October 2008 Poll - Discussion

Welcome to the discussion of results from the October 2008 Type & Politics Poll. The discussion presented here provides a more in-depth look at the results from the poll.

This section presents the following:

  • A discussion of the results concerning how political orientations were measured.
  • A discussion of the results concerning the relationship between Psychological Type and political orientations.
  • A proposed model to guide further study of the relationship between Psychological Type and political orientations.

If you would like to view the "raw results" from the poll, simply click here . (Note: A modified version of the poll has been available since the original poll "closed".   The results for some sections of the poll thus show approximately 400 additional responses.)

Click on "Next" (below) to start viewing the discussion.


Poll Overview - October 2008

Methods

The final round of the Type & Politics Poll was conducted during the last full week of October 2008--the week prior to the 2008 U.S. presidential election. An invitation to participate in the poll was e-mailed to more than 3000 members of the Association for Psychological Type. Students from two U.S. universities--one in the Southeast and one in the Midwest--also were invited to participate, as were members of the MyType group on facebook.com  The poll also was open to any visitor to the website during this time.


Participants

Five hundred and eighty-nine people completed the poll. The majority of these respondents indicated preferences for E (53%), N (77%), F (51%), and P (51%). The average age of respondents was 47 years (s.d. = 16.1) and the majority (59%) were female.

Ninety-three percent of the responses came from U.S. citizens. The political affiliations of those who indicated this information was: 52% Democrat, 25% Independent, and 19% Republican.

With respect to MBTI® experience, 65% indicated they were members (or had been members) of an APT association and 66% indicated they were MBTI® qualified. Ninety-eight percent indicated they were at least moderately confident that their reported type was their best-fit type.

Not all participants provided complete or useable data. Thus the analyses are based on sample sizes ranging from 360-370. (Many of the unuseable responses occurred on the political attitudes measures where respondents replied "Don't know" or "Haven't thought much about it.")


Political Orientations: Self-Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Political Issues

Previous versions of the Type & Politics Poll have examined liberal-conservative political orientations using the one-item question  adapted from the ANES surveys .  A primary reason for using this item has been that the item has a long and productive history in research on political orientations. Moreover, most people tend to consider political orientations along a liberal-conservative continuum (although, ironically, popular discourse often takes a typological approach as evidenced by political pundits who refer to politicians as "liberals," "conservatives," and "moderates".)

More recently, political psychologists and others have begun to frame their research in terms of two continuums : economic and social (although there are variations on this framework).  From this perspective, people may be seen, e.g., as socially liberal yet economically conservative.

A primary purpose of the final Type & Politics Poll was to investigate the relationships between psychological type and these more refined political orientations.  Further, the final poll sought to study the relationships between type and political orientations in terms of self-perceptions of of one's own political orientation as well as one's attitudes toward political issues.

Participants in the poll indicated their perceptions  of themselves as liberal or conservative using three one-item questions.  The first item was the item adapted from the ANES surveys and provided information about participants' perceptions of their liberal-conservative orientations in general.  The next two items provided information about participants' perceptions of their liberal-conservative orientations economically and socially.

Participants also provided responses to 20 questions indicating their attitudes toward specific political issues.  The 20 questions were selected to represent attitudes toward both economic and social issues. A key question, of course, concerns the extent to which these questions provided meaningful indicators of social and economic political attitudes.

The chart below shows results from a statistical (factor) analysis of responses to the 20 attitude questions as well as responses to the three political self-perception items.  Given the assumption that there is an economic dimension as well as a social dimension to political orientations, the analysis was based on a two-factor model (i.e., two factors were extracted from the data. See results here .).

 

As can be seen in the chart, the two-dimensional assumption seems valid in that questions designed to indicate economic attitudes cluster together (the "blue" clusters) and questions designed to indicate social attitudes cluster together (the "yellow" clusters).  Further, the clusters are closer to their respective axes and are located at extreme ends (and not in the center at the intersection of the axes) thus demonstrating the questions are "good" indicators of a particular set of attitudes.

The horizontal axis (Factor 2) indicates items measuring attitudes toward economic issues and the vertical axis (Factor 1) indicates items measuring attitudes toward social issues. For example, item po15 (where "po" simply stands for "political opinion") reads "The government should intervene to reduce income differences" and item po5 reads "The government should see to it that every person has a job and a good standard of living."  These items clearly indicate attitudes toward the role of government intervention in economic matters to ensure income and opportunity equality.  On the other hand, item po19 reads "Government should play a stronger role in regulating personal morality" and item po17 reads " We should be more tolerant of people who choose to live according to their own moral standards, even if they are very different from our own." These items clearly indicate attitudes toward the role of government intervention in social matters as well as general social attitudes towards morality (and thus politics). This interpretation seems further supported by the "plot" or location of participants' responses to the self-perception items. That is, the items measuring participants' self-perceptions of themselves as liberal or conservative economically (libcon_econ) and socially (libcon_social) are closer to their respective axes.  

Based on these considerations, the "best" items were selected to form summated scales to measure respondents' political attitudes toward social and economic issues.  Further statistical (reliability) analysis showed both the economic scale (results here ) and the social scale (results here ) have good reliability. The wording of each item can be found here .

A look at the correlations between the 3 self-perception items and the 2 attitude scales shows some interesting results.  First, as might be expected, the correlations between the 3 self-perception items tend to be fairly strong--self-perceptions of one's self as economically liberal-conservative and self-perceptions of one's self as socially liberal-conservative correlate strongly with the general self-perception item (r = . 77 and r = .85, respectively).  The correlation between the economic and social self-perception items also is strong (r = .53), although somewhat lower than with the general self-perception item.  This lower correlation thus provides some support for the assumption that two related dimensions are involved in one's perceived political orientation. Second, the correlations amongst the summated attitude scales and the self-perception items similarly are strong.  Again, however, the correlations are not so strong as to suggest these scores are measuring the same constructs.

The "blue" line drawn diagonally in the chart provides further insight into participants' responses. Note that this line passes through both the intersection of the two axes as well as through the plot of the general liberal-conservative self-perception item (labeled libcon_research on the chart).  Items that are plotted close to this line also should indicate attitudes toward political issues that might be considered along another liberal-conservative dimension (other than social or economic). For example, item po14 reads "The government should solve international problems by using diplomacy rather than military force."  People who agree with this statement probably would be considered liberal whereas people who disagree probably would be considered less liberal (or more conservative and maybe even neo-conservative).  The item, however, seems to reflect a third dimension of liberal-conservative attitudes, in this case attitudes dealing with foreign policy (vs. economic or social issues). Item po7 also is located close to the line and reads "The government should increase support for the U.S. military."   Again, this result suggests a foreign policy dimension to the extent that the military acts politically as an agent of foreign policy (e.g., Clausewitz's notion that "war is the continuation of Politik by other means."). Future research thus might consider adding a third "foreign policy" dimension to the economic and social dimensions considered here.

The plot of item po4 may be of interest to some readers.  The item reads " I prefer a Libertarian government."  As can be seen in the chart, the location of the item indicates respondents to this item interpreted the term libertarian uniquely as an economic issue (given the close proximity of the plot to the horizontal axis).  It should be noted, however, that a large proportion of the participants in the poll responded "Don't Know" or "Haven't Thought About It Much" to this item.

So, in summary, what do we mean by "political orientations"?  For this study (as used in the following pages), the notion of political orientations consists of five measures:

  • Liberal-Conservative Self-Perception: General (1 item)
  • Liberal-Conservative Self-Perception: Economic (1 item)
  • Liberal-Conservative Self-Perception: Social (1 item)
  • Liberal-Conservative Attitudes: Economic (1 summated scale)
  • Liberal-Conservative Attitudes: Social (1 summated scale)

Again, the items used in the summated scales are here .


Strategy for Analyzing Responses

Whole Types

The notion of using a whole-type perspective when analyzing psychological type data has become increasingly emphasized in the type community.1 This whole-type perspective encourages researchers to focus on the four-letter types (e.g., ENFP, ISTJ) as the  primary focus of research in contrast to research that focuses on the four separate preferences (e.g., E-I, S-N).  A key impetus for the whole-type perspective is the notion of synergy--that each of the 16 types is more (or less) than the sum of the individual preferences. Further, various groupings of type preferences often have been used as a way to better understand "subtypes". For example, the combination of S-N and T-F mental functions preferences produces four mental functions groupings--ST, SF, NT, and NF--that have important consequences for life activities such as career choice.

Given this emphasis on type groupings, we decided to analyze the results from the October 2008 poll by focusing on groupings that are of theoretical interest generally (e.g., the 8 Jungian Types) as well as type groupings that have been found in prior research to have some relationship to liberal-conservative political orientations (e.g.. the S-N/J-P groupings). The rationale for selecting each grouping is presented on the following respective pages prior to the discussion of results from the analysis for that grouping.

 

Multivariate Approach

We first analyzed the data using the "Multivariate" option in the General Linear Models procedures provided by SPSS 15.0.  We used the "Multivariate" option given that we have five dependent variables that correlate in varying degrees. (These five variables are discussed on the preceding page.)  This approach is used to control  for experiment-wise error rate (which simply means that the more tests that a researcher conducts, the more likely it is that the researcher will obtain statistically significant results just due to chance, especially if the dependent variables being studied are correlated). Unfortunately, the results from our "Multivariate" analysis suggested the data did not meet certain statistical assumptions. In particular, the assumption of equal variances was not met for most of our political orientations measures. This pattern was stronger for the measures dealing with social perceptions and attitudes; in some analyses for the economic measures, the assumptions were met.

 

Univariate Approach

Given these results, we adopted a univariate approach where we analyzed each of the five dependent variables separately using both oneway ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis Test (K-W Test).  As most researchers know, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach is a "parametric" approach and thus more powerful statistically than the "non-parametric" K-W Test. To use ANOVA, however, requires that the data meet more restrictive assumptions than is required for the K-W Test. And, as noted above, our data appear to violate some of the assumptions for using ANOVA.

Our strategy thus was to apply both tests. And, in those instances where both tests were significant, we considered the relationship between the type groups and the politics variable to be significant.   To determine which type or type groupings were significantly different, we used the post-hoc test results from the ANOVA as well as the mean ranks from the K-W Test. For the ANOVA post-hoc analyses we selected two tests. The first is the Sidak test which is fairly conservative in that it controls for experiment-wise error rate in the univariate post-hoc test.  This test, however, does require the assumption of equal variances.  In cases where the equal variances assumption were not met, we used Tamhane's T2 test (which also allows for unequal sample sizes in the different type groups).

This univariate approach , of course, interjects concerns about experiment-wise error rate for the whole analysis and thus interpretation of results is based on finding consistent patterns of results.

 

Whole Types or Not?

An article 2 in a recent issue of The Journal of Psychological Type has challenged the assumption of "type dynamics" as used with the MBTI®. The general argument of this article appears to be that the strongest effects of psychological type are likely to result from the individual preference dichotomies individually or in additive combinations--other than those suggested by type dynamics models. This perspective conflicts in many ways with the whole-type perspective.  To address these concerns, we also present an analysis of the data from a more traditional regression approach. 

NOTE:  As we will note at various points in the analyses, the sample size for certain type groupings was insufficient for us to fully address some of the key issues surrounding the whole-type and type dynamics issue.  As might expected, the 4 SP groups were fairly small, thus limiting full consideration of some of the issues raised in the two references below. 


----------

  1Mitchell, W. D. (2006). Validation of the full dynamic model of type.  Journal of Psychological Type, 66(5), 35-48.
  2Reynierse, J. H. (2009, January). The case against type dynamics. Journal of Psychological Type, 69(1), 1-21.

   

 


The 16 Types & Political Orientations

The chart below shows the average (mean) scores for each of the 16 types on each of the five scores of political orientations. 

In general, the effect of the 16 whole types was significant on all of the political orientation measures except for the measure of social attitudes. The primary differences for each dependent variable seem to be:

  • Self (General): ISTJs scored as significantly less liberal than the INFJs, INFPs,  and ENFPs.
  • Self (Social): The ISTJs scored significantly less liberal than the INFJs.
  • Self (Economic):  The ISTJs scored significantly less liberal than the INFJs.
  • Attitudes (Economic):  The INTJs scored significantly less liberal than the INFJs.

Almost all of the types, on average, reported a more liberal orientation on all five of the measures of liberal-conservative political orientations.

On average, all types reported a more "moderate" orientiation in terms of liberal-conservative economic self-perceptions. Self-perceptions and attitudes related to social issues are more liberal across the types.

(Note: the SP sample sizes are fairly small, and thus the results for these types should be interpreted with caution).

Note: Higher scores indicate more Conservative responses.  Scores above 5.0 indicate Conservative orientations and scores below 5.0 indicate Liberal orientations.  Results for the analysis can be found here (ANOVA) and here (Kruskal_Wallis) . (Note: Higher scores in the ANOVA printout indicate more Conservative responses, except for the Liberal-Conservative Attitudes-Economic where higher scores indicate more Liberal responses.)

 

Summary of Significance Tests: 16 Types
       
Liberal-Consevative Measures F-Test   Kruskal_Wallis Test
       
Self: General p = .000*   p = .000
Self: Social p = .000*   p = .004
Self: Economic p = .001   p = .002
Attitudes: Social p = .046*   p = .250
Attitudes: Economic p = .001   p = .001
       
*Test assumptions not met      
       

 


 The Jungian Types & Political Orientations

The chart below shows the average (mean) scores for each of the 8 Jungian types on each of the five scores of political orientations.  The Jungian groupings indicate a dominant function type within a particular attitude (e.g., Si indicates dominant Introverted Sensing).  The formation of this grouping takes into consideration three of the MBTI® preferences. For example, the Si Jungian Type includes the ISTJs and the ISFJs.

In general, the effect of the 8 Jungian types was significant for all of the political orientation measures, although the effect seems strongest for the self-perception measures. The primary differences for each dependent variable seem to be:

  • Self (General): The Fi types scored significantly more liberal than the Si and the Te types.
  • Self (Social): The Si types scored significantly less liberal than the Ne, Ni, and Fi types.
  • Self (Economic):  The Si types scored significantly less liberal than the Fi types.
  • Attitudes (Social): The Si types scored significantly less liberal than the Ni types.
  • Attitudes (Economic):  The Fi types scored more liberal than the Si, Se, and Te types.

Almost all of the types, on average, reported a more liberal orientation on all five of the measures of liberal-conservative political orientations.

On average, all types reported a more "moderate" orientation in terms of liberal-conservative economic self-perceptions. Self-perceptions and attitudes related to social issues are more liberal across the types.

Note: Higher scores indicate more Conservative responses.  Scores above 5.0 indicate Conservative orientations and scores below 5.0 indicate Liberal orientations.  Results for the analysis can be found here (ANOVA) and here (Kruskal_Wallis). (Note: Higher scores in the ANOVA printout indicate more Conservative responses, except for the Liberal-Conservative Attitudes-Economic where higher scores indicate more Liberal responses.)

 

Summary of Significance Tests: Jungian Types
       
Liberal-Consevative Measures F-Test   Kruskal_Wallis Test
       
Self: General p = .000*   p = .000
Self: Social p = .000*   p = .000
Self: Economic p = .003   p = .004
Attitudes: Social p = .026   p = .034
Attitudes: Economic p = .031   p = .025
       
*Test assumptions not met      
       

 


The Temperament Groups and Political Orientations

Temperament theory involves a perspective about how type preferences combine to produce psychological subtypes which seem quite relevant to politics.  Indeed, Keirsey's work on presidential temperament made this connection some time ago.

Though the naming of the temperaments continues to evolve (and the theoretical frameworks differ somewhat between type theory and temperament theory), from an MBTI® perspective the temperament groupings include: SJ, SP, NT, and NF.

In general, the effect of the temperament types was significant for all of the political orientation measures. The primary differences for each dependent variable seem to be:

  • Self (General): The NF types scored significantly more liberal than the SJ and the NT types.
  • Self (Social): The SJ types scored significantly less liberal than the NF and NT types, although the NF types scored as significantly more liberal than the SJ and NT types. (That is, in terms of perceiving one's self as socially liberal: NF > NT > SJ).
  • Self (Economic): The SJ types scored significantly less liberal than the NF and NT types, although the NF types scored as significantly more liberal than the SJ and NT types. (That is, in terms of perceiving one's self as economically  liberal: NF > NT > SJ).
  • Attitudes (Social): The SJ types scored significantly less liberal than the NF types.
  • Attitudes (Economic): The SJ types scored significantly less liberal than the NF and NT types, although the NF types scored as significantly more liberal than the SJ and NT types. (That is, in terms of  liberal economic attitudes: NF > NT > SJ).

A general trend across the temperaments also may be of interest.  In general, scores on the social self-perception and social attitudes measures were the most liberal; scores on the economic self-perception and economic attitude measures were more moderate.  Scores on the Liberal-Conservative Self-Perception: General fall in the middle.  

Note: Higher scores indicate more Conservative responses.  Scores above 5.0 indicate Conservative orientations and scores below 5.0 indicate Liberal orientations. Results for the analysis can be found here (ANOVA) and here (Kruskal_Wallis). (Note: Higher scores in the ANOVA printout indicate more Conservative responses, except for the Liberal-Conservative Attitudes-Economic where higher scores indicate more Liberal responses.)

 

Summary of Significance Tests: Temperaments
       
Liberal-Consevative Measures F-Test   Kruskal_Wallis Test
       
Self: General p = .000*   p = .000
Self: Social p = .000*   p = .000
Self: Economic p = .000*   p = .000
Attitudes: Social p = .001*   p = .025
Attitudes: Economic p = .000   p = .000
       
*Test assumptions not met      
       

 


 The Mental Functions Groups and Political Orientations

The combination of a preference for a particular function of perception (S or N) and a particular function of judgement (T or F) produces a mental functions group or pairing.  The four mental functions groups thus are: ST, SF, NF, and NT. These four groupings form the columns of the MBTI® "type table".

Isabel Myers considered these mental functions groups to be quite significant, particularly in terms of career choice.  Qualitative work relating the effect of the four mental functions groups to organizational politics perceptions suggests a clear link between these subtypes and politics, at least in the organizational arena.

 

In general, the effect of the mental function types was significant for all of the political orientation measures. The primary differences for each dependent variable seem to be:

  • Self (General): The NF types scored significantly more liberal than the ST and the NT types.
  • Self (Social): The NF types scored significantly more liberal than the ST, SF, and NT types.
  • Self (Economic): The NF types scored significantly more liberal than the ST and NT types.
  • Attitudes (Social): The SF types scored significantly less liberal than the NF and NT types.
  • Attitudes (Economic): The NF types scored significantly more liberal than the ST and NT types.

A general trend across the temperaments also may be of interest.  In general, scores on the social self-perception and social attitudes measures were the most liberal; scores on the economic self-perception and economic attitude measures were more moderate.  Scores on the Liberal-Conservative Self-Perception: General fall in the middle.  

Note: Higher scores indicate more Conservative responses. Scores above 5.0 indicate Conservative orientations and scores below 5.0 indicate Liberal orientations. Results for the analysis can be found here (ANOVA) and here (Kruskal_Wallis). (Note: Higher scores in the ANOVA printout indicate more Conservative responses, except for the Liberal-Conservative Attitudes-Economic where higher scores indicate more Liberal responses.)

 

Summary of Significance Tests: Mental Functions
       
Liberal-Consevative Measures F-Test   Kruskal_Wallis Test
       
Self: General p = .000*   p = .000
Self: Social p = .000*   p = .000
Self: Economic p = .000*   p = .000
Attitudes: Social p = .000*   p = .040
Attitudes: Economic p = .000*   p = .000
       
*Test assumptions not met      
       

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The TF-JP Groups and Political Orientations 

The combination of a preference for a particular function of judgement (T or F) and a preference for orientation to the outer world (J or P) produces four groups: TJ, TP, FP, and FJ. In the "type community," the types forming the TJ combination often are labeled the "hard edges" of the type table in comparison to the FP types which often are labeled the "soft center".

The effect of the TJ grouping on political orientations is of particular interest, especially within the context of results reported by Consulting Psychologists Press (discussed here ). Results from the  sample (1998 Manual) used to create and norm the Form M of the MBTI® showed that TJ types were overrepresented amongst those self-identifying as Republican.  Further, F types appear to self-identify more with Democrat. Given the relationship between party identification (Republican, Democratic, Independent) and liberal-conservative orientations, we might expect that the TJ types will report more conservative orientations (as indicated by their Republican affiliation) and those with F preferences to report more liberal orientations. 

 

In general, the effect of the TF-JP groupings on political orientations was statistically significant, although the effect on the measure of Liberal-Conservative Attitudes (Social) was not significant. The primary differences for each dependent variable seem to be:

  • Self (General): The TJ types scored significantly less liberal than the FP and the FJ types.
  • Self (Social):  The TJ types scored significantly less liberal than the FP and the FJ types.
  • Self (Economic): The TJ types scored significantly less liberal than the FP and the FJ types.
  • Attitudes (Social): No significant differences.
  • Attitudes (Economic): The TJ types scored significantly less liberal than the FP and the FJ types. Further, the TP types scored as significantly less liberal than the FJ types.

A general trend across the TF-JP groups also may be of interest.  In general, scores on the social self-perception and social attitudes measures were the most liberal; scores on the economic self-perception and economic attitude measures were more moderate.  Scores on the Liberal-Conservative Self-Perception: General fall in the middle.  

Note: Higher scores indicate more Conservative responses.  Scores above 5.0 indicate Conservative orientations and scores below 5.0 indicate Liberal orientations. Results for the analysis can be found here (ANOVA) and here (Kruskal_Wallis). (Note: Higher scores in the ANOVA printout indicate more Conservative responses, except for the Liberal-Conservative Attitudes-Economic where higher scores indicate more Liberal responses.)

 

Summary of Significance Tests: TF-JP Groups
       
Liberal-Consevative Measures F-Test   Kruskal_Wallis Test
       
Self: General p = .000*   p = .000
Self: Social p = .001*   p = .003
Self: Economic p = .000*   p = .000
Attitudes: Social p = .213*   p = .408
Attitudes: Economic p = .000*   p = .000
       
*Test assumptions not met      
       

 


The SN-JP Groups and Political Orientations 

The combination of a preference for a particular function of perception (S or N) and a preference for orientation to the outer world (J or P) produces four groups: SJ, SP, NP, and NJ.

From a politics perspective, this grouping provides an interesting contrast between the SJ types and the NP types.  Analysis of responses in the CAPT databank1 for Form G showed that SJs were overrepresented amongst those who reported they were "extremely" or "very" conservative politically. Further, the results from the norming of the Form M of the MBTI® (1998 Manual) suggested the SJ types tended to identify more with traditional political parties (i.e., Republican and Democratic) whereas NP types were overrepresented amongst those who identified themselves as Independents.

 

The only consistently significant effects for the SJ-NP groups involved two self-perception measures: General and Social.  The primary differences for these two dependent variables seem to be:

  • Self (General): The SJ types scored significantly less liberal than the NP types.
  • Self (Social):  The SJ types scored significantly less liberal than the NP types.
A general trend across the SN-JP groups also may be of interest.  In general, scores on the social self-perception and social attitudes measures were the most liberal; scores on the economic self-perception and economic attitude measures were more moderate.  Scores on the Liberal-Conservative Self-Perception: General fall in the middle.  
Note: Higher scores indicate more Conservative responses.  Scores above 5.0 indicate Conservative orientations and scores below 5.0 indicate Liberal orientations. Results for the analysis can be found here (ANOVA) and here (Kruskal_Wallis). (Note: Higher scores in the ANOVA printout indicate more Conservative responses, except for the Liberal-Conservative Attitudes-Economic where higher scores indicate more Liberal responses.)

 

Summary of Significance Tests: SN-JP Groups
       
Liberal-Consevative Measures F-Test   Kruskal_Wallis Test
       
Self: General p = .000*   p = .007
Self: Social p = .001*   p = .001
Self: Economic p = .080   p = .113
Attitudes: Social p = .213*   p = .032
Attitudes: Economic p = .088   p = .049
       
*Test assumptions not met      
       

 

------------

1  Macdaid, G. P. (1999, February). Facts from the CAPT databank. Paper presented at the Second Biennial Clinical Conference  of the Center for the Applications of Psychological Type, Gainesville, FL.


 The EI-JP Groups and Political Orientations

The EI-JP grouping is of theoretical interest given that these preference pairings are used in the type community to determine dominant and auxiliary functions and whether the functions are introverted or extraverted.  The combination of these attitude preferences provides four groups: EJ, EP, IP, and IJ.

To our knowledge, there is little research using the MBTI® to suggest these groupings have any relationship with political orientations in terms of liberal-conservative perceptions and attitudes. Research using the FFM , however, does suggest a relationship between E-I preferences and party membership such that E is correlated with more conservative political parties and I is correlated with more liberal political parties.

The effect of the EI-JP groupings on political orientations was not statistically significant for any of the measures of political orientation. 

 

Note: Higher scores indicate more Conservative responses.  Scores above 5.0 indicate Conservative orientations and scores below 5.0 indicate Liberal orientations. Results for the analysis can be found here (ANOVA) and here (Kruskal_Wallis). (Note: Higher scores in the ANOVA printout indicate more Conservative responses, except for the Liberal-Conservative Attitudes-Economic where higher scores indicate more Liberal responses.)

 

Summary of Significance Tests: EI-JP Groups
       
Liberal-Consevative Measures F-Test   Kruskal_Wallis Test
       
Self: General p = .147*   p = .271
Self: Social p = .072*   p = .247
Self: Economic p = .434   p = .472
Attitudes: Social p = .379   p = .316
Attitudes: Economic p = .599   p = .653
       
*Test assumptions not met      
       

 


Comments of the Effects of Various Type Groupings on Political Orientations

The table below summarizes the results from the analyses presented on the preceding pages.  Three summary comments seem pertinent. 

First, the results for the Attitudes (Social) measure generally do not seem to relate to type groupings as consistently as do the other political orientation measures.   The absence of significant results here may be due to the nature of the sample obtained in the poll; i.e., the reponses for the Attitudes (Social) measure were strongly liberal in terms of distribution. This skew in the responses thus may not have provided for a strong test in this case. 

Second,  the S-N and T-F preferences clearly seem to relate to political orientations in that most all of the significant differences show these preferences play a role. Moreover, the results are theoritically meaningful in that the S and T preferences are associated with less liberal political orientations whereas the N and F preferences are associated with more liberal political orientations.

Third, the subtype groupings (e.g., Mental Functions and Temperaments) appear to provide useful perspectives on the relationship between type and political orientations.  For example, the results for the temperament groupings show a consistent difference between the SJ and NF temperament groupings that are theoretically meaningful. As can be seen in the table, the responses from the SJ temperament consistently are less liberal than the responses from the NF temperament (on average). This tendency of the NFs to report more liberal political orientations also holds generally for the mental functions groupings.

 

The Effects of Various Type Groupings on Political Orientations
     
Political Orientation Scores
 
 
Self
(General)
Self
(Social)
Self
(Economic)
Attitudes (Social)
Attitudes
(Economic)
Type Groupings            
Whole
Type
  ISTJ < INFJ, INFP, & ENFP ISTJ < INFJ ISTJ < INFJ   INTJ < INFJ
Jungian
Types
  Te & Si < Fi Si < Ne, Ni, & Fi Si < Fi Si < Ni Si, Se, & Te < Fi
Temperaments   SJ & NT < NF SJ < NT < NF SJ < NT < NF SJ < NF SJ < NT < NF
Mental Functions   ST & NT < NF ST, SF, & NT < NF ST & NT < NF SF < NT & NF ST & NT < NF
SN-JP   SJ < NP SJ < NP      
TF-JP   TJ < FP & FJ TJ < FP & FJ TJ < FP & FJ

 

TJ < FP & FJ

 

TP < FJ

EI-JP            
Note: The "less than" sign ( < ) indicates "less liberal than". Thus, e.g., SJs scored significantly less liberal than NPs on the political measures Self (General) and Self (Social).
 

 


The Effects of Type and Demographic Variables

The analyses on the preceding pages looked only at the effects of type on the political orientation measures.  As seen in the results from the correlation analysis , however, the various type, demographic, and political orientation measures show multiple correlations.  For example, sex is correlated with the T-F preferences (as might be expected) as well as many of the political orientation measures.  To examine the effect of type on political orientations while controlling for these multiple correlations, we conducted a multiple regression analysis.

The dependent variable in the multiple regression analysis consisted of a total score constructed from the five political orientation measures.  The independent variables included the type dichotomies (E-I, S-N, T-F, and J-P), demographic variables (age and sex) as well as a variable indicating APTi membership (yes or no). All variables were entered into the analysis at the same time.

Results indicated the following significant results:

  • Sensing types scored significantly less liberal than did Intuition types.
  • Thinking types scored significantly less liberal than did the Feeling types.
  • Males scored significantly less liberal than did females.
  • The variables explained about 9% of the variance in the liberal-conservative scores.

These results generally support results from previous versions of the Type & Politics Poll. In particular, the S-N preferences consistently have been related to liberal-conservative orientations.  The T-F preferences also have shown some relationship, although not as strongly as have the S-N results.  A look at the bivariate correlations in this study for the S-N, T-F, and political orientation variables suggests one hypothesis as to why the T-F preferences may have had such a significant effect in this analysis.  In particular, the S-N preferences seem to relate more strongly to the social measures while the T-F preferences seem to relate more strongly to the economic measures.  The explicit distinction between economic and social measures of liberal-conservative orientations in this study thus may have allowed the T-F effects to play a more significant role. (Note: Separate regression analyses using only the Social Attitudes measure and the Economic Attitudes measure seem to support this conclusion. Results for social are here and results for economic are here ).

The above analysis did not include party identification (Republican, Democrat, and Independent) in the analysis.  We thus conducted as second regression analysis which included these variables (results here ).  As we have found in the analysis of previous poll responses, the relationships between type preferences and liberal-conservative orientations were not significant when party identification was included. And, as might be expected, Republicans scored significantly more conservative than did Independents and Others whereas Democrats scored more liberal than did Independents and Others.  (We did not included the Independents due to linear depedency.)

Note: We also tested for the effect of interaction terms in various regression analyses both with and without demographics included as main effects.  No significant interaction results were found.


Cluster Analysis

Both the theory of psychological type as well as the notion of political types assume people can be grouped together. These groups--or types--should demonstrate homogeneity within the groups and heterogeneity between the groups.  The statistical techniques associated with cluster analysis (or typological analysis ) are designed to create such groups from a given set of data.  Cluster analysis thus seems to provide an interesting approach to assessing the kinds of groups which result from a combination of type data as well as other factors such as demographic factors and political orientations.

The following charts and discussion present the results from various cluster analyses using type data, demographic data (sex and age), and data concerning political orientations (party identification and political orientation measures).  Cluster analysis is an exploratory statistical method and can be used to extract many number of groups.  Just how many groups should be extracted, however, should be guided by some theoretical rationale. 

For our purposes, we extracted both three-group and four-group solutions. Our theoretical rationale for extracting three groups is based on the hypothesis that political party identification (Republican, Democrat, or Independent) is likely to play a significant role in the structure of the data, particularly given the strong relationship between party affiliation and liberal-conservative political orientations.  Thus, e.g., we might expect three groups reflecting conservative Republicans, moderate Independents, and liberal Democrats.  Our theoretical rationale for extracting four groups gives more weight to the hypothesis that psychological type preferences might structure the data. Thus, e.g., we might expect to find four groups defined primarily by the four preference dichotomies. Or in the case of the mental functions groupings, we might expect to find four groups with each group reflecting one of the mental functions group combinations.

Two analyses were conducted for both the 3-group and 4-group analyses. The following variables were included:

  • First Analysis: E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P, party identification (Republican, Democrat, Independent), sex, age and the five political orientation measures.
  • Second Analysis: E-I, J-P, mental functions grouping (ST, SF, NT, NF) party identification (Republican, Democrat, Independent), sex, age and the five political orientation measures.

The results for each analysis are presented in two charts, one for the categorical variables (e.g., E-I, sex, Mental Functions) showing proportions, and one for the continuous variables (age, political orientation measures) showing means. 

Note:  Only those variables that made statistically significant contributions to the groupings are shown. When looking at the charts, the variables with the most influence have scores closer to the circumference of the circle.  The variables with less influence have scores closer to the center of the circle.

 

Three Clusters
 
Type Dichotomies (Results are 

A very significant influence on cluster 1 was party identification in that 100% of those who self-identified with the Republican party fell into this cluster (followed by Independents at 32% and Democrats at 2%). The T-F preferences and sex also contributed to cluster one in that this cluster contained the smallest proportion of Feeling types (13%) and the largest proportion of Thinking types (37%), as well as the smallest proportion of females (15%) and the largest proportion of males (38%).

The most significant influence on cluster 2 was the E-I preference. Approximately 76% of the Introverts in our sample fell into this cluster whereas no Extraverts were in the cluster.  Party identification also contributed to this cluster in that 51% of Democrats are in this cluster followed by 32% of the Independents and 0% of the Republicans.

The most significant influence on cluster 3 was the E-I preference. Approximately 74% of the Extraverts in our sample fell into cluster three.  Party identification also contributed to this cluster in that 47% of Democrats are in this cluster followed by 36% of the Independents and 0% of the Republicans. Finally, the T-F preference contributed slightly with the largest proportion of Feeling types (46%) and the smallest proportion of Thinking types (28%) in this cluster.

   

 

Note: Scores range from 1 (Extremely Liberal) to 9 (Extremely Conservative).  A score of 5 would correspond with a "Moderate" political orientation.

Results for cluster 1 (Republicans) not surprisingly showed the participants in this cluster reported, on average, conservative political orientations.  The results for the self-perceptions (General) and the economic measures were the strongest.  

Results for cluster 2 and cluster 3 (Democrats) were identical. Participants in these clusters reported, on average, liberal political orientations.  The social measures were more liberal than the economic measures.

 
Mental Functions (Results are here. )

The most significant influences on cluster 1 were sex and party identification.  A majority (80%) of the females who participated fell into this cluster (with 0% males).  Most (64%) of the participants who identified as Democrat also fell into cluster 1, with about 37% of the Independents (and 0% Republicans). Mental functions groupings also contributed to cluster 1.  A majority (62%) of the participants who reported NF preferences as well as SF preferences (48%) fell into cluster 1.  However, about 1/3 of ST and NT participants also fell into this cluster.

The most significant influences on cluster 2 were sex and party identification. A majority (61%) of the males who participated fell into this cluster (with 0% females).  Approximately 34% of the participants who identified as Democrat also fell into cluster 1, with about 19% of the Independents (and 0% Republicans).

The most significant influence on cluster 3 was party identification: 100% of participants who identified as Republican fell into this cluster along with approximately 44% of the Independents (and 2% of the Democrats).  Sex and mental functions groupings also contributed to cluster 3.  More male participants (39%) than female participants (20%) fell into this cluster. The smallest proportion of NFs (12%) fell into this cluster while the largest proportion of STs (46%) fell into cluster 3.

   

 

Note: Scores range from 1 (Extremely Liberal) to 9 (Extremely Conservative).  A score of 5 would correspond with a "Moderate" political orientation.

Results for cluster 3 (Republicans) again showed the participants in this cluster reported, on average, conservative political orientations.  The results for the self-perceptions (General) and the economic measures were the strongest.  

Results for cluster 1 and cluster 2 (Democrats) were identical. Participants in these clusters reported, on average, liberal political orientations.  The social measures were more liberal than the economic measures.
 
 

 

 

 

Four Clusters
 
Type Dichotomies (Results are here. )

A very significant influence on cluster 1 is party identification in that 98% of participants who self-identified with the Republican party were in this cluster (followed by Independents at 31% and Democrats at 1%).  The T-F preferences and sex also contributed to cluster one in that this cluster contained the smallest proportion of Feeling types (12%) and the largest proportion of Thinking types (37%), as well as the second smallest proportion of females (15%) and the largest proportion of males (37%). The S-N preferences also made a contribution to the cluster with the largest proportion of S participants (37%) and the second smallest proportion of N participants (20%) falling into this cluster.

The most significant influences on cluster 2 were the E-I preferences followed by party identification and sex.  The majority (66%) of Introverted participants fell into this cluster (with 0% of the Extraverts).  The largest proportion of Democrat participants (44%) also fell into this cluster.  The cluster also contained the largest proportion of female participants (45%) and the second smallest proportion of male participants (17%).

The most significant influences on cluster 3 were the E-I preferences followed by party identification and sex.  The majority (60%) of Extraverted participants fell into this cluster (with 0% of the Introverts).  The second largest proportion of Democrat participants (38%) also fell into this cluster.  The cluster also contained the second largest proportion of female participants (40%) and the smallest proportion of male participants (13%).

The most significant influences on cluster 4 were sex and the T-F preferences.  This cluster contained the second largest proportion of male participants  (33%) and no female participants.  The cluster also was defined by Feeling preferences (26% of F participants) with only one participant with T preferences.

   

 

Note: Scores range from 1 (Extremely Liberal) to 9 (Extremely Conservative).  A score of 5 would correspond with a "Moderate" political orientation.

Results for cluster 1 (Republicans) showed the participants in this cluster reported, on average, conservative political orientations.  The results for the self-perceptions (General) and the economic measures were the strongest.  

Results for cluster 2 and cluster 3 (Democrats) were identical. Participants in these clusters reported, on average, liberal political orientations.  The social measures were more liberal than the economic measures.

Results for cluster 4 showed this cluster reported, on average, liberal orientations.  The economic measures were more liberal than the social measures (and the Attitudes Social scores were not a significant influence).

 
Mental Functions (Results are here. )

The most significant influences on cluster 1 were the J-P preferences and sex. Approximately 51% of the P participants fell into this cluster with 0% of the J participants. The largest proportion (45%) of the females who participated fell into this cluster (with 0% males). Party identification also influenced this cluster with 34% of the participants who identified as Democrat in the cluster along with about 27% of the Independents (and 0% Republicans). Mental functions groupings also contributed to cluster 1.  The largest proportion (38%) of the participants who reported NF preferences  fell into cluster 1 along with the smallest proportion of STs (15%) and SFs (15%).  About 20% NT participants also fell into this cluster.

The most significant influences on cluster 2 were the J-P preferences and sex. Approximately 46% of the J participants fell into this cluster with 0% of the P participants. The second largest proportion (38%) of the females who participated fell into this cluster (with 0% males). Party identification also influenced this cluster with 34% of the participants who identified as Democrat in the cluster along with about 15% of the Independents (and 0% Republicans).

The most significant influences on cluster 3 were sex and party identification. A majority (61%) of the males who participated fell into this cluster (with 0% females). Party identification also influenced this cluster with 34% of the participants who identified as Democrat in the cluster along with about 19% of the Independents (and 0% Republicans).

The most significant influence on cluster 4 was party identification with 100% of Republican participants and 40% of Independent participants falling into this cluster (and 1% Democrat). The Mental Functions groups and sex also influenced the cluster.  The cluster contained the smallest proportion (11%) of NF participants and the largest proportion 44% of ST participants (along with 30% of the SFs and 37% of the NTs).  The second largest proportion (39%) of males also fell into this cluster along with 17% of female participants.

 


Summary Discussion

 

Objectives

The primary purpose of the final (October 08) Type and Politics Poll was to examine in more detail the relationship between psychological type preferences and political orientations.  Prior research in both the psychological type field as well as research employing the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality has suggested that the S-N preferences clearly seem to be related to political orientations in terms of "liberal" and "conservative" orientations.  Most of these studies, however, have used only a single item to measure these orientations.

Our purpose in the final poll was to extend this research in two ways.  First, we created measures based on the assumption that there are at least two related dimensions of liberal and conservative orientations--one concerning social issues and the other concerning economic issues.  Second, we created measures to reflect participants' political self-perceptions of themselves as liberal or conservative on social and economic issues as well as measures that reported political attitudes toward economic and social issues. Our approach to liberal-conservative political orientation thus was multidimensional.  Given the various theoretical frameworks that suggest people seek cognitive consistency (or avoid cognitive dissonance) in terms of ego identity, however, we should expect these different orientations to be related (as was shown in the correlations of the five measures).

During our analyses we also kept in mind the ongoing debate surrounding whole types. Thus, we analyzed our data in terms of whole types (and subtypes) as well as at the level of the individual preferences.

  

Results

  

Sample

Before looking at the results of the analyses, it is important to keep in mind the nature of the sample upon which the analyses are based. In particular, most (66%) of the participants reported being APTi members. Thus, it should not be surprising that a large proportion of the sample members reported preferences for Intuition (77%) and were female (59%). ENFPs constituted the modal type (17%) followed by INTJs (11%) and INFPs (11%). Further, as is not unusual, the SPs constituted only a small proportion (14%) of the sample. These results suggest the subtype analyses likely are more reliable than the  whole-type analyses given that the number of observations for each subtype are larger than for the whole-type or Jungian-type analyses.

The tendency of the participants to score more liberal on each of the political orientation measures in the type-only analyses (i.e., those without demographics included) also should be considered.  As was shown in each of the type-only analyses, participants, on average, provided slightly liberal to more strongly liberal responses on each of the political orientation measures.  This skew of the responses suggests we consider certain types and subtype groups as scoring "less liberal" or "more liberal" than other comparison type groupings.  This pattern, however, was different in the cluster analyses where, e.g., Republicans provided clearly conservative responses and Democrats provided clearly liberal responses.

 

A final characteristic of participants' scores involved the general tendency for scores on the social measures to be more liberal, on average, than the scores on the economic measures.  Further, the distribution of the economic scores was more uniform across the economic measures whereas the distribution of scores for the social measures clearly was skewed toward liberal responses. Also interesting: in those analyses where the assumption of equal variances across type groupings were met, the analyses involved the economic measures.  These results may be specific to this sample due to the timing of the study during which the sample data was collected; i.e., the study was conducted during the week preceding the 2008 U.S. presidential election when worsening economic conditions clearly were salient.  Thus, it is important to keep in mind that this study is a one-shot case study and that these economic and social differences might not be obtained under more normal economic conditions. Regardless, however, the results do indicate how the different types and subtypes responded during these kinds of conditions.

 

Analyses

Type Dichotomies.  We used regression analysis and the General Linear Model "Multivariate" procedure to test the effects of preference dichotomies. We used this approach given recent empirical and theoretical work suggesting that type effects are more likely to result from the individual type dichotomies alone or in additive relationships.

The results from this analyses focusing on the relationship between individual type preferences and political orientations showed a fairly consistent relationship between the S-N and T-F preferences, and political orientations. The regression analyses demonstrated that these preference dichotomies each were significantly related to overall political orientations such that participants with S and T preferences, on average, scored less liberal than did participants with N and F preferences.  More specific regression analyses--focusing on the Social and Economic Attitudes measures--suggested that the S-N preferences had a stronger relationship with Social Attitudes whereas the T-F preferences had a  stronger relationship with Economic Attitudes.

Although the type preferences only explained a little less than 10% of the variance in general political orientation, these results were theoretically meaningful and consistent with prior research (both in terms of the nature of the relationships as well as the proportion of variance explained).  From the theoretical viewpoint, both in terms of political philosophy as well as political psychology, it should come as no surprise that Sensing preferences correlated with political conservatism whereas Intuition preferences correlated with political liberalism. For example, consider the following quotes from Russell Kirk, a prominent conservative political theorist:

  • "Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know."
  • "The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world."
  • "Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order."

Further, consider this contrast between conservatives and "progressives" provided by conservative David Horowitz in his book Radical Son

  • "...conservatism [is] an attitude about the lessons of the actual past. By contrast, the attention of progressives [is] directed toward an imagined future."

Each of these quotes reflects the Sensing types' preferences for experience, tradition, practicality, what is, and the tried-and-true. Implicit in these quotes also is a concern about "mystical Progress" and an "imagined future" which reflects the Sensing types' view of the Intuitive types' preferences for change, imagination, the future and what could be (possibilities).

Inherent in the conservative's view of change is not so much opposition to change (as noted in the quote above from Kirk), but a cautious approach to change.  Certainly some of this caution arises from Edmund Burke's reaction to the dynamics of the French Revolution. (Burke often is referred to as the father of modern conservative thought. And, interestingly, he uses the notion of temperament when considering political change).  Conservatives also have the history of various Marixist revolutions and their consequences as models of the results of zealous change in the service of various "social justice" issues: liberté, égalité, fraternité. Again, however, the conservative orientation is not one opposed to change, but one opposed to imprudent change.  

At this point it may be worthwhile to note that we are framing our discussion of liberal and conservative politics and their relationship to psychological type preferences in terms of what may be termed traditional conservatism (!) and new liberalism (!).  It is a truism with words that their meanings evolve and take on different meanings at different times and in different places. For example, recent political discourse has witnessed the emergence of the terms paleoconservative and neoconservative,  and political philosophy makes distinctions between classical liberalism and the new liberalism. Our conceptualization here of conservatism and liberalism thus are referencing the "old conservatism" about which Burke and Kirk write, and the "new liberalism" that is more in keeping with the practiced politics of today's Democratic party. 

So, what is a "new liberal" and how might preferences for Intuition incline one to such a political orientation?  Our suggestion is that one answer to these questions can be found in the focus that political philosophy places on the notion of autonomy, and the numerous studies showing a positive correlation between continuous scores for Intuition and various psychological scales measuring needs for independence and autonomy (see the 1985 Manual).  Given this focus on autonomy, the "new liberal" really is not that new.  Rather, the notion of autonomy politically is a part of the evolution of "Modernity" out of the Middle Ages and thus reflects the forces at work during the Renaissance, the Enlightenment , the Protestant Reformation and so on.  Indeed, the very names and themes of these historical periods imply intuition at work: inspiration, imagination, originality, creativity.  Further, the political connotations of autonomy as a self-reflexivity that reasons free of the influence of tradition--and manifests in such philosophical acts as the hermeneutical act--implies intuitive preferences to the extent that such interpretive reasoning requires one to look at different possibilities where word is treated as symbol (or sign).

 

This autonomous inclination of the Intuitive's preference to challenge tradition provides one rationale for our finding that Intuitives, on average, scored more liberal on the measure of Social Attitudes than did the Sensing types. That is, our participants with S preferences, on average, were more likely to agree with the following statements than our participants with N preferences:  

  • The Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.
  • This country would have many fewer problems if there were more emphasis on traditional family ties.
  • The newer lifestyles are contributing to the breakdown of our society.

As can be seen, each of these statements contains key topics that frequently are associated with Sensing preferences: a literal approach to life, a preference for tradition, and a concern about the "new".  Further, given the moral tone of the questions in the Social Attitudes measure, it seems reasonable to ask: "Are the S types more inclined to be social conservatives--and N types social liberals--within the context of the 'culture wars' that have played out in U.S. society and politics over the past 30 years?".   Research into the relationship between psychological type and religion provides some support for a "yes" answer to this question. For example, the general theme of results provided from research by Francis is reflected in this quote from one of his works:

A sample of 315 adult churchgoers completed an index of conservative Christian belief together with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and the MBTI. Christians who prefer sensing and thinking are more inclined to hold traditional beliefs than Christians who prefer intuition and feeling.

Such findings, when combined with our above discussion, provide further support for the hypothesis that S preferences are related to more conservative political orientations whereas N preferences are related to more liberal political orientations.

Results for the T-F preferences also showed a significant relationship between these type preferences and political orientations.  As shown in the results for the regression analyses, participants with T preferences reported less liberal political orientations, on average, that did participants with F preferences.  When regressed against the Social and Economic Attitudes measures, the T-F preferences were more significant in predicting Economic Attitudes with T participants again reporting more conservative orientations than F participants.

A look at some of the items from the Economic Attitudes measure provides one perspective for interpreting these results:

  • The government should see to it that every person has a job and a good standard of living.
  • The government should do more to ensure everyone has an equal chance.
  • The government should intervene to reduce income differences. 

These items clearly reflect attitudes that support government intervention in the economy that fit well with Democratic policy making that seeks to ensure some sense of égalité regarding economic conditions.  Moreover, as evidenced in the recent debates about the economic "stimulus" bill, the Democrat's actions have been oriented to including in the bill such government actions as those which seek to ensure the welfare of those in society who are less fortunate economically in that the bill provided major support for unemployment and food stamp benefits--benefits that clearly reflect a humanitarian orientation.  To the extent that F preferences reflect such traits as being empathetic, warm, and concerned with satisfying peoples' needs (as well as a variety of other living critters' needs, in our experience) then the liberal tendency in Democrats' economic policy seems to reflect the expression of the Feeling preference. This rationale, of course, does not eliminate the possibility that some Thinking types also support such economic policy. For the Keynesian or neo-Keynesian Thinking type economist, economic policy that provides such government intervention can be perceived from the more impersonal viewpoint as supporting aggregate demand during a time of economic downturn.

Unfortunately, we have not been able to find any research that employs a psychological type perspective that treats on this topic.  Research employing the Five Factor Model of personality, however, does offer some support for our findings.  In particular, research in both Germany and Italy, as well as the United States, has shown that research participants who score higher on the measure of Agreeableness (or Friendliness) tend to identify with political parties that support such government intervention as described in the previous paragraph. To the extent that the personality trait of Agreeableness correlates with a preference for Feeling (as is shown in the 1998 Manual), then we have some support for the notion that F types are likely to express liberal economic attitudes more so than T types.

Neither the E-I nor the J-P preferences showed an independent relationship with political orientations.  This result may seem somewhat anomalous, especially for the J-P preferences, given that the bivariate correlations between the J-P preferences and most of the political orientation measures were significant. However, as is not unusual, the J-P preferences correlated with the S-N preferences.  Thus, the simple relationship of J-P preferences may be mitigated in the multivariate case and represented by the S-N preferences.  (The role of E-I and J-P preferences is of interest, however, when we look below at the results of the cluster analysis.) 

 

Type Groupings.  We also examined the relationship between various type groupings and the five political orientation measures.  The groupings included whole types, Jung's 8 types, mental functions groupings, temperament groupings, the S-N/J-P grouping, the T-F/J-P grouping and the E-I/J-P grouping. Results from the analyses involving these type groupings suggested that various subtype groupings were related to political orientations in theoretically meaningful ways.  Both the whole-type and 8-Jungian-types groupings showed statistically significant relationships with the political orientation measures.  Given the rather small number of the 4 SP types that were represented in these analyses, however,  the reliability of the results should be viewed with caution. Rather, the other subtype groupings had more participants and thus provided more reliable responses.

The mental functions groupings and the temperament groupings provided the most consistent results in that these groupings produced statistically significant effects for each of the five political orientation measures. In particular, the NF types consistently reported more liberal political orientations than did the SJ or ST combination, and also reported more liberal political orientations than did the NT types on most of the political orientation measures. 

What  is it about the NF mental functions group that predisposes this group to a more liberal orientation than the other groupings? We are aware of no empirical research which supports this finding in either the psychological type or FFM literature. The results from the research by Consulting Psychologists Press, however, do provide some support for this finding.  Their results showed that NFs (and INFs in particular) self-identified as Democrat (or Independent) much more so than Republican. To the extent that Democrats self-identify as politically liberal and Republicans self-identify as politically conservative, then the results in our study for the NFs makes some sense. Moreover, the results from Macdaid's1 study showing SJs were overrepresented amongst those who reported they were "extremely" or "very" conservative politically supports the less liberal orientations reported by the SJs in this study.

Our experience with the mental functions groups and organizational politics also provides some theoretical rationale for the results found in this poll. We have discussed this experience here, as well as here, but will summarize that discussion and apply it to liberal and conservative political orientations in this discussion. In particular, our experience with the mental functions groupings and organizational politics derives from our use of two exercises with various student and work groups. In both exercises the participants are first assigned to mental functions groups. Then they are asked to (1) "Draw something that represents your ideal organization" and then (2) "draw a situation at work that your consider to be political". Our conclusions from this experience is that "good" politics is whatever enacts the ideal organization of each mental functions group. "Bad" politics is that which frustrates the enactment of one's ideal organization, typologically defined. The ideal organization for each mental functions group thus represents various characteristics and values with which each group would like to associate. In this manner, the ideal organization represents a form of ideal management or government.

The general themes of the ideal organization drawings reflect key differences in assumptions about the nature of management (or government) that are key to the differences between political liberals and political conservative. These include:

  • Assumptions about human nature: Human imperfectibility (conservative) vs. human perfectibility (liberal).
  • The degree of trust in efficacy of government: More suspicious (conservative) vs. more trusting (liberal).
  • Orientations to governmental evolution: Prefer more traditional, proven institutions (conservative) vs. prefer more innovative organizations (liberal).
  • Assumptions about hierarchy: Hierarchy is the natural order wherein individualism is afforded liberty (conservative) vs. community is the source of the social contract which ensures equality (liberal).

This list is neither exhaustive (more here) nor are the various categories mutually exclusive. The list, however, does provide a start for exploring how the mental functions groups manifest their political orientations through their depiction of their ideal organizations, especially with respect to the ST and NF differences.

The ideal organization of the ST groups is one metaphorically summarized as "the machine". This form of organization or government emphasizes the STs preference for a traditional form of organization that has existed for millennia, from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to that of Max Weber's conceptualization of bureaucracy as an ideal organizational type. This form of government assumes that employees/citizens not only are imperfectible (expressed somewhat as Theory X in managerial thinking and various doctrines of original sin in theology) but this assumption of imperfectibility is manifest in a respect for the law of variety wherein conservatives recognize people naturally differ in individual abilities (e.g., intelligence) that result in natural differences in classes, orders, material conditions, and thus inequality. That the STs are overrepresented in such career fields as law enforcement and the military correlates well with the managerial notion that mechanistic organization represents a command-and-control form of organization. Conservative bureaucracy's orientation to policies, procedures, rules, specialization of labor, centralization of authority and so on address the ST conservatives' organizational attempts to account for the imperfectibility of employees/citizens, provide for gradual organizational evolution through proven means, and provide for a more trusted centralization of authority via policies, procedures, and rules (as has been created through employment contracts in organizational arrangements and voting in the realm of public politics). Thus, within the ST machine we find the Sensing types' preferences for experience, tradition, and the here-and-now combined with the Thinking types' preferences for the impersonal and skeptical.

The ideal organization of the NF groups is one metaphorically summarized as an organization/government that allows for the full expression of the "human spirit". This form of organization or government emphasizes the NFs preferences involving possibilities (N) for people (F). The NFs thus value organizations that allow for creativity, imagination, and innovation along with an abiding respect, empathy, and concern for life in all its relationships. Their ideal organization is one based on the assumption that people are "perfectible" (at least in terms of human growth and development), are trustworthy (Theory Y in managerial thinking), and are best governed in a manner that allows for an ongoing dialogue that seeks consensus problem solving (equality) in the service of a community's betterment. The tendency of NFs to be overrepresented among such occupational groups as the clergy, conselling psychology, and the fine arts demonstrates the expression of NF energy in the realm of the human spirit. Power is expressed not through Weber's rationalized bureaucracy but, rather, though a social contract that emerges from the ongoing dialogue that takes place within a community of commitment and respect, and incarnates a postmodern version of Rousseau's general will of the people. Rather than the constitutional federalism of the conservative Republican's representative democracy, the NFs' ideal organization finds expression (via Fichte) in Mary Parker Follet's concept of democracy as "a great spiritual force evolving itself from men, utilizing each, completing his incompleteness by weaving together all in the many-membered community life which is the true Theophany." Thus, within the NF ideal organization we find the Intuition types' preferences for creativity and innovation combined with the Feeling types' preferences for the nurturing the whole.

The results from the analyses of the effects of the mental functions groupings on political orientations showed the NFs scored more liberal than the STs on 4 of the 5 measures of political orientations (Social Attitudes was the exception). In some of these analyses, however, the NFs scored as significantly more liberal than the SF and NT groups (as well as the ST group) while these groups (SF and NT) did not differ significantly from the ST groups. Based on our experience with the ideal organization exercise, we speculate that the SF and NT groupings produce ideal organizations that, while somewhat more egalitarian (or "decentralized") than the ST ideal organization, the NF orientation to egalitarianism is much more pronounced than that of the other groupings (especially when the NF group is predominantly NFP).

For example, the ideal organization for the SF groups is one metaphorically summarized as "small family" or "team". Within this organization there clearly is an emphasis on equality of the team members and respect for the uniqueness of each team member. Invariably, however, the SF groups recognize an overarching goal or authority that governs the group (and thus implies some degree of hierarchy). A couple of examples might help. In one situation, the SF group drew a key holder much as one might find in one's kitchen. The structure holding all the keys can be seen as the hierarchically organizing principle of the group. Each group member, however, drew his or her own unique key with his or her name on the key--representing the uniqueness of each member. In another situation, the SF group drew an arrow. In this case, the single head of the arrow represented the group's unity of purpose and direction. However, each member of the group also drew in their own unique portion of the tail feathers that would guide the arrow--again representing the uniqueness of each member.

 

We think these metaphorical portraits reflect validly some of the liberal and conservative differences between the mental functions groups. As with any use of metaphor, however, some aspects of a phenomenon are emphasized while others are de-emphasized.  For example, we believe the ST characterization presented above clearly emphasizes many aspects of conservatism.  On the other hand, characterizing  conservatism as mechanistic in the sense of the ST ideal organization produces something of a conundrum in that the mechanistic form of industrial organization was something that early conservatives seem to have regarded with disdain.  As discussed in Kirk's book The Conservative Mind , early conservatives viewed the rise of the industrial organization as emblematic of a growing secularism and a decline of a traditional, more agrarian and religious society. To the extent that various writers of the Romantic movement were involved in this conservative critique of industrialization (as Kirk notes), then we have the interesting hypothesis of the NF conservative, in that the Romantic movement emphasized intuition and "feeling" (N and F) over the evolving empiricism and rationality (S and T).  Such relationships deserve further investigation, as well as remind us that politics indeed may make strange bedfellows, even typologically. 

Cluster Analysis. We also performed a cluster analysis using participant responses to the October 08 poll. Cluster analysis is a statistical technique that seeks to form homogeneous clusters that differ from other clusters. Cluster analysis sometimes is refered to as "typological analysis" and thus seems quite appropriate for deriving various clusters of "political types" from our data. We performed two cluster analyses. The first extracted three clusters and the second extracted four clusters.

Unlike the above analyses (dichotomies and type groupings), the cluster analyses included participants' self identification as Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Thus, the variables included in the cluster analyses included type preferences, party identification, sex, age, and the five political orientation measures. In both the 3-cluster and 4-cluster analyses, we explored the role of type as dichotomies only (E-I, S-N, T-F, and J-P) and as mental functions groupings (ST, SF, NF, and NT) with the E-I and J-P dichotomies also included.

Results from the analyses produced both common themes and a some interesting differences. One consistent theme involved participants who identified with the Republican Party. This cluster invariably included more than 98% of the Republican participants, significantly more males than females, and the smallest proportion of F and NF types. The cluster also included a moderate proportion of T and ST type participants (with the NT types modestly represented in one analysis). As might be expected, this cluster reported conservative scores on the political orientation measures with economic conservatism being stronger than social conservatism. The proportion of Independents in this cluster ranged from about 27% to 44% depending upon the analyses. Fewer than 2% of Democrats fell into this cluster in each of the analyses.

A second theme was the tendency of the remaining clusters to be defined largely by Democrats followed by Independents. Further, the remaining clusters reported strong liberal orientations with social orientations generally more significant than economic orientations. The remaining clusters, however, differed in terms of the influence of the following variables: E-I, T-F, J-P, mental functions, and sex.

In the analyses where type preferences were included as the four separate dichotomies, two of the remaining clusters were distinguished by E or I preferences. The E cluster contained a large proportion of E participants along with a moderate proportion of participants who identified as Democrat or Independent. The E cluster also contained a moderate representation of F types (and the fewest T types) or a larger proportion of females than males (depending upon the analysis). The I cluster contained a large proportion of of the I participants and a moderate proportion of Democrats and Independents. In the four-cluster solution, the I cluster also contained a moderate proportion of females (and few males). A fourth cluster was not defined by the E-I dichotomy; rather this extra cluster contained about 1/3 of the male participants and about 1/4 of the F types (with only 1% of the T types). Party membership was not a significant influence on this group. And, in contrast to the other non-Repubican clusters, this cluster tended to express stronger economic liberalism.

In the analyses where type preferences were included as mental functions (along with E-I and J-P dichotomies), the remaining clusters largely were defined by sex and the J-P preferences, along with the mental functions grouping. The three-custer solution produced one cluster defined by a large proportion (80%) of female participants (with 0% males) and a large proportion (62%) of the NF participants. A majority (64%) of Democrat participants also were in this cluster along with about 37% of Independents. The second cluster was a male cluster (61% of male participants and 0% female) along with about 34% of the Democrat participants and 18% Independents. In the four-cluster solution, the female-Democrat-NF group split off another cluster, distinguished largely by the J-P preferences. The female-Democrat-NF cluster became a female-Democrat-NF-P group (with slightly smaller proportions of Democrat and NF participants--but with no J participants). The new cluster was a female-Democrat-J cluster. The cluster contained no males, no P types, and no Republican participants.

The foregoing discussion of the results from the cluster analyses raise at least three questions for further discussion:

  • Why did only one "Republican" cluster emerge whereas two or three "Democrat/Independent" clusters emerged?
  • Why did the E-I and J-P preference dichotomies influence the cluster formations when no significant effect was found for these preferences in the other analyses?
  • Why did participant sex influence the formation of so many clusters?

As an answer to the first question we must quote Will Rogers: "I belong to no organized political party -- I am a Democrat". This quote reflects an ongoing stereotype about Democrats, and thus Republicans, in that Republicans generally have been seen--at least over the past decade or so--as the talking-points-memo party. This characterization suggests Republicans are more unified and organized in contrast to Rogers' sarcasm suggesting that Democrats are not so organized. The correlations between participants who identify with the Republican party and their type preferences as E, S, T, and J also suggests that Republicans may have a more unified and organized political self-identity than do Democrats. Political dynamics over the past few years leading up to the 2008 U.S. presidential election would, however, seem to discredit this perspective somewhat. In particular, the Republican party clearly has become more divided as latent schisms between social conservatives, economic conservatives, neo-conservatives, and so on have become more apparent as a result of the 2008 election process. Rather, another answer to this question may come from the limitations in the distribution of the sample data. That is, given the relatively smaller proportion of participants in the poll who identified as Republican, the sample size may not be large enough to provide an opportunity for differences in this cluster to emerge (and form other Republican clusters).

Given these limitations, however, the results for the "Republican" cluster accord with the perspective of Republicans as more likely to be conservative politically and male than are Democrats. That T types and ST types are more frequently represented in the Republican cluster while F and NF types are only marginally represented seems reasonable given the liberal-conservative orientations for these types discussed above.

Our second question involves the E-I and J-P preferences. These preferences showed no significant relationships in the analyses focusing solely on the relationships between type and political orientations. Yet, these preferences played a significant role in the formation of some clusters. Why the different effects? One key to answering this question is to keep in mind that the cluster analyses included party identification whereas the other analyses did not. Further, research using the FFM suggests that personality and party identification are related such that Es and Js are likely to identify with more conservative or rightist political parties whereas Is and Ps are more likely to identify with more liberal or leftist parties. Unfortunately, these FFM results do not seem to apply in our situation given that the E-I and J-P effects are influential only in discriminating non-Republican clusters. Further, the influence is to discriminate clusters which generally contain females, Democrats, F types, and NF types. Like other results in this study, these results may be due to the distribution of the participants in the study. However, the results from the 1998 Consulting Psychologists Press study do provide an interesting perspective. In that study, INFs were the least likely of all the 16 types to self-identify as Republican and the INFJs were the most likely of all the whole types to self-identify with Democrats. ENFs did not show as clear a discrimination between party leanings with both the ENFPs and the ENFJs self-identifying almost uniformly across all three party identifications: Republican, Democrat, and Independent. When combined with the results from the cluster analyses, the implication is that (at least in the NF case) the E preference is associated with identification with a variety of parties whereas the I preference is associated with a disinclination to identify as Republican. Further, the P preference is associated with a greater willingness to identify as Independent whereas the J preference is negatively associated with Independence.

Our final question is: why did participant sex influence the formation of so many clusters?  As discussed above, the distribution of males and females varied significantly across some clusters. In particular, the Republican cluster consistently contained a larger proportion of male participants than female  participants.  In the mental functions analyses there was a clear tendency for a male-Democrat cluster to emerge separate from a largely female-Democrat-NF cluster.  Further, the J-P influence was evident only in female clusters, with 0% males in these two clusters.  One possible answer to this question, again, is that the results are indigenous to the participant pool.  Another more theoretical speculation is provided by those authors and commentators who have stereotyped the political parties in terms of the sexes.  For example, political commentator Chris Matthews has referred to the Republican Party as the "Daddy" party and the Democratic party as the "Mommy" party.  Similarly, University of California, Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff has referred to liberal and conservative political orientations in terms of family dynamics where liberals are framed in terms of  the "Nurturing Parent" metaphor  and conservatives are framed in terms of the "Strict Father" metaphor.

These speculations reflect an ongoing debate in the social sciences as well as the psychological type community about the "gendering" of various social and psychological constructs.  For example,  the effect of sex-role stereotyping in the realm of occupations has long been studied . Moreover, the type community has long focused on sex differences in responses to the T-F index (and the fact that 76% of females scored as F in the norming of the Form M appears to do little to assuage these concerns). Research on the role of sex in terms of party membership, attitudes toward various political issues, and voting behavior, however, suggest that there are differences along these lines both within parties by sex as well as between parties by sex.  Thus, a study with more conservative and Republican participants is needed along with studies that discriminate between sex (male and female) and gender (masculinity and femininity) as they relate to type and political orientations. The general regression results reported above further support this need for research in that males and T types, more so than females and F types, reported more conservative political orientations.

  

Theory-Method Considerations

As we have noted in various parts of our discussion, there has been an ongoing debate in the type community about  what constitutes a psychological type and how best to statistically analyze type data.  On the one hand, there are those2 who have argued for something of a "subgroup" approach where each whole type is taken as the unit of analysis (especially when using correlations as a foundation for analysis). When applied to this study, such an approach would seem to require, e.g., that our factor analysis of the political orientations measures be conducted on each of the 16 types separately, with subsequent analyses similarly constrained. To employ such an analysis would require a sample size of at least 10 responses for each of our 20 political orientation items for each of the 16 types, or 10x20x16=3600 participants. Clearly, our sample did not allow for such an examination.

On the other hand, there are those3 who have argued that the whole-type perspective--along with the associated notion of type dynamics--has not met the test of empirical examination.  Rather, the suggestion amongst these researchers is that type effects are most likely to occur at the level of the individual types alone or in additive combinations.  Our analyses, to some extent, have been able to test this view and the results here generally are supportive of this viewpoint.  For example, our regression analysis indicated that main effects--especially for the S-N and T-F preferences--were related to our political orientation measures in theoretically meaningful ways. Further, our tests for relationships between interactions of type variables and political orientation measures met with no success.  On the other hand, our analyses of the subgroups suggested the type preferences do combine to produce effects on political orientations.  

Within the context of these two consideration, we thus offer the results here as a limited examination of the relationship between psychological type preferences and political orientations.  And, hopefully the results provide suggestions for future research.  We cannot say, however, that the results provide any rigorous insight into the ongoing debate discussed above.

------------

1Macdaid, G. P. (1999, February). Facts from the CAPT databank. Paper presented at the Second Biennial Clinical Conference  of the Center for the Applications of Psychological Type, Gainesville, FL.

2Mitchell, W. D. (2000).  Cautions regarding aggregated data analysis in type research.  Journal of Psychological Type, 53, 19-30.

3Reynierse, J. H. (2009, January). The case against type dynamics. Journal of Psychological Type, 69(1), 1-21.


A Proposed Model

The results from the various Type & Politics Polls indicated psychological type preferences were related to various political orientations and attitudes.  Though the results suggested that type plays only a small role in terms of the amount of statistical variation accounted for in these various political orientations, the results were statistically and theoretically significant. Moreover, further research that explores the role of type preferences as exogenous variables  within a path-analytic framework may show a more significant effect for type within a larger network of variables.  For example, results from our studies showed that type preferences were related to various political orientations and attitudes and that type preferences were related to political party membership. These effects were obtained when the relationship of type to political orientations and party membership were examined separately.  When examined at the same time, the role of type was mitigated and the liberal-conservative orientations remained significantly related to party membership. A more realistic perspective may be that type preferences influence the development of various traits and values which then influence political orientations which then influence party identification and voting behavior (as is suggested by various FFM studies).

This kind of "path analytic" model is suggested in the collage presented below.  When viewed left to right, the model proposes at least five topics to consider. 

 

First, the model proposes that both a "nature" and "nurture" perspective be employed.  Sufficient research to date exists to propose that genetics influence brain development and thus personality. For example, research has shown that variations in gray matter and white matter in the brain are genetically determined. Other research shows that frontal lobe volume is more influenced by heritability than is hippocampal volume. With respect to the heritability of personality,   Bourchard's work shows the heritability of type preferences as similarly has been found for the FFM traits.  More specifically, research reported in the 1998 Manual suggests relationships between various neurological activity and various type preferences. Conservatism also has been demonstrated to be heritable.  Although this research focuses on the heritability perspective of brain structure and functioning as well as personality, rather than the nurture perspective, the research remains open to the influence of environment or nurture.  The theory of type development clearly suggests that family and other social situations likely influence at least the expression of type preferences.

Second, the model proposes that type preferences (in interaction with environmental factors) influence the development of certain values and attitudes (including political attitudes).  Research in the FFM area clearly has shown a relationship between personality, values, and political orientations, with values more strongly related to political orientation than was personality.  Translated into psychological type terms, this research suggests that more conservative voters are likely to be more E, S, T, and J, and to value security, power, achievement, conformity, and tradition. More liberal voters are likely to be more I, N, F, and P, and to value universalism, benevolence, and self-direction.  This translation or interpretation of the relationships between the FFM personality traits and values seems supported by recent research1 looking at the relationship between type and values (where values are conceptualized and measured within Schwartz's theory ).  Although most types in this recent study tended to rank order Schwartz's values generally in the same order, there were some significant type differences reflecting the FFM results. For example, ESTJs ranked higher in terms of achievement, conformity, tradition, and power than did INTPs. That ESTJs express a strong orientation to these values is consistent with ESTJs identifying as Republican. Moreover, the values are consistent with those espoused by conservatives. That INTPs would rank lower on these values also seems consistent with INTPs identifying as Independents, for whom such values as conformity and tradition are somewhat constraining. 

Third, the model proposes that the relationship between type preferences, personality traits, values and political attitudes should be explored both at a general level as well as a more specific level that focuses on political values and attitudes.  Research to date suggests small--but theoretically relevant--relationships between type preferences and various values generally, as well as various political orientations. Future research should explore path analytic models which specify type preferences as influencing general values which then are viewed as influencing specific political attitudes.  Specific political attitudes may included such attitudes as the social and economic attitudes measured in this study as well as political attitudes that are derived from other theoretical perspectives on personality and politics. For example, in a previous poll we examined the relationship between type preferences and one scale from a measure of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO).  Our results showed that those participants with T preferences, on average, scored higher on the scale than did those participants with F preferences.  Given that the SDO scale measures attitudes toward equality/inequality in social groups, our results suggested that T types were more likely to be comfortable with inequality whereas F types were less likely to be comfortable with inequality in social groups.  These results seem quite consistent with our discussions on the preceding page about the relationships between hierarchy vs. equality and conservative vs. liberal political orientations. (And, in fact, we found in our previous poll that conservatives--as well as the T types--scored higher on the SDO scale than did liberals and the F types).  In addition to the SDO scales there are a number of other measures of personality and attitudes that seem relevant for study. These scales include those measuring authoritarianism and Machiavellianism, as well as the personality variables surveyed in studies of conservatism and liberalism. (See here for a list of summary studies and criticisms.)

Fourth, the model proposes that the relationships between political attitudes, political values, political self-concept, party identification and voting behavior be explored within the context of various social and psychological theories that suggest one's political identity and behavior likely are interrelated.  Theories of cognitive dissonance, heterophily-homophily , and social identity theory clearly suggest that people seek some consistency in their identity and that this process is influenced by the groups, including political groups, with which they identify. Within the realm of political psychology, this viewpoint is represented in the work on political congruency.  To some extent, this aspect of the model also addresses the proposal that the relationship between type preferences and political factors keep in mind both nature and nurture.  For example, the notion of social identity theory implies the existence of groups with which individuals might identify, and the notion a target group is one example of the environment and how the environment might influence a person's political identity.

Finally,  the model presented here suggests a path analytic approach in terms of methodology.  There are at least six reasons to consider such an approach. First, path analytic models such as structural equations models allow researchers to examine multiple relationships between variables in more detail than is done with the usual type table analysis or with basic ANOVA.  Second, these methods allow a more detailed look at sources of error in a model.  Third, these methods generally provide a better estimate of the "true" relationships among variables than do more traditional methods, particularly when correlations are estimated. (That is, where relationships exist--and the measurement model meets standards--correlations generally are not as attenuated as those with traditional correlational methods.) Fourth, these methods allow a researcher to study relationships between observed variables and latent variables, as well as relationships involving nominal, ordinal, and continuous data. Fifth, these methods are appropriate for studying interactions amongst variables as is done with traditional methods (and which is of interest to type researchers). Finally, there are a variety of statistical programs available to implement these analyses. An overview of this approach (with one statistical package) can be viewed here.

This recommendation that structural equations modeling may be useful, of course, does not rule out other approaches.  The cluster analyses approach used in this study provided quite interesting results.  Taxometric methods also seem relevant.

-------------
1Raymond Moody & Robert Randall. (n.d.) Cultural Values and Type: Explaining Values. Personal Communication.

Print Email

 
 
 
 
 © Politicaltypes.com 2017. All Rights Reserved.

Share This