Psychology
2014. Vol.5, No.2, 166-171
Published Online February 2014 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.52026
166
The Dark Side of the MBTI: Psychological Type and
Interpersonal Derailers
Adrian Furnham1,2, John Crump1
1Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London,
London, UK
2BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway
Received December 1st, 2013; revised January 2nd, 2014; accepted February 3rd, 2014
Copyright © 2014 Adrian Furnham, John Crump. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all
Copyrights © 2014 are reserved for SCIRP and the owner of the intellectual property Adrian Furnham, John
Crump. All Copyright © 2014 are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian.
Over 4000 British adults completed the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) (Hogan & Hogan, 1997)
which measures eleven potential derailment behaviours (“dark side” traits) based on the personality disor-
ders and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Briggs & Myers, 1987) a famous measure of “normal” person-
ality functioning. In all, five of the eleven “dark side” traits were correlated with the Extraversion-Intro-
version dimensions, none with Sensing-Intuition, seven with Thinking-Feeling and four with the Judg-
ing-Perceiving scale. Correlations were modest. Regressions with the four MBTI scales as criterion vari-
ables showed nine of the HDS factors were related to the T-F scale and accounted for 12% of the variance.
Thinking types tended to be Sceptical, Reserved and Diligent. Overall correlations were low suggesting
the MBTI assesses some aspects of dark side traits.
Keywords: MBTI; Psychological Type; Derailers; Personality Disorders
Introduction
This study looked at the “dark side” personality correlates of
the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Briggs & Myers,
1987). The concept of “dark side” traits has come to be asso-
ciated with measures of subclinical personality disorders or
derailers (Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004).
Dark side traits measured by the Hogan Development Survey
(HDS) have been investigated recently in a large number of
studies (De Fruyt, Wille, & Furnham, 2013; Furnham, Hyde, &
Trickey, 2013; Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011; Zibarras, Port,
& Woods, 2008).
This study is part of a programmatic series of concurrent and
discriminant validity studies that attempt to investigate the rela-
tionship between “normal” personality traits (usually the Big
Five but here the Big Four) and the personality disorders. There
are various studies and reviews in this area but none have used
the very popular MBTI preferring to look at Big Five correlates
of disorders (Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Widiger, 2011).
The MBTI
The most widely known and used personality test is the
Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Paul, 2004). It is based on Jun-
gian theory and is a four factor model which allows people to
be described by four letters (e.g. ENTJ, ISFP) representing their
particular type. The scale yields eight scores (one for each type)
which can be considered on four typological opposites (i.e.
Introversion or Extraversion).
According to McCrae and Costa (1989), the MBTI is unusual
among personality assessment devices for three reasons: it is
based on a sophisticated and established theory (Jungian); it
purports to measures types rather than traits specified on a con-
tinuous scale; and it is widely used to explain individuals’ per-
sonality characteristics not only to professionals but also to the
individuals themselves, as well as their co-workers, friends, and
families. They also point out its limitations; the original Jun-
gian concepts are distorted and even contradicted; there is no
bi-modal distribut ion of prefere nce score s; studies usi ng the MTBI
have frequently not confirmed either the theory or the measure.
Various studies have looked at the location of the MBTI in
personality factor space as well as the relationship between the
MBTI and the Big Five factors. Saggino and Kline (1996)
looked at correlations between the MBTI and Cattell’s 16PF as
well as Eysenck’s EPQ. Their factor analysis of the MBTI
yielded five, not four, factors. They argued the EI (Extraver-
sion-Introverson) dimension is clear, but the TF (Thinking-
Feeling) dimension is “not sufficiently pure” because it loads
onto different factors.
McCrae and Costa (1989) found the four MBTI indices
measures aspects of four of the Big 5 dimensions of personality.
More specifically, they found that EI was correlated with
Extraversion, SN with Openness, TF with Agreeableness and
JP (Judging-Perceiving) with Conscientiousness. These results
were replicated by MacDonald, Anderson, Tsagarakis and Hol-
land (1994). Furnham (1996) also provided evidence support-
ing these results, but found further that Neuroticism was corre-

A. FURNHAM, J. CRUMP
167
lated to both EI and TF. The highest correlations were between
EI and Extraversion facets of Gregariousness, Warmth, and
Positive emotions, between SN and Openness facets Ideas,
Fantasy and Aesthetics, between TF and Agreeableness facets
of Tender-mindedness, Trust and Altruism, between JP and
Conscientiousness facets of Order, Deliberation and Self-Dis-
cipline and between EI and Neuroticism facets of Self-con-
sciousness, Depression and Vulnerability (Neuroticism). Furn-
ham, Moutafi and Crump (2003) found similar results.
There have been a number of studies that have related the
Big Five personality traits to the personality disorders suggest-
ing significant overlap (Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Bastiaansen,
Rossi, Schotte, & De Fruyt, 2011). Some studies have related
the MBTI to dark side traits which is the focus of this paper
(Janowsky, Morter, & Hong, 2002). It should be noted however
that proponents of the MBTI insist that the measure was never
designed to, nor does it measure “pathology” or mental illness
of any form (Quenk, 2009). The line has always been “gifts
differing” and that there is no right or wrong, better or worse
type (Myers & Myers, 1990). However, the question remains as
to the correlates of the various 16 MBTI types and whether this
indicates that some of the types and dimensions are clearly
related to psychopathology of one sort or another. This study,
in part, tests this assumption: i.e., that MBTI scores are not
measures of pathology
The Dar k Side
There are various self-report measures available to assess
Personality Disorders (Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield, 1985;
Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Widiger & Coker, 2001). This stu-
dy used the Hogan “dark side” measure (HDS) which is now
extensively used in organisational research and practice to
measure personality disorders in the “normal population” (De
Fruyt et al., 2009, 2011; Furnham & Crump, 2005; Hogan &
Hogan, 1997, Zibarras, Port, & Woods, 2008). It is one of the
tests that measures all the disorders from a non-clinical pers-
pective with evidence of good psychometric qualities (Furnham,
Trickey, & Hyde, 2012). The scale measures dysfunctional in-
terpersonal tendencies that may be debilitating for people over
time and thus increasing their likelihood of derailing. Its aim is
partly to help selectors and individuals themselves diagnose
how they typically react under work stress. It has the advantage
of being psychometrically valid (Hogan, Hogan, & Warrenfeltz,
2007); of measuring all the personality disorders and being
appropriate for a “normal” population.
The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) was explicitly based
on the DSM-IV-TR Axis II Personality Disorder (American
Psychiatric Association, 1994, 2000). The HDS focuses only on
the core construct of each disorder from a dimensional perspec-
tive (Hogan & Hogan, 2001: p. 41). Using the concepts of Hor-
ney (1950) they categorised the dysfunctional interpersonal
tendencies into 3 categories: “Moving Against People” (aggres-
sion and manipulation); “Moving Away from People” (with-
drawal and intimidation); and “Moving Toward People” (com-
pliance and ingratiation).
This Study
Very few published studies have related MBTI traits to per-
sonality disorders or related measures (Pierson, 2007). An ex-
ception is the study by Coolidge, Segal, Hook, Yamazaki and
Elliot (2000) who tested a convenience sample of 332 young
Americans. They completed a 225 item self-report measure of
the personality disorders (CATI) (Coolidge, 1984) and the
MBTI. Many correlations were significant. Correlational results
(with r > .25) showed the E-I scale (with Introversion being
high) correlated positively significantly with Avoidant, Obses-
sive-Compulsive, Paranoid, Schizoid and Schizotypal and neg-
ative with Histrionic. The S-N dimensions showed it to be posi-
tively correlated with Borderline. The T-F scale was signifi-
cantly negatively correlated with Antisocial, Paranoid, Sadistic,
Schizoid and Schizotypal disorder. Finally, there were two
significant correlations with the J-P dimension: Antisocial (pos-
itive) and Obsessive-Compulsive (negative). Two disorders had
correlations with all four dimensions: Schizotypal people had
an INTP profile whereas Obsessive compulsives had an ISTJ
profile. Antisocial and Sadistic people were NTP whereas Pas-
sive-Aggressive people were INP. The authors noted “...it ap-
pears that the MBTI may have heuristic value in understand-
ing personality disorders” (p. 35).
This study extends the above study in two ways. First, it has
a population 15 times the size of the above study using a much
more representative adult sample. Second, it uses the HDS
rather than the CATI which appears to be a much better psy-
chometrised instrument.
Neuroticism is a central component in the personality dis-
orders but not assessed in the MBTI. Thus it was predicted that
overlap would not be considerable between these two measures.
It was predicted (H1) that of the four MBTI dimensions, the
T-F dimension will be most closely related to the HDS scales.
This is because previous studies linking the MBTI and Big Five
measures have shown the Feelings scale to be most closely
linked Domain Neuroticism and its facets. Next, that the HDS
factors Reserved and Colourful and Diligent (H2) would be
most related to the MBTI factor extraversion-introversion,
while the factors of Diligent and Mischievous (H3) would be
related to the judging-perceiving MBTI dimensions (Furnham
& Crump, 2005).
Method
Participants
In total 4812 British working adults took part in this study of
which 948 were females and 3864 males. Their mean age was
32.53 years (SD = 8.14 years) with the range being between 23
and 65 years. In all 70% were between 30 and 50 years. They
were nearly all (over 95%) graduates and in middle class occu-
pations with English as their mother tongue.
Measure
Mye rs-Briggs Type Indicator-Form G (MBTI: Briggs & My-
ers, 1987). The Myers-Briggs indicator is a Jungian-based in-
ventory that uses a paper-and-pencil self-report format. It is
composed of 94 forced-choice items that yield scores on each
of the eight factors as well as the famous four dimensions: In-
troversion-Extraversion, Sensation-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling
and Judging-Perceiving. Respondents are classified into one of
16 personality types based on the largest score obtained for
each bipolar scale (e.g. a person scoring higher on Introversion
than Extraversion, Intuition than Sensation, Feeling than Think-
ing and Judging than Perceiving would be classified as an In-
troverted Intuitive Feeling Judging). The test provides linear

A. FURNHAM, J. CRUMP
168
scores on each dimension which are usually discussed in terms
of types based on cut-off scores. Thus the Extraversion-Intro-
version dimension has a normal distribution with high scores
being considered Extraverted and low Introverted (See Table 1).
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been the focus of exten-
sive research and substantial evidence has accumulated sug-
gesting the inventory has satisfactory concurrent and predictive
validity and reliability (Furnham & Stringfield, 1993).
Hogan Development Survey (Hogan & Hogan, 1997) con-
sists of 154 items that are concerned with how the respondent
typi cally interacts with family, friends and co-workers. There
are 11 scales, each grouping 14 items. Higher scores on most
scales correspond to an increased risk on specific interpersonal
problems in the workplace. Numerous factor analyses have
show three higher order factors in the scale labelled moving
toward, away from and against others. (Furnham et al., 2012,
2013). The HDS has been cross-validated with the MMPI per-
sonality disorder scales. Correlations (n = 140) range from .45
for Antisocial to .67 for Borderline (Hogan & Hogan, 2001).
Fico, Hogan and Hogan (2000) report coefficient alphas be-
tween .50 and .70 with an average of .64 and test-retest reliabil-
ities (n = 60) over a three-month interval ranging from .50
to .80, with an average of .68 There were no mean-level differ-
ences between sexes, racial/ethnic groups, or younger versus
older persons (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Various studies have
used the HDS and have shown it to be a robust, reliable and
valid instrument (Carson, Shanock, Heggestad, Andrew, Pugh,
& Walter, 2012; De Fruyt et al., 2009; Furnham, 2006; Furn-
ham & Crump, 2005; Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011; Khoo &
Burch, 2008; Rolland & De Fruyt, 2003).
Procedure
Participants were tested by a British based psychological
consultancy over a 10-year period. Each participant was given
personal feedback on their scores. They were nearly all em-
ployed as middle to senior managers in British companies.
They took this test as part of an assessment exercise. Inevitably
this could have affected their results because of issues such as
impression management and dissimulation. However, the HDS
has a scale (called the validity scale) which can be used to con-
trol for this problem.
Results
Table 1 shows the correlations (with Bonferroni corrections)
between the four MBTI and the eleven HDS scores. The results
provide support for all the hypotheses. With a very big N, cor-
relations r > .05 are significant so those r > .08 are highlighted
in bold. The first column indicated that those who scored high
on MBTI Extraversion tended to be low on Cautious, and Re-
served but high on Bold, Mischievous and Colourful. Essen-
tially none of the dark side measures correlated with the MBTI
Sensing-Intuitive (SN) dimension. The results from the Think-
ing-Feeling Dimension were interesting. Those with a high
Thinking scores tended to be high on Sceptical, Reserved, Bold,
Mischievous and Diligent but low on Cautious and Dutiful. The
final set of correlations indicated that the higher the participant
scored on the MBTI Judging scale the lower they scored on
Mischievous, Colourf ul, and Imagi native but higher on Dilig ent.
Table 2 shows a finer grained analysis. Here, partial correla-
tions were computed with sex and age and reliability (impres-
sion management) partialled out, and with the eight scales.
Eight sets of correlations were >.30. The highest correlations
showed Extraverts were low on Reserved and high on Colour-
ful, with Introverts being the opposite. Equally Judging types
tended to be high and Perceiving types low on Diligence.
Table 3 shows the results from the step-wise multiple re-
gressions. First, sex and age were entered then the eleven dark
side variables. Regression of the predictor variables onto the
MBTI Extraversion-Introversion (E-I) dimension showed three
factors accounted for 5% of the variance. Extraverts were likely
to be less Reserved and more Colourful as well as scoring
higher on the Social Desirability scale. With the S-N scale as
the criterion variable it seemed four “dark side” were involved
but that they only accounted for 1% of the variance.
Table 1.
Means and Standard Deviations for the two scales and correlations. Correlations r > .08 (p < .001) are s hown in bold.
EI SN TF JP
x 22.84 22.19 27.41 23.36
x SD SD 14.87 14.60 15.76 14.54
1. Excitable
3.09 2.61 −05 −01 −04 −02
2. Sceptical
4.52 2.49 −03 00 15 02
3. Cautious
3.36 2.78 −12 03 −14 06
4. Reserved
4.63 2.23 −18 01 13 02
5. Leisurely
4.86 2.19 −05 00 00 03
6. Bold
7.34 2.81 10 −03 11 02
7. Mischievous
6.95 2.50 09 −03 08 −15
8. Colourful
7.85 2.99 18 02 00 −08
9. Imaginative
5.54 2.37 06 00 −02 −09
1
0. Diligent 8.89 2.45 −02 −05 08 14
11. Dutiful
7.04 2.05 −02 −02 −18 02
12. Social Desirability
5.18 1.47 03 00 01 03
N = 3208; Cor re la ti o ns in b old are p < .001 Bonferonni corrected.

A. FURNHAM, J. CRUMP
169
Table 2.
Partial correlations between each of the eight personality measures and the 11 dark side variables.
E I S N T F J P
1. Excitable
−.16 .10 −.00 −.06 −.05 .01 −.05 −.02
2. Sceptical
−.05 .05 .10 −.10 .19 −.11 .04 −.03
3. Cautious
−.48 .50 .17 −.15 −.13 .12 .11 −.10
4. Reserved
−.58 .59 .10 −.08 .14 −.09 .05 −.04
5.
Leisurel y −.23 .23 .10 −.08 .01 .00 .02 −.01
6. Bold
.19 −.21 −.11 .09 .12 −.10 −.05 .06
7. Mischievous
.30 −.34 −.27 .27 .10 −.04 −.34 .36
8. Colourful
.49 −.52 −.28 .28 .01 .02 −.20 .22
9. Imaginative
.20 −.22 −.34 .33 .01 .05 −.20 .22
1
0. Diligent −.08 .10 .30 −.30 .09 −.09 .52 −.54
11. Dutiful
−.05 .06 .20 −.21 −.17 .13 .14 −.16
12. Social Desirability
−.00 .01 .00 −.01 −.01 .04 .03 −.03
N = 3014; Cor re la ti o ns in b old are p < .001 Bonferonni corrected.
Table 3.
Partial correlations between each of the eight personality measures and the 11 dark side variables.
Myers-Briggs Scale
EI SN TF JP
Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t
Sex
01 .69 −02 1.07 −10 6.07** −03 1.87
Age
00 .20 04 2.08 00 .07 02 .90
1. Excitable
−02 .81 −03 1.65 −03 1.56 −03 1.58
2. Sceptical
−03 1.45 01 .52 14 7.62*** 02 1.08
3. Cautious
00 .19 05 2.19* −18 8.42*** 02 .90
4. Reserved
−13 6.59*** −01 .48 16 8.04*** −03 .30
5. Leisurely
00 .39 00 .39 −01 .72 00 .38
6. Bold
03 1.28 −02 1.01 05 2.71** 07 3.54***
7. Mischievous
00 .37 −06 2.94** 05 2.50** −13 6.23***
8. Colourful
13 5.70*** 05 2.37* −02 1.01 −02 .79
9. Imaginative
00 .34 01 .47 −07 3.44*** −05 2.61**
1
0. Diligent 02 .95 −06 2.89** 10 5.34*** 10 5.11***
11. Dutiful
00 .24 −04 1.89 −11 5.98*** −03 1.51
12.
Social Desirability 04 2.22* 02 .82 −04 2.44*** 03 1.87
F(14, 3198) = Adj R
2 13.17*** .06 2.53*** .01 30.69 .12 10.14 04
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.
The third regression onto the Thinking-Feeling (T-F) scale
showed most variance accounted for. Thinking types were
Sceptical, Reserved, and Diligent but Incautious and not Dutiful.
They also tended to be male, and modestly high on Bold and
Mischievous dimensions of the Dark side measure. Clearly it is
this dimension of the MBTI that is most clearly linked to the
darkside variables. The final regression with Judging-Perceiv-
ing (J-P) as the criterion variables showed Judging types are
likely to be Bold and Diligent, but low on Mischievous and
Imaginative.
Next, the eleven dark side variables were subjected to an or-
thogonally rotated factor analysis. As has been shown many
times before, three factors emerged that accounted for over fifty
percent of the variance (Furnham & Trickey, 2011). Indeed
they were almost identical to that of Furnham, Trickey and
Hyde (2012), who used a different data set labelled moving
against, moving away from and moving towards. Following
that four stepwise regressions were then computed with sex and
age in the first block and the three factor scores in the second
block. With the criterion variable of E-I the regression was
significant (F(5,3215) = 29.86, AdjR2 = .04). This showed
Introverts were more likely to move against (Beta .14, t = 8.16,

A. FURNHAM, J. CRUMP
170
p < .001) but less likely to move away from others (Beta −.15, t
= 8.57, p < .001). The regression for the S-N variables was not
significant. The regression for the T-F variables was significant
(F(5,3215) = 26.05, AdjR2 = .04). Those who scored high on
Thinking were more likely to move against others (Beta .11, t =
6.49, p < .001) Away from (Beta .07, t = −4.18, p < .001) but
not towards (Beta −.07, t = 4.05, p < .001) others. The final
regression with JP as the criterion variable was computed
(F(5,3215) = 12.79, AdjR2 = .02). Those who scored high on
Judging were likely to score high on moving toward others
(Beta .11, t = 6.23, p < .001) but low on moving against others
(Beta −.07, t = 3.92, p < .001).
These regressions were then repeated with two differences.
First, after sex and age were entered in the first step, the im-
pression management scale from the HDS was then entered,
followed by the eleven HDS scales. All the regressions were
significant but accounted for little of the variance (<5%).
However, the regression with TF as the criterion scale ac-
counted for 12% of the variance. Indeed all except two of the
HDS scales were significant predictors, the most significant of
which were Cautious (Beta = −.18, t = 8.41, p < .001), Re-
served (Beta = .16, t = 8.04, p < .001) and Sceptical (Beta = .14,
t = 7.62, p < .001).
A second series of regressions were then performed. Here the
criterion variables were the three higher order groupings of the
HDS factors. The regressions were step-wise with first sex and
age being entered; then the impression management score from
the HDS and finally the four MBTI scores. For the first factor
“Moving Away from People” the regression was significant
(F(7,3206) = 24.25, p < .001, Adj R2 = .05). Age and sex were
not significant but impression management was (Beta = .18, t =
10.65, p < .001) and accounted for 3% of the variance. The
only significant MBTI factor was EI (Beta = −.13, t = 7.61, p
< .001) indicating that Introverts moved away from people. The
regression for the second factor “Moving Against People” was
significant (F(7,3205) = 25.81, p < .001, Adj R2 = .05). The
impression management factor was a significant predictor (Beta
= .10, t = 5.67, p < .001) as were three MBTI factors: EI (Beta
= .13, t = 7.40, p < .001); TF (Beta = .08 , t = 4.67, p < .001) and
JP (Beta = −16, t = 9.05, p < .001). The regression with “Mov-
ing Towards People” as the criterion variable was significant
(F(7,3206) = 16.65, p < .001; Adj R2 = .03). The impression
management factor was a significant predictor (Beta = .08, t =
4.81, p < .001) as were three MBTI factors: SN (Beta = −.04, t
= 2.17, p < .05); TF (Beta = −.16, t = 8.94, p < .001) and JP
(Beta = .06, t = 3.08, p < .01).
Discussion
Previous studies showed that MBTI scores are logically cor-
related with less adaptive personality traits like Neuroticism
(Furnham et al., 2003; McCrae & Costa, 1989; MacDonald et
al., 1994) as well as the personality disorders (Coolidge et al.,
2001). The results seem to indicate that trait Neuroticism (meas-
ured that both the domain and facet level) was correlated most
consistently with MBTI Feelings and Introversion.
This study showed a number of logical but modest, signifi-
cant correlations. The three hypotheses were confirmed. The
correlation results suggest that the MBTI scored Extravert has a
tendency to being Bold and Colourful, and the Introvert Cau-
tious and Reserved. Equally those classified as “Thinking
Types” tended to be Sceptical, Reserved and Diligent as well as
Bold and Mischievous but not at all Cautious or Dutiful.
Equally, Perceiving types were likely to be Mischievous, Co-
lourful, Imaginative but not Diligent. Six of the dark side di-
mensions related to two or more MBTI factors: thus Mischiev-
ous scorers tended to be NTJ, Cautious scorers ITP, and Dili-
gent STJ. It is however important to point out that overall the
correlations were low accounting for little of the variance,
though the pattern was clearer in the analysis in Table 2 com-
pared to Table 1. In this the results suggest, as MBTI research-
ers insist that it is not a measure of pathology, at least of the
personality disorders
Perhaps the most interesting and important part of the study
lies in the regression results. Here it was apparent that while
some of the dark side factors (i.e. Excitable and Leisurely) were
unrelated to any of the four MBTI factors, a few (i.e. Mi-
schievous and Diligent) were significantly related to all three.
Some of the findings seem clearly interpretable. Thus MBTI
Extraverts are likely to be Colourful (animated, expressive and
dramatic) while Introverts may be very Reserved (aloof, de-
tached and solitary). Judging types may be Bold (narcissistic,
self-confident, arrogant) and Diligent (Self-confident, Con-
scientious and Perfectionistic) while Perceiving types maybe
prone to being Mischievous (antisocial, adventurous) and Im-
aginative (adventurous, risk-taking and creative). Equally those
who score very high on Thinking may be prone to being rather
too Sceptical and Cynical, detached and uncommunicative,
meticulous and precise, but also self-confident and adventur-
ous.
The final set of regressions attempted to overcome some
Type II errors by using the “higher order” classification of the
HDS as done in other studies (Carson et al., 2012). In one set of
regression the HDS factors were the independent variables and
the four MBTI dimensions the dependent variables and in the
other analysis this was reversed. For nearly all, the amount of
incremental variance accounted for after demographic variable
and impression management was small (usually less than 5%)
suggesting little overlap between these measures. Second, the
results were always perfectly understandable in terms of the
description of the types and traits. Thus, for instance, Introver-
sion was associate d wit h moving away from people.
Some reviewers of the MBTI are happy to discuss the possi-
ble “shortcomings” of a particular type. Thus Rogers (1997)
notes that the common ENTJ type which is often the profile of
leaders and managers lists a wide range of issues where their
personal style may bring them problems: they can be overbear-
ing, hard on what they see as unenthusiastic or self-indulgent
people, over-controlling, impatient if others do not follow, very
competitive, restless and demanding etc. Yet Hirsch and Kum-
merow (1998) paint a very different picture of the ENTJ person
at work: “ENTJs are logical, organised, structured, objective
and decisive about what they view as conceptually valid. They
enjoy working with others, especially when they can take
charge and add a stra tegic plan” (p. 25).
One of the disadvantages of a typological rather than a di-
mensional measure is loss of variance. Thus a person may be
very or simply marginally extraverted to qualify as being cate-
gorised an extravert. The HDS is based on the spectrum hypo-
thesis that suggests it is only (very) high scores that present
possible risks to individuals, so it would seem much more use-
ful for both researchers and clinicians, counsellors and trainers
to use dimensional scores to get better use out of the instrument,
particularly when trying to detect potential derailers.

A. FURNHAM, J. CRUMP
171
This study like all others had limitations. This was a large,
but not a community, sample which has implications for gener-
alisation of the data.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental di s or ders (3rd ed.). Washington DC: APA.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington DC: APA.
Bastiaansen, L., Rossi, G., Schotte, C., & De Fruyt, F. (2011). The
structure of the personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disord-
ers, 25, 378-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.378
Briggs, K., & Myers, I. (1987). Myers-Briggs type indicator form G.
Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Carson, M., Sh anock, L. , Heggesta d, E., Andre w, A., P ugh, S., & Wal -
ter, M. (2012). The relationship between dysfunctional interpersonal
tendencies, derailment potential behaviour, and turnover. Journal of
Business and Psy chology, 27, 291-304.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9239-0
Coolidge, F. (1984). Coolidge axis II inventory. Washington DC.
Coolidge, F., Segal, D ., Hoo k , J. , Yamazaki, T., & Elli ott, J. (2 00 1). An
empirical investigation of Jung ’s psychological types and personality
disorder features. Journal of Psychological Type, 58, 33-36.
De Clercq, B., & De F ru yt, F . (2 00 3). Perso nality dis or d er s y mptoms in
adolescence: A five-factor model perspective. Journal o f Personality
Disorders, 17, 269-292.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.17.4.269.23972
De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B., Milley, J ., Rollan d, J . P., J u n g , S. C ., T aris,
R., Furnham, A., & Hiel, A. (2009). Assessing personality at risk in
personnel selection and development. European Journal of Perso-
nality, 23, 51-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.703
De Fruyt, F., Wille, B. , & Furnham, A. (20 13). Assessing aberrant per -
sonality in managerial coaching. European Journal of Personali t y.
Fico, J., Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2000). Interpersonal compass manual
and interpretation guide. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment System.
Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2005). Personality traits, types and disord-
ers. European Journal of Personality, 19, 167-184.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.543
Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: The relationship
between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PT five
factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences,
21, 303-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00033-5
Furnham, A. (2006). Personality disorders and intelligence. Journal of
Individual Differences, 27, 42-45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.27.1.42
Furnham, A., & Stringfield , P. (1993). Personality and o ccupational be-
haviour: Myers-Briggs type indicator correlates o f manage ment pra c-
tices in two cultures. Human Relations, 46, 827-848.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600703
Furnham, A., & Trickey, G. (2011). Sex differences in the dark side
traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 517-522.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.021
Furnham, A., Hyd e, G., & Trickey, G. (2013). Do your dark side traits
fit? Dysfunctional personalities in different work sectors. Applied
Psychology, In Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apps.12002
Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Crump, J. (2003). The relationship be-
tween the revised NEO-personality inventory and the Myers-Briggs
type indicator. Social Behavior and Pers onality, 31, 577-584.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.6.577
Furnham, A., Trickey, G., & Hyde, G. (2012). Bright aspects of dark
side traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 908-913.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.025
Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader develop-
ment and the dark side of personality. Leadership Quarterly, 22,
495-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.007
Hirsch, S., & Kummerow, J. (1998). Introduction to type in organisa-
tions. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan development survey manual.
Tulsa, OK: HAS.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Warrenfelz, R. (2007). The Hogan guide.
Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the
dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-
51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00162
Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and h uman growth. New York: Norton.
Janowsky, D., Morter, S., & Hong, L. (2002). Relationship of Myers
Briggs type indicator personality characteristics to suicidality in af-
fective disorder patients. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 36, 33-39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3956(01)00043-7
Khoo, H., & Bu rch, G. (2008 ). The “dark side” of leadership personal-
ity and transformational leadership. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 44, 86-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.018
MacDonald, D., Anderson, P., Tsagarakis, C., & Holland, J. (1994).
Examination of the relationship between the Myers-Briggs type in-
dicator and the NEO personality inventory. Psychological Reports,
74, 339-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.74.1.339
McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs type
indicators from the perspective o f the five-factor model of personali-
ty. Journal of Personality , 57, 17-40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x
Morey, L., Waugh, M., & Blashfield, R. (1985). MMPI sca les for DSM-III,
personality disorders: Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 49, 245-251.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4903_5
Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. (2004). “Dark Side” personality scales as
predictors of task, contextual, and job performance. International Jour-
nal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 356-362.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00290.x
Myers, I., & Myers, P. (1990). Gifts differing. Palo Alto: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Paul, A. (2004) . The cult of personality. New York: Free Press
Pierson, B. (2007). Personality types and personality disorders. Unpub-
lished Thesis, Muncie: Ball State University.
Quenk, N. (2009). Essential of Myers-Briggs type indicator assessment.
Cichester: Wiley.
Rogers, J. (1997). Sixteen personality types at work in organisations.
Cambridge, UK: Managers Futures.
Rolland, J. P., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). The validity of FFM personality
dimensions and maladap tive traits to predict negative af fect at work.
European Journal of Personality, 17, 101-121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.485
Saggino, A., & Kline, P. (1996). The locatio n of the Myers-Briggs type
indicator in personality factor space. Pers onality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 21, 591-597.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00009-8
Samuel, D., & Widiger, T. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the rela-
tionships between the f ive factor model and DSM-IV-TR personalit y
disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326-1342.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002
Widiger, T. (2011). Integrating n ormal and abnormal personality struc-
ture. Journal of the Personality Disorders, 25, 338-363.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.338
Widiger, T., & Coker, L. (20 01). Assessing person ality disorders. In J.
N. Butcher (Ed.), Clinical personality assessment: Practical ap-
proaches (2 nd ed., pp. 407-434). New York: Oxford University Pres s.
Zibarras, L., Port, R., & Woods, S. (2008). Innovation and the “Dark
Side” of personality. Journal of Creative Be haviour, 42, 201-215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01295.x