What is the difference between the Myers-Briggs and the Big 5?

I've thought Big five and MBTI are sort of variations of each other. This article disagrees. Thoughts?

Table of Contents Show

Myers-Briggs / MBTI vs. The Big Five
Concluding Remarks
Related Posts:
Differences between the MBTI and the Big Five
Theory of the MBTI
How the 16 MBTI types describe preferences
MBTI Theory vs. MBTI type assessment
Why the Big Five is not a personality theory
What is the origin of the Big Five?
Beyond the five dimensions of the Big Five
Connections between the MBTI and the Big Five
Big Five dimensions for each MTBI personality type
Suggested Reading

By Dr. A.J. Drenth

In 2009, I founded Personality Junkie® and began writing about personality typology. One of the reasons I titled the website as I did was I didn’t want to limit myself to writing about a single taxonomy. This still holds true today as I continue to explore, compare, and contrast the Myers-Briggs, Big Five, Enneagram and other relevant frameworks.

At the time I started this site, there was a lot of circulating and curated information about the Myers-Briggs types, as exemplified, for instance, by the MBTI Manual. Since then, however, research on the Big Five taxonomy has proliferated, contributing to its status as the leading academic and empirical model of our time. Considering the Big Five’s rise to ascendancy among academics, a few readers have asked us why we continue to emphasize the Myers-Briggs / MBTI® in our work.

Myers-Briggs / MBTI vs. The Big Five

In response to this question, one of the first things I usually point out is the Big Five doesn’t use personality “types.” Instead, it merely shows us where we fall, percentage wise, on each of its five categories compared to the general population. And while this does have the advantage of greater precision, the Big Five’s lack of personality types makes it harder to have community dialogues about one’s results. Personality types provide a user-friendly personality “snapshot” that is missing with the Big Five; they give us a sense of the forest instead of just trees. Sure, a few details may be lost along the way, but for type enthusiasts, it’s a worthwhile compromise.

The second thing I like to underscore is that the Myers-Briggs preference pairs (i.e., E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P) share much conceptual overlap with four of the Big Five’s domains—extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness respectively—and research has consistently shown significant correlations between these two taxonomies. Even Big Five neuroticism to some extent correlates and overlaps with the Myers-Briggs:

Some have even proposed adding a fifth dichotomy to the Myers-Briggs types, turbulent (T) – assertive (A), which can better capture the characteristics associated with neuroticism.

Third, the Myers-Briggs includes a fascinating feature of types which is completely missing from the Big Five, namely, a hierarchy of functions. In his classic work, Psychological Types, Carl Jung outlined eight essential functions (e.g., Introverted Intuition). Myers-Briggs theorists later suggested that each personality type utilizes four of Jung’s functions, but prefers to use certain functions more than others (akin to how “right-handers” prefer their right hand). Having already written in depth about this issue elsewhere, I’ll make a very basic case for it here in a way that even Big Five devotees might appreciate.

Putting the introversion – extraversion attitudes aside for a moment, let’s simply look at Jung’s four basic functions: thinking (T), feeling (F), sensing (S) and intuition (N). We know that F corresponds to high agreeableness and N to high Big Five openness. But even feelers (i.e., agreeable people) can and arguably should use impersonal logic (i.e., be less agreeable) in certain situations, just as intuitives (i.e., open / imaginative folks) must also make good use of their senses (i.e., attend to concrete matters). The Myers-Briggs offers a great way of understanding and visualizing these opposing functions. As an example, let’s say a person receives the following Big Five results:

These results indicate that Openness is strongest, which suggests a dominant preference for intuition. Thus, according to Myers-Briggs theory, sensing, as the dichotomous opposite of intuition, would constitute this individual’s weakest function. The results also suggest a preference for feeling (i.e., greater than 50% on agreeableness), making it the second preferred (i.e., auxiliary) function, and thinking the third / tertiary function. Hence, we are left with the following function hierarchy, which in this case, corresponds to the Myers-Briggs type ENFP:

It’s important to realize that this arrangement is not a mere figment of Jungian imagination, but is both empirically and logically derived. Moreover, there are a number of ways this function hierarchy (a.k.a., “function stack”) might prove useful. First, it keys us into our preferred tool for understanding and navigating the world, that is, our dominant function. It can also help us better understand and empathize with individuals employing different functions.

Second, the function hierarchy offers us a framework for understanding our most salient strengths and weaknesses. Looking back to our earlier ENFP example, we’d expect to see strengths such as creativity, ingenuity, curiosity, and broad interests (i.e., stemming from intuition / openness) coupled with difficulties handling practical matters—appointments, money management, administrative details, etc. (i.e., stemming from inferior sensing). By grouping these things conceptually in terms of functions, it’s easier to see why we operate the way we do and, perhaps even more importantly, how we might grow and develop in our personality.

While it may be feasible to deduce some of this things from the Big Five as well, its non-dichotomous categories aren’t terribly helpful in this respect. Someone scoring high in openness, for instance, could easily fail to see much benefit in becoming less open. Approaching it in terms of the value of developing one’s sensing function, however, seems far more understandable and useful.

Concluding Remarks

At Personality Junkie, we are by no means opposed to the Big Five. In fact, we are regular consumers of Big Five research, which informs and enriches our work. However, as enumerated in this post, we believe there are good and valid reasons to continue using and developing the Myers-Briggs along side of it. Not only do the MBTI types offer a user-friendly personality snapshot, but their function hierarchies give us insight into each type’s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for growth.

Learn more about type theory and the Myers-Briggs in Personality Junkie’s best-selling book, My True Type: Clarifying Your Personality Type, Preferences & Functions

Personality in Politics: Myers-Briggs & the Big Five

Masculine & Feminine in the Myers-Briggs vs. Big Five

The “Functional Stack”

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Big Five framework are two popular — and confusing — topics in personality.

In this post, I’ll cover:

If you want to jump straight to the Big Five dimensions for a specific type, click the type here:

Differences between the MBTI and the Big Five

Occasionally, people describe the MBTI and the Big Five as two competing personality theories or models, but this is incorrect.

Why? While the MBTI does rely on an underlying personality theory, the Big Five does not. First, let’s start with the theory behind the MBTI.

Theory of the MBTI

The Myers-Briggs, MBTI, and other “16 personality”-like models of personality all share a loose connection to Carl Jung’s theories, as interpreted by Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs. I’ll refer to this specific interpretation as MBTI theory.

According to MBTI theory, personality differences are due to differences in attitudes and cognitive functions.

Extraverted vs. Introverted Attitude

The primary distinction between people is in their attitude towards extraversion or introversion. In MBTI theory, an extraverted attitude reflects a stronger orientation towards the external world of objects and people. In contrast, those with a more introverted attitude gravitate towards the inner, subjective world of concepts and ideas.

Cognitive Functions

Regardless of their extraverted or introverted attitude, MBTI theory claims that all people process information and make decisions using the same four cognitive functions: Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling.

Perceiving Functions: Sensing and Intuition

In MBTI theory, Sensing and Intuition are Perceiving cognitive functions. Both functions allow one to perceive, become aware, and take in new information about the world.

These two perceiving functions are often labeled irrational because they are concerned with attending to the flow of information without any logical or rational constraints.

Sensing refers to perception through the sensory system. Through sensing perception, people gain awareness of their immediate environment directly with their senses in the present moment.

Intuition refers to perception from sources other than the sensory system. For example, with intuitive perception, people perceive abstract patterns and connections between ideas or notice a “gut feeling” about a situation.

Judging Functions: Thinking and Feeling

Thinking and Feeling are Judging cognitive functions. These two functions bring rational order to the flow of information apprehended by the perceiving functions.

These functions are often labeled rational because they are concerned with applying reason: making logical connections, deducing cause and effect, assessing relative values and needs among people, and so on.

Thinking refers to judgment made through the application of logic. With thinking judgment, people make decisions based on objective, logical connections. By nature, thinking judgment is impersonal, critical, and analytical.

Feeling refers to judgment made by comparing relative values or interpersonal concerns. With feeling judgment, people make decisions based on the values and needs of other people. Feeling judgment often requires an acute understanding of others’ emotions, desires, and perceptions.

Judging vs. Perceiving Attitude

MBTI theory claims that people differ in how they present themselves to the outer world. Their attitude towards either Judging or Perceiving describes their tendency to present either a judging function or a perceiving function to the external world (i.e., other people).

A person with a Judging attitude primarily presents one of the two judging functions (Thinking or Feeling) to the outer world. Yet, at the same time, they tend to favor a perceiving function (Sensing or Intuition) in their inner, subjective world.

Conversely, a person with a Perceiving attitude tends to present one of the two perceiving functions (Sensing or Intuition) to the outer world. They favor a judging function (Thinking or Feeling) in their inner world.

How the 16 MBTI types describe preferences

In MBTI theory, people differ in their preferences among these cognitive functions.

Primary functions

Of the four functions, everyone has a primary cognitive function, which they fully develop over time and come to favor the most. A secondary auxiliary function always balances the primary function. For example, if the primary function is a perceiving function, then the secondary function will be a judging function, and vice versa.

People reserve their primary, most developed function for the inner or outer world, depending on their extraverted or introverted attitude. Extraverts present their primary function to the outer world, while introverts present their auxiliary function to the outer world, keeping their primary function to their inner subjective world.

Connecting preferences to the four-letter typology

The four-letter types from MBTI theory encode each type’s attitudes and preferred cognitive functions.

The first letter indicates an introverted vs. extraverted attitude
The second letter indicates the preferred sensing function
The third letter indicates the preferred judging function
The fourth letter indicates a judging vs. perceiving attitude

Take the example of the ESTP type:

E: This type has an extraverted attitude
S: This type prefers perceiving through sensing over intuition
T: This type prefers judging through thinking over feeling
P: This type has a perceiving attitude or orientation and will present their favored perceiving function (sensing) to the outer world

ESTPs’ primary cognitive function is sensing perception (S).

Why? Because ESTPs have an extraverted attitude (E) and a perceiving attitude (P), they present their perceiving function (S) to the outer world, where they are most comfortable as extraverts. And because ESTPs’ perceiving function is sensing (S), it is also their primary cognitive function.

Consider another example, the INFJ:

I: This type has an introverted attitude
N: This type prefers perceiving through intuition over sensing
F: This type prefers judging through feeling over thinking
J: This type has a judging attitude or orientation and will present their favored judging function (feeling) to the outer world

INFJs’ primary cognitive function is intuitive perception (N).

Why? INFJs have an introverted attitude (I) and a judging attitude (J), so they present their judging function (F) to the outer world. However, INFJs are introverted and oriented to the inner world, so their primary cognitive function is not what they show to the external world. Instead, their primary cognitive function is their perceiving function: intuition or intuitive perception (N).

MBTI Theory vs. MBTI type assessment

While MBTI theory describes a complex interaction between cognitive functions and attitudes, assessment is relatively straightforward. Most MBTI-based measures are simply four independent scales: Extraversion-Introversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judging-Perceiving.

Scores on each scale determine whether a person has an extraverted vs. introverted attitude, prefers sensing or intuition as a perceiving function, prefers thinking or feeling for a judging function, and has a judging or perceiving orientation towards the outer world.

Because the assessment of these dimensions — and the interpretation of the resulting scores — depends heavily on an underlying theory, one could classify the MBTI and similar typologies as primarily theory-driven. In other words, the MBTI theory asserts the structure of personality and determines which dimensions to measure.

While TraitLab can predict how MBTI-like assessments would classify someone, that is not an endorsement of MBTI-based or related typological theories. Despite the broad popularity of MBTI-like evaluations, little empirical evidence supports the underlying MBTI theory described above.

Why the Big Five is not a personality theory

The so-called Big Five is a taxonomy, or classification system, of personality dimensions. As a taxonomy, it describes the relationships across a wide range of personality traits based on their statistical similarity. This system is not proprietary and formed slowly over decades of empirical research.

Because the structure described by the Big Five relies on observed, statistical similarities rather than theoretical claims like the MBTI, one could classify the Big Five as primarily data-driven.

Ready to see yourself clearly?

See an incredibly detailed analysis of your unique traits, strengths, and interests

Get started with TraitLab

What is the origin of the Big Five?

The Big Five arose from analyses of the several thousands of adjectives used to describe personality. For example, in several studies, participants read a list of hundreds of adjectives and rated each adjective based on how well it represented them.

When researchers analyzed these word ratings with statistical techniques, several clusters of related words emerged. For example, people rated themselves very similarly on the words aloof, distant, unsocial, and withdrawn, suggesting they describe the same underlying dimension. Likewise, the pattern of ratings among words like patient, moderate, tactful, and polite suggested a different underlying dimension.

Across many studies, using varying sets of words and rating methods, five “big” clusters consistently appeared:

Factor I: Extraversion (also called Surgency)
Factor II: Agreeableness
Factor III: Conscientiousness (also called Dependability)
Factor IV: Neuroticism (also called Emotional Stability)
Factor V: Openness to Experience (also called Intellect or Culture)

These ultimately formed the Big Five dimensions, and these factors describe the structure of relationships between personality-descriptive words in the English language.

Beyond the five dimensions of the Big Five

After identifying the Big Five factors, researchers designed assessments that measured these underlying dimensions more directly than through word ratings. Statistical analyses of the responses from these direct assessments revealed layers of smaller dimensions within each of the Big Five factors.

In this system, the domain level refers to the five dimensions of Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Aspects refer to a layer of 10 smaller dimensions below the domain level, and facets refer to a set of 30 smaller dimensions below those.

The Big Five is a taxonomy of personality, organizing traits into of broad domains, narrower aspects, and highly specific facets.

Again, this system only describes the statistical relationships between dimensions. It is primarily descriptive and not explanatory. It does not assert anything about psychological, developmental, or neurobiological mechanisms behind this structure.

Consider it as a zoomed-out map of the personality landscape. It roughly describes the geography of the land, but it doesn’t explain how or why the geography has its current shape.

Using the Big Five taxonomy as a map (along with some statistical analysis), one can identify the location of most proposed personality dimensions. Some dimensions turn out to be a simple renaming of an existing dimension, while other dimensions are a combination of several dimensions in the taxonomy.

Connections between the MBTI and the Big Five

Several peer-reviewed articles have detailed the statistical correlations between the four MBTI scales (Extraversion-Introversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judging-Perceiving) and dimensions in the Big Five taxonomy.

One consistent finding is that none of the MBTI scales have a simple one-to-one mapping to a Big Five dimension. Instead, each MBTI scale correlates with several dimensions in the Big Five taxonomy.

As a result, simply knowing a person’s MBTI type does not allow one to predict their position on the Big Five dimensions. However, it is possible to estimate the distribution of Big Five dimensions within each MBTI type.

These distribution patterns give a glimpse into the underlying personality variation within each MBTI type.

Big Five dimensions for each MTBI personality type

Below, you’ll find every MBTI type and a snapshot of their typical Big Five dimensions.

In each graph, darker blue areas show where most people in that type tend to score on a given Big Five dimension. Conversely, lighter, spottier blue areas show where fewer people in that type tend to score.

Click on the image or link in each type section for a more detailed analysis of that MBTI type.