Myers-Briggs vs. OCEAN: An Industrial Psychologist Breaks Down the Differences

Since its first publication in 1944, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has dominated the personality test landscape. However, popularity doesn’t equate with quality and accuracy.

While based on principles suggested by Carl Jung, Myers-Briggs never went through proper scientific testing to validate its accuracy or usefulness in professional settings. Back in 2017, the series “Adam Ruins Everything” even took the test to task.

Are the concerns raised in the above clip over-simplified for entertainment purposes? Of course. But the show’s claims are not without merit. 

Scientists have spent decades developing, researching, and testing a more comprehensive model for measuring personality that gives a fuller picture of who a person is. The method many have landed on is the Big 5 Personality Traits commonly known as OCEAN or CANOE.

• Openness
• Conscientiousness
• Extraversion 
• Agreeableness
• Neuroticism

For a better understanding of the differences between Myers-Briggs (MBTI) and OCEAN, we reached out to a leader in the Industrial Psychology field, Dr. Emily Campion to draw upon her knowledge and expertise.

What about MBTI makes it so popular?

Dr. Campion: The MBTI is popular for at least two reasons. One reason is that humans have an innate need for self-categorization. That means we like being put into identifiable groups whether that be through a shared interest (being a Star Wars fan) or shared background (being from a certain part of the country or world). It creates common ground and communities and, more extremely, functions as a mechanism for survival. The MBTI offers 16 personality types that are relatively intuitive to understand, and that’s attractive to people. Another reason the MBTI is so popular is that it has been well-marketed. Some people have invested hugely in the continued use of the MBTI, including organizations or trainers deployed to lead participants through MBTI workshops.

How was OCEAN (or CANOE) developed? 

Dr. Campion: The Big Five were developed over the course of several decades through the efforts of many, many scholars (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Taxonomies that were precursors to the Big Five should sound familiar (e.g., Surgency, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Dependability, and Culture; Tupes & Christal, 1961). Researchers replicated this five-factor model time and again across contexts, instruments, rating sources, etc., supporting the reliability and validity of the model. Eventually, we landed on the Big Five we know today: Openness to Experience (previously “Culture”), Conscientiousness (previously “Dependability”), Extraversion (previously “Surgency”; at the other end of this continuum is “Introversion”), Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (at the other end of this continuum is “Emotional Stability”).

Which gives a more accurate assessment of an individual? Why?

Dr. Campion: Let me begin by saying that there are no perfect measures of psychological constructs (that I know of). However, some have more evidence and more trustworthy evidence than others. In the case of the Big Five versus the MBTI, the Big Five enjoys stronger evidence of reliability and validity than the MBTI, but it does not enjoy as much fame.

The first thing to consider is its reliability and validity. Big Five is both a reliable and valid measure of a person’s personality. Furthermore, its factor structure—meaning the five traits that conceptually align with OCEAN—has been replicated. In their reflection on their meta-analysis that essentially introduced the Big Five to I-O psychology, Mount and Barrick (1998) wrote, “Particularly impressive was the evidence showing that these five factors had been obtained in different cultures, with different languages, using different instruments and with different theoretical frameworks” (p. 850).

Reliability means consistency in measurement. Every time you take the Agreeableness scale, you should score similarly. Validity means that you are measuring what you think you are measuring—meaning, your score on Agreeableness is actually your level of Agreeableness.

Think of it this way: You step on a scale on Monday morning and it says you weigh 150 pounds. OK, you step on it the next day at the same time of day and it says 170 pounds. Did you gain 20 pounds overnight? Probably not. This scale is not a reliable measure of your weight. Now, whether or not you actually weigh 150 pounds, or 160, refers to the scale’s validity. Our research on the Big Five shows that our measures are reliable and valid.

Another thing to consider is its scale. We typically measure the Big Five using a continuous measure (such as a Likert-type scale of 1 – 5 or 1 – 7). This means that you aren’t either Extraverted or Introverted, but “higher on Extraversion” (also meaning less Introverted) reflecting your typical tendencies rather than an absolute.

Now let’s think about the MBTI. First, its reliability and validity have been challenged. At least one study found that about 50% of participants were grouped into different types with only 5 weeks between taking the tests (McCarley & Carskadon, 1983). This is just one example of many, but remember that no psychological construct measure is perfect.

Then there’s the scale. The MBTI is also measured on a scale like the Big Five, but the middle point of the scale is the demarcation between being an Extravert vs. Introvert. That means that two people could have very similar scores, but the demarcation between Extravert and Introvert is between their scores making one person an “E” and the other an “I.” You can see why some people flip between “E” and “I” given the dichotomization of a continuous measure.

In all, there is sufficient evidence that the MBTI does not perform as well as the Big Five. In their assessment comparing the MBTI and the Big Five, McCrae and Costa (1989) conclude, “The data suggest that Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it (p. 17).

Some researchers have opted to put this in more colorful language. 

For example, in his article in Psychology Today, Adam Grant (organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania) wrote, “In social science, we use four standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not really.” 

Meanwhile, Dan Ariely (psychologist and behavioral economist at Duke) says, “Next time, just look at the horoscope. It is just as valid and takes less time.”

What kind of correlations are there between the two, if any?

Dr. Campion: Several studies have shown that there are notable relationships among the Big Five and the four MBTI dimensions. For example, in self-reports, McCrae and Costa (1989) showed that the relationship between the Big Five’s Extraversion and the MBTI’s EI (Introversion) was -.69 for women and -.74 for men (N = 201 women, 267 men). These relationships are sizable suggesting they cover much of the same content. McCrae and Costa also found that MBTI’s Perception related positively to the Big Five’s Extraversion and Openness to Experience, and negatively to Conscientiousness. Further, the MBTI’s Feeling related positively to Agreeableness, and negatively to Conscientiousness. Furnham et al. (2003, N = 183 women, 717 men) replicated many of McCrae and Costa’s findings.

Does MBTI have any practical applications/uses? If so, what are they?

Dr. Campion: This is tough to remark on because you don’t want to use a poor measure in any practical application, particularly if it is used to make decisions on humans (e.g., hiring, promotion). However, there is value in understanding your own personality profile because personality is a relevant predictor of human behavior. So, it is advantageous to understand whether you tend to be more Introverted or Extroverted, or if you typically make decisions based on a gut feeling or if you adopt logical reasoning. Reflecting on the results from these tendencies may be beneficial in helping you make modifications. If you are Extroverted and your chattiness in meetings tends to overshadow other people’s contributions, then learning from a test that you tend to be an “E” might be what you needed and can help you make space for others.

I am sure most trainers who lead people through MBTI workshops communicate the potential imprecision of the measure, but as I mentioned, people like to be categorized so they may overcommit to their type. As long as its limitations are understood and results are interpreted with these limitations in mind, it probably has some value.

What role does machine learning play in “personality assessments”?

Dr. Campion: At least one way we can envision machine learning playing a role in improving personality assessments is through measurement diversification. For example, personality has typically been measured on Likert-type scales of agreement (1) to disagreement (5 or 7) with a statement. However, such scales can be faked (e.g., Levashina & Campion, 2007). Let’s say you are taking a personality assessment as a job candidate and one of the items reads, “I am a dependable worker.” You are probably going to strongly agree with this statement because you know employers want conscientious workers and you want to get the job. Instead of these scales, we wonder if we can capture a person’s personality through responses to open-ended questions that may allow us to mask what we intend to measure and not incur faking. For example, we could probably measure a person’s conscientiousness by asking them to reflect on their experiences in a work team. Sure, they are still going to try and provide the best impression of themselves, but this may not come in the form of extreme exaggeration of their dependability and organization. Again, this is only one way that we might be able to use machine learning (natural language processing, in this case) to improve personality measurement.

References

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Crump, J. (2003). The relationship between the revised NEO-personality inventory and the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(6), 577-584.

Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring faking in the employment interview: development and validation of an interview faking behavior scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1638 – 1656.

McCarley, N. G., & Carskadon, T. G. (1983). Test-retest reliabilities of scales and subscales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and of criteria for clinical interpretive hypotheses involving them. Research in Psychological Type, 6(1), 24-36.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers‐Briggs type indicator from the perspective of the five‐factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17-40.

Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the “big five” article has been frequently cited: The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 849-857.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961, May). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Aeronautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory.

‍

Dr. Emily Campion, PHD, is an Assistant Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship in the Tippie College of Business at the University of Iowa and a consultant for Campion Services. Her research falls under the “future of work” umbrella and includes topics related to machine learning and natural language processing in personnel selection, alternative and remote work experiences, and workforce diversity and representation.