An Empirical Study of Jungian Typology

PREVIOUS RESEARCH with the Gray-Wheelwright test by Bradway, Wozny and, more recently, Baumann, Angst, Henne and Muser (BRADWAY 2, WOZNY 6, BAUMANN et al 1) has been concerned with showing how well the different scales measure the dimensions of the Jungian typological model. Such studies have attempted to find meaning (and some even justification) for the way the items were grouped into scales presumed to measure Jungian concepts. We decided on a different strategy. Guided by reflections for a more rigorous statistical approach to the study of Jungian typology among Jungians (MEIER 4), and not satisfied simply to continue this line of research with yet another study on the ‘meaning’ of the scales, we put together an experimental design which would study the way the Gray—Wheelwright scales ‘type’ the individuals of known Jungian types. Our problem resolved itself into answering the question: what is the relationship between living Jungian types and those same types ‘typed’ by the Gray-Wheelwright test? Theoretically, a one-to-one correspondence would be expected provided that (1) the Gray-Wheelwright is valid to give us Jungian types, and (2) the sample of subjects used in the study are Jungian types to begin with.

As regards the validity of the Gray-Wheelwright test, we already knew from past research (WOZNY 6) that at best the items were measuring introversion-extraversion (I-E), sensation-intuition (S-Int) and introverted thinking-extraverted feeling (IT-EF), rather than simply thinking-feeling (T-F) as the authors claimed. We further knew that this I-E was not strictly the Jungian concept but had more of the Eysenckian meaning of a ‘social’ I-E. As for IT-EF, this was reminiscent of Jung's earlier position JUNG 3, pp. 6-7), where he maintained that in concrete individuals I-E and T-F were probably not to be found in their pure form, but were contaminated one with the other, so that functionally they were related. Research with the test has, to a large extent, subs