Another Attempt at Measures of Extra Version Introversion
- Author:
Charles S. Roberts and V. E. Fisher
New York University
Introduction In his study of personality types Jung1 concluded that a “type” was dependent upon the presence of a definite attitude toward self and environment. He differentiates two attitude types, the extraverted and the introverted, distinguished by the direction of general interest or libidinal orientation. In general, the introverted attitude can be described as one that takes the self as the point of reference in relation to the object, thereby giving to the subject an evaluation higher than that of the object. “As a result, the object always possesses a lower value; it has a secondary importance; occasionally it even represents merely an outward objective token of a subjective content, the embodiment of an idea in other words, in which, however, the idea is the essential factor; or it is the object of a feeling, where, however, the feeling experience is the chief thing, and not the object in its own individuality” (p. 12). The Extravert, on the other hand, is characterized by the opposite attitude, giving primary emphasis to the object and “… the subjective process appears at times merely as a disturbing or superfluous accessory to objective events” (p. 12). Jung conceives these two attitudes essentially as mechanisms, both of which are possessed by every individual. Inherent constitution together with circumstances under which one lives may favor one of these mechanisms to the neglect of the other, and when the predominance of one mechanism is established so that it is operative to the relative exclusion of the other, Jung speaks of a type as having been produced. The dominance of one mechanism to the total exclusion of the other, Jung contends, never occurs. It is obvious, therefore, that there are degrees of extraversion and introversion, depending upon the relative dominance of one or the other i Jung, C. G. Psychological types, New York, Harcourt Brace & Co., 1923. mechanism. Every individual possesses both mechanisms, and it is the relative predominance of one or the other which determines the type.
Jung has defined these two attitude types 2 in terms of libidinal movement, i.e., extraversion as “an outward turning of the libido” (p. 542), and introversion as “a turning inwards of the libido whereby a negative relation of subject to object is expressed” (p. 567). Jung believes, therefore, that the essential difference between introversion and extraversion resides in the relative emphasis given to subject and object, and that “the relation between subject and object, considered biologically, is always a relation of adaptation, since every relation between subject and object presupposes mutually modifying effects from either side. These modifications constitute adaptation. The typical attitudes to object, therefore, are adaptation processes” (p. 414).
Since extraversion means an outward turning of the libido, it is evident that the facilitation of adaptation to an objective situation is a function of extraversion. With the increase in the degree of extraversion there is an accompanying increase in the facilitation of such adaptation, until a certain point is reached after which the too great identification with the object begins to interfere with the individual’s general adaptations. Over-identification with the object results in functional disorders of the hysterical type (p. 420), in which the symptoms are the expression of the too repressed introverted attitude or libido. On the other hand, introversion, since it is essentially an inward turning of the libido, results, in a lack of adaptation to objects. As the degree of introversion increases the facility of such adaptation decreases, to the point where the individual fruitlessly struggles to defend himself against the influence of the object. This gives us the psychasthenic syndrome (p. 479); with its compulsions, obsessions, phobias, feelings of fatigue, extreme sensitivity, etc.
The interest of American psychologists in Jung’s conception of introversion-extraversion appears to have been chiefly practical rather than theoretical. The result has been the construction by various psychologists (Woodworth, Laird, Pressey, Conklin, Bern- Besides the two attitude types, Jung distinguishes four function types. He distinguishes four basic functions, i.e., thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition, and if one of these functions habitually prevails, a corresponding type results. There are, therefore, thinking, feeling, sensation and intuitive types, which, moreover, may be introverted or extraverted according to the relation to the object. 6 reuter, and others) of “Personality Inventories,” based either wholly or in part upon “logical” inferences drawn from their understanding?or perhaps misunderstanding?of Jung’s concept. The usual method for the construction of these tests has been to glean from various sources (psychiatric literature, personal observation, etc.) a list of situations and reaction-traits which, presumably, when evaluated by an individual reveal his degree of introversion.
Needless to say, such tests are not even theoretically valid, because : 1. The test does not place the subject in an actual situation but requires him only to imagine it; in doing the test the individual is reacting to an idea, not to an objective fact. 2. Where the test depends on the individual’s recall of a former reaction to a situation, it makes no allowance for falsification of memory, or for the varying degrees of self-perspective possessed by different individuals. 3. The extremely important factor of compensation has not and can not be adequately taken into account by such tests. 4. They make no allowance for Jung’s assumption that the more extra verted or introverted an individual is the more his “unconscious” processes?which are always of an opposite orientation to the conscious processes?tend to distort his feelings and judgment. 5. The tests presuppose complete honesty on the part of the subject. 6. At least certain of these different tests give a wholly insignificant coefficient of correlation with each other, indicating, of course, that they are either of low validity or reliability.3 Present Study: Apparatus, Procedure, Subjects, etc.
Fully realizing the uncertain and exploratory nature of this whole field, the present writers have, nevertheless, attempted still one more approach to measures of introversion-extraversion. They have reasoned that the more extreme degrees, at least, of introversion-extraversion should reveal themselves in the individual’s adaptability to an unlearned objective situation on the sensory 3 Weber and Maijgren report finding a negative coefficient of correlation of .230 with a probable error of .075 between the Conklin Introvert Eatio and the Laird test, Schedule C: 2 (weighted). “The experimental differentia of introversion and extroversion,” Ped. Sem., 1929, 36, 571-579. motor level. In other words, if the extraverted individual is characterized by a greater facility in responding overtly to the cues provided by his objective environment, it should be possible experimentally to demonstrate that fact.
The apparatus consisted of an adaptation of Snoddy’s Mirror Tracing device.4 The star, six pointed, measured 48” in circumference ; the path was 5/32”, symmetrically notched with 36 notches on each side. The notches measured 2/16” deep and 3/16” wide. The subjects total time for tracing the star was recorded; errors or contacts were disregarded.
In addition to the mirror tracing test each subject was required to fill out a Bernreuter inventory. Before the subject did either the mirror tracing or the inventory test, he was interviewed by the experimenter for thirty to sixty minutes. His attitude toward life and himself was brought to the fore in the conversation, and on the basis of this interview he was ranked on an arbitrary linear scale from 0-10, with zero representing extreme extraversion and ten as extreme introversion. The subject then filled out a Bernreuter “Personality Inventory,” having been first cautioned to answer the questions truthfully; and lastly he did the mirror tracing test.
All subjects were students in good standing at New York University. Results and Conclusions The results of the subjects (thirty-five in number) are given in Table I. The data include the time in the Mirror Tracing Test, the scores on the Bernreuter B3-I Scale, and the Personal Judgment Ratings. From the coefficients of correlation it is obvious that the Bernreuter “Personality Inventory” and the Mirror Tracing Test are not measuring the same thing. The correlation between the two is 4 ‘’ … the tracing of a six-pointed star as reflected from a mirror… . The apparatus consisted of a star, cut from brass and mounted on glass in such a Avay that the edges of the star were brass and the base was glass. The tracing was done with a stylus about the size of a lead pencil. In order to keep the subjects from coming into contact with the edges and following them around without breaking contact, a series of niches was cut into the brass at both sides.” Snoddy, George S., Readings in experimental psychology?edited by W. L. Valentine. Reading, 33, p. 424. Also An experimental analysis of a case of trial and error learning in the human subject, Psychol. Monog., 1920 Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 78.
Table I Subject Time on Star in Seconds Scores on Bernreuter B3-I Scale Personal Judgment Rating 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Mean Standard deviation 30.2 31.2 32.2 33.4 47.4 50.0 58.0 63.8 64.8 65.0 73.4 75.0 83.8 87.4 93.0 96.0 100.0 101.4 110.0 115.0 115.0 123.0 146.8 165.4 178.2 240.0 274.0 304.0 371.8 389.4 668.8 717.6 Did not complete 161.857 127.880 ? 13 49 15 13 ? 25 63 ? 44 -119 - 10 - 48 27 - 17 - 58 - 64 ? 42 3 91 - 21 - 12 53 8 - 4 76 6 - 15 - 21 - 84 - 43 - 68 - 80 - 18 - 50 2 25 - 64 - 13.565 46.905 10 9 7 10 10 9 10 5.678 2.951
Correlation (Pearson’s) between Personal Judgment Rating and: 1. Time on Star 915 ? P.E. .018 2. Scores on Bernreuter 317 ? P.E. .101 Correlation between Scores on Bernreuter and: 3. Time on Star - ? .248 ? P.E. .106
a negative one of .248 with a probable error of .106. This correlation is too low to be of any significance, and may very well be the result of chance. Between the Personal Judgment Ratings and the Bernreuter there is a positive correlation of .317 with a probable error of .101. This correlation is also too low to be significant. A significant correlation exists between the Personal Judgment Ratings and the time in the Mirror Tracing Test. This correlation is a positive one of .915 with a probable error of .018. This is a significant correlation because it is so high and because the probable error is so low. It strongly indicates that the two are measuring the same thing. Now there can be no question but that the Mirror Tracing Device is measuring the subject’s adaptability to a new objective situation, and this, as we understand Jung, is a function of extraversion, other things being equal. With respect to the Personal Judgment Ratings, we can not say with certainty, of course, that we were judging what we believed we were, namely, introversionextraversion. Such, however, was our deliberate purpose and we believe that the high correlation between the Personal Judgment Ratings and the Mirror Tracing scores together with the insignificantly low correlations between the Personal Judgment Ratings and the Bernreuter, and the Mirror Tracing scores and the Bernreuter, strongly question the validity of the inventory type of test for introversion-extraversion.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.