See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/216101940

The Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator and psychological type

Article · January 2008

CITATIONS READS
15 20,600

1 author:

Robert McPeek
Center for Applications of Psychological Type
11 PUBLICATIONS 119 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert McPeek on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

More than thirty years of publishing research articles related to the theory and
applications of psychological type and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® instrument.

Journal of Psychological Type® Issue 7 JUL 08

68

“
Many predictions about psychological type and archetype were
confirmed in this study, which combined data for the Pearson-Marr
Archetype Indicator® and self-reported type preferences and stress
levels.

”
The Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator and
Psychological Type
Robert W. McPeek
Center for Applications of Psychological Type
®

ABSTRACT Pearson’s archetype theory by analyzing PMAI results for

Of Carl Jung’s many contributions to the field of different self-reported type preferences. All of the main
psychology, two stand out: the concepts of psychological and most of the secondary predictions were confirmed,
type and archetype. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® providing additional validity evidence for the PMAI
(MBTI® ) instrument is a well known assessment of type, instrument. The possible uses of a combined PMAI-type
with many years of research and application. More assessment strategy and directions for future research
recently, the Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator® (PMAI®) are discussed.
has been developed using the self-report assessment Note: For the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) instrument, the eight preference categories
are the following: Extraversion (E) versus Introversion (I), Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N), Thinking
approach, as does the MBTI instrument, with the goal of (T) versus Feeling (F), Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P).
measuring the salience of 12 common archetypes in an
individual’s life. The current research tested predictions INTRODUCTION
about type-archetype relationships derived from Carol Carl Jung’s (Jung, 1959) far-ranging interests and

Published by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type

Thomas G. Carskadon, Ph.D., Editor C A P T ®
 53
writings have earned him an enduring influence that by becoming conscious” (Jung, p. 5), suggesting that the
embraces a variety of constituencies, from artists to measurement process itself may affect the measurement.
personality theorists, from therapists to corporate con- The focus of the present research is thus the PMAI
sultants, from mythologists to scientists. Perhaps the measurement process itself—specifically, the ability of
widest application of Jung’s concepts and theories is PMAI scores to accurately predict results on another
through the assessment of psychological type, which is psychometric instrument. Confirming a predicted rela-
most often accomplished with the Myers-Briggs Type tionship of a new instrument to a more established
Indicator® instrument (MBTI®). construct is one step of many in establishing the newer
In the last few years, a new instrument has been tool’s validity.
developed with the goal of expanding this assessment Psychological type is one such well established
approach to encompass another of Jung’s important construct. In addition to type’s widespread familiarity
concepts, the archetype. The Pearson-Marr Archetype and the body of evidence supporting its assessment
Indicator® (PMAI®) assessment is a 72-item self-report (e.g., Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998),
questionnaire that attempts to assess the relative salience type has its origins, as does archetype, in the work of
and influence of 12 different archetypes (Innocent, Carl Jung. Therefore, the present study derived (from
Orphan, Warrior, Caregiver, Seeker, Lover, Creator, the work of Pearson & Marr, 2002, 2003) and tested
Destroyer, Ruler, Magician, Sage, and Jester) potentially several predictions relating PMAI archetype scales to
active in a person’s present life situation. The reliability reported psychological type preferences, with the goal
of the PMAI meets reasonable standards, with test-retest of testing the accuracy of Pearson and Marr’s archetypal
reliability of the 12 scales averaging .72 and coefficient conceptualizations and contributing (or failing to con-
alphas averaging .68. Validity evidence reported in tribute) evidence for the PMAI’s validity.
the manual includes expected relationships to other
psychometric instruments (e.g., the Marlowe-Crowne Type, Archetype, and Stress Hypotheses
Social Desirability Scale, Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), Based on type concepts (e.g., Myers et al., 1998) and
predicted career satisfaction based on characteristics descriptions of each of the 12 archetypes assessed by the
of difference archetypes, and some alignment of the PMAI (from Pearson & Marr, 2002, the source of all
archetypal scales with the constructs that emerged from quotes for the archetype hypotheses), the following
a factor analysis of subject responses (Pearson & Marr, relationships between PMAI archetype scales and type
2003). preferences were predicted. In addition, when appropri-
Archetypes are commonly understood as the uni- ate based on archetype descriptions, this study predicted
versal themes of our shared human existence, evident in a relationship between archetype scores and self-reported
the commonality of characters and story lines in our stress levels. For each set of hypotheses, the first predic-
myths, fairy tales, novels, and films. In PMAI terms, tion is the strongest and clearest, based on type and
Luke Skywalker of the Star Wars movies begins his jour- archetype descriptions, and hence is considered the
ney as an abandoned Orphan, becoming next a Seeker main hypothesis for each archetype.
and ultimately a Warrior. The fictional manifestations of Innocent archetype: Four hypotheses were tested.
archetypes are considered to be indirect expressions of
1. E > I. Pearson and Marr (2000, p. 11) described
“the contents of the collective unconscious” (Jung,
Innocents as “[having] a basic trust in others”
1959, p. 4). Boeree (2006) described archetypes using
and “[relying] too much on others,” clearly
the metaphor of “a black hole in space: You only know
implying a preference for an Extraverted
it’s there by how it draws matter and light to itself.”
orientation of energy.
Although universal and indirectly expressed, an
archetype “takes its colour from the individual con- 2. P > J. Innocents also “hope that others will come
sciousness in which it happens to appear” (Jung, 1959, to your aid, and often they do” (p. 11), indicative
p. 5). That observation invites use of an instrument like of more passivity and less decisiveness.
the PMAI to assess such individual differences in arche- 3. F > T. The Innocent’s faith in “the world as a safe
typal expression. Measuring archetypes, however, is a place” (p. 11) is more compatible with a Feeling
challenging proposition: Not only are they unconscious than a Thinking functional preference.
and indirectly expressed, but they may also be “altered

The Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator® and Psychological Type

 54
4. Less stress. Because Innocents look to others to 2. P > J. Seekers tend to be less decisive and more
assume responsibility, they should report less open, at the risk of being “a perpetual Peter Pan.”
stress in their lives. 3. More stress. Seekers rarely relent in their self-
Orphan archetype: Two hypotheses were tested. improvement efforts, and their ongoing
restlessness and quest “to climb a mountain
1. F > T. Orphans exhibit a “deep empathy for
or the ladder of success” means that they tend
others,” “try to help people support one another
to “lose those they love.”
to cope,” and “band together with others to
advocate for those who are weak, hurting, poor, Lover archetype: Five predictions were tested.
or otherwise in trouble” (Pearson & Marr, 2002, 1. F > T. For Lovers, not surprisingly, “love is
p. 13). This compassion is more descriptive of the answer.” Lovers have “a knack for helping
a Feeling than a Thinking style of judgment. individuals and groups appreciate one another
2. Higher stress. The somewhat pessimistic attitude and hence become close” (all Lover quotes
of Orphans (“an acute awareness that whatever from p. 21).
can go wrong will”—p. 13) should be associated 2. E > I. The Lover style directs its love outwardly,
with higher stress levels. towards others.
Warrior archetype: Three predictions were tested. 3–4. P > J and N > S. Lovers seek alternatives and
1. T > F. The tough-mindedness of Warriors possibilities, with a “tendency to be promiscuous.”
(“you focus on how tough or skilled people are” 5. Less stress. A Lover is a “romantic and bliss
and “you assume that the tough prevail,” both seeker.” If Lovers find what they seek, that will
quotes from p. 15) is indicative of a Thinking translate into a less stressful life.
preference.
Destroyer archetype: Two predictions were tested.
2. J > P. Warriors are “attracted to either/or scenarios”
and tend to “view the worlds in black and white, 1. Higher stress. Destroyers act in reaction to
perceived injustice with a “tendency to lash out.”
avoiding the gray” (both quotes from p. 15).
They “may blow up at people, break things,
3. More stress. A willingness to “face the most fierce and harm themselves and others,” which may
antagonist or challenge” and “a code of honor “[trigger] some deep existential questions”
that requires a high level of discipline” (p. 15 (all Destroyer quotes from p. 23).
for both quotes) suggests that the Warrior style
2. F > T. Destroyers respond emotionally, not
should be more stressful.
logically, to injustice.
Caregiver archetype: Three predictions were tested.
Creator archetype: Three predictions were tested.
1. F > T. Caregivers “assume you should help others”
1. N > S. Creation begins with imagination: “What
and at their best are “full of love and caring . . .
can be imagined can be created.” Creators “notice
kind, compassionate” (all Caregiver quotes from
the need for new inventions or interpretations”
p. 17).
(all Creator quotes from p. 25).
2. E > I. Caregivers focus their care outwardly. They
“model altruism” and seek to “make the world a 2. T > F. Creators “have a highly developed critic
safer and gentler place for everyone” by creating and generally notice every flaw in what you and
“nurturing environments where people can heal others do.”
or grow.” 3. P > J. Creators have a tendency to “[take] on so
3. Higher stress, as Caregivers tend to “martyr many projects” they “may become overwhelmed.”
themselves” and “undermine their health.” Ruler archetype: Four predictions were tested.
Seeker archetype: Three predictions were tested. 1. J > P. Rulers must be decisive. As a Ruler, your
“highly developed sense of responsibility and
1. N > S. Seekers see possibilities—the “grass is
always greener somewhere else” (all Seeker order” leads you to “assume you should exercise
quotes from p. 19). control” and “put in place policies, procedures
and systems” (all Ruler quotes from p. 27).

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 68, July 2008

 55
2. F > T. In the Pearson-Marr conception of the Gender and Age Hypotheses
Ruler archetype, control is based on protective Although the effects of gender and age can be obscured
benevolence: “You reign for the good of those by powerful, shifting cultural norms, Pearson (e.g.,
who follow you.” 1991) indicated that there are relationships between
3. E > I. Rulers by necessity must direct their archetypal patterns and gender and age, based largely
energies towards their followers and subjects, on traditional sex roles and developmental stages across
as exemplified by their tendency to “recruit a lifespan.
others and groom or coach them.” Gender. Pearson observed that “gender differ-
ences . . . tend to center around four archetypes” (1991,
4. More stress. The responsibilities of control also
p. 260). To her, these archetypal differences are deeply
imply higher stress.
rooted in “the ancient divisions of labor by gender in
Magician archetype: Two predictions were tested. hunting and gathering days” (p. 260). Women are
1. N > S. The description for Magician offered by socialized to favor Caregiver and Lover roles, whereas
Pearson and Marr sounds very Intuitive: “you men gravitate towards Warrior and Seeker. These gen-
tend to notice serendipity, synchronicity, the eral tendencies, however, are mitigated by two factors:
interrelationship of events and seemingly First, as they mature, men and women may develop the
disparate parts,” while “lacking common sense” less-preferred archetypes of their gender, and, second,
(all Magician quotes from p. 29). as societal and cultural norms evolve, an increasing
number of men or women may adopt nontraditional
2. F > T. Magicians have a “healing presence” and
roles.
seek a harmonious life-style “in keeping with
Despite individual differences, however, overall
[their] purpose.”
trends should prevail, leading to two pairs of gender
Sage archetype: Three predictions were tested. predictions to test:
1. T > F. The Sage is concerned with knowledge and 1. Females > Males on Caregiver and Lover.
“motivated by a genuine hunger for the truth.” 2. Males > Females on Warrior and Seeker.
Sages also “[excel] at evaluating the merits of Age. Pearson’s theory (e.g., Pearson, 1991)
relative truths,” exhibiting a tendency “to notice describes a life-stage model in which “each major
methodological flaws” as they “retreat to their chronological stage of life calls forth two archetypes”
heads” (all Sage quotes from p. 31). (p. 253). The relevant archetypes correspond to the life
2. N > S. The Sage can “see patterns in apparently issues that tend to predominate at a particular age,
discrepant events.” and these archetypal pairs “seem to be in opposition and
. . . press for resolution” (p. 235). For example, the
3. P > J. The Sage is not quick to judgment: “You
prevailing issue for adolescence and young adulthood
can see clearly how dangerous it is when people
is presumed to be identity, and the relevant archetypes
take action before they know what they are
are Seekers (who tend to “find out who they are by
doing.”
differentiating themselves from others”—p. 237) and
Jester archetype: Three predictions were tested. Lovers (who discover their identity by “discovering who
1. Less stress. Jesters “assume that life is meant to and what they love”—p. 238). Individuals are likely to
be enjoyed,” seeking to “bring out the joy” and favor one or the other of each pairing, at least initially,
“enjoy the gift of living, even in stressful or although maturation may bring development of the
difficult times” (all Jester quotes from p. 33). opposing tendencies and, ideally, their integration.
Note that, as with gender, age is not unfailingly
2. E > I. The joy of Jesters is outwardly focused as
tied to particular archetypal influences. Pearson (1991)
they seek to “bring out the joy in life for everyone
observed that “archetypes . . . can emerge at any time of
around [them].”
life” (p. 236), and Pearson and Marr (2003) suggested
3. P > J. Jesters “look for ways to enjoy the process that “a given life situation may call forth a particular
of dealing with the issue” and “are drawn to new archetype regardless of what archetype is predominant
experiences, the more the merrier.” in that period of a person’s life” (p. 8). Nonetheless,
despite such potential mitigating individual differences,

The Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator® and Psychological Type

 56
Pearson’s life-stage archetypal model suggests six pairs were included in the total sample (26 respondents, or
of predictions: 1.8%, did not report their gender). The percentage of
1. Children will score higher than other ages on each gender that also reported whole type was nearly
Innocent and Orphan. identical (64.2% women, 35.8% men). Thirty of the
2. Ages 15–25 will score higher on Seeker and respondents did not report an age; of the remaining
Lover. 1,377, ages ranged from 12 to 78. Only 3 respondents
3. Early Adults (ages 26–39) will score higher on were younger than 20, and only 21 were 66 or older.
Warrior and Caregiver. Both the mean and the median ages were 44.
4. Adults in mid-life transition (ages 40–54) will Whole Type. The distribution for the 830 PMAI-
score higher on Destroyer and Creator. takers who reported their type is shown in TABLE 1.
5. Mature Adults (ages 55–65) will score higher on (SEE PAGE 57.)
Magician and Ruler. The most striking type domain preference that
6. Old Age Adults (>65 years) will score higher on characterizes the PMAI sample is an overwhelming
Sage and Jester. preference for Intuition (86.6%) over Sensing (13.4%).
This very skewed distribution represents 3.25 times as
METHOD many N preferences as the U.S. national representative
The Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. sample (Myers et al., 1998) and is statistically signifi-
(CAPT) has made the PMAI available as an online cant at the .001 level. Type practitioners typically favor
instrument (in addition to written administration) since N over S, but the PMAI sample incidence is also signif-
2004. The data collected from participants taking the icantly greater than CAPT’s client database’s (primarily
PMAI online over a designated time period created the type-practitioner) incidence of N (Macdaid, 1993;
samples analyzed in this report. Note that this sample is 80.4%; p < .001). Similarly, with respect to both the
subject to unknown self-selection biases, as completion U.S. national sample and CAPT’s client base, the PMAI
of the PMAI was provided to interested parties for a sample includes more Is (1.15 x U.S. and 1.22 x CAPT)
nominal fee. and more Ps (1.15 x U.S. and 1.12 x CAPT). T and F
In addition to completing the PMAI, each subject preferences did not significantly differ in proportion
was asked for demographic information (age, gender, from either the U.S. or CAPT client samples, although
educational level, and occupation), a self-rating of stress significantly more males in the PMAI sample (58.3%)
level (5-point scale) over “the last few months,” and —almost twice as many—reported a preference for F
whether he or she had “taken the MBTI instrument.” than in the U.S. male population (30.4%). The modal
A positive response to the MBTI question was followed type for our PMAI sample was thus INFP (over 19%),
by a request to voluntarily report their four type prefer- followed by ENFP.
ences (E vs. I, S vs. N, T vs. F., J vs. P). Participants Archetype. The means for the different archetypes
provided their contact information and thus had no are shown in TABLE 2. (SEE PAGE 57.)
reason to expect anonymity in their responses. Comparing these means to those of previous sam-
There is reason for confidence in the accuracy of ples, whose participants were “drafted” into completing
these self-reports of type preference. CAPT’s clientele is the PMAI as part of groups assembled for other pur-
largely drawn from the professional type community, poses, allows me to speculate about the self-selection
consisting of individuals qualified to administer the biases of participants actively seeking assessment.
MBTI instrument. They are thus well-versed in the theory (Because the raw data from the previous samples were
and practice of psychological type and most have unavailable, I was unable to perform statistical tests of
validated their type preferences. the differences.) The average differences between the
means are shown in the final column of TABLE 2.
RESULTS For the current sample, Sage, Seeker, Magician,
Complete data were available for 1,407 subjects. Of and Creator means were noticeably higher than in past
these, 835 reported their type preferences. Five reported samples, with a mean difference of at least 1.66 points,
only three letters (e.g., ISTx), leaving a sample of 830 compared to differences of less than 1.00 for the other
who reported all four. Approximately twice as many eight archetypes. This pattern is consistent with the
women (n = 899, or 63.9%) as men (n = 482, 34.3%) archetype scores that might be expected based on the

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 68, July 2008

 57

Table 1. Type Distribution for PMAI Respondents and SRTT Comparisons With U.S. National
Representative Sample.

The Sixteen Complete Types Dichotomous Preferences

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E 346 (41.7%) ***I = 0.85
n = 34 n = 18 n = 85 n = 105 I 484 (58.3%) ***I = 1.15
(4.1%) (2.2%) (10.2%) (12.7%)
I = 0.35*** I = 0.16*** I = 7.00*** I = 6.14*** S 111 (13.4%) ***I = 0.18
++++ ++ +++++ +++++ N 719 (86.6%) ***I = 3.25
+++++ +++++
+++ T 360 (43.4%) I = 1.08
F 470 (56.6%) I = 0.95

J 393 (47.4%) ***I = 0.87

P 437 (52.7%) ***I = 1.15
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
n=7 n=6 n = 159 n = 70 Pairs and Temperaments
(0.8%) (0.7%) (19.2%) (8.4%)
I = 0.16*** I = 0.08*** I = 4.37*** I = 2.59*** IJ 242 (29.2%) I = 1.01
+ + +++++ +++++ IP 242 (29.2%) ***I = 1.34
+++++ +++ EP 195 (23.5%) I = 0.98
+++++ EJ 151 (18.2%) ***I = 0.72
++++
ST 63 (07.6%) ***I = 0.25
SF 48 (05.8%) ***I = 0.13
NF 422 (50.8%) ***I = 3.10
NT 297 (35.8%) ***I = 3.47
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
n=8 n=5 n = 116 n = 66 SJ 85 (10.2%) ***I = 0.22
(1.0%) (0.6%) (14.0%) (8.0%) SP 26 (03.1%) ***I = 0.12
I = 0.22*** I = 0.07 I = 1.73*** I = 2.49*** NP 411 (49.5%) ***I = 2.62
+ + +++++ +++++ NJ 308 (37.1%) ***I = 4.77
+++++ +++
++++ TJ 209 (25.2%) I = 1.05
TP 151 (18.2%) I = 1.13
FP 286 (34.5%) **I = 1.16
FJ 184 (22.2%) ***I = 0.74
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
n = 14 n = 19 n = 62 n = 56 IN 419 (50.5%) ***I = 4.52
(1.7%) (2.3%) (7.5%) (6.8%) EN 300 (36.1%) ***I = 2.33
I = 0.19*** I = 0.19*** I = 3.04*** I =3.76*** IS 65 (07.8%) ***I = 0.20
++ ++ +++++ +++++ ES 46 (05.5%) ***I = 0.16
+++ ++
ET 144 (17.4%) I = 0.97
EF 202 (24.3%) ***I = 0.78
IF 268 (32.3%) *I = 1.14
IT 216 (26.0%) *I = 1.17

Jungian Types (E) Jungian Types (I) Dominant Types

n % Index n % Index n % Index
E–TJ 70 8.43 0.81 I–TP 77 9.28 1.07 Dt. T 147 17.71 0.93
E–FJ 81 9.76 0.66*** I–FP 165 19.88 1.51*** Dt. F 246 29.64 1.06
ES–P 13 1.57 0.12*** IS–J 52 6.27 0.25*** Dt. S 65 7.83 0.21***
EN–P 182 21.93 1.95*** IN–J 190 22.89 6.50*** Dt. N 372 44.82 3.03***

N = 830 + = 1% of N I = Selection Ratio Index *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001

Robert W. McPeek

The Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator® and Psychological Type

 58

Table 2. Archetype Means (n = 830) for CAPT PMAI-Type Sample.

Archetype Mean Standard Rank Mean Diff From

Deviation Previous Samples

Innocent 19.76 3.70 10 0.39

Orphan 15.59 4.49 12 -0.77

Warrior 21.35 3.95 9 -0.39

Caregiver 21.78 3.85 8 -0.97

Seeker 22.60 3.77 7 1.89

Lover 22.90 3.84 5 0.47

Destroyer 17.76 4.89 11 -0.69

Creator 25.00 3.64 2 1.96

Ruler 23.90 3.17 4 0.79

Magician 24.68 3.90 3 2.06

Sage 25.43 2.86 1 1.66

Jester 22.42 4.14 6 0.17

demographics of the study’s sample and Pearson and As the F-ratios for the Hotelling’s Trace values for all
Marr’s (2002) archetypal descriptions. For example, four MANOVAs were significant (all p < .001), these
Pearson and Marr characterized Sages as interested in tests were followed by a univariate (ANOVA) analysis
scholarship and learning, and the most outstanding comparing means on each archetype for the four MBTI
characteristic of the current samples is arguably its dichotomies. These univariate F-values are the results
highly educated (over 50% with graduate degrees) reported in the following sections. The stress hypotheses
demographic. Pearson and Marr also described Seekers were tested by dividing subjects’ scores on each arche-
as interested in self-improvement, Magicians as “highly type as close to the median as possible (whole number
self-aware” (p. 29) individuals interested in how “the scoring prevented an exact 50–50 break), and conduct-
mind and the spirit work” (p. 29), and Creators as ing two-tailed t-tests with above/below median as the
interested in new inventions and methodologies. These independent variable and stress scores (1–5) as the
descriptions are consistent with the characteristics of dependent variable.
individuals interested in self-assessment. The biases of Of the 37 total hypotheses, 28 were confirmed at a
this study’s self-selected sample may thus be interpreted probability level of less than .05 (26 of the 28 at .01 or
as anecdotal support for the accuracy of Pearson and lower), with another 2 hypotheses approaching con-
Marr’s archetype descriptions. ventional statistical significance levels (p < .073 and
Archetypes, Type Preferences, and Stress p < .081). These are summarized below in TABLE 3.
Summary Results. There were 37 predicted relation- (SEE PAGE 59.) All 12 main hypotheses (one for each
ships between archetype scores, type preferences, and archetype) were strongly confirmed, 11 with a proba-
stress, as outlined in the Introduction. The type prefer- bility level of .001 or lower and one with p < .004. In
ence hypotheses were first tested using four multivariate summary, these results provide strong support for the
analyses of variance (MANOVA), with each preference predictions derived from Pearson and Marr’s (2002,
dichotomy (E–I, S–N, T–F, J–P) as an independent vari- 2003) archetypal descriptions.
able and the 12 archetype scores as dependent variables.

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 68, July 2008

 59

Table 3. Summary of Significant Results for Type and Archetype Preferences.

Archetype E–I S–N T–F J–P Stress

Innocent E*** P* Less*****

Orphan I*** F*** More****

Warrior E*** T***

Caregiver F*** More***

Seeker N*** P** More****

Lover E*** N*** F***

Destroyer I*** N*** F*** More***

Creator E*** N*** P*** More***

Ruler E*** T*** J*** More***

Magician E*** N*** F***

Sage N*** T***

Jester E*** P*** Less***

Note: Bold = main hypothesis confirmed; Background shading = unpredicted finding; italics = opposite to predicted result. *p < .05; ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Individual Archetypes dicted significant difference relating to Extraversion–

Innocent. Three of four predictions were confirmed, with Introversion was discovered in the analyses as well.
the fourth trending in the predicted direction (p < .073). n Subjects with a Feeling preference (mean = 16.09)
n Extraverts (mean = 20.59) scored higher than scored significantly higher than those with a
Introverts (mean = 19.17; F[1, 831] = 29.92, Thinking preference (mean = 14.91; F[1, 831] =
p < .001). 14.51, p < .001).
n Feeling preference (mean = 19.97) scored margin- n High-Orphan scorers (stress scale mean = 3.73)
ally higher than Thinking preference (mean = reported higher levels of stress than Low Orphans
19.50; F[1, 831] = 3.23, p < .073). (mean = 3.30; t[1,373] = 9.45, p < .001). Orphan
n Persons who preferred Perception (mean = 20.07) scores were positively correlated with stress as well
scored significantly higher than those who pre- (r[1,373] = .30, p < .01).
ferred Judging (mean = 19.44; F[1, 830] = 5.77, n Introverts had higher Orphan scores than
p < .017). Extraverts (means of 16.37 and 14.47, respectively;
n High Innocents (above-median scorers on the F[1, 831] = 38.31, p < .001).
Innocent archetype) reported less stress in their Warrior. One of three Warrior hypotheses (the main
lives than Low Innocents (stress scale means of prediction) was confirmed, and an additional unpre-
3.35 and 3.72, respectively; t[1,373] = 7.88, p < dicted relationship emerged.
.001). Innocent scores were negatively correlated n A Thinking preference (mean = 22.52) was associ-
with reported stress levels as well (r[1,373] =
ated with higher Warrior scores than a Feeling
-2.5, p < .01).
preference (mean = 20.51; F[1, 831] = 54.00,
Orphan. Both hypotheses were confirmed. An unpre- p < .001).

The Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator® and Psychological Type

 60
n Js did not score significantly higher than Ps, n Perceiving preference subjects (mean = 23.14)
although the mean did differ in the predicted tended towards higher scores than Judging
direction (21.60 vs. 21.18; p < .136). preference participants (mean 22.65), but the
n High Warriors did not report higher stress levels; difference did not reach statistical significance
in fact, the High-Warrior mean (3.48) was slightly (F[1, 830] = 3.06, p < .081).
lower than the Low-Warrior mean (3.56), and n Participants who preferred Intuition (mean =
there was a low but significant (r[1,373] = -0.7, 23.01) scored significantly higher than those pre-
p < .01) negative correlation between Warrior ferring Sensing (mean = 22.20; F[1, 831]= 3.88,
scores and stress. p < .049).
n Subjects with an Extravert preference (mean = n Contrary to prediction, there was no statistically
22.71) had significantly higher Warrior scores significant difference between High and Low
than those who preferred Introversion (mean = Lovers in reported levels of stress, and stress
20.41; F[1, 831] = 72.06, p < .001), an unpredicted ratings did not correlate significantly with Lover
result. scores.
Caregiver. Two of the three Caregiver hypotheses were Destroyer. Two predictions were made and both were
confirmed. confirmed; additionally, two significant unpredicted
n Feeling preference (mean = 23.03) outscored relationships were revealed by the analysis.
Thinking preference (mean = 20.18; F[1, 831] = n High Destroyers (stress scale mean = 3.81, the
117.79, p < .001), by a wide margin. highest for any high archetype level) reported sig-
n Extraverts (mean = 22.04) did not score signifi- nificantly more stress than Low Destroyers (stress
cantly higher than Introverts (mean = 20.18). scale mean = 3.23, the lowest average for any
low archetype score; t[1,373] = 12.78, p < .001).
n High Caregivers reported more stress (mean of
Destroyer scores also had the highest correlation
3.62 vs. 3.42, t[1,373] = 4.09, p < .001), and
with stress of any archetype (r[1,373] = .41,
Caregiver scores correlated positively with stress
p < .01).
levels (r[1,373] = .10, p < .01).
n Feeling preference subjects outscored those with a
Seeker. All three Seeker predictions were confirmed. Thinking preference on the Destroyer archetype
n Intuitive types scored higher for Seeker than (means of 18.10 and 17.29, respectively; F[1, 831]
Sensing types (mean of 22.80 and 21.15, respec- = 6.04, p < .014).
tively; F[1, 831] = 18.55, p < .001). n Higher Destroyer scores were also associated with
n Perceiving preference (mean = 22.98) scored preferences for Intuition over Sensing (17.90 vs.
higher than Judging (mean = 22.15; F[1, 830] = 16.67, respectively; F[1, 831] = 6.49, p < .011)
10.02, p < .002). and Introversion over Extraversion (18.20 vs.
n High Seekers reported more stress than Low 17.12, respectively; F[1, 831] = 10.80, p < .001).
Seekers (means of 3.69 and 3.34, respectively; Creator. Two of three predictions were confirmed, and
t[1,373] = 7.31, p < .001), and Seeker scores two unpredicted additional significant relationships
correlated positively with stress (r[1,373] = .22, were found.
p < .01).
n As predicted, Creator archetype scores were much
Lover. Three of the five Lover hypotheses were con- higher for subjects with a preference for Intuition
firmed, with a fourth approaching significance. (mean = 25.51) than for those preferring Sensing
n Subjects with a Feeling preference (mean = 24.14) (mean = 21.71, F[1, 831] = 123.20, p < .001).
scored almost three points higher on Lover than n Contrary to prediction, Thinking Creator scores
those with a Thinking preference (mean = 21.29; were not significantly higher than Feeling Creator
F[1, 831] = 116.31, p < .001). scores (means of 25.05 and 24.99, respectively).
n Extraverts outscored Introverts (means of 24.09 n The analyses confirmed that mean scores for sub-
and 22.06, respectively; F[1, 831] = 54.75, p < .001). jects with a Perceiving preference (mean = 25.41)

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 68, July 2008

 61
were higher on the Creator archetype than those Thinking preference compared to a preference for
with a Judging preference (mean = 24.56; F[1, Feeling (means 26.02 and 25.01, respectively; F[1,
830] = 11.86, p < .001). 831] = 28.13, p < .001).
n Extraverts scored higher than Introverts (means of n Sage scores were also higher for an Intuitive
25.57 and 24.60, respectively; F[1, 831] = 15.08, preference (mean = 25.64) than for a Sensing
p < .001). This finding was not predicted. preference (mean = 24.15; F[1, 831] = 28.60,
n High Creators (mean = 3.56) reported significantly p < .001).
higher stress than Low Creators (mean = 3.46; n However, Perceiving scores (mean = 25.28) on
t[1,373] = 2.11, p < .035), although the mean Sage were not significantly higher than Judging
difference was small, and the correlation between preference scores (mean = 25.62).
stress and Creator was not significant.
Jester. Three predictions were made regarding the Jester
Ruler. Three of four predictions were confirmed, with archetype, and all three were confirmed.
the one failed prediction actually significant in the n High Jesters reported significantly less stress than
opposite direction. Low Jesters (means of 3.44 and 3.58, respectively;
n As expected, the Ruler archetype was stronger for t[1,373] = 2.90, p < .004). Stress ratings correlated
a Judging than for a Perceiving preference (means negatively with Jester scores (r[1,373] = -.10,
of 24.58 and 23.31, respectively; F[1, 830] = p < .01).
33.55, p < .001). n Extraverts scored higher on Jester than Introverts
n Contrary to prediction, subjects who preferred (means of 23.58 and 21.62, respectively; F[1, 831]
Thinking outscored those with a Feeling prefer- = 45.79, p < .001).
ence on the Ruler archetype (means of 24.71 vs. n Perceiving preference Jester scores (mean = 22.89)
23.31, respectively; F[1, 831] = 40.59, p < .001). were higher than Judging preference Jester scores
n As predicted, Extraverts (mean = 24.69) scored (mean = 21.94; F[1, 830] = 10.64, p < .001).
higher than Introverts (mean = 23.53; F[1, 831] =
Gender Hypotheses. These results were analyzed
36.62, p < .001).
using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA),
n High Rulers reported more stress (mean of 3.62 with gender as an independent variable and the 12
vs. 3.44 for Low Rulers; t[1,373] = 3.81, p < .001). archetype scales and single stress self-ratings as depend-
Ruler scores correlated significantly (but not ent variables. The Ns were slightly reduced because of
strongly) with stress self-ratings (r[1,373] = .06, occasional blank scores.
p < .05). Only one of the four predictions (males higher on
Magician. Both Magician hypotheses were confirmed, Warrior) concerning gender and archetype scores was
and a third unpredicted relationship came to light. confirmed. Two of the four predictions (that women
n
would score higher on Lover and lower on Seeker) were
An Intuitive preference was associated with signif-
in fact statistically significant in the opposite direction
icantly higher scores than a Sensing preference
to the expected difference. Also, contrary to predictions,
on the Magician scale (means of 25.03 and 22.55,
males and females did not differ significantly on Care-
respectively; F[1, 831] = 44.95, p < .001).
giver. Mean archetype scores are presented in TABLE 4.
n Magician scores were significantly higher (25.37 Despite the lack of support for effects upon these
vs. 23.82, respectively) for the Feeling than for the specific archetypes, the different genders did score sig-
Thinking preference (F[1, 831] = 37.40, p < .001). nificantly different on 11 of the 12 archetypes as well as
n Extraverts outscored Introverts, an unpredicted stress. TABLE 5 shows the 8 additional archetype means
relationship (means of 25.13 and 24.40, respec- and the stress means.
tively; F[1, 831] = 8.02, p < .005). As shown in these two tables, gender differences
Sage. Two of the three predicted relationships of type were significant for all but one archetype (Caregiver). Of
preference to the Sage archetype were confirmed. the 11 archetype scales that differed significantly, males
scored higher on eight (Innocent, Lover, Warrior, Creator,
n Sage scores were higher for participants with a
Ruler, Magician, Sage, and Jester) and women scored

The Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator® and Psychological Type

 62

Table 4. Mean Archetype Scores for Predicted Gender Differences.

Archetype Male Female F value p Prediction Result

(n = 473) (n = 876) df = 1, 1,347

Caregiver 22.19 21.99 0.85 >.05 F>M No diff

Lover 23.81 22.35 47.90 <.001 F>M M>F

Warrior 22.30 21.27 21.89 <.001 M>F M>F

Seeker 21.58 22.70 28.75 <.001 M>F F>M

Table 5. Mean Archetype and Stress Scores by Gender.

Archetype Male Female F value p Result

(n = 473) (n = 876) df = 1, 1,347

Innocent 23.45 17.92 1672.90 <.001 M>F

Orphan 13.49 16.61 168.66 <.001 F>M

Destroyer 15.98 18.35 77.47 <.001 F>M

Creator 25.23 24.30 21.42 <.001 M>F

Ruler 24.27 23.83 6.24 <.013 M>F

Magician 25.25 23.70 51.54 <.001 M>F

Sage 25.52 24.95 12.94 <.001 M>F

Jester 23.39 22.50 14.86 <.001 M>F

Stress level 3.30 3.62 42.86 <.001 F>M

higher on three (Orphan, Destroyer, and Seeker) as well group actually scoring lower than other ages, contrary to
as stress. Gender clearly exerts a strong influence on PMAI predictions. Warrior scores were marginally significantly
scores, although the differences were largely inconsistent higher in the predicted direction, but given the power
with predictions from Pearson’s archetype theory. of analysis with a large subject pool and the number of
Age Hypotheses. Lack of data (only three subjects tests performed, this is probably meaningless.
younger than 20 years of age) prevented testing 2 of
the 12 age-specific hypotheses derived from Pearson’s DISCUSSION
theory. To test the remaining 10 hypotheses (2 of each The primary result of this research is a confirmation of
for 5 age groupings), scores were grouped as either predictable relationships between type and the arche-
inside or outside the targeted age range, and archetype type scales and descriptions of the PMAI. Overall, 21 of
scores were compared for these two groupings. The 28 (75%) predicted relationships between archetype
results are shown in TABLE 6. (SEE PAGE 63.) and type were confirmed, including all 12 of the primary
The only result that met the customary significance predications, one for each PMAI scale. Three more of
criterion of p < .05 was for Ruler, with the target age the 28 relationships approached statistical significant

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 68, July 2008

 63

Table 6. Mean Archetype Scores by Age Group.

Archetype Target Age Size of Target Age All Other F value P Result
Range Target Group Ages df = 1,
Group Mean Means 1,375

Seeker 15–25 yrs n = 630 22.13 22.23 0.05 n/s No diff

Lover 15–25 yrs n = 630 23.22 22.82 0.66 n/s No diff

Warrior 26–39 yrs n = 442 21.89 21.48 3.35 .067 Higher

Caregiver 26–39 yrs n = 442 21.94 22.10 0.56 n/s No diff

Destroyer 40–54 yrs n = 622 17.41 17.52 0.18 n/s No diff

Creator 40–54 yrs n = 622 24.42 24.69 1.93 n/s No diff

Ruler 55–65 yrs n = 229 23.48 24.03 6.05 .014 Lower

Magician 55–65 yrs n = 229 24.36 24.19 0.36 n/s No diff

Sage 66+ yrs n = 210 25.90 25.11 1.66 n/s No diff

Jester 66+ yrs n = 210 23.14 22.83 0.12 n/s No diff

Note: The boldfaced words highlight the only significant (or nearly significant) results in the table.

(p < .10). In addition, seven of nine predications apparent when considered from a type perspective than
regarding self-reported stress levels and archetype from Pearson and Marr’s (2002) archetypal description.
scores were confirmed. Myers et al. (1998) described the Extraverted attitude as
These results accomplished the main goal of this incorporating “a desire to act on the environment”
research. The results of the PMAI are meaningfully and “an action-oriented . . . way of meeting life” (p. 26).
related to type preferences and stress, provide evidence Although Pearson and Marr place more emphasis on a
for the convergent validity of the instrument, and Warrior’s discipline and determination, their description
augment the validity evidence summarized in Pearson is sprinkled with action-oriented phrases (e.g., Warriors
and Marr (2003). will “face the most fierce antagonist” and “enjoy spear-
Unconfirmed Hypotheses and Unexpected heading a crusade”) (p. 15).
Results. The few unconfirmed hypotheses and the The lack of a significant relationship between
occasional unpredicted relationships that emerged from Warrior scores and stress may also be related to activity
the data analysis may help us better understand and level. The research on learned helplessness (e.g., Peterson,
refine Pearson and Marr’s (2002) archetype descriptions. Maier, & Seligman, 1993) suggests that inescapable
For example, Orphan scores were higher for Introverts stress leads to a lethargic, low activity state. Chronic stress
than for Extraverts. Although unpredicted, this finding might thus lead to lower Warrior scores, working in
is not surprising, as the label “Orphan” implies social opposition to the original hypothesis that High Warriors
isolation. Also, the careful approach to life of the Orphan would experience higher stress, for a net cancellation.
archetype described by Pearson and Marr is consistent This, as well as the relationship between Warrior scores
with the research of Harker, Reynierse, and Komisin and J–P type preferences, may also come to light with
(1998), in which friends and relations described further study.
Introverts as “hesitant” and “cautious.” Surprisingly, Caregiver scores were not higher for
Likewise, the unpredicted increased preference for Extraverts than for Introverts, although the direction of
Extraversion over Introversion for Warrior is more the difference was in the predicted direction. Possibly,

The Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator® and Psychological Type

 64
care can be directed both inwardly and outwardly; cer- version with their comment that a Magician “knows
tainly Western culture supports the values of self-care. how to unite people” (p. 29).
The Lover archetype was not associated with lower The prediction that Sage would favor P over J also
stress. Perhaps a Lover may be a “romantic and bliss failed; in fact, the results trended in the opposite
seeker” (Pearson & Marr, 2002, p. 21) but find the direction. Although Pearson and Marr (2002) claimed
search frustrating or stressful. The level of satisfaction that Sages are hesitant to act before collecting enough
in a love relationship might be a better predictor of information, they also noted a “tendency to be dogmatic
stress than a Lover preference alone, but such data were and opinionated” (p. 31). These two conflicting ten-
not collected in this study. dencies towards openness and closure may make the
One of the most interesting unexpected results relationship between Sage and the J–P domain a more
involved the similarities and differences between idiosyncratic one. Sage scores were also higher for those
Destroyer and Creator. Although the relationship was preferring Intuition over Sensing, an unexpected finding.
predicted only for Creator, Destroyer also showed a Sagacity may thus embrace an ability to see implications
preference for Intuition. The possibilities envisioned and patterns beyond the immediate facts.
using the Intuitive function may thus be both positive Gender and Archetypes. Unlike the positive
and destructive. Change, whether positive or negative, results for most of the predicted relationships between
has long been shown to be stressful (e.g., Holmes & type and archetype preferences, only one of the gender
Rahe, 1967), which may explain why both archetypes hypotheses—that Warrior archetypes scores would be
were associated with higher stress. Destroyer and higher for men than for women—was confirmed. Male
Creator differed on the Thinking–Feeling preference, and female Caregiver scores did not differ significantly.
but not exactly as hypothesized. The prediction of Men scored significantly higher than women on
Destroyers exhibiting a preference for Feeling was con- Lover and significantly lower on Seeker—both results
firmed, but contrary to prediction, High Creators did opposite to predications.
not significantly prefer Thinking. Given that individuals One plausible explanation is that the unusual
who prefer Thinking are described by those who know demographics of the males and females in this self-
them as “critical,” “opinionated,” and “perfectionist” selected sample obscured gender role differences that
(Harker et al., 1998), this lack of confirmation rebuts would have appeared in a more random, representative
Pearson and Marr’s (2002) claim that Creators look for selection of the population as a whole. The source of
flaws to criticize. Perhaps the most interesting contrast the sample, CAPT’s client base, includes many highly
between Destroyer and Creator is the Introverted, educated professionals, many of whom own their own
female character of the former and the Extraverted, businesses. The PMAI sample thus skewed towards a
male associations with the latter. Future research will very high educational level, with 84% holding at least a
have to tackle this thorny issue. bachelor’s degree and 52% holding graduate (master’s,
Contrary to prediction, Rulers preferred Thinking, Ph.D., JD, MD, DDS) degrees. The percentages for
not Feeling. This finding is consistent with type research women were comparable to the male results, in contrast
(e.g., Macdaid, McCaulley, & Kainz, 2005), which to the U.S. population, where women trail men in
has repeatedly documented the preference of business receiving bachelor’s and postgraduate degrees. The 2000
executives for Thinking over Feeling. It may be that census, for example, indicated that only about 0.6% of
authority and leadership come in two flavors, a Thinking women held doctorate degrees (Wikipedia, 2007). In
orientation that employs logic and values fairness, and the present sample, only a tiny percentage of women
a Feeling preference that seeks harmony and empower- (1.7%) reported their occupation as “homemaker,”
ment. Future research might include a two-fold assess- actually lower than the percentage of men (3.1%) in
ment, examining both type and archetype, to look for the sample, and far lower than the U.S. population
predictable differences in Rulers who prefer Feeling or estimates of as high as 38% (Larson, 1997).
Thinking. As the women in this study’s subject pool clearly
Extraverts scored higher than Introverts on did not conform to population norms for education and
Magician, another unpredicted finding. This may be occupation, they may also fail to exhibit the more usual
understood through some additional reading of Pearson gender-driven archetypal roles. While attempting to
and Marr (2002), who nod in the direction of Extra- close the gender gap, career-focused women may

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 68, July 2008

 65
actively seek new roles and destroy traditional expecta- archetype scores, and every dominant archetype
tions. This explanation is speculative, but consistent included both preference poles within each of the four
with the observed higher scores for women for the type pairs. Just as some type theorists (e.g., Quenk,
Seeker and Destroyer archetypes and lower results for 2002) have focused on situations in which type and
Caregiver and Lover. Women’s lower scores on Ruler behavior appear incongruous, so might future research
and Innocent are also consistent with the idea that focus on individuals whose type-archetype pairings
women do not feel as empowered as men, yet are aware differ from the normal pattern (e.g., Rulers with a
(i.e., no longer Innocent) of the power disparity. This Feeling preference), or predict different outcomes for
conceptualization of the changing archetypal roles of different type-archetype combinations. For example,
women in society might also explain the finding of consider the different expectations of High Seekers with
higher stress levels in women. different type preferences:
Changing roles for women would presumably be An Extraverted Seeker will direct his or her search
reflected in age-related differences in scores for tradi- in an outward direction, possibly seeking new relation-
tional roles and archetypes, with older women more ships and new destinations. An Introverted Seeker will
likely to fit more traditional archetypes. Larson (1997), look inward, seeking self-understanding and greater
for example, reported that younger women are less learning.
likely than older women to identify themselves as 1. A Seeker who prefers Intuition will pursue the
homemakers. The present data, however, do not show many opportunities or ideas he or she can
higher Caregiver or lower Seeker scores for older women. conceive. The relatively rare Seeker with a
Gender clearly exerts a strong effect on PMAI Sensing preference might be more focused on
scores. Potential interactions of gender with age, cul- the pursuit of experience and sensory input.
ture, and life situation should be explored in future
2. A Seeker with a Thinking preference will pursue
research with the PMAI. Until then, the present data
truth, whereas a Seeker who prefers Feeling will
provide little support for the instrument’s predicted
be more interested in harmony or bliss.
gender differences.
Age and Archetypes. None of the predicted rela- 3. Seekers who prefer Perception will be more likely
tionships between age and archetypes was confirmed in to find the journey its own end, whereas Seekers
this research, providing little evidence to support with a preference for Judgment will want to get to
Pearson’s proposal that different opposing archetypes the destination soon, or find frustration in con-
characterize different developmental stages. Instead, flicting desires to both search and find closure.
the results are consistent with Pearson’s caveat that indi- 4. Compared to the volumes of research on psycho-
vidual differences trump any age-related trends, and, logical type, the empirical study of archetypes is
indeed, “archetypes . . . can emerge at any time of life” in its infancy. The Pearson-Marr Archetype
(Pearson, 1991, p. 236). Indicator will benefit from further research
establishing its predictive validity. Much remains
CONCLUSION to be discovered as more data are collected and
Although type preference and PMAI scores are related analyzed, including exploration of the use of
in predictable ways, they are not measuring the same Carl Jung’s concepts of type and archetype in
things. Each type preference included a wide range of tandem.

The Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator® and Psychological Type

 66
REFERENCES
Boeree, C. G. (2006). Personality theories: Carl Jung. Retrieved July Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L.
3, 2007, from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desir- Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Mountain View, CA: CPP.
ability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Pearson, C. S. (1991). Awakening the heroes within: Twelve archetypes
Psychology, 24, 349–354. to help us find ourselves and transform our lives. San Francisco:
Harker, J. B., Reynierse, J. H., & Komisin, L. (1998). Independent Harper Collins.
observer ratings and the correlates of MBTI preferences with Pearson, C. S., & Marr, H. K. (2002). Introduction to archetypes.
their behavioral descriptors. Journal of Psychological Type, 45, Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.
5–20. Pearson, C. S., & Marr, H. K. (2003). PMAI manual: A guide to
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating interpreting the Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator instrument.
scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213–218. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological
Jung, C. G. (1959). The collected works, Volume 9, Part 1: The arche- Type.
types and the collected unconscious. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Peterson, C., Maier, S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). Learned help-
University Press. lessness: A theory for the age of personal control. New York:
Larson, J. (1997). The new face of homemakers. American Demo- Oxford University Press.
graphics, 19, 45–50. Quenk, N. L. (2002). Was that really me? How everyday stress brings
Macdaid, G. P. (1993). Unpublished raw data, Center for Appli- out our hidden personalities. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
cations of Psychological Type. Wikipedia (2007). Educational attainment in the United States.
Macdaid, G. P., McCaulley, M. H., & Kainz, R. I. (2005). Atlas of Retrieved June 29, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
type tables. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States
Psychological Type.

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 68, July 2008

 67
Bob McPeek (INTP) received his Ph.D. in social psychology from The Ohio State University in 1976, where his
research interests included a variety of psychometric instruments. Bob was introduced to the MBTI ® instrument at
the Center for Creative Leadership, after being awarded a Summer Fellowship there in 1975. Applying his research
interest in self-understanding to his own life, Bob chose an entrepreneurial career in the music recording industry
after earning his degree. Thirty years later, Bob joined CAPT, reconnecting his leadership, business, and marketing
experience with his research interests in personality.

C O N TA C T
Robert W. McPeek
Center for Applications of
Psychological Type
2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 401
Gainesville, FL 32609
352.375.0160
[email protected]

This Journal is being made available through the collaborative efforts of Dr. Tom Carskadon, Editor of the Journal of Psychological Type, and
the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc., CAPT, worldwide publisher. Dr. B. Michael Thorne serves as Executive Editor of the
Journal of Psychological Type.

Journal of Psychological Type is a trademark or registered trademark of Thomas G. Carskadon in the United States and other countries.

CAPT is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the meaningful application and ethical use of psychological type as measured through the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in
the United States and other countries.

Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. and CAPT are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Center for Applications of
Psychological Type in the United States and other countries.

Copyright © 2008 by Thomas G. Carskadon, Editor.

ISSN 0895-8750.

The Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator® and Psychological Type

View publication stats