When the four MBTI dimensions were compared with Scholastic Aptitude Test verbal score means for 5,483 male students at eight colleges, introverts scored significantly higher than Es, Ns scored significantly higher than Ss, and Ps scored significantly higher (p < .001) than Js. SN differences were greater than IE differences which in turn were greater than PJ differences. When the four MBTI dimensions were compared with scores on the Medical School Admissions Test, the Armed Services Vocational Battery, the Gates Reading Test and the PSAT, Ns and Ts consistently scored higher than Ss or Fs. The N preference, in particular, was clearly associated with higher aptitude scores (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).
Myers (1962) examined MBTI preferences and scores from Terman's Concept Mastery Test for 525 Brown University students and 236 Wesleyan College students. Introverts scored higher than Es, and Ns scored higher than Ss; however INs scored much higher than ISs, and ENs scored somewhat higher than I Ss. Myers concluded that "introverts use their minds, including their intuition, in a way that is different and advantageous for dealing with the intricacies of language and thought" (p. 37).
When MBTI types of 3,503 male high school students in a college-preparatory curriculum were compared with the students' IQ scores, all Ns scored higher than Ss, while INs had the highest IQs. When the MBTI types for these same students were compared with their grades, Js had higher grades than Ps; however, Js who were also introverted and intuitive had the highest grades (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).
OlszewskiKubilius, Kulieke, & Krasney, 1988), but four studies (Delbridge-Parker & Robinson, 1989; Gallagher, 1990; Mills, 1983; Williams, 1992) have specifically examined the MBTI types of gifted students. Farris (1990) and Alvino (1989) discuss the use of the MBTI with gifted populations, but neither are empirical research studies.
Mills (1983) examined the MBTI types of 87 girls and 65 boys between the ages of 12 and 15 who were gifted (IQ > 130) and enrolled in a college program. Both males and females were split about equally on the I-E dimension. The females were about equally divided on the T-F and J-P dimensions, but they showed a strong preference for N (69%). The males also had a strong preference for N (67%), but they also had strong preferences for P (73%) and T (77%). The most represented types among both males and females were ENTP, ENFP, INTP, and INFP. When these students were compared to other gifted and nongifted groups, they were most like the gifted groups.
Delbridge-Parker and Robinson (1989) gave the MBTI to 72 gifted junior high students who were finalists in the Duke Talent Identification Program. They hypothesized that the MBTI types of gifted students would be dissimilar to non-gifted students and similar to other gifted students. The gifted junior high students showed strong preferences for N (75%) and T (67%). When these students were compared to 1,943 traditional high school graduates of varying ability levels taken from the Atlas of Type Tables (MacDaid, McCaulley, & Kainz, 1986), significant differences were found. More gifted students were Ns, Ts and Ps than the high school graduates. The N function was the distinguishing characteristic of the gifted students. They were over-represented on all combinations of intuition (IN, EN, NF, NT, NP & NJ). INTJ, INTP, ENFP and ENTP types were significantly over-represented (p < .001) among the gifted students. When the gifted students were compared to 1,001 National Merit Finalists from the Atlas, no differences were found. The percentage of types in both groups were alike. Delbridge-Parker and Robinson's hypothesis was supported; the MBTI types of gifted students were different from non-gifted students. Both the gifted junior high students and the National Merit Finalists were represented among all 16 types, but they were predominately NPs, implying that a specific type distribution for gifted students might exist. Discussion focused on learning style needs of gifted students from an MBTI perspective, especially the work of Lawrence (1982, 1984).
Gallagher (1990) examined whether gifted students' types differed from a general population of students. She compared the MBTI types of 1,725 highly talented adolescents with the MBTI types of a sample of general high school students. Her analysis found differences between the two groups. The talented students were more likely to prefer N (75%), P (61%), and I (50%) than the general high school students (N = 32%, P = 46%, I = 37%). Gallagher, like Delbridge-Parker and Robinson (1989), found that gifted students had strong preferences for N and NP. She concluded that the MBTI was useful in working with gifted students because it provided a theoretical framework for explaining why gifted students behave as they do and for helping them examine their weaknesses and grow.
Williams (1992) also used the MBTI as well as the Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator (MMTI) to differentiate personality type differences between the general population and 739 students who had met the Texas Department of Education's criteria for being classified as gifted and talented. She found that the 214 gifted and talented students who took the MBTI had a statistically significant (p < .05) preference for N (74%) and P (72%) when compared with the general population using a chi-square goodness of fit test. The types that were most frequently preferred were ENFP (21%), ENTP (17%), INFP (12%) and INTP (9%). Gifted and talented students who were administered the MBTI preferred F, N and P to a greater degree than the general population. Collectively, both groups preferred N and NP in significantly larger numbers than the general population. Williams concluded that gifted students are represented among all 16 MBTI types but made no reference to the over-representation of Ns and NPs among the gifted students. In fact, she recommended additional study to answer the question, "Are there systematic patterns or types which differentiate gifted and talented students from the general population?" (p. 73). Her findings, however, actually suggested that there are "systematic patterns or types which differentiate gifted and talented from the general population." Furthermore, they are consistent with the findings of Mills (1983), Delbridge-Parker and Robinson (1989), and Gallagher (1990). Interestingly, Williams referenced the latter two but made no connection between their conclusions and her conclusion.
The Atlas of Type Tables (MacDaid et al., 1986), a collection of type tables published by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, gives type tables of 71 Rhodes Scholars, 75 Phi Beta Kappa members, and 1,001 National Merit Finalists. Members of these groups are generally thought of as intellectually or academically gifted. The Rhodes Scholars showed a strong preference for N (93%) and P (63%), and the most frequent types were INFP (21%), INTP (14%), ENFP (13%), ENTP (11%), and INTJ (11%). Phi Beta Kappa members showed a strong preference for N (76%), and the most frequent types were INFP (13%), INTJ (13%), INFJ (11%), INTP (11%) and ENFP (11%). The National Merit Scholars showed a strong preference for N (82%), and the most frequent types were INTP (14%), INTJ (14%), ENFP (12%), INFP (12%), and ENTP (11%).
MBTI researchers have found that specific groups often have a distinguishable type distribution on a type table. For instance, a type table of counselors would be unusual if it did not indicate a strong NF preference (McCaulley, 1985). The literature reviewed above suggests that students who have high IQs or who have high scores on aptitude measures or who have been identified as gifted are heavily represented among the MBTI types that include N and NP. Type tables of other gifted students should reflect these preferences. If a type table of MSMS students is similar to the type tables of other gifted samples, then it is likely that they are a population of gifted students.