conscientiousness Z score especially when compared with the negative Z score calculated using the MBTI trait based algorithm.

Circumplexes Using MBTI Extraversion and Introversion

Although MBTI extraversion (E) can be mapped to FFM extraversion, the Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 circumplexes did not have extraversion (or introversion) represented. I was not able to find any circumplex axes in use on to which I could place the MBTI factors E and I so I had to construct my own circumplexes using E and I. Figure 4 (below) shows three circumplexes based on MBTI extraversion and introversion. These circumplexes do not have any example test scores shown since the PRF traits I used to supply test score for my first three circumplexes do not map well to MBTI two factor traits created using E and I.