Personality types · Research
Personality research & sources
These pages treat the well-known four-letter type codes as a framework for reflection. The underlying concepts draw on Jung's typology, the Myers–Briggs tradition, and many decades of trait research—most notably the Big Five. Below you'll find key sources with brief plain-English summaries so you can explore further or cite them with proper context.
How to use this page
Begin with Jung and the Myers lineage if your interest is in how the 16 types received their names. Begin with Allport, Goldberg, and Costa & McCrae if you are looking for the trait science that educators most often cite. Consult the critique section when you need balance for a syllabus or a blog post.
Plain speaking: MakeChoice is not the official MBTI® instrument. A four-letter type is a framework for reflection, not a diagnosis, a hiring filter, or a fixed destiny. Big Five / five-factor research generally offers stronger psychometric support for continuous traits.
Jump by topic
Foundations
Psychological Types
Jung, C. G. (1921/1971). Psychological types (Collected Works, Vol. 6). Princeton University Press.
In plain English: Jung proposed that individuals vary in how they perceive the world and how they make decisions—through attitudes (extraversion and introversion) and functions (thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition). Subsequent type systems adopted this vocabulary, even when their purposes differed from Jung's clinical focus.
Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i–171.
In plain English: The authors compiled thousands of English terms that people use to describe personality. This "lexical" premise—that language retains a word for any trait that matters—became a foundation for later Big Five research, which groups those terms into a handful of broad dimensions.
Type tradition
Gifts Differing
Myers, I. B., with Myers, P. B. (1980/1995). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Davies-Black.
In plain English: Isabel Briggs Myers offered an accessible explanation of the four preference pairs and how different styles can each be strengths. For many educators and workplaces, it is the public face of the Myers–Briggs type concept—a framework of preferences rather than a clinical diagnosis.
Please Understand Me
Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me: Character and temperament types. Prometheus Nemesis.
In plain English: Keirsey sorted the 16 types into four temperaments (roughly corresponding to the analyst, diplomat, sentinel, and explorer labels used on many sites). It is popular and practical—more a temperament framework for everyday use than a psychometric manual.
MBTI Manual
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press.
In plain English: The technical home of the official MBTI instrument: theory, development, and use guidelines. MakeChoice's free test is not this instrument; this manual is the reference if you need the proprietary lineage.
Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment
Quenk, N. L. (2000). Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment. Wiley.
In plain English: A practitioner-oriented guide to administering and interpreting the official MBTI. Useful for counselors and coaches who need procedure and ethics, not just blog-level type descriptions.
Big Five
Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base.
In plain English: Researchers working with the Air Force consistently identified roughly five broad factors when people rated personality traits. The report remained little known for many years before becoming a key reference for the modern Big Five.
An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.
In plain English: Goldberg demonstrated that everyday trait adjectives reliably sort into five broad factors. It is a cornerstone citation for why researchers treat the Big Five as a descriptive map of personality language.
NEO PI-R professional manual
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
In plain English: The NEO inventories operationalize Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, with facets under each. It remains a standard reference when people speak of the "Big Five" in research and assessment.
Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). Guilford.
In plain English: A handbook chapter that explains why the Big Five became the common language for trait research: history, measurement (including the BFI), and how the five domains organize a huge literature.
The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2)
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143.
In plain English: Updates the popular Big Five Inventory with clearer facet structure. A modern, open-science-friendly reference if you want trait measurement without proprietary manuals.
Bridge
Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the five-factor model
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17–40.
In plain English: The authors related MBTI preference scales to Big Five traits and contended that type preferences closely resemble continuous traits (particularly extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness). This is helpful when you want to discuss both "type talk" and trait science together.
The big five versus the big four
Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: The relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the NEO-PI five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 303–307.
In plain English: An empirical examination of overlap between MBTI scales and NEO Big Five scores. It helps explain why type language and trait scores often move together—and where they do not.
Critique
Measuring the MBTI… and coming up short
Pittenger, D. J. (1993). Measuring the MBTI… and coming up short. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 54(1), 48–52.
In plain English: A clear, non-technical critique of treating MBTI results as fixed categories. It highlights the reliability of dichotomies and the risk of over-interpreting a four-letter code. A fair read if you teach type without hype.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator score reliability across studies
Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2002). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator score reliability across studies: A meta-analytic reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4), 590–602.
In plain English: A meta-analysis of MBTI score reliability across published studies. It supports careful claims: continuous scores can be reasonably reliable; categorical "type" cutoffs are where debates heat up.
Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210–221.
In plain English: Updated cautions for consultants: dichotomy validity, retest changes, and overconfidence in type labels. Pair this with primary MBTI sources when you want a balanced reading list.
Applied
The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
In plain English: A frequently cited meta-analysis connecting Big Five traits to job performance. Conscientiousness was the most consistent predictor across occupations—a reminder that trait research has strong workplace evidence.
Relationship of personality to performance motivation
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797–807.
In plain English: Meta-analytic links between Big Five traits and motivation constructs (goal setting, expectancy, self-efficacy). Shows how traits connect to effort and drive at work—beyond a single job-performance correlation.
Questions people ask
Is this an official Myers-Briggs bibliography?
No. It is a curated reading list for readers who use MakeChoice's type pages and want primary sources, trait science, and published critiques gathered in one place. The official MBTI instrument and its manuals are proprietary; we cite them for historical context and clarity.
Should I cite Big Five or 16 types in a paper?
For most academic and clinical purposes, cite Big Five / five-factor sources. For classroom discussion of preference language and Jungian typology, cite Jung and Myers, and note the limitations raised in the critique papers above.
Can I link to this page from a lesson or blog?
Yes. That is precisely its purpose. Link to /personalities/research/ when you need a single stable URL for foundational sources and plain-English summaries.