Raymond C. Hawkins, II, PhD, ABPP Tara Chace, MA Association of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Preferences with Coping Behaviors and Quality of Life Domains as Measured by the Coping Assessment Battery (CAB). Raymond C. Hawkins, II, PhD, ABPP Fielding Graduate University University of Texas at Austin Tara Chace, MA Fielding Graduate University Abstract Sample Description MBTI & CAB domains Discussion This study used archival data from 87 undergraduates (55 females, 30 males,2 sex unspecified) who completed both the Coping Assessment Battery (CAB) (Bugen & Hawkins (1981) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Form G) as part of a larger research program. The purpose of this exploratory research study was to investigate whether coping strategies vary according to different personality styles and if quality of life indicators also vary because these indicators have different values placed on them according to the personality preferences of the individual evaluating them. Archival data were used to perform this study. The data were collected from undergraduates who completed both the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Coping Assessment Battery (CAB) by students for research credit in an earlier academic course. The MBTI domains are divided into dichotomous domains as follows: Introversion or Extraversion Sensing or Intuition Thinking or Feeling Judging or Perceiving The CAB domains are as follows: Intellectual Efficiency Transactional Skills Problem Solving Personal Compromise Life Review Athletic Release Meditation Denial Nature Image Diversion Chemical Dependence Support Quality of Life Indicators Job Leisure Health Money Love Coping strategies and quality of life indicators were significantly different for Introverts and Extraverts.  A solid understanding of these findings, as well as the individual variables of the MBTI type preferences, the quality of life domains, and coping behaviors will aid therapists in developing strength-based individualized treatment plans for their clients.  The implications of these findings have been explored to show how coping strategies are as unique as the individuals themselves. Coping strategies are not easily defined and are never stagnant. In other words, the methods one chooses as a means of coping do not apply to every situation encountered. Method Both MANOVA and ANOVA were used to test four hypotheses based on evaluating MBTI dimensions (Introversion vs. Extraversion, Sensation vs. Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling and temperament styles) and CAB variables (coping transactional skills and quality of life indicators): (1) Extraverts will score significantly higher than Introverts on the job, leisure, love, health, and money quality of life indicators as well as on the transactional skill of social support; (2) Feeling types will score significantly higher on leisure, love, and health than Thinking types; (3) Sensing - Judging temperament (SJ) types will endorse more use of denial, meditation, nature, and life review coping strategies than will the other temperament types; (4) Preference for Intuition on the MBTI will be significantly associated with the intellectual efficiency scale scores on the CAB. Introduction Coping strategies may vary according to different personality styles. Likewise, variability may also exist among quality of life (QLI) indicators because these indicators often have different values placed on them according to the personality preference of the individuals evaluating them. An individual’s personality type influences the way in which he or she copes. According to Carver and Connor-Smith (2010) the range of effects could be “from emotional distress, to physiological reactivity, to mortality” (p. 680). The MBTI defines different personality domains. The MBTI domains are defined as dichotomous preferences. The dichotomies of these separate domains eventually combine and result in 16 individual personality preferences. The resulting code type preference does not entirely define an individual’s personality; the code type merely provides a window into trying to define and understand his or her preferences. This information enables researchers, therapists, clinicians, and other professionals the ability and guidelines to better predict the individuals coping style in any given situation (although this is always subject to change). . References Bugen, L.A., & Hawkins, R.C. II (1981). The Coping Assessment Battery: Theoretical and empirical foundations. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association convention, Los Angeles, CA. Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and Coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 679- 704.doi:10.1146/annurev.psych. 093008.100352 Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta- analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1080-1107. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.93.6.1080 McPeek, R. W., Martin, C. R., & Breiner, J. F. (2016). Refining the definitions of sensing and intuition as measured by the MBTI instrument.. Retrieved from https://www.capt.org/journal- psychological-type/whitepapers/s- n%20whitepaper_02.2016.pdf Passmore, J., Holloway, M., & Rawle- Cope, M. (2010). Using MBTI type to explore differences and the implications for practice for therapists and coaches: Are executive coaches really like counselors? Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 1-16. doi:10.1080/09515071003679354 Zia, R., Liu, W., & Schmittman, B. (2012). An extraordinary transition in a minimal adaptive network of introverts and extraverts. Physics Procedia, 34, 124- 127. doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2012.05.020 Results An evaluation of the current research on both personality and coping resulted in the development of four hypotheses with the following results: Using Pillai’s trace there was a significant effect of extraversion on QLI variables measured by the CAB, V = 0.16, F (5, 74) = 2.87, p = .020 Using Pillai’s trace, there was not a significant increase in score of the feeling types on the QLI variables of leisure, love, and health when compared with the thinking types, V = 0.01, F (3, 80) = .21, p = .889 Using Pillai’s trace, the SJ temperament types did not show a greater affinity towards the use of denial, meditation, nature, and life review coping strategies when compared with the other temperament types, V = 0.03, F (4, 80) =.57, p = .684 The preference for intuition was not significantly associated with the intellectual efficiency scale scores, F (1, 82) = 1.10, p = .713, ω = 0.03. Instruments Coping Assessment Battery (CAB) This instrument consists of three parts: (1) “Intellectual Efficiency” 26-item subscale; (2) Transactional skills (41 items) that are scored in a Likert format; (3) Quality of Life indicator (28 items that are also scored in a Likert fashion. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) The MBTI is a self-report questionnaire that tends to prompt self-reflection and divides responses into each of the four pairs of domains, yielding 16 possible psychological types