Search News


Browse Archives

News

Dorm Living as a Psychological Science

December 12, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

If college freshmen knew more about their roommate’s personality type, would they be more likely to get along with one another? Some small liberal arts colleges think so and have invested in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) -- a well-known personality assessment -- to either match roommates or resolve conflicts between them.

This fall, Champlain College, in Burlington, Vt., began requiring all of its incoming students to complete the MBTI before arriving on campus as part of a newly launched “life skills” program. Counselors then meet with freshman roommates at the beginning of the semester to discuss the experience of taking the personality assessment and have them complete a roommate agreement form. This document is used by resident assistants and other officials to establish rules for a shared room and deal with potential conflicts.

The MBTI -- based on the work of Carl Jung -- classifies individuals in one of 16 categories. According to the assessment, individuals are extroverted or introverted; sensitive or intuitive; thinking or feeling; and judging or perceiving. These traits add up to a specific personality type that can be used by qualified counselors in a variety of ways, such as helping a test-taker select an ideal profession or mate.

Leslie Averill, assistant vice president for student life at Champlain, said college officials have seen anecdotal evidence that using the personality assessment has reduced the number of roommate conflicts and switches this semester. Though the college does not have any hard numbers supporting the initial success of this program, she said it has committed to using the personality assessment next year and will further review its effectiveness in the future. So far, she said residence life officials were pleased with the results.

The MBTI, however, is not used for what it tells Champlain students about themselves but for how it makes them think about themselves. Averill noted that the students are not informed of their individual results when completing roommate agreements. Instead, she explained that students self-identity with their perceived personality when getting to know their roommates. This knowledge is used later in the semester: if conflict arises between roommates, she said this information can be used by resident assistants to mediate a resolution. She also noted that students do not have to sign any sort of waiver allowing the college to share this information. The experience of taking the MBTI is intended to help students think more about themselves and their personalities, with the goal of disarming conflicts before they arise.

“Students don’t like to be told what they are, but they like to tell stories about themselves,” Averill said, noting that MBTI results are disclosed in a student’s second or third year when they see a career counselor for guidance. “They don’t like to be put into a box. We don’t want to tell people what they are or are not. Instead, this is a tool for conversations to take place, for roommate agreements, and for students to find out who they are as individuals.”

Averill said Champlain has budgeted $5,000 this year for the use of the MBTI, adding that, even in tough financial times, college officials think the benefit to the student life experience is worth the cost. Roommates are still paired randomly. The MBTI is only used in an advisory fashion after roommates have been selected.

Davidson College in North Carolina has taken the use of the MBTI a step further than Champlain: it uses the personality assessment in its multi-step process to match freshman roommates. Incoming students complete the assessment soon after being admitted, and residence life officials consider the personality types of students alongside a plethora of other self-reported information -- such as preference for a smoking or non-smoking roommate and whether a student primarily views the room as a place to study or socialize. When students arrive on campus, they attend information sessions at which they learn their personality types and the meaning of the MBTI results.

Patty Perillo, associate dean of students at Davidson, said the personality assessment is only one portion of the institution’s intimate and comprehensive roommate matching process. For example, in addition to calculating their incoming students’ personality types, the residence life staff reads the application of every freshman when matching him or her with a roommate. She admits, however, that this attention to detail may have a lot to do with the college’s small size.

“I don’t think every college can do it,” Perillo said of using the personality assessment. “It’s the thought of the college that, if we had any more than 500 [new] students, a cost-benefit analysis might indicate that we need to take the [MBTI] out of roommate matching. Still, the beauty of this process at Davidson is that residence life can get to know students before they get here.”

At Davidson, she said there have only been two formal roommate complaints this semester among the college’s 476 freshmen. In those circumstances, she said the two pairs of students were able to switch roommates and resolve the conflict. Aside from this anecdotal evidence, she said the college believes the personality assessment is making a difference is lessening roommate conflicts based on other related MBTI research.

“Myers-Briggs research shows that certain personality types are more inclined to get along with certain other types,” Perillo said. “While this research was not about roommate pairing, [the MBTI] is pretty well established and reliable. We feel comfortable bringing it into the roommate pairing process.”

She noted that Davidson was paying $8 per student annually for this assessment. This year it cost the institution $3,776.

According to market share information from CPP -- formerly Consulting Psychologists Press, the exclusive publisher of the MBTI in the United States -- more than 70 percent of colleges and universities in the country use the MBTI or other personality assessments in some capacity. Michael Schur, CPP product manager for the MBTI, said the assessment is most popularly used by career counselors in job-matching programs. Depending on how many student participate, he said the assessment can cost an institution anywhere between $10 and $20 per person.

Still, Schur said CPP does take issue with using the MBTI as a “screening” or “exclusionary” tool, for example, if an institution were to tell roommates that they should not room together because of their opposing personality types. The test, he said, should not be the only or final arbiter in such a decision.

“The MBTI helps people understand their differences and appreciate them,” Schur said. “It’s not about saying this person does this correctly or incorrectly. If you have this preference and I have another preference, how can we live together?”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Dorm Living as a Psychological Science

  • Posted by bystander psychologist on December 12, 2008 at 6:45am EST
  • Myers-Briggs is popular, but it is not "psychological science." It is generally found in counselor ed departments, and sometimes among otherwise intelligent business management types--I never saw it being taught in any Dept. of Psychology that I was part of as a student or faculty. It's fun--but why not match students on the basis of their birthdays? I mean, astrolology has a far longer history, it's less invasive, and has as much likelihood of success. Hmmm, a Capricorn, you should fit well with a Taurus.

  • Posted by Linda on December 12, 2008 at 9:00am EST
  • The MBTI is not based on the work of Carl Jung, but on the interpretation of his work by Myers and Briggs. According to Annie Murphy Paull in her book "The Psychology of Personality," when Jung was shown the MBTI he disavowed any connection to his work.

    The MBTI is the best marketed "assessment" and has the validity of a horoscope. The "research" on the MBTI is useless since the majority of it has been conducted by the company that markets the product.

    The res life folks need to connect with the psyc faculty....

  • Nothing New
  • Posted by Howard , Assoc. VP at Cal State Fullerton on December 12, 2008 at 9:00am EST
  • University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point had long been a pioneer in the early 70's in student development and had been using a battery of instruments in all of their student affairs programs, and residential life program is one.

  • Psychology, Science, and the Myers-Briggs assessment
  • Posted by Mike Shur , Product Marketing Manager at CPP, Inc. on December 12, 2008 at 9:00am EST
  • In response to "bystander psychologist" --

    There are many studies that demonstrate the reliability and validity of the MBTI tool. In fact, its reliability is .9 and above, indicating that the results people get from their MBTI assessment are stable and repeatable. Further, the validity of the instrument has been so well demonstrated that almost all other personality assessments are validated against its categories of personality.

    The MBTI Manual (Chapters 8 and 9) details a variety of research that has been done over the past 20 years to show the efficacy and relevance of the assessment. With the use of MRI imaging of the brain and advancing knowledge of brain chemistry, brain science has shown differences in the functioning of the brains of, for example, Extraverts and Introverts, as well as the impact of brain chemicals such as serotonin and epinephrine on personality functions such as Thinking and Feeling.

    I encourage everyone to find out more about the MBTI instrument and the research that is always being updated on www.CPP.com

    Mike Shur
    Mr. MBTI

  • MBTI
  • Posted by Lawrence Kutner, Ph.D. on December 12, 2008 at 10:35am EST
  • In response to Mr. Shur--

    "In fact, its reliability is .9 and above, indicating that the results people get from their MBTI assessment are stable and repeatable."

    The issue isn't the test's reliability, but its validity. In other words, is it measuring what its users claim to be measuring? Without that, the test's reliability is irrelevant.

  • Posted by Contratian on December 12, 2008 at 10:35am EST
  • I have actually heard people say they must react a particular way in a situation because of their MBTI classification, and I have seen management use this test against employees.

    I always lie on these things if I can't outright refuse to take it. My favorite pseudoscience test was the one determining "colors" for our "happy place", first-stage confrontation, and second stage confrontation. It was pretty easy to figure out how to answer the questions to get a particular result, and many of us did so.

    It's about as useful as horoscope, I agree.

  • Posted by Perry on December 12, 2008 at 11:25am EST
  • The Myers-Briggs is not taught in psychology courses because it is pseudo-psychology. They are wasting their money. Who says it is better to match roommates based on compatibility or similarity? Why shouldn't college students learn to get along with people who are different from themselves, learn communication skills that will later benefit them in marriage, and learn about compromise? Telling students they are supposed to get along with someone who is supposedly compatible (science says so) can cause problems when they do not get along. I can see a student blaming themselves and forming a negative opinion of their own ability to make friends after disliking someone they are told they should have been BFF with. It is a potentially damaging lie.

  • So what else is new...
  • Posted by Kevin Drumm , College President on December 12, 2008 at 12:45pm EST
  • 20 years ago as a res life director I used a short Myers-Briggs like instrument to match roommates. It worked exceedingly well. I just assumed res life programs have been using them all along...

  • getting informed
  • Posted by DN , Prof. at UCLA, Dept of Anthro. on December 12, 2008 at 12:50pm EST
  • One of the goals of education is to encourage life-long self-educating. I wonder how much of that has gone on here so far?

    How many of you at least googled the term "MBTI research" before posting your opinion? Raise your hands.
    Try www.capt.org for a start. More research on reliability, validity, and outcomes than you can read in a lifetime.

    How many of you uncritically swallow everything you read by journalists? True, Annie pointed out some sad misuses. But she freely admits that she has an agenda and spins like the best of them. For example, Dr. Jung never disavowed Myers's work, though that's irrelevant since a team of statisticians and (gasp) psychologists have been managing the research and updating of the MBTI for decades.

    As for academic psychology programs, I know these folks, and all I can say is, there's a reason the clinicians got a divorce from them decades ago. Academic psychology doesn't have its feet held to the fire of real-world outcomes, and it's a highly insular culture like any other.

    Personally, I'm not one for instruments. I don't use the MBTI. But I don't harbor some strange, deep-seated hate against it either. For some of you here, I encourage you to reread your post and assess whether it sounds informed and professional.

    A wonderful Japanese saying fits well here: ron yori shoko, or facts before discussion.

  • MBTI
  • Posted by HIEDDoc on December 12, 2008 at 1:25pm EST
  • Contrarian (?) - I think you, and many others, are taking the Myers-Briggs inventories (and trainings, and matchings) WAY too literally. Why on earth would someone "cheat" on it? That's silly! Both the inventory and the framework are just tools to help you think about your own and others' preferences, and to provide some common language to talk about those differences. To be fair, I find that people who first encounter it do sometimes resist the idea of "it" (or me) defining them... but it's not supposed to be used that way. In fact, I have stopped using the "tests" and questions altogether, and usually just describe the conceptual construct and ask people where they think they fall. It's not magic, or psychic, or extraterrestrial... it just provides some alternate ways to describe oneself or others beyond "neat freak" or "list-maker" or "big picture guy".

    Of course, if someone is using the answers to disadvantage people, then I understand why one would cheat. But why lie about your sense of yourself if the goal is to help you to communicate to other people?

    And yes, this is hardly news. Colleges and universities have been using MB types to help people communicate about living situations and work groups since at least the 1970s, and industry and the military have been using some form of MB since WWI.

  • MBTI
  • Posted by Bruce Thyer , Professor at Florida State University on December 12, 2008 at 1:45pm EST
  • I am quite sure there is no credible evidence that matching dorm residents on the basis of the MBTI is useful to promote harmonious relationships. The book "Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology" by Lilienfeld, Lynn & Lohr (Guilford, 2003, does a nice job of summarizing the evidence on this scale's validity (or lack thereof).

    It's value has been vastly oversold, and is simply another bogus properitary product being marketed at great profit by its promoters. The underlying theory is invalid, and its predictive properties are minimal. There is a sucker born every minute and sometimes the suckers are universities.

  • Personality matching
  • Posted by Fred Flener , Retired on December 12, 2008 at 1:45pm EST
  • I personally feel the MBTI is reasonable, and let's not get too hung up with its validity or reliability. I score high on the N and P dimensions, and this is consistent with how I live my life. The question is, "should we live with those like us, or will be benefit by living with those who are different?" I am reminded of a study in math education in which high school juniors were tested as to whether they were more visual (geometry) or analytic (algebra) in their thinking. They then taught how to solve quadratic inequalities by two methods, logical anlytical or graphical visual. The results were strange. There was a significant negative correlation. That is the students who were visual did better when taught analytically and vice-versa. Why? My guess (not a strong scientific justification) is that because the school at which it was carried out was the university's lab school, and the kids were highly motivated to achieve. Therefore, teaching to their weaknesses was helpful. I once coached basketball, and we understood something. If a kid was a good ball-handler, but poor shooter we coached shooting. If he was a good shooter, we emphasized ball-handling. In other words, coaching to their weaknesses. Again, these were competitive kids who wanted to get better at the sport. Coming full circle back to the use of MBTI, might it be better for someone like me, a high NP, be better if I lived with a high SJ? I might learn to be a little more organized, and the other person may learn to not sweat the small stuff. I would like them to study the approach. When it comes to social setting, it is better be to be with those like us, or those different? (Whatever instrument used to measure differences.) I am not sure.

  • MBTI
  • Posted by J Scoon on December 12, 2008 at 1:45pm EST
  • When will we stop trying to pigeonhole people with "personality" assessment tools? How about learning to live with people, even if they're different from you? How about accepting that life is full of variables, and we can't predict the future?

    If your roommate match doesn't work out, it's not the end of the world -- it's part of life. Face it, respond to it, get help to deal with it, and, if necessary, change roommates.

    Personality assessment questionnaires are a seductive shortcut to the real experience of who and what we are. Beware of conclusions reached this way.

    ~ Jean, whose daughter had a terrible roommate situation in her sophomore year, and learned a great deal from it that she never would have learned any other way.

  • Living and Learning Communities
  • Posted by Mike on December 12, 2008 at 2:35pm EST
  • College campuses are made up of a wide range of people: scholars, student-athletes, musicians, hermits, artist, brianiacs, weird people, people just like me and people not like me, republicans, democrats, liberiterians and socialist.

    One advantage of a residential college is to engage and live with fellow students not like me. Important to live and learn about other cultures, different lifestyles, socioeconomic standing, democracy and many other values. Sometimes we call his globilization of the student body or preapring our students to live in a global society.

    The adults in this equation are creating a more segregationist model by clustering people with like minds and like interest together instead of teaching its students about values.

    This model is created to make the university administrators job easier at a cost to the student body.

  • Reliability
  • Posted by Lascap on December 12, 2008 at 4:35pm EST
  • Someone mentioned a reliability of 0.9. I would like to see the source for that. Studies commonly find reliabilities of around 0.6 for the MBTI. And no validity.

    So, sources please.

    I'm a psychologist. The MBTI is not based in science.

  • Posted by Steve Petkas at University of Maryland on December 12, 2008 at 4:35pm EST
  • The Myers Briggs Type Indicator is a valid instument that provides descriptions on some observable human differences in perception and judgement that must be understood and explained amidst a clear versing on its strengths and limitations---as with any personality instrument. It has been ballyhooed by some since its inception, not least because its creators were two gifted individuals and were not psychometrists. But it is not a bible, nor an oracle, nor a horoscope. Anyone who is tempted to be so dismissive should first consult the manual for the instrument authored by Myers and McCaulley. The employment of the MBTI to assist roommates in understanding their differences is a perfectly valid use, although I would be less inclined to assign roommates using the instrument. Seems to me that to dismiss out of hand the potentials of the most widely used personality and temperament indicator ever created, or to believe that it explains and predicts everything about human temperament are both equally ignorant dispositions.

  • Posted by Contrarian on December 12, 2008 at 11:25pm EST
  • "But why lie about your sense of yourself if the goal is to help you to communicate to other people?"

    Because that was not the goal. The goal was to pigeonhole people and find out how to exploit them, or find a reason not to hire/retain them.

  • Posted by Perry on December 13, 2008 at 6:35am EST
  • Matching people up based on the MBTI isn't the same as using it to help people understand their differences. Labeling children who are still in a formative period is also not ethical, as academic psychologists understand (and anthropologists do not). Even when a clinician makes a valid diagnosis using an appropriate instrument, he or she would be unlikely to share that professional label with a client, since labeling has its own dangers. The rush to willy nilly slap labels on everyone doesn't help us understand them, it helps us pigeonhole and stereotype them. Even valid personality instruments do not correlate well with observed behavior, so it is hard to see how the knowledge gained on a self-report instrument like MBTI can help with any situation involving actions instead of personas (especially those still under construction).

  • Posted by Kevin on December 13, 2008 at 3:30pm EST
  • I realize that our 'psychologists' here understand this, but I thought I might point out that the MBTI is an INDICATOR not a TEST.

    Tests have right answers, indicators do not. This is a self-report instrument, and until the results are validated by the individual and a certified professional, you do not know if the subject answered the questions as they would like to be, how they have been told they should be, or, as has been mentioned here, to 'deceive' the instrument.

    Actual reading of Jung, Katherine Briggs, and her daughter, Isabel Briggs-Myers, would be suggested before passing off further uninformed opinion as indicative of the academy's view

  • What a bunch of crap!
  • Posted by Steve Simon on December 16, 2008 at 2:20pm EST
  • Psych major from many years ago, I became convinced this is a bunch of Horse Crap.
    To think that you can fill in a few assessments (which are by nature subjective) and then be matched in harmony with your "Get-a-long" roomy is absurd.
    It is yet another mutation of a concept that is very involved into a "Quick fix" application. Drivel!