The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between major contributors of style/learning inventories and Jung's original theory of "Psychological Type".
Style/Learning Inventories and Jung: The Relationship between Major Contributors of Style/Learning Inventories and Carl Jung's Original Theory of Psychological TypesAbstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between major contributors of style/learning inventories and Jung's original theory of "Psychological Type". Using an historical method for evaluative research, conclusions were derived about the causes/effects of Jung's theory upon the evolving theories of Ernst Kretschmer, Herman Witkin, Isabel Briggs Myers, David A. Kolb, David Keirsey, and Anthony Gregorc. The study investigates the extension of the major contributors' theories into their respective style/learning description-tool and the possible future consequences of such indications. It was found that each contributor had solid reason to believe their instrument was valid; it was concluded that while Jung's theory contributed significantly to each theorist, the resulting inventories do not match Jung's original theory in intent.
Relationship between Major Contributors of Style/Learning Inventories and Carl Jung's Original Theory of Psychological Types
Although Carl Gustav Jung has been credited in many works, from many sources, with the historical reference point of everything from personality types to learning styles, is this relationship accurate with respect to his original work, Psychological Types? The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between major contributors of learning/style inventories and Jung's original theory of Psychological Type.
Carl Gustav Jung, a collaborator of Sigmund Freud, began to assimilate observations that led him to believe individuals could be classified into certain psychological categories (Jung, 1921). A shift away from Freud's preferred dream analyses further led Jung to conceptualize and detail the differences among individuals based on his ideas of psychological type (Jung, 1964; Hannah, 1976). Although Jung clearly and deliberately detailed the separations and associations of these types as he understood them, it was not until Isabel Briggs Myers resolved to develop an instrument using information she and Katherine Cook Briggs had accumulated that Jung's work would be reliably validated (Unknown, Story of Isabel Briggs Myers, 2001). Following the work of Myers-Briggs, additional personality-type, temperament, and learning-style theories surfaced. The delineation of changes from Jung's psychological types to learning styles is vague and relatively untraceable. The method available to ascertain the development remains to be seen through a timeline of events as they unfolded. Due to the nature of elaboratory change, it is reasonable to expect that current learning/style inventories do not support Jung's original psychological type theory.
Jung's Theory of Psychological Type
"Any short account of Jung's theory of psychological types, like most aspects of his work, runs the danger of distortion, and nothing can replace reading the arduous Chapter X of the book itself" (Brome, 1978, p. 173). Jung's psychological types were separated into broad categories beginning with an individual's orientation to the world; therein guided by a prevalent conscious and unconscious point of reference. Jung refers to these as the "attitude types": extraverted attitudes and introverted attitudes. Along the z-axis, between the positive and negative poles, the extravert orients himself primarily to the outward object drawing his significance, value, and esteem from the object; therefore, the object must be increased so his significance, value, and esteem increases — thus the extravert inclines toward the positive pole of the z-axis (Jung, 1921, p. 179). The introvert orients himself to the object by taking the object into himself to continuously dissect, digest, and regurgitate its value and importance, such that it will never have as much importance as the introvert himself — thus the introvert inclines toward the negative pole of the z-axis (Jung, 1921, p. 179). "It is sufficient to note that the peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position" (Jung, 1921, p. 180). Jung considers that individuals disperse along "a widespread distribution" (Jung, 1921, p. 179) along the continuum of the axes.
Jung further separates the attitude-types into function-types, "whose peculiarities are due to the fact that the individual adapts and orients himself chiefly by means of his most differentiated function" (Jung, 1921, p. 178). The extravert is divided again along an x-axis between thinking — the object demands the process, is verified against the object, and conclusions are linked directly back to the object — (Jung, 1921, p. 193; Jung, 1968) and feeling — the object determines the quality of the feeling which will always have consonance with the object's value — (Jung, 1921, p. 207; Jung, 1968). Further, the extravert is divided along a y-axis between sensing — the strongest sensations elicited by the object will be the decisive realities — (Jung, 1921, p. 220; Jung, 1968) and intuition — a derivation of unseen evidence as actually a part of the object itself — (Jung, 1921, p. 221; Jung, 1968). The introvert is also divided along an x-axis between thinking — a forced abstracted expression of the pure subjective — (Jung 1921, p. 238; Jung, 1968) and feeling — a rarely obvious appearance to negatively devalue and subordinate the object — (Jung, 1921, p. 245; Jung, 1968). Additionally, the introvert is divided along a y-axis between sensing — modifications of representations that become sensations, not found in the object at all (Jung, 1921, p. 252-3; Jung, 1968) and intuition — the appearance of nuances of the inner-object — (Jung, 1921, p. 258; Jung, 1968).
Jung further delineates the thinking/feeling functions as rational-judging types: the irrational and accidental are excluded in favor of the differentiated and definite (Jung, 1921, p. 251). The sensing/intuitive functions are further delineated as irrational-judging types because, as "they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite wrong to regard them as 'unreasonable'. It would be truer to say that they are in the highest degree empirical. They base themselves exclusively on experience — so exclusively that, as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience" (Jung 1921, p. 226; Jung, 1958). Jung considers that the prevalence of one function may be suppressed by the priority held by another function. Jung recognizes that throughout humanity pure types are less likely to occur: "... I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. ... closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence" (Jung, 1921, p. 266).
Reactions to Jung's Psychological Type
Ernst Kretschmer
In 1925, Ernst Kretschmer, published his own account of the psyche-soma type connection. His research draws from ancient cultural ideologies that segment human qualities into distinct physiological temperaments. Kretschmer's theories were not entirely new as forms of the same general ideas could be traced as far back as 450 BC to Hypocrites' personality distinctions based on body fluids (Hedges, 1997). More original however was Kretschmer's belief that an individual's body structure and outward appearance belied psychological tendencies, abilities, and disabilities (Kretschmer, 1925). Kretschmer intimated that if, as previously linked, the body-health connection of the individual could be traced to his four definable temperament types (hypomanic, melancholic, hyperaesthetic, aesthetic), perhaps the mental-health connection could be, as well (Kretschmer, 1925). Jung appeared to believe there might be a consolidable connection between his work and Kretschmer's, but it is not evident that Kretschmer responded to Jung (Arraj, 1991). It was simply Kretschmer's intention to postulate a model as a launching point for extended and refined future investigation into the body-mind-health connection (Kretschmer, 1925).
Herman Witkin
Herman Witkin, in 1954, published a theory of structural perception he called Field Dependence. This approach to understanding how the brain identifies, separates, and uses perceptual constructs directly relates to a study of biology, physiology, and genetics in addition to psychology. It is a seesaw design that pivots toward one of only two possibilities: an individual's predominant ability to either order chaos or absorb chaos (Skehan, 1998; Foell & Fritz, 1995). Witkin's two modes of processing information are referred to as Field Independent and Field Dependent. Field Independence denotes the ability to analyze, restructure, and reorganize (DuFresne & Turcotte, 2001); the individual perceives accurately segments of a surrounding complex field (Witkin, Moore, Cox, & Goodenough, 1977). Field Dependence denotes the ability toward nonmanipulative acceptance using "a chainlink information processing style" (Foell & Fritz, 1995, p. 48); the individual cannot readily perceive segments of a surrounding complex field (Witkin et al., 1977). Witkin explains that his theory interprets learning as an integral component:
We come out with a quantitative indicator of the extent to which the surrounding organized field has influenced the person's perception of an item within it. (Witkin et al., 1977, p. 6). It is clear from this and other evidence that the individual-differences dimension first picked up in perception shows itself equally in the problem-solving domain. (Witkin et al., 1977, p. 8).
Isabel Briggs Myers and Katharine Cook Briggs
Before the turn of the century, Katharine Cook Briggs became very interested in the study of individual differences. Having noticed patterns of behavioral differences in her own family, she sought out additional literature to understand the scope of what was not entirely elaborated to her satisfaction (Briggs Myers, 1980). Upon discovering Jung's work, Cook Briggs abandoned all other resources and devoted herself to Jung's determination of individual type (Briggs Myers, 1980). Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, began the long arduous, but fulfilling work of classifying hundreds of individuals by Jung's typology. Additionally, Briggs Myers began to develop teaching materials with a decided bearing toward type. As World War II continued, Briggs Myers began to believe an instrument to understand the psychological differences cultivated by Jung would be valuable to humankind in order "to help by finding a means for people to understand rather than destroy each other" (Unknown, Story of Isabel Briggs Myers, 2001, pg. 2). Briggs Myers developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator using data she and Cook Briggs collected to differentiate the sixteen psychological types described by Jung (Briggs Myers, 1980). Published originally to a limited research audience in 1962 by the Educational Testing Service and later by Consulting Psychological Press in 1975 to a wider more varied audience, Briggs Myers refined the instrument over time, until it would become the single most reliable psychological type inventory to validate Jung's theories (Unknown, Story of Isabel Briggs Myers, 2001; Hedges, 1997; Unknown, Isabel Briggs Myers, 2001; Albritton & Pearman, 1997; Kroeger & Thuesen, 1988). Briggs Myers is careful to explain that there were three major differences between their work and Jung's original theory: (1) everyday types vs. pure types; (2) an auxiliary balancing preference in addition to the dominant process; and (3) a different interpretation of Jung's rational/irrational vs. Cook Briggs' judging/perception types (Briggs Myers, 1980, p. 17-22).
David A. Kolb
Experiential Learning, developed by David A. Kolb in 1974, focused on a cycle of learning based primarily on an experiential approach to making information meaningful (Healey & Jenkins, 2000). Kolb's Learning Style Inventory specifically addresses the individual's reliance toward an orientation of either feeling, watching/listening, thinking, or doing (Healey & Jenkins, 2000). Kolb's theory includes a cycle of four modes of learning (Concrete Experiential, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, Active Experimentation); a combination of which (CE/AE, RO/AE) would show a specific learning style type (Diverger, Assimilator, Converger, Accomodator) (Baker, Dixon, & Kolb, 1985). Kolb proposed a model of learning that shows individuals not only could, but should, shift typologies during learning and over the course of developmental breaches (Goby & Lewis, 2000; Healey & Jenkins, 2000). Although an individual may lodge comfortably within a specific learning type, the most effective and efficient learning would occur when an individual dislodges himself and explores all of the other learning-type options (Brock & Cameron, 1999). The implication remains that every individual has the potential for every possible learning characteristic. Kolb's theory is based on a behaviorist platform indicating, "although behavior-change procedures can be used to change deviant behaviors, they can also be used to enhance already adequate prosocial behaviors" (Kolb & Schwitzgebel, 1974, p. 4). A predisposition to any one area of the cycle further negates the range of learning possibilities within the total cycle.
David Keirsey
David Keirsey effectively integrated the contributions of Kretschmer's temperament theory and Briggs Myers' interpretation of Jung:
In taking our cue from Kretschmer in the temperament hypothesis we must abandon Jung's idea of 'functions.' But in giving up Jung's 'function' we must not abandon his behavior descriptions, for they have great predictive value. ...This is not something to give up lightly, so it is not so much that the 'function type' is abandoned but rather subordinated to the concept of 'temperament,' the latter having a much wider range of convenience as an explainer of behavior. (Bates and Keirsey, 1978, p. 27)
In 1978, Keirsey published his own work that explored the possibility that individual differences were based predominantly on a person's temperament, could be more accurately grouped by Intuitive Thinker (NTs), Intuitive Feelers (NFs), Sensing Perceivers (SPs), and Sensing Judgers (SJs), and could no more be changed than a person's fingerprint (Bates & Keirsey, 1978). Keirsey asks us to "bear in mind that Jung and Myers were trying to figure out what the different types have in mind, while I am trying to figure out what they can do well under varying circumstances" (Bates & Keirsey, 1998, ¶1). Keirsey's Character and Temperament Sorter illustrates individuals' characteristics based on four temperaments: Dionysian/Artisan, Epimethean/Guardian, Apollonian/Idealist, and Promethean/Rational. Keirsey further segments each temperament into four "vocation" types based on the Briggs Myers sixteen Jungian types: ISTP-Artisan; ISFP-Artist; ESTP-Promoter; ESFP-Entertainer; ISFJ-Conservator; ISTJ-Trustee; ESFJ-Seller; ESTJ-Administrator; INFP-Questor; INFJ-Author; ENFP-Journalist; ENFJ-Pedagogue; INTJ-Scientist; INTP-Architect; ENTJ-Fieldmarshal; ENTP-Inventor (Bates & Keirsey, 1978). Because temperament is fixed within the individual, the presumption then is that all interaction will be based on these unfailing characteristics, whether they are career-, emotion-, finance-, action-, education-, or relationship-related. Keirsey prizes above all our ability to appreciate these differences in each other without presuming the need to change each other (Keirsey, 1998).
Anthony F. Gregorc
Anthony F. Gregorc, in 1982, developed a model to describe not just personality or learning style, but the individual nature of each person to perceive and order the information that makes up our world. Resulting in the Gregorc Style Delineator, Gregorc identified a concrete or abstract representation of perception and a sequential or random approach to ordering the information (Gregorc, 1982). The combination would then provide a person's orientation toward the world, both with potentially positive and negative attributes (Gregorc, 1982). Gregorc's model distinguishes itself in that it is not intended to describe potential ambitions, career choices, learning methods, or success in relationships. Instead, it represents only the possibility of understanding self, others, and the envelope and overlap of life events therein (Gregorc, 1982).
Influence of Jung's Theory on Major Contributors
Although it doesn't appear that Ernst Kretschmer responded to Jung's outreach, inherent in Kretschmer's ideas were the foundations of individuals as types — in spite of this fact, it is not directly linked to Jung. Kretschmer restricted his views to opening a dialog concerning the link between physical appearance and distinguishable psyche characteristics. Decades later, Herman Witkin would continue to view the capacity of an individual through physiological terms: if the brain reacted one way an individual could be described using certain terms and if the brain reacted another way, an individual would then be defined differently. Although type was a peripheral consideration for Kretschmer and Witkin, it was not the driving force behind their theories: the physiology of the human body was the driving force. Jung's theories were not directly interpreted until Katherine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers developed an accounting of psychological type. David A. Kolb's instrument clearly demonstrates an influence from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, but his theory reflects solely behavioristic learning. David Kiersey, citing references to Jung, Kretschmer, and Briggs Myers extrapolated to produce a theory of intelligence types, expositing for learning as well. Anthony F. Gregorc likewise demonstrates a Jungian influence, but the Gregorc Style Delineator remands itself back to being an inventory showing personal inclinations, not necessarily learning dispositions; thus, should it be beneficial to the individual to interpret the results to learning, that is up to the individual.
Relationship between Jung's Theory and Subsequent Theories
Evolution of the Theories Toward a Learning Type/Style
The type model of theories evolved from purely an interest in psychological type to a much broader base that would include at various times, everything from career, financial, and relationship management to learning. Briggs Myers interpreted Jung's ideas exactly as he intended them: psychological types. Kretschmer and Witkin may have known of Jung's theory, but their research was decidedly more biologically entwined; physiological connections decided the individual's mental capacities. It was however, the contribution from these gentlemen that appears to influence the idea that perhaps we could learn more from type than just the psychological nature of an individual. Twenty years after Witkin published his ideas, David Kolb produced an instrument, the core of which was a developmental process of learning; the structure of which could also be used to interpret types. Kolb is significant to the evolution of the process in that he seems to be influenced by Briggs Myers (who was directly interpreting Jung); however, he was also incorporating the ideology from a behaviorist model that learning itself is a component of psychological type and learning-style is not fixed. David Keirsey, at about the same time Kolb was developing his ideology, produced an instrument that directly related to Kretschmer and Briggs Myers; if the individual were guided by temperament, then all manner of individual interaction were also guided by these inherent principles: learning, thinking, acting, beliefs, career, and relationships. Less than five years later Anthony F. Gregorc, would introduce his Style Delineator that would base individual style on the inherent natural abilities of the individual; like Keirsey, if the individual is guided by an unalterable inherent nature, then all manner of individual interaction will also be guided by this nature, including learning style.
Extensions/Leaps from Jung's Original Theory
Jung began his look into Psychological Types in order to begin to understand differences among individuals. Having seen the carnage of war, his first thoughts were probably not, "How does an individual learn?" but more likely, "What is it about our differences that cause us conflict?" Briggs Myers, also intimating from her influence by war, sought only to understand differences among individuals. Briggs Myers describes her primary goal: "Jung saw his theory as an aid to self-understanding, but the application of the theory (like the theory itself) extends beyond the point where Jung was content to stop" (1980, p. 24). Kretschmer and Witkin were primarily interested in categorizing individuals with respect to body type and stimuli response, respectively. Kolb made the first major leap from Jung's theory to include learning as part of the psychological process; albeit a flexible behavior-change process by which the individual may make changes within himself. Keirsey brought the process back to intelligence types (which also could include learning) by way of temperament theory, presenting them as a means to appreciating individual differences in others. Gregorc, further altered the process to account for the concrete conceptualization that occurs differently in each individual (which could also include learning), but the main focus was gaining insight into self, others, and residual interactions in order to reduce harm among individuals.
Conclusions
Significance of Match
It is possible that Kretschmer and Jung were more aligned in physiological constitution and temperament theory than their subsequent works indicate. Jung said of his theory, "it may well be that physiological cause of which we have no knowledge play a part in this" (1921, p. 181). Citing William James' Pragmatism, Jung correlates the tendency of thought processes that "it merely constitutes that difference between thinkers which James considered a matter of temperament" (1921, p. 195). However, while Jung's work differentiated predominantly healthy types, Kretschmer's work began predominantly as a work toward sorting aberrant types; Kretschmer hypothesized that this would "have far more extensive relations to widespread normal-psychological types of temperament" (Kretschmer, 1925, p. 4).
There is no direct link between Jung's theory and Witkin's Field Dependence theory; however, there is a structure which closely resembles Jung's theory: a continuum of opposites, a fixed physiological base, and an individual's dominant ability.
Briggs Myers credits Jung with the foundation of her theory upon which the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was built. However, Briggs Myers further stipulates that Jung did not take sufficient account of "normal, balanced types with an auxiliary process at their disposal" (1980, p. 17). Briggs Myers also states emphatically that Jung does not include a Judging/Perceptive preference; instead cites only the rational/irrational distinction that provides little if no context for the introvert, and that the Judging/Perceptive preferences were developed by her mother, Katharine Cook Briggs prior to Jung's published work (1980, p. 17-22). Of primary importance to Briggs Myers was not defining the process that elaborated the types, but "describing the consequences of each preference" (Briggs Myers, 1980, p. 23). Briggs Myers herself recognized the possible disconnectedness between Jung's original theory and recent by-products: "consequently, other researchers, who have reinvented the categories under different names, were unaware of the parallels between their findings and Jung's theories" (Briggs Myers, 1980, p. 17).
David A. Kolb interpreted learning styles from a behaviorist perspective. Like Witkin, there is no identifiable link between Jung's theory and the development of Kolb's Learning Style Inventory. Kolb however, briefly references Jung in some of his work. The major difference between Kolb's theory and Jung's is the fixed nature of Jung's psychological types and Kolb's necessitated learning-change model.
David Keirsey cites Jung, Kretschmer, and Briggs Myers in the extrapolation to his theory of character and temperament types. Keirsey built his theory by subordinating Jung to Kretschmer, or type to temperament: "it is not so much that the 'function type' is abandoned but rather subordinated to the concept of 'temperament', the latter having a much wider range of convenience as an explainer of behavior" (Keirsey, 1978, p. 27). Keirsey also restructured the Briggs Myers types, grouping as more similar the sensing/preceptors, sensing/judgers, intuitive/thinkers, and intuitive/feelers, as "differing from each other in important ways, but resembling each other in even more important ways" (Keirsey, 1978, p. 31) with the intention to "figure out what they can do well under varying circumstances" (Keirsey, 1998, ¶1).
Anthony F. Gregorc shows no discernable path from Jung's theory to the Gregorc Style Indicator. However, Gregorc's and Jung's theories reflect interdependencies beyond coincidence: "Every human being has universal qualities which are common to all other human beings. Every human being is unique unto himself — physically, emotionally, and mentally. ...Every human being has a mind which functions as a decision-making instrument to align his inner psychic life with the outer world" (Gregorc, 1982, p. v).
Future Consequences
The most significant consequence produced as a result of the extrapolation and evolution of Jung's theory is the attempt to show prevalent learning styles. All major contributors used their inventories to intimate a connection to learning, whether directly or indirectly. It would be expected that understanding our learning differences would naturally emanate from the pursuit of psychological understanding. It would be anticipated that understanding our learning differences would benefit our interaction with others in the educational community. But it is not known if this is true. It is not known whether there were many or few who were discouraged from pursuing educational endeavors due to indicators that were unfavorable to their style. It is not possible to believe the major contributors intended any harm with their inventories — this is not the point of the study, and in no way is inferred or intended. Further research should be conducted to demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between educational success and learning style inventories. Gregorc himself has considered this position and offers the current wisdom:
The absence of a student instrument is not due to an oversight or a lack of interest in young people. No instruments exist because of findings from my experiments, field research, interviews and insights into the validity of such instruments and their side effects.
I realize that learning style instruments exist in varying forms today. Their creators and users believe in them and in their efficacy. I, too, believed in their potential in the early 70's when I began my work. I studied various instruments, questionnaires and surveys, then developed and tested different types based on my own theory. I soon changed my mind about their benefits. The old adage, "Direct experience provides a moral stance" rang true!
I shelved work on student versions, notified my colleagues and potential customers, and published my rationale. To date, my experience continues to confirm and reinforce my decision to not "unleash into the world" instruments that may potentially mislead or do harm to any young person or adult. (Gregorc, 2001, p.10, ¶2)
Although it may be possible to categorize and pinpoint abilities, disabilities, styles, and types, there is no instrument that can measure desire, motivation, determination, resolve, or purpose. These are surely as important indicators of student success as perception and cognition.
Carl Gustav Jung identified a theory for distinguishing characteristics between individuals. His purpose was to present an option whereby we could understand each other more clearly and build upon our strengths without weakening each other. Briggs Myers went one step further to develop an inventory to assess psychological type. Although clearly Jung is an ever-present influence in the development and use of type indicators, style indicators, personality indicators, psychological indicators, success indicators, or learning indicators, it was certainly not his ultimate intent for the individual to become absorbed in who they are not and inhibited, perhaps hindered, from fulfilling themselves within their type. Jung states: "Do not think I am putting people into this box or that ... It is no use at all putting people into drawers with different labels" (Jung, 1968, p. 19). In an effort to make learning easily available to everyone, we design inventories that will segregate learners into tight little boxes, neatly separated. We believe that if only we could figure out how people learn, we could teach everyone and everyone would be capable of learning. Can an inventory really describe how learning occurs? Is it possible to measure for courage, motivation, and persistence? Do we limit student success by intimating you are this "style"? Jung replies:
Our psyche is part of nature, and its enigma is as limitless. Thus we cannot define either the psyche or nature. We can merely state what we believe them to be and describe, as best we can, how they function. (1964, p. 23) Man, as we realize if we reflect for a moment, never perceives anything fully or comprehends anything completely. He can see, hear, touch, and taste; but how far he sees, how well he hears, what his touch tells him, and what he tastes depend upon the number and quality of his senses. These limit his perception of the world around him. By using scientific instruments he can partly compensate for the deficiencies of his senses. ... No matter what instruments he uses, at some point he reaches the edge of certainty beyond which conscious knowledge cannot pass. (1964, p. 21)
References
Albritton, S. C., & Pearman, R. R. (1997). I'm not crazy I'm just not you: The real meaning of the 16 personality types. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Arraj, J. (1991). Jungian and Catholic? The Promises and Problems of the Jungian-Christian Dialogue. Retrieved September 14, 2001, from http://www.innerexplorations.com/catjc/jc5.htm.
Baker, R., Dixon, N., & Kolb, D.A. (1985). Personal learning guide. Boston: McBer and Company.
Bates, M. & Keirsey, D. (1978). Please understand me: character & temperament types. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis.
Briggs Myers, I. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Brock, K. L., & Cameron, B. J. (1999). Enlivening political science courses with Kolb's Learning preference model. Political Science & Politics, 32 (2), pp. 251-256.
Brome, V. (1978). Jung. New York: Atheneum.
Dufresne, A., & Turcotte, S. (2001). Cognitive style and its implications for navigation strategies. Retrieved September 20, 2001, from http://www.crim.ca/.ipsi/articles/cognitive.pdf.
Foell, N. A., & Fritz, R. L. (1995). Association of cognitive style and satisfaction with distance learning. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33 (1), 46-59.
Goby, V. P., & Lewis, J. H. (2000). Using experiential learning theory and the Myers-Briggs type indicator in teaching business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 63 (3), pp. 39-48.
Gregorc, A. F. (1982). An adult's guide to style. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates, Inc.
Gregorc, A. F. (2001). Frequently asked questions on style. Retrieved September 20, 2001, from http://www.gregorc.com/faq.html.
Hannah, B. (1976). Jung: His life and work. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb's experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99 (5), pp. 185-95.
Hedges, P. (1997). Personality discovery: Personality patterns in teachers and their pupils. Journal for Pastoral Care and Personal and Social Education, September.
Jung, C. G. (1958). Psyche and symbol: A selection from the writings of C. G. Jung, R.F.C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological Types. In J. Campbell (Ed.), The portable Jung (pp. 178-269). New York: Viking Press.
Jung, C. G. (1964). Approaching the unconscious. In C. G. Jung & M. —L. von Franz (Eds.), Man and his symbols (pp. 20-103). New York: Doubleday.
Jung, C. G. (1968). Analytical psychology: Its theory and practice — The Tavistock lectures. New York: Random House.
Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II. Retrieved September 15, 2001, from http://keirsey.com/pumII/dimensions.html.
Kolb, D. A., & Schwitzgebel, R. K. (1974). Changing human behavior: principles of planned intervention. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kretschmer, E. (1925). Physique and character; an investigation of the nature of constitution and of the theory of temperament. New York: Humanities Press.
Kroeger, O., & Thuesen, J. M. (1998). Type talk or how to determine your personality type and change your life: Based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. New York: Delacorte Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. New York: Oxford.
Unknown. (2001). Isabel Briggs Myers: 1897-1980. Retrieved September 17, 2001, from http://www.hartwick.edu/alumni/IsabelBriggsMyers.shtml.
Unknown. (2001). The story of Isabel Myers Briggs. Retrieved September 17, 2001, from http://www.capt.org/About_the_MBTI/Isabel%20Myers.cfm.
Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Cox, P.W., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47 (1), pp. 1-64.
{/viewonly}
