Personal Styles Inventory

Aim
To assess an individual’s personal style in relation to their behavior, decision-making,
and interpersonal interactions.

Objective:
To provide a comprehensive understanding of a person’s personality traits,
preferences, and tendencies in order to enhance self-awareness and personal development.

Introduction
Personality refers to an individual’s characteristic patterns of thought, emotion, and

behaviour, together with the psychological mechanisms hidden or not behind those patterns

(Funder, 2013). Personality as the group of aptitudes, acquired interests from experience, and

inherited biological motives (Jeel, 2000). Personality is the combination of individual

personal traits, growth, interests, and thoughts, which result from the interaction between

heredity and environment, as well as some personal traits formed as a result of

environmental, political, religions, intellectual, and methods of socialization (Isawi, 2002).

Personality is that which predicts what a person will do in a given situation; it is

concerned with all the behavior of the individual, both overt and under the skin (Raymond

Cattell). ·

Personality is the more or less stable and enduring organization of a person's

character, intellect and physique, which determines his unique adjustment to his (or her)

environment (Hans Eysenck). Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual

of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to his (or her)

environment (Gordon Allport).

 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality assessment tool rooted in

the theories of Carl Jung. Jung's work introduced the concept of psychological functions and

attitudes, which were later adapted and expanded by Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother,

Katharine Cook Briggs, to create the MBTI. It is an introspective, self-report evaluation that

identifies a person’s personality type and psychological preferences. Although Carl Jung

conceptualized the foundational ideas in his typology theory, the MBTI was designed to

make Jung's ideas accessible for practical application, particularly in areas like education,

career counseling, and organizational settings. Isabel Briggs Myers and Katharine Briggs

developed the MBTI during the 1940s, with the first MBTI manual published in 1962. Their

goal was to help individuals better understand themselves and others, improving

communication and collaboration (Myers, 1980).

The MBTI categorizes personality into 16 distinct types based on four dichotomous

scales, which represent preferences for perceiving and interacting with the world:

 Extraversion (E) vs. Introversion (I): Extraversion reflects a preference for drawing

energy from interactions with people and the external environment. Introversion

reflects a preference for drawing energy from inner thoughts and reflection.

 Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing emphasizes gathering information through

observable facts and tangible details. Intuition emphasizes interpreting patterns,

possibilities, and abstract meanings.

 Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking prioritizes logic and objectivity in decision-

making. Feeling prioritizes empathy and values in decision-making.

 Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Judging reflects a preference for structure, planning,

and decisiveness. Perceiving reflects a preference for flexibility, spontaneity, and

adaptability.
These dichotomies are combined to create a four-letter type (e.g., ENFP, ISTJ), which

represents a person's overall personality.

It categorizes individuals into one of 16 personality types, providing insights into their

preferences in four dimensions: extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling,

and judging/perceiving. MBTI is commonly used for personal development, career

counseling, and team building.

From an industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology perspective, personality is studied

to understand how individual differences impact workplace behavior, performance, and

interpersonal interactions. Personality traits are key predictors of workplace success. For

example: Conscientiousness is consistently linked to higher performance across various roles

because it reflects diligence and reliability (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Extraversion is a strong

predictor of success in sales and leadership roles due to the social and assertive nature of the

trait (Judge et al., 2002).

Understanding personality can improve team composition and functioning.

Complementary traits among team members can foster collaboration, while excessive

similarity may hinder creativity (Belbin, 2010). Charismatic leaders often score high on

extraversion and openness, motivating employees through vision and inspiration (Zaccaro,

2007). Conversely, conscientious leaders are effective in detail-oriented, structured

environments. Personality assessments (e.g., the Big Five Inventory, MBTI) are commonly

used in recruitment to ensure person-job fit and person-organization fit. Candidates whose

personalities align with job demands or organizational culture are more likely to perform well

and remain committed (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Certain personality traits, such as

emotional stability (low neuroticism), are associated with better stress management and
overall psychological well-being, which can enhance job satisfaction and productivity (Judge

et al., 1998).

The Personal Style Inventory (PSI) developed by R. Craig Hogan and David W.

Champagne is a psychometric tool designed to help individuals assess their preferences and

tendencies in communication, decision-making, and interpersonal interactions. It draws upon

psychological theories, particularly Jungian personality types, and serves as a practical guide

for understanding individual differences in behavior. The 16 personality types are described

using four pairs of dimensions of someone’s preferred way of responding to certain

situations. The four pairs are as follows: E = extrovert & I = introvert, N = intuition & S =

sensing, T = thinking & F = feeling, P = perceiving & J = judging

Dimensions of the Typology

The following four pairs of dimensions are present to some degree in all people. It is

the extremes that are described here. The strength of a dimension is indicated by the score for

that dimension and will determine how closely the strengths and weaknesses described fit the

participant’s personality.

Introversion – Extroversion Persons more introverted than extroverted tend to make

decisions somewhat independently of constraints and prodding from the situation, culture,

people, or things around them. They are quiet, diligent at working alone, and socially

reserved. They may dislike being interrupted while working and may tend to forget names

and faces. Extroverted persons are attuned to the culture, people, and things around them,

endeavouring to make decisions congruent with demands and expectations. The extrovert is

outgoing, socially free, and interested in variety and in working with people. The extrovert

may become impatient with long, slow tasks and does not mind being interrupted by people.
 Intuition – Sensing The intuitive person prefers possibilities, theories, gestalts, the

overall, invention, and the new and becomes bores with nitty-gritty details, the concrete and

actual, and facts unrelated to concepts. The intuitive person thinks and discusses in

spontaneous leaps of intuition that may leave out or neglect details. Problem solving comes

easily for this individual, although there may be a tendency to make errors of fact. The

sensing type prefers the concrete, real, factual, structured, tangible here-and-now, and

becomes impatient with theory and the abstract and mistrusts intuition. The sensing type

thinks in careful, detail-by-detail accuracy, remembering real facts, and making few errors of

fact, but possibly misses a conception of the overall.

Feeling – Thinking The feeler makes judgements about life, people, occurrences, and

things based on empathy, warmth and personal values. As a consequence, feelers are more

interested in people and feelings than in impersonal logic, analysis, and things, and in

conciliation and harmony more than in being on top or achieving impersonal goals. The

feeler gets along well with people in general. The thinker makes judgements about life,

people, occurrences, and things based on logic, analysis and evidence, and avoids the

irrationality of making decisions based on feelings and values. As a result, the thinker is more

interested in logic, analysis and verifiable conclusions than in empathy, values, and personal

warmth. The thinker may step on other’s feelings and needs without realising it, neglecting to

take into consideration the values of others.

Perceiving – Judging The perceiver is a gatherer, always waiting to know more before

deciding, and holds off decisions and judgements. As a consequence, the perceiver is open,

flexible, adaptive, non-judgemental, and able to see and appreciate all sides of issues, always

welcoming new perspectives and new information about issues. However, perceivers are also

difficult to pin down and may be indecisive and non-committal, becoming involved in so

many tasks that do not reach closure that they may become frustrated at times. Even when
they finish tasks, perceivers will tend to look back at them and wonder whether they are

satisfactory or could have been done another way. The perceiver wishes to roll with life

rather than change it. The judger is decisive, firm, and sure, and sets goals and sticks to them.

The judger wants to close books, make decisions, and get on to the next project. When a

project does not yet have closure, judgers will leave it behind and go on to new tasks and not

look back.

Implications

Individuals, groups, and organisations with a preponderance of members whose

strengths are in one type should seek out and listen to people of the opposite types when

making decisions. Task orientated groups would often benefit from a mixture of types.

People should realise that many differences in beliefs, values and actions are the result of

differences in style rather than of being right or wrong. Rather than be concerned about

differences, we need to understand and accept them and value the perspective they give.

When people must, of necessity, interact often with the same people (in teaching, business,

marriage, etc.), interactions can be more congenial, satisfying, and productive if those

involved, especially those with the greater power, understand the needs of others based on

typology differences and adjust to them. When interacting to accomplish tasks, people should

be careful to label their values as values and then proceed to examine the facts and forces

involved without defending the value position.

Table 1

Participants Profile

Emotional
Name Age Gender Occupation Location
state

Malad,
GA 22 Male Employee Friendly
Mumbai

Interpretation

The Personal Style Inventory (PSI), developed by Craig Hogan and David
Champagne, is a psychometric tool designed to assess an individual’s personality preferences
and behavioral tendencies. It evaluates eight dimensions, including introversion (I) vs.
extroversion (E), intuition (N) vs. sensing (S), thinking (T) vs. feeling (F), and perceiving (P)
vs. judging (J). These dimensions reflect how individuals interact with the world, process
information, make decisions, and structure their lives. The results provide insights into
personal style and preferences, offering a framework to understand and improve one’s
behavior in both personal and professional contexts.

The participant scored 23 in the Introversion (I) dimension, indicating a preference for
focusing on internal thoughts and feelings. People with a high score in introversion tend to be
introspective and enjoy solitary activities that allow them to think deeply. They may find
social interactions draining and often prefer spending time with a small group of close friends
rather than in large, social settings. This is supported by research suggesting that introverts
typically thrive in environments that allow for reflection and individual work, as they gain
energy from solitude and deep concentration (Carlson et al., 2014).

In the Extroversion (E) dimension, the participant scored 17, which indicates a lower
preference for extroversion compared to introversion. Individuals with such scores tend to be
more reserved in social situations, preferring one-on-one or small group interactions over
large social gatherings. They may find extended socializing draining and need time alone to
recharge. This preference for introversion over extroversion aligns with the participant’s
tendency to be more private and absorbed in their own projects, as described by their ENFP
code (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

The participant scored 20 in both the Intuition (N) and Sensing (S) dimensions,
suggesting a balanced preference between intuition and sensing. Intuition-oriented
individuals typically focus on abstract concepts, future possibilities, and innovative ideas,
while sensing individuals tend to focus on concrete facts, present realities, and practical
information. A score of 20 in both dimensions implies that the participant may be adaptable,
able to see both the big picture (intuitive) and the details (sensing), and can switch between
these modes depending on the situation. Research supports the idea that people with this
balanced preference are often versatile, able to approach problems from different
perspectives, and enjoy both theoretical exploration and practical application (McCrae,
1996).

With a score of 20 in Thinking (T), the participant exhibits a preference for decision-
making based on logic, objectivity, and rational analysis. People who score high in this
dimension are typically more focused on data and facts rather than emotions when making
decisions. This aligns with the participant’s personality, as they are likely to value analytical
approaches in solving problems and managing tasks. Studies have shown that thinkers are
often drawn to careers in fields that require decision-making based on reasoning and
objective analysis, such as engineering, law, or science (Caprara et al., 2010).

The participant scored 25 in the Feeling (F) dimension, indicating a strong preference
for making decisions based on personal values, empathy, and concern for others. Individuals
with high scores in feeling are often empathetic, compassionate, and focused on the impact
their decisions have on others. This preference suggests that, despite their analytical thinking
(T), the participant also values harmony and caring relationships. Past research has
highlighted that individuals with high F scores tend to excel in roles that involve
collaboration, caregiving, and social harmony (McCrae & Costa, 1997).

In the Perceiving (P) dimension, the participant scored 21, which suggests a
preference for flexibility, spontaneity, and adaptability over structure and rigid planning.
People with high P scores often prefer to keep their options open, allowing for adjustments
and changes as new information arises. This flexibility is important for creativity and
innovation, as those with a perceiving style are less likely to be constrained by rules or
schedules (Barrick & Mount, 1991). This fits with the participant’s inclination towards
independent projects and the ability to undertake multiple tasks at once, as indicated in the
INFP code.

With a score of 19 in the Judging (J) dimension, the participant shows a moderate
preference for organization and closure, but they still value spontaneity and flexibility. While
they may not prefer rigid structure, they likely appreciate the ability to organize their time
and tasks in a manner that ensures productivity and completion of projects. This balance
between perceiving and judging styles can make individuals more adaptable yet capable of
bringing structure when necessary (McCrae, 1996).

The participant’s overall score on the INFP type reflects a personality that is
enthusiastic, loyal, and passionate about their beliefs and values. However, they are often
reserved and may not express these traits openly until they feel comfortable. This personality
type is characterized by a strong internal drive for learning, self-improvement, and pursuing
independent projects that align with personal values. They often have a deep interest in
understanding complex ideas and abstract concepts yet may show less concern for material
possessions or physical surroundings. Research on INFPs supports this notion, highlighting
their creative and idealistic nature, combined with a tendency to focus on personal growth
and meaningful endeavors (McCrae & Costa, 1997).

Conclusion
In conclusion, the participant’s personality profile, as reflected in the Personal Style
Inventory with the INFP type, highlights a deep, introspective, and idealistic nature. The
participant’s balanced scores between intuition and sensing, coupled with their inclination
towards both thinking and feeling, suggest a versatile approach to problem-solving that
incorporates both logical analysis and empathy. Their high score in introversion points to a
preference for solitude and independent projects, while the perceiving preference indicates
adaptability and flexibility in handling tasks. These traits collectively suggest a person who
thrives in environments that foster creativity, personal growth, and meaningful work, while
also being capable of balancing their ideals with pragmatic considerations. The profile aligns
with research on INFPs, who are often driven by personal values and deep interests,
demonstrating a complex blend of independence, introspection, and care for others.
 References

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Holt.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

Carper, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2010). The personality and social
psychology of the Big Five: Advances in research and theory. Annual Review of
Psychology, 61, 5-15.

Carlson, M., Busse, A., & Korman, T. (2014). The influence of introversion and extroversion
on career choice. Journal of Career Development, 41(4), 292-310.

Cook, J. (2002). Personal style inventory - personal style inventory R. Craig Hogan and
David W. Champagne 6A. Studocu.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American

Psychologist, 48(1), 26-34.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.

Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person–situation debate revisited: Effect of
situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five traits in predicting
job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149-1179.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of

individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-
group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342.

McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential and personal style: Evidence from
the Five-Factor Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(6), 579-588.

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

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45(4), 853-862.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.
American Psychologist, 52(5), 509-516.

Myers, I. B., & Briggs, K. C. (1980). MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ostroff, C., & Judge, T. A. (2012). Perspectives on Organizational Fit. Psychology Press.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2021). Organizational Behavior (19th ed.). Pearson
Education.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1),

6-16.