A Longitudinal Study of 

Meyers-Briggs Personality 

Types in Air Traffic Controllers

Carolyn S. Dollar

David J. Schroeder

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

December 2004

Final Report

This document is available to the public through: 

•The Defense Technical Information Center

Ft. Belvior, VA 22060

•The National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Washington, DC 20591

DOT/FAA/AM-04/21
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.
i

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

DOT/FAA/AM-04/21 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

A Longitudinal Study of Myers-Briggs Personality Types in Air Traffic December 2004 

Controllers 6. Performing Organization Code 

 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

Dollar CS, Schroeder DJ

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

P.O. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplemental Notes 

Work was accomplished under approved task HRR-523. 

16. Abstract 

INTRODUCTION. Over the past decade, there has been increased interest in determining the role of 

personality factors in attracting and retaining individuals in various occupations. This study was designed to look 

at the role of personality types as defined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The instrument assesses 

personality on four broad, dichotomous categories (i.e., extroversion vs. introversion) as well as 16 distinct 

combinations of the four major classifications. This study investigated the relationship between MBTI types and 

initial success in the Air Traffic Control Academy Screen Program, subsequent field training outcomes, and 

transition to a supervisory or managerial position about 20 years later. METHOD. The 300-item MBTI was 

administered to 5,588 males (87%) and 832 females upon their entry into Academy training between 1982 and 

1985. Information maintained at the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute and in the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s personnel system allowed us to track these individuals from initial selection to their current 

positions and determine their supervisory status. Comparisons were made of the prevalent MBTI types at each 

career stage. RESULTS. Fifty-nine percent of the entrants successfully completed Academy training. Of those 

graduates, 83% became Certified Professional Controllers (CPCs), and 17% of the CPCs eventually became 

supervisors/managers. A higher percentage of entrants fell within the Sensing-Thinking-Judging combinations 

(whether extroverted or introverted) when compared with normative MBTI data. Those who became supervisors 

were more Thinking- (versus Feeling-) oriented. Chi-square statistics revealed several statistically significant 

differences at each career stage. However, most of those differences were of limited practical significance. 

CONCLUSIONS. Consistent with data from other personality measures, the MBTI results suggest that those 

attracted to the ATCS profession differ from the normal population on several dimensions. Weak relationships 

were found between the MBTI measures and success in training and eventual transition into a supervisory/ 

managerial position. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

Air Traffic Control, Personality Types, Personnel 

Training/Progress, MBTI 

Document is available to the public through the 

Defense Technical Information Center, Ft. Belvior, 

VA 22060; and the National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 14 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

1

A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF MEYERS-BRIGGS PERSONALITY

TYPES IN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS

INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, there has been increased 

interest in determining the role of personality factors in 

attracting and retaining individuals in various occupations. One popular personality test is the Myers-Briggs 

Type Indicator (MBTI), a paper and pencil test based 

on Jungian theory (Jung, 1971) concerning personality 

preferences that involve: modes of orientation to the world 

(Extroversion/Introversion); ways of perceiving (Sensing/

Intuitive); how judgments are formed (Thinking/Feeling); 

and a fourth dimension, decision-making (Judging/

Perceptive). In his review of the MBTI, Devito (1985) 

indicates that it is “...probably the most widely used 

instrument for non-psychiatric populations in the areas 

of clinical, counseling, and personality assessment (pg. 

1030).” More recently, Shuit (2003) indicates that, at the 

time of its 60th birthday in October, the MBTI remains as 

the most popular and widely used personality-assessment 

tool of its kind in the world. While the Myers-Briggs Type 

Indicator (MBTI) is used in diverse areas ranging from 

education, career development, organizational behavior, 

group functioning, team development, and leadership 

(Shuit, 2003), one of the more common applications 

is to use it to demonstrate how individuals of different 

types approach their work and problem solving in a 

different manner. These differences have the potential 

to significantly influence group functioning and team 

development in the workplace. 

The popularity of the MBTI exists despite concerns 

about the psychometric properties of the dimensions. 

Those concerns range from the factor structure of the 

scales, whether the dimensions are type versus continuous, the presence of dominant and auxiliary functions, 

and whether the scales fully measure the dimensions they 

intend to measure (Devito, 1985, Mendelsohn, 1965, 

Sundberg, 1965, and Stricker & Ross, 1964). Quenk 

(2000) indicates that a number of these concerns have 

been addressed in the more recent revision (Form M 

– 1998) of the instrument.

Murray and Johnson (2001) used this instrument to 

identify the types of females who were more successful at the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA). Although the 

MBTI type classifications did not prove highly predictive 

of academic or military success, there was a trend for 

those who entered the USNA to be more extroverted. 

Additionally, types of individuals who were more Sensing-Thinking-Judging were more likely to graduate than 

the other MBTI type groupings.

Westerman, Grandy, Combs, and Turner (1989) used 

the MBTI in an attempt to determine the interaction of 

personality type with academic performance for persons 

in their first year of dental school. They found only low 

and non-significant correlations between MBTI type and 

success as measured by grade point averages. In another 

study concerning the medical field, Stilwell, Wallick, 

Thal, and Burleson (2000) compared personality types 

of physicians from the 1950s with those of doctors 50 

years later. They reported that type distribution overall 

has remained primarily consistent with a slight increase 

in Judging types. It is interesting to note that the percentage of types among females in the earlier group more 

closely resembled those of the males but became more 

representative of the general population in the Feeling 

dimension as time passed and medicine became less of a 

male-dominated profession.

In the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), research has focused on the traits of personnel who desire 

to become Air Traffic Control Specialists (ATCSs) in 

addition to the more traditional emphasis on cognitive abilities. From the agency’s standpoint, significant 

costs are associated with the recruitment, selection, and 

training of individuals for this profession both at the 

FAA Academy and in the field. As for those who enter 

training as an ATCS, a year to more than three years 

might be spent in pursuing this career before qualification is completed and the individual joins the ranks as 

a certified professional controller (CPC). Thus, in an 

attempt to reduce costs to both the government and 

the individual, we designed this study to look at the 

potential contribution of personality types as defined 

by the MBTI. 

Based on the distribution of MBTI types within the 

US, as reported by Hammer and Mitchell (1996), we 

hypothesized that personality traits measured at various 

stages of a career in the ATCS occupation would differentiate between controllers who pass Academy or field 

training or who progress to supervisory levels from those 

who do not. A secondary interest was directed towards 

Schneider’s (1987) emphasis on the role of attraction, 

selection, and attrition (ASA) in increasing similarity 

among members of a workforce.
2 

METHOD

Sample/Procedure

The MBTI (Form G) was administered to 5,588 males 

(87%) and 832 females upon entry into the FAA ATCS 

Academy Screening program between 1982 and 1985. 

Information maintained at the Civil Aerospace Medical 

Institute and in the FAA’s consolidated personnel system 

allowed us to track these individuals from initial selection 

to their current positions and determine their supervisory 

status. Correlations among the MBTI types and three 

stages of career progression were computed, and Chisquare comparisons were made of the prevalent MBTI 

types by gender and at each career stage. 

Measure

The instrument is comprised of forced-choice, 

self-reported responses that are also dichotomous (i.e. 

“scheduled” vs. “unplanned”) for 89 of the 94 items that 

are used in the final scoring for the four “types.” Each 

item is included in only one of these major categories. A 

caveat to the reader regarding the results presented for the 

four major dimensions: The pairings (e.g. IntrovertedExtroverted) represent the two poles of the dichotomy. 

Thus, to avoid any misinterpretations, it is important to 

remember that, if we observe a larger percentage of one 

of the poles (Introverted) in comparison with another 

group, the opposing type will be reduced by the same 

percentage. As an example, if we observed a higher percentage of extroverts in the ATCSs entrants than in the 

normative group, there will be a correspondingly smaller 

percentage of introverts. Our discussion will generally 

focus on the pole of the dichotomy that represents the 

larger percentage of the ATCSs.

For further comparative purposes, 16 distinct combinations of the four major classifications were also calculated (i.e., Introverted-Sensing-Judging-Perceptive). For 

readability, we will refer to these 16 combinations by 

initials (e.g., ISJP), a complete listing of each along with 

a complete description of the personality dimensions are 

shown in the table provided by an article found on the 

Internet (2004) in Appendix A. 

RESULTS

Fifty-nine percent of the entrants successfully completed Academy training. Of those graduates, 82.8% became 

Certified Professional Controllers (CPCs), and 18.8% of 

the CPCs eventually became supervisors/managers. Table 

1 shows comparisons across the ATCS career strata for the 

four major MBTI types. Included are adult population 

norms obtained from Hammer and Mitchell, 1996.

Comparison of Adult MBTI Norms With All 

ATCSS Throughout Their Progression

Initial comparisons show that the percents of entrants 

were significantly lower in the Sensing (X2=5.92, p < .05) 

but higher in the Thinking (X2=440.59, p < .001) and 

Judging (X2=67.28, p < .001) categories than those of the 

normal population. Additionally the percentages of those 

Table 1. Comparisons of ATCS Entrants With Population Norms and Career Status 

 

Percent in each pattern type 

PATTERN 

Total 

Population 

Norms 

N=1267 

Total 

ATCS 

Entrants 

N=6420 

 Total 

ATCS 

Pass 

N=3782

Total 

ATCS 

Not Pass 

N=2637 

Total 

ATCS 

CPCs 

N=2873 

Total 

ATCS 

Not CPCs 

N=909 

 Total 

ATCS 

Sup/Man 

N=539 

Total 

ATCS Not 

Sup/Man 

N=2334 

EXTROVERT 46.3 50.0 49.8 50.2 50.2 48.5 54.7 49.1 

INTROVERT 53.7 50.0 50.2 49.8 49.8 51.5 45.3 51.9 

 

SENSING 68.1 64.5 64.5 64.5 66.1 59.7 67.2 65.8 

INTUITIVE 

(N) 

31.9 35.5 35.5 35.5 33.9 40.3 32.8 34.2 

 

THINKING 52.9 81.5 82.4 80.2 82.4 82.7 86.8 81.3 

FEELING 47.1 18.5 17.6 19.8 17.6 17.3 13.2 18.6 

 

JUDGING 58.1 69.9 68.5 71.8 68.0 70.2 71.4 67.2 

PERCEPTIVE 41.9 30.1 31.5 28.2 32.0 29.8 28.6 32.8 
3

who passed the Academy Screen were considerably higher 

than those of failures in the Thinking type (X2=5.29, p 

< .05). Within the Sensing group, the percent of ATCSs 

who eventually became CPCs was greater (X2=12.08, 

p < .01) than that the failure percentages of those who 

failed field training. Finally, there were significantly more 

Extroverted (X2=5.47, p < .05), Judging (X2=3.63, p < 

.05) and Thinking (X2=9.01, p < .01) types who achieved 

supervisory or higher status in their careers than nonsupervisors.

Comparison of Adult MBTI Norms With Male 

ATCSs Throughout Their Progression

Table 2 shows the comparisons for the same subgroups 

in each of the four major MBTI dichotomies for males. 

Within these groupings, the only significant difference in 

the EI category was the larger percentage of Extroverted 

supervisors/managers, compared with non-supervisors 

(X2=4.33, p < .05). For the SN breakout, the proportion of those who were successful in field training was 

significantly more Sensing (X2=10.12, p < .001) than of 

males who were not. When TF (X2=71.56, p < .001) and 

JP ( X2=61.71, p < .001) types were compared, significant 

differences were found between the percentages of both 

Academy entrants and the population norms, as well as 

the group that passed Academy training (TF X2=5.9, p < 

.01) , (JP X2=5.3, p < .05) versus those who either failed 

or withdrew. Additionally, the percentage of Extroverts 

(X2=4.33, p < .05) and Thinkers (X2=5.55, p < .01), as well 

as the more Judgmental (X2=3.01, p < .05) in the group 

who progressed to supervisory/managerial positions, was 

significantly higher than the group of non-supervisors. 

Comparison of Adult MBTI Norms With Female 

ATCSs Throughout Their Progression

When comparisons for female groupings were examined (see Table 3), significantly higher percentages of 

Extroverts (X211.32, p < .01) and Thinkers (X2=181.43, p 

< .001) and lower percentages of Sensing types (X2=16.07, 

p < .01) were found for entrants versus the population 

norm. The only significant difference among female comparisons concerning failure/passing of Academy training 

was the higher percentage of Judging types (X2=2.97, p 

< .05) in the group that failed. Where CPC status was 

concerned, the female group that continued past field 

training contained significantly more Extroverts (X2=5.91, 

p < .01) than that comprised of failures after passing the 

Academy. In addition, the female ATCS supervisors and 

managers group is comprised of a larger percentage of 

Thinking (X2=614, p < .01) versus Feeling types.

Comparisons of Male and Female Entrants/ATCSs

Although the percentages are not shown, Table 4 shows 

a summary of all above-mentioned comparisons. In addition, significant differences between gender within the 

MBTI types by career strata are described. Examination of 

the EI differences revealed that the percentages of female 

extroverts were higher than males for entrants (X2=13.40, p 

< .01) , those who passed the Academy training (X2=7.01, 

p < .05) and those who became CPCs (X2=11.91, p < 

Table 2. Comparisons of Male ATCS Entrants With Population Norms and Career Status 

 

Percent in each pattern type 

PATTERN 

Population 

Male 

Norms 

N=599 

ATCS 

Male 

Entrants 

N=5588 

 ATCS 

Male 

Passers 

N=3283 

ATCS 

Males 

Not Pass 

N=2305 

ATCS 

Male 

CPCs 

N=2521 

ATCS 

Males 

Not CPCs 

N=762 

 ATCS 

Male 

Sup/Man 

N=457 

ATCS 

Males Not 

Sup/Man 

N=2064 

EXTROVERT 45.4 49.1 48.9 49.3 49.0 48.8 53.4 48.0 

INTROVERT 54.6 50.9 51.1 50.7 51.0 51.2 46.6 52.0 

 

SENSING 64.4 65.0 65.3 64.6 66.8 60.5 68.5 66.4 

INTUITIVE 

(N) 

35.6 35.0 34.7 35.4 33.2 39.5 31.5 33.6 

 

THINKING 68.6 82.8 83.8 81.3 83.6 84.4 87.3 82.8 

FEELING 31.4 17.2 16.2 18.7 16.4 15.6 12.7 17.2 

 

JUDGING 55.1 70.7 69.5 72.4 69.0 71.3 72.4 68.2 

PERCEPTIVE 44.9 29.3 30.5 27.6 31.0 28.7 27.6 31.8 

 
4 

.01). The male groupings had higher percentages for most 

of the remaining MBTI type comparisons. Specifically, 

they were represented by a statistically larger number of 

Sensing types than their female counterparts, when both 

passing Academy training and making CPC were concerned. Males also had higher percentages than females 

on both Thinking and Judging characteristics whether 

the entrant, Academy success, or CPC status groups were 

compared. However, (not shown) the percentages of ATCS 

females in the Thinking group were much closer to the 

ATCS males than with the population norms where the 

percentage of the TF dichotomy is reversed (over 2/3 of 

the males were Thinking and almost 2/3 of the females 

were Feeling types). Despite these differences, when the 

different combinations of types are considered together, 

the overall profile for males and females are similar (see 

later discussion regarding Fig. 1). 

A more precise look at MBTI types was revealed when 

all combinations (16) of the four broad groups were 

analyzed (see Table 5). A higher percentage of entrants 

fell within the Sensing-Thinking-Judging combinations 

(whether Extroverted or Introverted) when compared 

with normative MBTI data. As indicated in Appendix A, 

persons with a combination of those 3 types are practical, 

matter-of-fact realists who like to be organized and run 

activities smoothly, regardless of distractions. All of the 

above traits would seem to be helpful for a controller who 

must remain attentive to visual and auditory information, 

quickly process that information, and then take action.

Figure 1 graphically depicts the 16 subtypes for males 

and females who entered the Academy Screen program. 

Table 5, along with Figure 1, are highly representative 

of the pattern of type combinations, no matter which 

gender, type of training, supervisory level, or other aspects of the career progression were analyzed. The most 

noticeable difference between the genders, as shown on 

the graph, are the higher percentages of males in the 

ESTJ and ISTJ subtypes.

Table 6 shows correlations for the career strata variables of our ATCS sample with the four major MBTI 

types. As shown, only the Judging/Perceiving category 

seemed to have any relationship with whether or not 

an individual passed or failed the Academy. However, 

this category showed an even stronger relationship with 

further progression in field training and eventual success 

in achieving CPC status. Yet, despite the significance, 

the relationship explains only a very small portion of the 

variance in predicting either success in the Academy or 

in achieving CPC status. Despite the large number of 

judging individuals who achieved success, the percentage within this type category was reduced from entry 

through CPC status. Sensing/Intuitive also played a role 

in predicting CPC status. A slightly higher percentage 

of Sensing types achieved CPC status. Finally, only the 

Thinking/Feeling type category showed a significant 

association with Supervisory or Managerial status 

during the career progression of an ATCS. A higher 

percentage of supervisors were Thinking types than 

in the CPC population. Given the overall diversity of 

types successful at each stage in their careers, the significant results found with respect to the correlations 

and other analyses do not reflect a sufficiently strong 

and consistent pattern to assist in the initial screening 

and selection process.

Table 3. Comparisons of Female ATCS Entrants With Population Norms and Career Status 

 

Percent in each pattern type

PATTERN 

Population 

Female 

Norms 

N=668 

ATCS 

Female 

Entrants 

N=832 

ATCS 

Female 

Passers 

N=499 

ATCS 

Females 

Not Pass 

N=332 

ATCS 

Female 

CPCs 

N=352 

ATCS 

Females 

Not CPCs 

N=147 

ATCS 

Female 

Sup/Man 

N=82 

ATCS 

Females 

Not 

Sup/Man 

N=270 

EXTROVERT 47.2 55.9 55.3 56.9 58.8 46.9 62.2 57.8 

INTROVERT 52.8 44.1 44.7 43.1 41.2 53.1 37.8 42.2 

 

SENSING 71.4 61.5 59.5 64.5 61.1 55.8 59.8 61.5 

INTUITIVE 

(N) 

28.6 38.5 40.5 35.5 38.9 44.2 40.2 38.5 

 

THINKING 38.8 73.2 73.7 72.6 73.6 74.1 84.1 70.4 

FEELING 61.2 26.7 26.3 27.4 26.4 25.9 15.9 29.6 

 

JUDGING 60.8 64.3 61.9 67.8 60.8 64.6 65.9 59.3 

PERCEPTIVE 39.2 35.7 38.1 32.2 39.2 35.4 34.1 40.7 
5

Table 4. Comparisons of the four MBTI dichotomies by gender and career stratification 

COMPARISON

Extroverted or Introverted Sensing or 

Intuitive (N) 

Thinking or

 Feeling

Judging or Perceptive

MALE PERCENTAGES

ATCS Entrants vs. 

Population Norms 

49.1 vs. 45.4 

NS 

65.0 vs. 64.4 

NS 

82.8 vs. 68.6 

Entrants more Thinking** 

70.7 vs. 55.1 

Entrants more Judging

** 

a Pass vs. Not Pass 

 Academy

48.9 vs. 49.3 

NS 

65.3 vs. 64.6 

NS 

83.8 vs. 81.3 

Passers more Thinking** 

69.5 vs. 72.4 

Non-passers more 

Judging*

Certified Professional 

Controllers (CPCs) vs. 

Non-CPCs 

49.0 vs. 48.8 

NS 

66.8 vs. 60.5 

CPCs more

Sensing** 

83.6 vs. 84.4 

NS 

69.0 vs. 71.3 

NS 

CPC Supervisor/ 

Manager vs. Nonsupervisor/Manager 

53.4 vs. 48.0 

Supervisor/Manager

more Extroverted*

68.5 vs. 66.4 

NS 

87.3 vs. 82.8 

Supervisor/Manager

more Thinking*

72.4 vs. 68.2 

Supervisor/Manager

more Judging*

FEMALE PERCENTAGES

ATCS Entrants vs. 

Population Norms 

55.9 vs. 47.2 

Entrants more

Extroverted** 

61.5 vs. 71.4 

Population more 

Sensing** 

73.2 vs. 38.8 

Entrants more

Thinking** 

64.3 vs. 60.8 

NS 

a Pass vs. Not Pass 

 Academy

55.3 vs. 56.9 

NS 

59.5 vs. 64.5 

NS 

73.7 vs. 72.6 

NS 

61.9 vs. 67.8 

Non-passers more

Judging*

Certified Professional 

Controllers (CPCs) vs. 

Non-CPCs 

58.8 vs. 46.9 

CPCs more Extroverted*

61.1 vs. 55.8 

NS 

73.6 vs. 74.1 

NS 

60.8 vs. 64.6 

NS 

CPC Supervisor/ 

Manager vs. Nonsupervisor/Manager 

62.2 vs. 57.8 

NS 

59.8 vs. 61.5 

NS 

84.1 vs. 70.4 

Supervisor/Manager

more Thinking*

65.9 vs. 59.3 

NS 

MALE VS FEMALE PERCENTAGES

b ATCS Entrants 49.1 VS 55.9 

Females more

Extroverted*

65.0 vs. 61.5 

NS 

82.8 vs. 73.2 

Males more

Thinking** 

70.7 vs. 64.3 

Males more

Judging** 

a,b ATCS Who Passed 

Academy

48.9 vs. 55.3 

Females more

Extroverted** 

65.3 vs. 59.5 

Males more

Sensing*

83.8 vs. 73.7 

Males more

Thinking** 

69.5 vs. 61.9 

Males more

Judging** 

b Passers Who Made 

Certified Professional 

Controller (CPC) 

49.0 vs. 58.8 

Females more

Extroverted** 

66.8 vs. 61.1 

Males more

Sensing*

83.6 vs. 73.6 

Males more

Thinking** 

69.0 vs. 60.8 

Males more

Judging** 

CPCs Who Made 

Supervisor/Manager 

53.4 vs. 62.2 

NS 

68.5 vs. 59.8 

NS 

87.3 vs. 84.1 

NS 

72.4 vs. 65.9 

NS 

a Not Pass includes persons who withdrew or failed 

b Most differences were due to the overall proportionately higher number males in the

 total sample 

NS=Not Significant at .05 or below 

* Significant p < .05 

** Significant p < .01
6 

Table 5. Distributions of MBTI Patterns for Population 

Norms Versus ATCS Samples 

Normal ATCS Normal ATCS 

Pattern Males Males Females Females

ISTJ 19.4 24.1 12.3 17.2 

ISFJ 6.3 3.9 16.2 4.8 

INFJ 2.0 1.5 3.1 2.0 

INTJ 2.0 6.9 3.1 5.8 

ISTP 8.7 5.2 4.3 4.8 

ISFP 2.3 1.2 6.4 2.2 

INFP 4.5 2.1 4.2 2.6 

INTP 6.5 6.0 4.0 4.7 

ESTP 6.2 4.5 3.6 5.9 

ESFP 4.0 1.3 7.2 3.2 

ENFP 6.0 2.6 6.6 4.3 

ENTP 6.7 6.4 2.8 7.9 

ESTJ 12.9 21.9 7.3 18.6 

ESFJ 4.7 2.9 14.1 4.8 

ENFJ 1.5 1.7 3.4 2.6 

ENTJ 3.5 7.8 2.1 8.4 

Figure 1. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Scale Scores For Male Versus Females Who 

Entered the ATCS Academy Screen * 

*Chi-Square test significant <.01 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

ENFJ

ENFP

ENTJ

ENTP

ESFJ

ESFPESTJ

ESTP

INFJ

INFP

INTJ

INTP

ISFJ

ISFP

ISTJ

ISTP

Male Female

Table 6. Correlations of MBTI Variables With Passing Academy, 

Achieving CPC Status and Supervisory Level for Total Sample 

MBTI 

Category

Pass/Fail 

Academy

CPC 

Status

Supervisory 

Level

Extroversion/Introversion .005 -.016 -.044 

Sensing/Intuitive (N) .000 -.036* -.011 

Thinking/Feeling -.023 -.010 -.068** 

Judging/Perceptive .035* .040** -.036 

* Significant p< .05 

** Significant p< .01 
7

CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION

As in the Murray and Johnson (2001) study, the MBTI 

classifications were not highly predictive of success in 

either the Academy or in field training. While the SensingThinking-Judging types were the more common groups 

upon entry, graduation, and at the conclusion of field 

training, analyses suggest that a slightly smaller percentage of the Judging types were successful in the academy. 

Additionally, there was a trend for females in that study 

and the current one to be more extroverted.

Although the correlations obtained in this study 

demonstrated a greater ability of the MBTI to predict 

success in training than those obtained in the Westerman, 

Grandy, Combs, and Turner (1989) study concerning 

type with first-year GPA, they explained only a small 

amount of the overall variance and presented no clear-cut 

pattern throughout the entire career progression of an 

ATCS. Finally when we compared our results with the 

Stilwell, et al. (2000) personality types of another maledominated field, we found our ATCS gender comparisons 

to be relatively similar, as was true in their sample of 50 

years earlier.

When compared with the population norms, there 

are indications that individuals attracted to the air traffic 

profession differ from those of the population norms. On 

the basis of the 16 distinct type patterns, there is a much 

higher percentage of STJs (both introverted and extroverted) in the group of ATCS entrants. This remains as 

the dominant pattern through the Academy program and 

into the field and even into the supervisory ranks. One 

of the more noticeable gender differences in this respect 

is the high percentage of Thinking female types (73.2%) 

compared with 38.8% in the overall population. One 

consequence of this difference is that the percentages of 

males and females who comprise the 16 separate MBTI 

type groups appear to be more similar for controllers than 

for the general population. 

These results lend some support to Schneider’s theory 

(1957) that certain types of individuals are attracted to 

certain occupations. However, there is little evidence in 

these data that the diversity in MBTI types shifts significantly from entry through completion of field training. 

Even at the supervisory level, where there are indications that extroverts and thinking types are slightly more 

successful, the frequencies of the various types remain 

relatively close to that noted in the ATCS workforce. 

Of course, this observation does not take into account 

possible shifts in personal preferences from entry level 

to the present.

One area in which the results from our assessment of 

type in air traffic controllers may have direct implications 

for the workplace is that the information can be used to 

facilitate our understanding of how differences in the 

ways we view and interact with the world can influence 

how supervisors react and how individuals interact as 

members of work teams. In an article in Fortune magazine, Moore (1987) indicated that personality tests have 

regained prominence in the workplace, with a special 

emphasis on team building and management development. As we indicated earlier, a significant portion of 

the annual administrations of the MBTI involve aspects 

of organizational behavior; team building, management 

development, decision-making, conflict management, and 

leadership. This emphasis is also readily apparent if one 

conducts a search of the MBTI on the Internet. One factor that contributes to this interest is the ease with which 

the types can be translated into differences in perceiving 

and responding to events in the workplace.

For example, the MBTI views thinkers as responding 

to situations in a more impersonal way, preferring to 

use logic as they analyze facts. Judgers prefer to organize 

their world and stick to schedules and routines. On the 

other hand, individuals who are perceptive types prefer 

to keep their options open, remaining more jovial and 

carefree and are sometimes prone to analysis paralysis. 

When working in teams, a benefit of having a heterogeneous group comprised of different types is that the 

members bring different ways of viewing and analyzing 

a problem to the table. As a group member, the extroverted ESTJ may feel strongly that the situation calls 

for a logical analysis of the available data and a quick 

decision. In contrast, the INFP is more concerned about 

relationships with the group and tends to rely more on 

his or her intuitions, preferring to thoroughly review all 

options rather than make a quick decision. It is easy to 

see how these different approaches can present difficulties for the team leader, especially if his or her approach 

differs markedly from the other group members. Despite 

the appeal of these ideas, Gardner (1996) indicates that 

the literature to support the value of using the MBTI to 

facilitate teamwork and leadership behavior is relatively 

weak. However, the concepts do point to an important 

factor involving group processes, that individuals have 

a number or different styles in approaching their work 

and interacting with others, and that those differences 

can be used to improve understanding and communication. Supervisors and managers need to understand 

those differences and how they can be used to enhance 

organizational and team performance.

These data are consistent with ATCSs research using 

the 16PF in demonstrating that those attracted to the 

ATCS profession differ from the normal population on 

several dimensions. Schroeder and Dollar (1997) found 

that controllers were brighter than the average adult; less 

anxious and tense. Collins, Schroder, and Nye (1991) 
8

also found that entrants, as well as those who successfully 

completed the Academy program, reported lower levels 

of state and trait anxiety. Those findings, along with our 

results that academy entrants most commonly reveal Sensing-Thinking-Judging combinations, provide consistent 

evidence of some self-selection in who is attracted to the 

profession. However, the results also indicate that considerable diversity remains within the air traffic profession. 

Of the personality measures considered to date, anxiety 

appears to be the dimension that is most closely linked 

with success in training. These results offer only limited 

support for the relevance of MBTI dimensions on success 

in training and eventual transition to supervisor/manager. 

While a small consistent increase in predictability can 

reduce costs associated with the selection and training of 

personnel, consideration needs to turn to other measures, 

given the limited usefulness of the MBTI.

More research is needed to find a measure that would 

be more consistently predictive, thus saving both the 

individuals involved and the FAA a great deal of time 

and money.

REFERENCES 

Collins, W.E., Schroeder, D. J, & Nye, L.G. (1991). 

Relationship of anxiety scores to Academy and 

field training performance of Air Traffic Control 

Specialists. Aviation, Space, and Environmental 

Medicine, 62, 236-40.

Devito, A.J. (1985). Review of the Myers-Briggs Type 

Indicator. In O.K. Buros (Ed.), The Eighth Mental 

Measurements Yearbook (pp. 1030-2). Highland 

Park, NJ: The Gryphon Press.

Gardner, W.L. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type 

Indicator to study managers: a literature review 

and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22 

(1), 45-83.

Hammer, A.L. & Mitchell, W.D. (1996). The distribution of MBTI types in the US by gender and ethnic 

group. Journal of Psychological Type, 37, 2 – 14.

Jung, C.G. (1971). The Collected Works of C.G. Jung;Vol 

6. Psychological types (pp 510-555), Princeton, 

NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work 

published in 1923).

Mendelsohn, G.A. (1965). Review of the Myers-Briggs 

Type Indicator. In O.K. Buros (ed.), The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp. 321-2). Highland 

Park, NJ: The Gryphon Press. 

Moore, T. (1987). Personality tests are back. Fortune, 

March 30: 74-78.

Murray, K.M. & Johnson, W.B. (2001). Personality type 

and success among female naval academy midshipmen. Military Medicine, 166(10) 889-93.

Quenk, N.L. (2000) Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment. New York: Wiley.

Schroeder, D.J. & Dollar, C.S. (1997). Personality 

characteristics of pre-/post-strike air traffic control 

applicants. (DOT/FAA/AM-97/17), Washington, 

DC, Federal Aviation Administration Office of 

Aviation Medicine.1

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-53.

Shuit, D.P. (2003). At 60, Myers-Briggs is still sorting out 

and identifying people’s types. Workforce Management (December), pp. 72-4.

Stilwell, N.A., Wallick, M.M., Thal, S.E., & Burleson, 

J.A. (2000). Myers-Briggs type and medical specialty choice: A new look at an old question. Teaching 

and Learning in Medicine, 12(1), 14-20.

Stricker, L.J., and Ross, J. (1964). An assessment of some 

structural properties of the Jungian Personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 14, 623-43.

Sundberg, N.D. (1965). Review of the Myers-Briggs Type 

Indicator. In O.K. Buros (ed.), The Sixth Mental 

Measurements Yearbook (pp. 322-5). Highland Park, 

NJ: The Gryphon Press. 

Westerman, G.H., Grandy, T.G., Combs, C.G., & Turner, 

C.H. (1989). Personality variables as predictors of 

performance for first-year dental students. Journal 

of Dental Education, 53(4), 233-7.

Working out your Myers-Briggs Type. Retrieved April 10, 

2004, from http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/tt/tarticl/mb-simpl.htm

1

This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine technical reports 

are available in full-text from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute's 

Web site: http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/index.html
A1

APPENDIX A

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMBINATIONS OF ALL FOUR TYPE PREFERENCES
A2 

 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMBINATIONS OF ALL FOUR TYPE PREFERENCES 

SENSING TYPES INTUITIVES 

With Thinking With Feeling With Feeling With Thinking 

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ 

The ISTJ takes his/her energy from the inner world of thoughts (and, maybe, emotions). He/she prefers dealing with facts, and making decisions after considering the various options. He/she organizes his/her life on a logical basis. He/she is quiet, serious and well prepared for most eventualities. He/she is a keen observer of life, developing a good understanding of situations, which is often not expressed. He/she has a strong sense of practical objectives, and works efficiently to meet them. 

The ISFJ takes his/her energy from the inner world of thoughts and emotions. He/she prefers dealing with facts and people, and making decisions on the basis of personal values. His/her life is organized on a personal basis, seeking to enjoy relationships with people he/she likes. He/she is a quiet, serious observer of people, and is both conscientious and loyal. He/she prefers work that involves being of practical service to people. He/she is often concerned for and perceptive of how other people feel and dislikes confrontation and conflict. 

The INFJ takes his/her energy from the inner world of thoughts and emotions. He/she prefers dealing with patterns and possibilities, particularly for people, and makes decisions using personal values. His/her life is organized on a personal basis. He/she often has a private sense of purpose in life, and works steadily to fulfill that goal. He/she demonstrates a quiet concern for people, being interested in helping them to develop and grow. He/she is good at developing insight into people, though it can often remain unexpressed. 

The INTJ takes his/her energy from the inner world of thoughts (and, maybe, emotions). He/she prefers dealing with patterns and possibilities for the future, and making decisions using impersonal analysis. His/her life is organized on a logical basis. He/she is a strategist, identifying long term goals and organizing life to meet them. He/she tends to be skeptical and critical, both of self and others, with a keen sense of deficiencies in quality and competence. He/she often has a strong intellect, yet is able to attend to details that are relevant to the strategy. 

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP 

The ISTP takes his/her energy from the inner world of thoughts (and, maybe, emotions). He/she prefers dealing with facts and making decisions on a logical basis. His/her life is flexible, demonstrating an interest in acquiring new information that leads to a practical understanding of the way the world works. He/she is quiet and detached, and adaptable (up to a point). He/she is often good at solving organizational problems that need to be thought through. He/she is curious about how and why things work, and can seem impulsive, sometimes producing surprising ideas or doing something unpredictable. 

The ISFP takes his/her energy from the inner world of thoughts and emotions. He/she prefers dealing with facts and people, and making decisions on the basis of personal values. He/she is adaptable (up to a point), quiet and friendly. He/she is interested in people, enjoying their company preferably on an individual basis or in small numbers. He/she takes a caring and sensitive approach to helping others. He/she enjoys the present, and tends to dislike confrontation and conflict. He/she usually acts as a very supportive member of a team. 

The INFP takes his/her energy from the inner world of thoughts and emotions. He/she prefers dealing with patterns and possibilities, especially for people, and prefers to make decisions on the basis of personal values. His/her life is flexible, following new insights and possibilities as they arise. He/she is quiet and adaptable (up to a point - when his/her values are violated the normally adaptable INFP can surprise people with his/her stance). He/she will seem to be very interested in ideas, and he/she may sometimes make very creative contributions. He/she has a hidden warmth for people and a desire to see self and others grow and develop. He/she prefers to undertake work that has a meaningful purpose. 

The INTP takes his/her energy from the inner world of thoughts (and, maybe, emotions). He/she prefers dealing with patterns and possibilities, and making decisions on a logical basis. His/her life is flexible, following new insights and possibilities as they arise. He/she is quiet and detached, and adaptable (up to a point - sometimes he/she may stop adapting, insisting that there is a clear principle at stake). He/she is not interested in routine, and will often experiment or change things to see if they can be improved. He/she operates at best when solving complex problems that require the application of intellect. 
A3 SENSING TYPES (Continued) INTUITIVES (Continued) With Thinking With Feeling With Feeling With Thinking ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP The ESTP takes his/her energy from the outer world of actions and spoken words. He/she prefers dealing with facts, which he/she usually views objectively, and he/she makes decisions on a logical basis. His/her life is flexible, consisting of a series of activities that interest his/her. He/she is an action oriented problem solver, and prefers to work with practical organizational issues. He/she can be impulsive, and likes taking part in trouble-shooting-type work. He/she can sometimes neglect follow- through, but will work best when there is a lot going on that needs organizing and solving. The ESFP takes his/her energy from the outside world of actions and spoken words. He/she prefers dealing with facts, which he/she usually takes at face value. He/she also prefers dealing with the present and with people, and probably derives much enjoyment out of friendships. His/her life is flexible, living it very much in the present, and responding to things as they arise. He/she is impulsive and friendly, seeking enjoyment out of life, and makes new friends easily. He/she likes taking part in solving urgent problems, such as fire- fighting or troubleshooting. He/she operates best in practical situations involving people. The ENFP takes his/her energy from the outer world of actions and spoken words. He/she prefers dealing with patterns and possibilities, particularly for people, and makes decisions on the basis of personal values. His/her life is flexible, following new insights and possibilities as they arise. He/she is creative and insightful, often seeking to try new ideas that can be of benefit to people. He/she may sometimes neglect details and planning, but he/she enjoys work that involves experimentation and variety, working towards a general goal. The ENTP takes his/her energy from the outer world of actions and spoken words. He/she prefers dealing with patterns and possibilities, and making decisions on a logical basis. He/she is adaptable, tending to focus on new ideas and interests as and when they arise, particularly if they involve increasing his/her competence or skill. He/she is an ingenious problem solver, constantly trying new ideas out, and can seem to enjoy a good argument. He/she is interested in instigating change, and operates best in overcoming new difficulties where the solution requires the application of creative effort. 

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ 

The ESTJ takes his/her energy from the outside world of actions and spoken words. He/she prefers dealing with facts and the present, and makes decisions using logic. His/her life is organized on a logical basis. He/she is therefore practical, and likely to implement tried and trusted solutions to practical problems in a businesslike and impersonal manner. He/she prefers to ensure that the details have been taken care of rather than spend time considering concepts and strategies. 

The ESFJ takes his/her energy from the outer world of actions and spoken words. He/she prefers dealing with facts, and making decisions on the basis of personal values. He/she likes dealing with people, and organizes life on a personal basis. He/she is a very warm person, seeking to maintain harmonious relationships with colleagues and friends, who are a very important part of his/her life. He/she can find conflict and criticism very difficult to handle. He/she has a strong sense of duty and loyalty, and is driven by a need to belong and be of service to people. 

The ENFJ takes his/her energy from the outer world of actions and spoken words. He/she prefers dealing with patterns and possibilities, particularly for people, and makes decisions using personal values. His/her life is organized on a personal basis, seeking to develop and maintain stable relationships with those people he/she likes. He/she is actively concerned with promoting personal growth in others. He/she is also highly sociable, and expressive of feelings towards others, but can find conflict and criticism difficult, particularly if it might damage long term relationships. He/she works best in situations involving people. 

The ENTJ takes his/her energy from the outer world of actions and spoken words. He/she prefers dealing with patterns and possibilities, and making decisions after considering the consequences of the various courses of action. His/her life is organized on a logical basis. He/she tends to control life, organizing systems and people to meet task-oriented goals. He/she often takes the role of executive or director, using a business-like and impersonal approach. He/she may appear intolerant of people who do not set high standards for themselves or don't seem to be good at what they do.