You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
This study is a follow-up to three previous studies of psychological type published in this Journal in 1964, 1976 and 1978 by Bradway, Bradway and Detloff, and Bradway and Joseph Wheelwright. Participants in all of our studies were limited to Jungian analysts and candidates. Participants of the first two studies and of the current study were from California; participants of the 1978 study included the participants from the previous study plus persons attending the 1974 International Congress in London.
In 1993 we sent letters to the 232 current analysts and candidates in the San Francisco and Los Angeles C.G. Jung Institutes, as well as to the nine participants in our 1974 study who were no longer members of the Institutes but could be located, asking them to fill out a questionnaire that included self-typing, and to self-administer the Gray-Wheelwrights Jungian Type Survey (GW). The response rate was high: 196 or 81% of the 141 persons to whom we sent letters returned filled-in questionnaires and GWs; all 67 or 100% of the participants in the 1974 study who could be located returned the filled-in material. Eight of those 67 had also been in the 1961 study.
The current study provides data on the changes in psychological type over time, in some instances over a period of 32 years. It added for the first time a consideration of analysts’ rating of themselves as primarily clinically or symbolically orientated, and a survey of analyst opinions as to the determinants of psychological type.
Summarizing the results: A smaller percentage of analysts typed themselves as intuitive thinking than in 1961; the percentages of congruence between self-typing and the Gray-Wheelwrights scores in the three dimensions (introvert/extravert, sensation/intuition, and thinking/feeling) in 1961, 1974 and 1993 are between 76% and 96%; changes in typology from 1961 to 1993 occur more frequently in the younger age group than in the older age group; 65% of the participants considered the distinction between clinical and symbolic important, but only 41% rated themselves as either primarily clinically oriented or symbolically oriented with essentially no relationship between that orientation and typology; a sub-study of typology of partners within this study does not support the concept that opposites marry; according to the opinion of this group of analysts and candidates as to the determinants of adult typology, genetics (chromosomes) is distinctly the strongest contributor with family dynamics a not-very-close next contributor.