MBTI Step 2

History

During the development of the MBTI® Step 1 questionnaire (1941-1975), Myers became increasingly interested in exploring how people expressed their type through behaviour. Whilst people of the same type are similar in many – fundamental – ways, they are also very different in others. But what were these differences between types?

Myers was also aware that Jung did not see psychological type as predictive of behaviour. Not only does our upbringing affect how we behave, but we also continue to learn, grow and change on life’s journey – striving to be the best version of ourselves that we can be. Furthermore, our level of consciousness affects the level of influence over our functions and the range of behaviours available to us. So whilst our type remains the same, how we express ourselves changes throughout our lives.

Myers’ research on type expression was taken forward by David Saunders in the early 1980’s and consequently, the MBTI® Step 2 questionnaire was born in 1996. Step 2 helps to explore the uniqueness of our type and how we express it through our current behaviour.

What is the MBTI® Step 2™?

• It is a self-scoring version of the MBTI® questionnaire that expands on how a person may express their four-letter personality type.
• The questionnaire contains all of the Step 1 items plus an additional set of questions – it is therefore longer.
• It is based on the assumption that each of the MBTI® Step 1 preferences are multi-faceted.
• People are unique and complex. The MBTI® Step 2 explores the complexity of the human condition at a more detailed level that the MBTI® Step 1.
• Step 2 needs to be used in conjunction with Step 1. They are not separate. Step 1 provides the context in which to understand your Step 2 results.
• The results from both the MBTI® Step 1 and Step 2 are assumed to be both positive and neutral. Both are meant to be affirming and encourage people to recognize and appreciate personality differences.
• Neither the MBTI® Step 1 or 2 can be used for selection or assessment purposes. They do not measure skill, competence or ability. The MBTI® Step 2 is not a trait-based tool.

Differences Between the MBTI® and Trait-Based Questionnaires

Trait Questionnaires	MBTI® Questionnaire
Assume universal qualities – people vary only in the amount of the trait possessed.	Assumes qualitatively distinct categories – individuals prefer one or the other category.
Measure the amount of each trait.	Sorts individuals into one or the other category.
Scores are expected to be normally distributed – most scores are in the middle.	Scores are expected to be bimodal – few scores at the midpoint.
Scores are variables that show how much of the trait a person has.	Scores are estimates of confidence in the accuracy of the sorting process.
Interpretative interest is in the extremes of the distribution.	Interpretive interest is in people near the midpoint, where the accuracy of sorting may be in doubt.
Assume that behaviour is caused by relevant underlying traits.	Assumes that behaviour is an expression of underlying type preference.
Assumes that traits are largely independent of each other.	Assumes that the four type preferences interact dynamically to form a whole that is different from the sum of its parts.
Traits are usually identified by a single descriptor.	Type dichotomies are identified by their two opposite poles.
Very high and/or low on a trait can be negative or diagnostic.	The numerical portion of results has no negative or diagnostic meaning.

MBTI® Step 2™ Facets

The addition of the MBTI® Step 2 facets helps to explain why two people of the same personality types may appear/behave so very differently. Let’s take the example below which explores the E/I dichotomy. Whilst, in this case, the overall underlying preference is for Extraversion (E), only 3 of the 5 facets are preferred, giving rise to an intimate and quiet Extravert. To some, a person with this preference may come across as a mistaken Introvert. Someone with a preference for all 5 of the Extraversion facets would come across very differently when compared to this example. The same is true for all 4 dichotomies.

Use of the MBTI® Step 2™

Download Example MBTI® Step 2™ Interpretive Report (pdf)

If you are looking for an MBTI® Step 2 trainer and are wanting to administer the MBTI® for team building and development, please contact Developing Potential (UK). Our experienced MBTI® trainers and consultants are experts in designing and delivering personality-based programmes.