001

Table of Contents
 
Essentials of Psychological Assessment Series
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
 
List of Tables
Series Preface
Acknowledgements
One - OVERVIEW OF TEMPERAMENT THEORY
 
CLASSIC TO MODERN HISTORY OF TEMPERAMENT THEORY
PSYCHOLOGICAL TEMPERAMENT TYPES
TEMPERAMENT THEORY EMBEDDED IN BROAD PERSONALITY MEASURES
TEMPERAMENT THEORY AS APPLIED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN
 
Two - EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR TEMPERAMENT THEORY
 
EVIDENCE FROM HERITABILITY STUDIES
EVIDENCE FROM BIOLOGICAL CORRELATES
EVIDENCE FROM CONTINUALITY AND STABILITY OF TEMPERAMENT
EVIDENCE FROM CROSS-CULTURAL STUDIES
 
Three - VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY IN TEMPERAMENT ASSESSMENT
 
CONSIDERATIONS IN ASSESSMENT METHODS
STANDARDS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING
 
Four - INTERPRETING TEMPERAMENT MEASURES
 
TRAITS VERSUS STATES AND STABILITY OF TEMPERAMENT
INTERPRETING CONTINUOUS VERSUS DICHOTOMOUS VARIABLES
BEST PRACTICES IN MULTI-FACETED ASSESSMENT
 
Five - STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF TEMPERAMENT ASSESSMENT
 
TEMPERAMENT MEASUREMENT AS A STRENGTHS-BASED ASSESSMENT METHOD
UNDERSTANDING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NON-PATHOLOGICAL LANGUAGE
MALLEABILITY OF TEMPERAMENT QUALITIES
 
Six - CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF TEMPERAMENT ASSESSMENT
 
APPLICATIONS IN PEDAGOGY
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODEL (Rtl)
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION—IMPLICATIONS FOR USE OF TEMPERAMENT ASSESSMENT
APPLICATIONS IN COUNSELING
CAREER COUNSELING AND BUSINESS
LIMITATIONS
 
Seven - ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS
 
EVALUATION REPORTS—EARLY CHILDHOOD SAMPLES
EVALUATION REPORTS: ADOLESCENTS
EVALUATION RESULTS
EVALUATION REPORT—ADULT SAMPLE
Appendix - Definitions of Temperament Terms
References
Annotated Bibliography
Index
About the Author

List of Tables
 
Table 3.1 Select Temperament Measures

001
002

Essentials of Psychological Assessment Series
Series Editors, Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman
 
Essentials of 16 PF® Assessment
by Heather E.-P. Cattell and James M. Schuerger
 
Essentials of Assessment Report Writing
by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Nancy Mather, Nadeen L.
Kaufman, and Alan S. Kaufman
 
Essentials of Assessment with Brief Intelligence Tests
by Susan R. Homack and Cecil R. Reynolds
 
Essentials of Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II Assessment
by Maureen M. Black and Kathleen Matula
 
Essentials of Behavioral Assessment
by Michael C. Ramsay, Cecil R. Reynolds, and R. W. Kamphaus
 
Essentials of Career Interest Assessment
by Jeffrey P. Prince and Lisa J. Heiser
 
Essentials of CAS Assessment
by Jack A. Naglieri
 
Essentials of Cognitive Assessment with KAIT and Other Kaufman Measures
by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Debra Broadbooks, and Alan S. Kaufman
 
Essentials of Conners Behavior Assessments™
by Elizabeth P. Sparrow
 
Essentials of Creativity Assessment
by James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, and John Baer
 
Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, Second Edition
by Dawn P. Flanagan, Samuel O. Ortiz, and Vincent C. Alfonso
 
Essentials of DAS-II® Assessment
by Ron Dumont, John O. Willis, and Colin D. Elliot
 
Essentials of Evidence-Based Academic Interventions
by Barbara J. Wendling and Nancy Mather
 
Essentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment, Second Edition
by Marc J. Ackerman
 
Essentials of Individual Achievement Assessment
by Douglas K. Smith
 
Essentials of KABC-II Assessment
by Alan S. Kaufman, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, and Nadeen L. Kaufman
Essentials of MillonInventories Assessment, Third Edition
by Stephen Strack
 
Essentials of MMPI-A™ Assessment
by Robert P. Archer and Radhika Krishnamurthy
 
Essentials of MMPI-2 ™ Assessment
by David S. Nichols
 
Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ® Assessment, Second Edition
by Naomi Quenk
 
Essentials of NEPSY®-II Assessment
by Sally L. Kemp and Marit Korkman
 
Essentials of Neuropsychological Assessment, Second Edition
by Nancy Hebben and William Milberg
 
Essentials of Nonverbal Assessment
by Steve McCallum, Bruce Bracken, and John Wasserman
 
Essentials of PAI ® Assessment
by Leslie C. Morey
 
Essentials of Processing Assessment
by Milton J. Dehn
 
Essentials of Response to Intervention
by Amanda M. VanDerHeyden and Matthew K. Burns
 
Essentials of Rorschach® Assessment
by Tara Rose, Nancy Kaser-Boyd, and Michael P. Maloney
 
Essentials of School Neuropsychological Assessment
by Daniel C. Miller
 
Essentials of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) Assessment
by Gale H. Roid and R. Andrew Barram
 
Essentials of TAT and Other Storytelling Assessments, Second Edition
by Hedwig Teglasi
 
Essentials of Temperament Assessment
by Diana Joyce
 
Essentials of WAIS ®-IV Assessment
by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Alan S. Kaufman
 
Essentials of WIAT ®-III and KTEA-II Assessment
by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Kristina C. Breaux
 
Essentials of WISC-III ®and WPPSI-R ®Assessment
by Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger
 
Essentials of WISC ®-IV Assessment, Second Edition
by Dawn P. Flanagan and Alan S. Kaufman
 
Essentials of WJ III™ Cognitive Abilities Assessment
by Fredrick A. Schrank, Dawn P. Flanagan, Richard W. Woodcock, and Jennifer T. Mascolo
 
Essentials of WJ III™ Tests of Achievement Assessment
by Nancy Mather, Barbara J. Wendling, and Richard W. Woodcock
 
Essentials of WMS®-III Assessment
by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Alan S. Kaufman, and Zona C. Lai
 
Essentials of WNV™ Assessment
by Kimberly A. Brunnert, Jack A. Naglieri, and Steven T. Hardy-Braz
 
Essentials of WPPSI ™-III Assessment
by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Alan S. Kaufman
 
Essentials of WRAML2 and TOMAL-2 Assessment
by Wayne Adams and Cecil R. Reynolds

003

To Dawn Sherie Grove, my daughter,
who provides boundless inspiration
through her visionary temperament qualities (ENTJ).

Series Preface
 
 
 
 
In the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, we have attempted to provide the reader with books that will deliver key practical information in the most efficient and accessible style. The series features instruments in a variety of domains, such as cognition, personality, education, and neuropsychology. For the experienced clinician, books in the series offer a concise, yet thorough way to master utilization of the continuously evolving supply of new and revised instruments, as well as a convenient method for keeping up to date on the tried-and-true measures. The novice will find here a prioritized assembly of all the information and techniques that must be at one’s fingertips to begin the complicated process of individual psychological diagnosis.
Wherever feasible, visual shortcuts to highlight key points are utilized alongside systematic, step-by-step guidelines. Chapters are focused and succinct. Topics are targeted for an easy understanding of the essentials of, interpretation and clinical application. Theory and research are continually woven into the fabric of each book, but always to enhance clinical inference, never to sidetrack or overwhelm. We have long been advocates of “intelligent” testing—the notion that a profile of test scores is meaningless unless it is brought to life by the clinical observations and astute detective work of knowledgeable examiners. Test profiles must be used to make a difference in the child’s or adult’s life, or why bother to test? We want this series to help our readers become the best intelligent testers they can be.
In Essentials of Temperament Assessment, Dr. Diana Joyce reviews the theoretical foundations of temperament constructs as well as the assessment instruments designed to measure those qualities. Considerations in selecting evaluation methods and tests are reviewed. The book also highlights features and discusses interpretation strategies for a wide range of temperament measures from infancy through adulthood. Clinicians will find the sample reports to be of special value as they illustrate numerous practical applications for utilizing temperament data in pedagogy, counseling, and professional development.
 
Alan S. Kaufman, PhD, and Nadeen L. Kaufman, EdD, Series Editors
Yale University School of Medicine

Acknowledgments
 
 
 
 
The theoretical foundation and clinical expertise required for our profession are an invaluable gift from past and present visionaries who have dedicated their lives to understanding others. These brilliant minds, and their legacy of scholarship, make this text and line of inquiry possible. I am especially appreciative to Thomas Oakland, who first introduced me to the topic of temperament and has provided countless professional insights over the years. His quest to understand temperament across gender, ethnicity, and cultures beyond our national boundaries is admirable. It also has been my pleasure to work with Isabel Pratt, editor, Susan Moran, senior production editor, Kara Borbely, senior editorial assistant, and Stevie Belchak, editorial assistant, at John Wiley & Sons, as well as the Series Editors Alan and Nadeen Kaufman. Their comments, suggestions, positive regard, and expertise are greatly appreciated.
I am grateful to my family of extroverts who always understood and appreciated my introverted qualities and shared my judging characteristics that required organization. Thank you, Don & Carol Joyce, Buddy & Phyllis Joyce, Wanda & Dan Yadon, and Allen & Lisa Joyce.

One
OVERVIEW OF TEMPERAMENT THEORY
 
 
 
 
Interest in temperament as an explanation for the nature of personal characteristics is long-standing, even pre-dating the formal discipline of psychology. Ancient scholars, philosophers, and historians first postulated temperament explanations for behavioral patterns they had observed across humanity. Classic Greek writings often linked their behavioral observations with intriguing and primitive speculations regarding internal functions of the human body (Galen, trans. 1916; trans. 1992). Temperament terminology included descriptions of dispositions, humors, moods, and tempers. These descriptions ascribed combinations of moral character, personality, and sometimes disparaging assumptions about individuals to physiological attributes.
During the Middle Ages, literature on temperament was less prominent. However, mental health hospital treatment for some of the pathology symptoms (e.g., depression, cycling moods) linked to original temperament theory appeared as early as the eighth century. Those treatment facilities are mentioned in medieval Islamic medical records, with one of the first mental health hospital units reportedly located in Baghdad ( Syed, 2002 ). Physicians were trained in the early Greek temperament philosophies of Hippocrates and Galen, as well as others, and embraced humane treatment practices for mental health symptoms. Clinical training included an emphasis on identifying many of the physical characteristics that Greek literature had associated with temperaments (e.g., yellow jaundiced skin, melancholy) as well as clinical observation of behavior. Medical diagnosis and treatment for perceived emotional illnesses within hospitals later emerged in Persia during the 11th century ( Syed, 2002 ) and in Europe during the 13th century ( Shorter, 1997 ).
In the 1600s, with the advent of the pre-modern period, governments in Europe began systemically establishing public hospitals and often included physicians who treated mental health illnesses ( Shorter, 1997 ). Unfortunately, many early institutions lacked effective or dignified treatment for mental health issues and engaged in a variety of ill-conceived and sometimes punitive treatments. Medicine, including surgery, could be practiced without formal education, competency exams, or licensure by a variety of persons, including barbers ( Fu, 1998 ). These practices resulted in poor outcomes and often patients were institutionalized for a lifetime. Interpretations of temperament and other mental health or personality qualities were left to laypersons and self-proclaimed healers. This period in European history is noted to have lacked enlightenment on understanding human behaviors related to personality or mental health and yielded few major philosophical or scientific advancements in treatment. However, the continued prominence of temperament ideas in identifying human behavior patterns for everyday life is evident through the popular culture of that era. Temperament prototypes were the inspiration for both protagonists in literature and playwrights’ characters in many theatrical works. For example, several of Shakespeare’s (1564/1616) manuscripts depicted Galen’s four humors; Hamlet as the melancholy prince, Sir John Falstaff as the phlegmatic knight, Lady Macbeth as the choleric villainess, and Viola as the sanguine heroine ( Fahey, 2008).
Reform in the 1700s encouraged physicians to seek better methods of understanding and treating mental health symptoms. The term psychiatry originated with Johann Christina Reil in 1808, and the medical specialization in mental health treatment became firmly established across Europe at that time ( Marneros, 2008). The institutionalization of public service hospitals marks a critical juncture in psychology, as many were associated with university training centers. This alignment fostered renewed study of psychological concepts accompanied by rigorous training standards for practice. From the late 1800s to the 1920s the number of mental health patients in Europe grew exponentially. By the early 1900s, asylums also had emerged in the United States with thousands of patients and an expanding interest in psychological theories and effective treatments ( Shorter, 1997 ).
Modern 19th and 20th century psychiatrists brought a resurgence of interest in the concept of temperament. New hypotheses reflected an emphasis on tendencies and dominant qualities. Temperament perspectives now included references to personal traits, behavioral concepts, self-regulatory factors, and motivational attributes. Today, definitions of temperament are multi-dimensional with sophisticated and more complex theory. A number of quantitative temperament measures also have emerged since the 1950s and validation of test constructs is now subject to the rigor of scientific methods. Research on temperament has evolved to include international and interdisciplinary studies, conducted across the fields of developmental and child psychology, psychiatry, and educational psychology ( Goldsmith & Rieser-Danner, 1992 ).
As with many psychological premises, consensus on a definition for temperament is still evolving. There are variations in defining temperament due in part to training and dominant psychological perspectives of the individual theorists (e.g., psychoanalytic, developmental, behavioral, or biological). However, the metamorphosis of theories has lead to commonly accepted agreement on several important factors. First, temperament has a biological basis and individual differences are evident early in life ( Bates, Wachs, & Emde, 1994). Secondly, these predispositions are relatively stable while also influenced by environmental factors (Goldsmith & Rieser-Danner, 1986; Chess & Thomas & Chess, 1984, 1986). Thirdly, temperament is perceived as bidirectional as specific attributes can elicit particular responses from others (Chess & Thomas, 1984, 1986; Thomas & Chess, 1977, 1989). Temperament also is perceived as somewhat malleable as personal behavioral choices can be altered based on an understanding of one’s own temperament qualities ( Myers & Myers, 1980; Oakland, Glutting, & Horton, 1996; Tegalsi, 1998). Lastly, temperament is related to but not synonymous with personality. It may in fact, shape the early foundations for later development of personality based on one’s temperament-related propensities (Costa & McCrae, 2001; McCrae et al., 2000). Kagan and Snidman (2004, p. 218-219) describe temperament as a possible biologically based reactivity sequence on an individual’s quality of mood, through a series of physiological responses (e.g., circuitry between heart, blood vessels, muscles, amygdale, and prefrontal cortex). A person experiences these responses holistically creating a feeling tone or quality of mood that if mild elicits interpretation such as fatigue but if aversive provokes “an emotion, that in our culture, invites an interpretation of a personal flaw.”
In addition to the areas of agreement regarding temperament, there also are a number of divergent perspectives. Major points of disagreement include the extent to which temperament is heritable, biologically based, or malleable, which has implications for the efficacy of influencing temperament through educational or therapy approaches. The boundaries between definitions of personality and temperament also are sometimes nebulous or overlapping, which makes distinguishing components for measurement challenging. In addition, there are numerous proposals as to which specific components comprise temperament dimensions (Goldsmith et al., 1987). A review of all the proposed temperament qualities is beyond the scope of this text. In fact, Goldberg (1982) proposed over 900 elements that could be included in his conceptualization of temperament. The next section will review several predominant theories. Broad definitions of temperament as compared to personality are provided in Rapid Reference 1.1.
Rapid Reference 1.1
Comparing Definitions: Personality Versus Temperament
Personality
Personality is defi ned as, “enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself that are exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 686). “Personality is the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual. Personality is a global concept that includes all those characteristics that make every person an individual, different from every other person. Personality is not static; it is developed over the years and is always in the process of becoming” (Rice, 1992, p. 228).
Temperament
“Temperament refers to the characteristic phenomena of an individual’s emotional nature, including his susceptibility to emotional stimulation, his customary strength and speed of response, the quality of his prevailing mood, and all the peculiarities of fl uctuation and intensity of mood, these phenomena being regarded as dependent upon constitutional make-up and therefore largely hereditary in origin” (Allport, 1961, p. 34).
We (Buss and Plomin) “defi ne temperament as a set of inherited personality traits that appear early in life. Thus, there are two defi ning characteristics. First, the traits are genetic in origin, like other psychological dispositions that are inherited (e.g., intelligence). Second traits appear in infancy—more specifi - cally, during the fi rst year of life—which distinguishes temperament from other groups of personality traits, both inherited and acquired” (Goldsmith et al., 1987, p. 508).
We (Thomas and Chess) “conceptualize temperament as the stylistic component of behavior—that is, the how of behavior as differentiated from motivation, the why of behavior, and abilities, the what of behavior. A group of individuals—children and adults—may have the same motivation and a similar level of ability for a particular task or social activity. But they may differ markedly as to how they perform in terms of their motor activity, their intensity and quality of mood expression, their ease of adaptability, their persistence, or their degree of distractibility in the process of functioning. These later characteristics, among others, would represent components of temperament” (Goldsmith et al., 1987, p. 508).
Contrasting Definitions of Personality and Temperament
Personality refers to a wide variety of personal qualities, demeanor characteristics including social appeal and expressive energy, traits, cognitive attributions, emotional response patterns, behaviors, and temperament that together form a unique constellation recognized by others as the individual’s persona. However, any of these factors separately also can be identifi ed as personality variables common to many persons. It is the unique combination and degree of expression of personality traits that is specifi c to the individual rather than the actual traits. The temperament components of personality are considered predispositions with a stronger biological basis than personality traits, are developmentally evident earlier, and are less mediated by environmental infl uences. However, temperament theory does acknowledge the reciprocal nature of biological and environmental influences as well as the brain’s plasticity in generating or sustaining neural connections that can shift temperament qualities over time. Temperament may be conceptualized as a foundational substrate for the subsequent development of personality through its effect on response instincts and thus the self-selection of environmental experiences (e.g., personal interactions, activities) that will further strengthen or diminish predispositions.

CLASSIC TO MODERN HISTORY OF TEMPERAMENT THEORY

A review of the development of temperament theory can provide further insights into the concepts that form the foundations for current research and assessment instruments. The earliest known writings on temperament date to the work of Hippocrates (460-370 B.C.) and Plato (427-347 B.C.). The influence of this work is again evident several years later in the orations of Plato’s student, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). As philosophers who melded their viewpoints from the science, literature, early medicine, and politics of their era, they often made broad conclusions that paired temperament with other attributes. As an example, in his writings, Aristotle paired melancholy temperament with genius, noting that men of greatness were always by nature melancholy (Akiskal & Akiskal, 2007).
Hippocrates was a physician who conceptualized the body as having four critical fluids (i.e., phlegm, blood, yellow bile, and black bile ) that moderated health and wellness. The four components could result in both positive and negative effects. However, this was dependent on maintaining the appropriate balance within the human body. Hippocrates perceived an imbalance, excess or shortage of one of the four fluids would result in a variety of physical and/or behavioral symptoms (Hippocrates, trans. 1939; 1988; 1994).
Nearly 500 years later, Galen ( 130-200 A.D.), also a physician, further delineated Hippocrates’ concept of four humors as physical and emotional characteristics of four temperaments, he called choleric, phlegmatic, melancholic, and sanguine (Galen, trans. 1992; Hergenhahn, 2001; Hippocrates, trans. 1939). Individuals were considered fools and choleric if they were irascible exhibiting irritability, quick tempered, easily angered, and readily changed moods. The phlegmatic temperament was denoted as slow, lethargic, pale, weak, mild-mannered, and prone to fantasy as well as somatic complaints (e.g., gas, epilepsy). Extreme happiness, malaise, sadness or depression was deemed a melancholic temperament. The fourth temperament, sanguine, was described as being a gracious speaker, loving, hairy, and optimistic (Galen, trans. 1992; Hergenhahn, 2001).
Interest in temperament theory again piqued at the beginning of the 20th century with the advent of psychiatry as a profession. In 1921, three influential psychiatrists, from the psychoanalytic tradition, each published theories of temperament based on their clinical observations of patients and interpretations of behavioral patterns. These theorists included Ernst Kretschmer (1888-1964), Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922), and Carl Jung (1875-1963). Ernst Kretschmer’s theory of temperament was titled Physique and Character (i.e., Körperbau und Charakter). His early work linked temperament with physical attributes, as Hippocrates and Galen had. Kretschmer proposed three body types; thin ( i.e., asthenic ), athletic ( later combined with asthenic and called asthenic/ leptosomic ) or overweight (i.e., pyknic) and delineated associated traits as well as potential psychopathologies. He attributed friendliness and gregarious personality traits to overweight persons with a propensity toward manic-depressive illness for those who were obese. Introversion and a timid demeanor were associated with the thin or athletic body type and if pathology were present it manifested similar to the negative symptoms of schizophrenia (Kretschmer, 1936; Pedrosa-Gil, Weber, & Burgmair, 2002). Ernest’s theory did not garner wide acceptance, although a variation by William Sheldon (1898-1977) appeared in the 1940s. Sheldon (1940, 1954) adapted Kretschmer’s three body physique type theory, arguing for three somatotypes that he termed Endomorphy, Mesophorphy, and Ectomorphy. Each somatotype was named by its perceived relationship to one of the three embryonic cell layers that later evolve to support specific body systems (i.e., endoderm or inner skin supporting digestive functions, mesoderm or middle skin the precursor to muscle and circulatory system development, and ectoderm or outer layer contributing to nervous system development). The Endomorphic (endoderm) had a soft body with a rounded shape and underdeveloped muscles. Associated traits included a Viscerotonia temperament that loves food and comfort, is tolerant, displays even emotions, is sociable, and has a good sense of humor. The Mesomorphic (mesoderm) body was toned, muscular, and overly mature with good posture. Their temperament qualities (Somatotonia) were described as adventurous with a desire for power and dominance, courageous, and competitive. The last type, Ectomorphic (ectoderm) was described as thin, delicate, tall, and stoop-shouldered. The Ectomorph was considered to have Cerebrotonia temperament qualities including sensitivity, introversion, self-consciousness, and emotional restraint with a propensity for artistic ability. Sheldon (1954) tried to create a systematic approach to measuring male body types that he titled the Atlas of Men; however, his system and theory lacked wide acceptance. Over time, interest in body types as a marker for temperament waned, whereas endorsement for psychological types in temperament flourished.
Both Rorschach (i.e., Psychodiagnostik) and Jung (i.e., Psychological Typen) published manuscripts on temperament that included the concepts of introversion and extroversion. Rorschach, although disavowing any endorsement or similarity to Jung’s ideas, claimed he could provide an objective measurement of introversion and extroversion (Wehr, 1971). Prior to this assertion, temperament qualities were attributed to patients based solely on interviews, observations, and the clinical judgment of the psychiatrist. Rorschach’s test was one of the first attempts at measurement of temperament. However, studies of the instrument as an assessment of introversion-extroversion were not supported ( Brawer & Spiegelman, 1964).

PSYCHOLOGICAL TEMPERAMENT TYPES

Throughout the 21st century, several temperament theories and subsequent measures were developed based on a dichotomous conceptualization of temperament. These theories proposed a variety of dimensions that measured opposing qualities and resulted in ascribing typologies or categorical distinctions. Measures typically include forced choice items for two contrasting characteristics on each dimension and yield scores that vary from a mild to strong preference for one of the two qualities. The scores place individuals within a category and the overarching combination of preferred categories result in a typology that is considered as the best level of interpretation rather than the continuous score.

Carl Jung’s Theory of Temperament

Carl Jung’s theory of temperament evolved from his clinical practice in a Zurich psychiatric hospital and observation of patients. After a number of years of collecting notes on his patients’ behaviors, he perceived reoccurring patterns of personal qualities that correlated with particular psychopathology or adjustment problems. His writings discussed how extroversion patients more frequently experienced aggressive or outwardly demonstrative behaviors ( Jung, 1921/1971). In patients with hysteria, despite their emotional state, they maintained awareness of the external environment and interacted with the therapist, thus were considered extroversion. In patients with schizophrenia, Jung thought introversion was dominant as they withdrew from the world around them (Storr, 1991). Jung (1915/1954, 1920/1926, 1930/1933, 1928/1945, 1943/1953, 1954/1967, 1921/1971) mentions the historical underpinnings of his theory as associated with the early ideas from Hippocrates, Galen, Ostwald, and others. However, he differentiated his temperament theory as a psychological typology.
The foundation of Jung’s temperament concepts are based on two attitudes, introversion and extroversion and four psychological functions (see Rapid Reference 1.3). An attitude is described as “the psyche to act or react in a certain way” ( Jung, 1921/1971, p. 414). Jung did not characterize patients as unidimensional or only capable of exhibiting just introversion or extroversion in their behavior. He postulated that each individual possesses the ability to both introvert and extrovert; however, the individual has acquired a propensity to exhibit one of the attitudes over the other ( Jung, 1921/1971; Storr, 1991). As this attitude is preferred, it is utilized more often, and thus becomes increasingly more skilled than the other attitude. He noted, “There is no such thing as a pure extrovert or a pure introvert . . . those are only terms to designate a certain punction, a certain tendency” (Evans, Leppman, & Bergene, 1968). Jung also was careful to explain these qualities without judgment, noting introversion and extroversion qualities may be expressed in positive or negative behaviors depending on the personality and disposition of the individual (Wehr, 1971). Introversion and extroversion also can be conceptualized along a continuum in addition to categorically. Individuals may vary from strongly introverted to slightly introverted or from strongly extroversion to slightly extroversion.
Introverts are interested more in their own thoughts and their inner world of feelings. Thus they may shrink away from interest in others or objects. They acquire energy from within, prefer solitude or small groups, are introspective, hesitant in new circumstances, and prone to making decisions cautiously. Extroverts are more attuned to the environment. They are outgoing, foster attachments quickly, and have concern regarding others’ expectations ( Jung, 1921/1971; Wehr, 1971).
Jung’s temperament theory of psychological type also identified two additional dichotomies that created four psychological functions: sensation-intuition and thinking-feeling ( Jung, 1921/1971). Each of the functions may be exhibited in an extroversion or introverted manner. Within each dichotomy, one function was described as well developed and used on a conscious level while the alternate function is not well developed or used on a conscious level ( Jung, 1920/1926). Therefore, only one opposing function (e.g., thinking or feeling and sensation or intuition) can be operating on a conscious level at any particular time.
In describing the two functions responsible for how one prefers to acquire or assess information, Jung labeled the dimensions “sensation” and “intuition.” He also conceptualized these as opposing styles. He wrote, “Sensation is just as antagonistic to intuition as thinking is to feeling” ( Jung, 1930/1933, p. 106). The dichotomy of sensation and intuition are considered irrational decision-making styles ( Jung, 1921/1971). Intuition is a quick and holistic manner of assimilating information that gleans insight from experiences and unconscious perceptions. Intuition can infer meaning from perceptions of nebulous ideas, broad theories, and patterns with lesser attention to details or facts. Jung noted, “In intuitives a context presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this context came into existence” ( Jung, 1921/1971, p. 453). In contrast, sensation function prefers direct experience, facts, and physical evidence. It is concerned with external stimuli (i.e., acquired through the five senses). Real-life experience is more dominant and sensation is a conscious perception.
Thinking and feeling were defined as rational functions ( Jung, 1921/1971) for decision making. Persons using the thinking function carefully deliberate their decisions with a preference for utilizing facts, logic, and objective data. They most value broad principles of justice and truth when pondering judgments. Feeling is a more subjective process that makes decisions based on a personal values system (e.g., empathy, well-being of others). This value creates a sense of liking, disliking, or overall mood that may incorporate experience and leads to accepting or rejecting a choice. “Feeling is a kind of judgment, differing from intellectual judgment in that its aim is not to establish conceptual relations but to set up a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection” ( Jung, 1921/1971, p. 434). Because the laws of reason are used in establishing subjective value, Jung (1921/1971) noted that feeling is a rational quality. Depending on the pairing of combinations of temperament components, an individual could be one of eight temperament types. Jung considered four of these types to be rational and four to be irrational.

Jung’s Rational Types

Extroversion-thinking, introverted-thinking, extroversion-feeling, and introverted-feeling were considered to be rational types. In describing his ideas, Jung made comparisons to influential personalities of his era. He considered Charles Darwin, with his emphasis on scientific evidence and fact, to be an example of the extroversion-thinking type. Immanuel Kant, with his emphasis on subjective reality and rationalist philosophy, was provided as an example of the introverted-thinking type. Both are strongly influenced by ideas, but the extroversion-thinking type is interested in objective data and will follow ideas externally. The introverted-thinking type is influenced by subjective ideas and will ponder those inwardly ( Jung, 1921/1971). Jung considered the extroversion-feeling and introverted-feeling types to be found most commonly among women. Later research would confirm this hypothesis (see Chapter Two). These types are guided by a personal value system comprised of subjective feelings and place strong value on harmony.

Jung’s Irrational Types

Jung’s four irrational types are (a) extroversion-intuitive, ( b) introverted-intuitive, (c) extroversion-sensing, and (d) introverted-sensing. His caricature of an introverted-intuitive type is that of a person who is a solitary dreamer or artist and engages in mystic ponderings. His description of the extroversion-intuitive is one of marked dependence on the external, seeking new possibilities. Each is strongly influenced by subjective factors and ideas. In contrast, the extroversion-sensing seeks external facts, concrete objects, and reality while the introverted-sensing studies or ponders such evidence.
DON’T FORGET
Carl Jung’s Rational and Irrational Types
Carl Jung’s rational and irrational types can be either introverted or extroversion. The distinguishing dimensions were thinking or feeling to be considered a rational type and sensation or intuition for irrational types.
Rational Types Jung’s Irrational Types
Extroversion - ThinkingExtroversion - Sensation
Extroversion - FeelingExtroversion - Intuition
Introver ted - ThinkingIntroverted - Sensation
Introver ted - FeelingIntrover ted - Intuition

Jung’s Falsification of Type

In conjunction with his theory of psychological types, Jung described a phenomenon he called falsification of type. He suggested that the best psychological health is promoted when persons can express and be recognized for their natural preferences and external forces do not dictate behaviors contrary to these preferences. Jung noted that persons who could utilize both qualities of a dimension when appropriate while maintaining their own personal strengths were best adjusted. As an example, if the work demands of an individual who may be introverted are consistent with introverted tasks, he or she is more likely to be successful, especially if the individual could extrovert when required for social situations. However, if an introverted person was constantly required to function in extroversion ways at work (e.g., high demand for public speaking engagements) or other social obligations, this becomes exhausting and soon the negative effects of relentless stress ensue ( Jung, 1921/1971).
Jung’s ideas on temperament were only one portion of his life’s work that also included analytical therapy techniques. There are several institutes that continue that work today (i.e., C.G. Jung Institute of New York, http://www.junginstitute.org) in the United States. His temperament theory enjoyed a significant period of acclaim following its publication in the 1920s and became the foundation for development of several current temperament and personality measures.

Myers and Briggs Theory of Temperament

At the same time that Jung had published his Psychological Types, Katharine C. Briggs (1875-1968) was endeavoring to identify common personality factors for highly accomplished individuals through extensive reviews of biographies. She became intrigued with Jung’s work adding a fourth dimension, judging and perceiving (see Rapid Reference 1.3). Judging or perceiving were concepts to describe how individuals structure their lives as related to the outside world ( Myers & Myers, 1980). Persons with a judging orientation prefer a self-regimented lifestyle, routinely engage in planning, are organized, prefer schedules, and seek closure on projects and tasks. Persons with a perceiving orientation prefer spontaneity, keeping options open, and are often highly tolerant, curious, and readily adaptive ( Myers & Myers, 1980).
In the summer of 1942, Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs-Myers (1896- 1980) began developing test items for an instrument to measure Jung’s psychological types. Subsequently, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) was published in 1962 ( Myers & Myers, 1980). The MBTI combines Jung’s three temperament dimensions and adds Briggs’s fourth dimension to yield interpretations for 16 types (see Rapid Reference 1.2). Each of the 16 types can be interpreted holistically or within a more complex and sophisticated understanding of which dimensions are dominant, auxiliary, or tertiary. Detailed guidelines for administration, scoring, and interpretation of the MBTI are available in the Essentials of Myers-Brig gs Type Indicator Assessment, Second Edition (Quenk, 2009).
Katherine Briggs’s partnership with her daughter Isabel continued throughout her lifetime, initiating decades of research on the utility of the MBTI. Unlike some measures of personality, they conceptualized the MBTI as primarily a method for understanding others differences rather than an instrument to measure pathology. They intended for the MBTI to help “parents, teachers, students, counselors, clinicians, clergy, and all others who are concerned with the realization of human potential” ( Myers & Myers, 1980, p. xiii). The concepts of Jungian and Myers/Briggs temperament typology are now widely recognized, even appearing in a variety of secular media from George Balanchine’s ballet The Four Temperaments, to television series such as Northern Exposure, and endorsements by Dr. Niles Crane’s character in the sitcom series Fraser. Thus, whether through historical theatre of Shakespeare or modern technology media, our muses continue to recognize temperament qualities in everyday life and imbue those traits upon their characters.
Rapid Reference 1.2
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Psychological Types
005
The MBTI measure is utilized among a variety of psychologists (e.g., clinical, rehabilitation), as well as counselors, social workers, and other mental health providers. Today industrial/organizational (IO) psychologists also incorporate the measure into a variety of career assessments, employee training, and team-building programs for numerous Fortune 500 companies. In fact, the MBTI is reported by its publisher, Consulting Psychologists Press (CPP), to be the most widely administered personality assessment in the world with distribution of over two million copies annually. Sample reports are available online (https://www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.aspx).
The Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT ) was founded by Isabel Briggs-Myers and Mary H. McCaulley in 1975. It is currently located in Gainesville, Florida, and offers online bibliography searches for over 10,000 MBTI entries, sample reports, web-based MBTI test administration, as well as subscription to the Journal of Psychological Type (http://www.capt.org/about-capt/home.htm).
Rapid Reference 1.3
Jungian and Myers-Briggs Dichotomies
 
Energy Orientation (Attitudes)
Extroversion (E)
Renew energy from external or outer world of people and objects, outgoing, foster attachments quickly, share ideas readily
Introversion (I)
Renew energy from inner world of thoughts and introspection, prefer solitude or small groups, self-refl ection
 
Perception or Learning Processes (Functions)
Sensing (S)
Acquire information from five senses; real-life, concrete experiences dominate; practical, realistic, pragmatic, detail oriented
Intuition (N)
Holistic assimilation of information; value insight, ideas, theories, interest in patterns with lesser attention to details
 
Decision-Making Process (Functions)
Thinking (T)
Deliberate decisions based on facts, logic, objective data; emphasize principles of justice and truth in decision, seek fairness
Feeling (F)
Decisions made with emphasis on subjective values such as empathy and well-being of others, seek harmony
 
Environment or Lifestyle Orientation (Attitudes)
Judging (J)
Prefer structure in daily interactions with outer world ; like routines, organization, schedules, planning ahead; seek closure on projects
Perceiving (P)
Prefer to approach the outer world in a spontaneous and flexible manner, tolerant, adaptive, like to keep options open

Keirsey Theory of Temperament

In the 1970s, David West Keirsey (born 1921), an educational psychologist and eventually chair of the California State University, Fullerton, Counseling Department, published a text providing a short, self-scoring, temperament measure, The Keirsey Temperament Sorter. The instrument yielded the MBTI 16 types (Keirsey & Bates, 1978). However, he argued for a modified interpretation of the original Jung-Briggs-Myers temperament model that groups the 16 types into four clusters for interpretation. Keirsey (1998, p. 15, 18) noted this structure was suggested by Myers and better reflected what Keirsey perceives as a four-type theoretical construct based on the work of multiple theorists (i.e., Ernst Kretschmer, Eduard Spranger, Eric Adickes, and Eric Fromm). Although he acknowledges each of the four temperaments within a cluster have differences, the overarching similarities are considered more important and definitive. In fact, Keirsey and Bates proposed that, “the real usefulness of the types comes not in memorizing the sixteen portraits, but in understanding the temperamental base of the types” endorsing Hippocrates’ idea that four core types exist (Keirsey & Bates, 1978, p. 26). The styles were described figuratively as similar to the characteristics manifest by four Greek mythology entities: Dionysus, Prometheus, Epimetheus, and Apollo. The four clusters included sensing-judging, sensing-perceiving, intuition-thinking, and intuition-feeling. Over the next 20 years, Keirsey (1998) refined his temperament theory and published the revised Keirsey Temperament Sorter®-II ( p. 4-11) as well as a shorter version, the Keirsey Four-Types Sorter ( p. 348-350). His current model often is utilized in business and there is a modified self-administered short version available online (http://www.keirsey.com). The new model also ascribes new names to the four categories: Artisan, Guardian, Rational, and Idealist (see Rapid Reference 1.4). These are consistent with Plato’s original four temperament types and based more on individuals’ function within society. The names help facilitate understanding of the temperament profiles for laypersons that have little or no theoretical knowledge of temperament theory.
When referenced within this model (Keirsey, 1978, 1998), those with sensing-perceiving preferences are characterized as artistic, athletic, easy-going, tolerant, open-minded, adaptable, and persuasive. They enjoy exploring new experiences, discovery, and have a strong play ethic and need for freedom. The sensing-judging temperament is characterized as dutiful, responsible, conservative, stable, patient, dependable, and highly productive with a strong work ethic. They need a sense of belonging and traditions, thus are often caregivers. They thrive in well-defined roles, routine, and prefer to learn in a sequential manner. The intuition-thinking temperament is described as rational, analytical, systematic, curious, scientific, and research-oriented. They have a strong drive for success, competency, high standards and achievement. They also can be inquisitive, perfectionistic, and at times compulsive. They tend to emphasize work before recreation and even carry over their achievement drive to hobbies or leisure activities (e.g., self-imposed golfing expertise). The intuitive-feeling temperament is friendly, sympathetic, insightful, creative, intuitive, caring, and attuned to the needs of others. Their core value is personal integrity and self-actualization. They are often quite passionate about social causes and the impact of actions on humanity. Keirsey and Bates also make reference to the effects of temperament as observed in children, marriage compatibility, and note frequency patterns of particular temperaments by career.
Rapid Reference 1.4
Keirsey Temperament Sorter Types (1978 & 1998)
006

TEMPERAMENT THEORY EMBEDDED IN BROAD PERSONALITY MEASURES

In addition to unitary measures of temperament, there are many well-established personality instruments that incorporate one or more dimensions from temperament theory. Dimensional approaches provide continuous measures that can be interpreted as the strength of a characteristic. Although personality instruments are not the core topic of this text, a brief discussion of some major instruments is provided. There are evaluations, especially if pathology is suspected, where including these measures as a supplement to traditional temperament measures can provide additional insight. These measures differ from the temperament measures discussed thus far in a number of ways. First, many are considered atheoretical as the inclusion of items and scales was first determined based on empirical statistical methods rather than preconceived philosophical constructs. Secondly, they measure a broader spectrum of personal traits than temperament measures do. In addition, they often include characteristics noted as symptoms of pathology and are utilized in mental health diagnoses based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM ) criteria. They may also provide support for treatment planning. The instruments typically yield continuous scores rather than categorical, and this facilitates comparisons of particular traits to clinical populations as well as evidence of improvement for treatment outcomes.
In the early 1930s, at about the same time that Freud (1856-1939) and Jung (1875-1961) were establishing their concepts of temperament within psycho-dynamic perspectives, others were exploring new quantitative methods for the study of personality. Two key developments of this era were the catalyst for several advances in personality theory, statistical analysis methods, and the lexical hypothesis premise. Sir Francis Galton (1809-1882), Karl Pearson (1857-1936), and Charles Spearman (1863-1945) all made significant early contributions to correlation and multivariate factor analyses techniques ( Wiggins, 2003). These strategies were originally applied to the study of intelligence and then later utilized in measuring constructs of temperament and personality. A student of Spearman, Raymond Cattell (1905-1998) embarked on a lifetime career to identify a taxonomic system for the core components of personality structure. He utilized a method originally discussed by Galton, Klages, Baumgarten, Allport, and Odbert: the lexical tradition. This method proposed that the important and obvious tenets of personality characteristics would already be evident in modern language, as over the years society would have a need to label these qualities in order to have discourse regarding them. This method is deemed by some researchers to be atheoretical, as the factor analyses determine the constructs rather than a prior theoretical proposition of characteristics. However, others argue the lexical process itself inherently assumes some theoretical assumptions about language development naturally encompassing psychological constructs and a subjective selection process when clustering terms that may be influenced by individuals’ theoretical underpinnings ( John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988).
Essentials of 16PF Assessment