Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx

Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the
Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Comparing
Abuser Types
David M. Lawson
Stephen F. Austin State University
Dan F. Brossart
Texas A&M University
Lee W. Shefferman
University of Northern Colorado
This study investigated traditional masculine gender role
differences between male partner abuser types
using the Masculinity/Femininity subsection scales of
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
(MMPI-2) Structural Summary. We examined differences
between four groups of partner-violent men
(borderline, antisocial, psychotic features, and nonpathological
partner violent) and one group of
nonpartner-violent men on five MMPI-2 subscales: Masculinity-
Femininity, Gender Role-Feminine,
Gender Role-Masculine, Ego Inflation, and Low Self-esteem.
Results indicated that the borderline group
reported the most consistent traditional feminine gender role
orientation of all the groups, whereas the
antisocial group reported the most consistent traditional
masculine gender role orientation of all the
groups. The psychotic features group reported characteristics
associated with both traditional masculinity

and traditional feminine gender role making it distinct among
all the groups. The nonpathological
intimately violent group and the nonpartner-violent group
reported no extreme scores when compared
with the other three groups. The borderline and antisocial
groups reported significantly more exposure
to family of origin violence and use of more severe forms of
partner abuse than the other three partner
abuse groups. Treatment implications are addressed.
Keywords: masculinity, gender role, partner violence, domestic
violence
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pattern of abusive behavior
(physical and psychological) in a significant relationship and is
often used by one partner to gain or maintain power/control
over
another partner (Office of Violence Against Women, 2009).
Fam-
ily conflict research indicates approximately equal rates of IPV
for
men and women (12% each) in national community samples
(Stets
& Straus, 1990; Straus, 1999). Crime studies, such as the
National
Violence Against Women in America Survey (NVAW; Tjaden &
Thoennes, 2000), indicate a much higher rate of assaults by men
(i.e., 61%), but at a much smaller prevalence rates. Regardless
of
the type of survey, evidence indicates that women often
experience
more severe injuries and longer lasting symptoms, such as post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety (Cas-
cardi, Langhinirichsen, & Vivian, 1992; Stets & Straus, 1990).
Some scholars account for this phenomena by asserting that men

have a greater tendency to use IPV to control and coerce women
based on traditional masculine gender role and societal norms
(Cascardi et al., 1992; Dobash & Dobash, 1998). This study
investigated gender role differences between types of male
partner
abusers using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-
2
(MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer,
1989).
Because of its negative effects, research has examined
numerous
predictors of IPV including biological, genetic, stress, and
psycho-
social factors (Hamberger, 2008; Ehrensaft, Cohen, & Johnson,
2006). Of the psychosocial factors, masculine gender role has
received increased attention in both the theoretical and
empirical
literature (Hamberger, 2005; Moore & Stuart, 2005), with a par-
ticular focus on gender role socialization (Harway & O’Neil,
1999;
Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002). From this perspective,
social-
ization plays the primary role in instigating men’s violence
toward
female partners (Pence & Paymer, 1993). The importance of
gender role socialization and IPV is reflected in the large
number
of treatment programs that emphasize gender role
resocialization
as the primary goal of treatment (see Babcock, Green, & Robie,
2004).
DAVID M. LAWSON received his PhD in Counseling from
University of
North Texas. He is a professor in the PhD program in School

Psychology
in the Department of Human Services at Stephen F. Austin State
Univer-
sity. His research and practice interests include interpersonal
abuse of
adults and children, posttraumatic stress disorder with victims
of interper-
sonal abuse, and treatment of perpetrators and victims of
interpersonal
abuse.
DAN F. BROSSART received his PhD in Counseling
Psychology from the
University of Missouri. He is an associate professor in the PhD
program in
Counseling Psychology in the Department of Educational
Psychology at
Texas A&M University. His research interests focus on
intervention re-
search, including process and outcomes research, and single-
case research.
LEE W. SHEFFERMAN received his PhD in Counseling
Psychology from
Texas A&M University. He is senior staff in the Counseling
Center at
University of Northern Colorado. His clinical interests include
group
counseling, men’s issues, ADHD and learning disabilities, and
experiential
methods.
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should
be addressed to David
M. Lawson, Department of Human Services, Stephen F. Austin
State
University, Nacogdoches, TX 75962-3019. E-mail:
[email protected]
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice © 2010

American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 41, No. 3, 260 –266 0735-7028/10/$12.00 DOI:
10.1037/a0019589
260
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m

er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli

ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t

he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b

e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
One widely held view of gender role socialization and IPV
posits that a traditional masculine orientation leads to an
expecta-
tion of male dominance and female subordination (Yllo, 2005).
Socialization toward the dominance/subordination dichotomy
en-
courages men to engage in traditional gender-role behavior pat-
terns in an attempt to avoid appearing feminine (Harway &
O’Neil,
1999). Any sign of emotional sensitivity, vulnerability, or
depen-
dency is associated with shame and low self-esteem, which are
setting conditions for IPV (Jennings & Murphy, 2000). Research
provides support for this view as partner-violent men report
lower
self-esteem and higher interpersonal dependency than

nonviolent
men (Holtzworth-Munroe, Stuart, & Hutchinson, 1997; Murphy,
Meyer, & O’Leary, 1994).
Feminist theories hold that male IPV is learned and nurtured in
a patriarchal society. IPV is an act of dominance and control
motivated by a need for power (Dobash & Dobash, 1998). When
a man’s control and power are threatened by a female partner,
he
may react in a number of ways to defend his sense of masculine
self-esteem, one of which is IPV (Harway & O’Neil, 1999).
Moreover, IPV is reinforced by its effectiveness in modifying a
partner’s behavior (Johnson, 1995). Other gender socialization
theories emphasize different factors to explain IPV, such as
con-
striction of vulnerable emotions (Levant, 1996), male shame
(Wal-
lace & Nosko, 1993), gender role strain (Pleck, 1995), and im-
paired male-to-male relationships (Jennings & Murphy, 2000).
Although theory and emerging research appear to support the a
link between traditional masculine gender role and IPV,
clinicians
providing IPV treatment often fail to assess gender role issues
in
making clinical decisions (Moore & Stuart, 2005). This may
occur
because of time limitations and/or lack of familiarity with
gender-
based measures. Given the small treatment effects produced by
most IPV treatment programs (Babcock et al., 2004), clinicians
may benefit from assessing masculine gender roles as an
integral
part of the treatment process. The challenge is to identify other
more familiar means to accomplish this end.

The MMPI-2 is widely used in the assessment of IPV (e.g.,
Hale, Duckworth, Zimostrad, & Nicholas, 1988; Flournoy &
Wil-
son, 1989). Common clinical uses include predicting success
and
recidivism rates in IPV treatment programs (Sellbom et al.,
2008),
identifying risk factors for IPV (Erwin, Gershon, Tiburzi, &
Lin,
2005), and creating personality profiles to enhance treatment
matching (Lawson et al., 2003). In addition to providing
informa-
tion on psychopathology, the MMPI-2 also contains scales that
can
provide a general assessment of gender role. Nichols and
Greene
(1995) developed the MMPI-2 Structural Summary as an
empirical
and rationally derived means to organize the 129 scales into
clinically relevant categories for easier interpretation. They
devel-
oped six major sections (i.e., test-taking attitudes, factor scales,
moods, cognitions, interpersonal relationships, other problem
ar-
eas) with each section containing several subsections.
Masculinity/
Femininity is one subsection within the interpersonal section
and
includes four scales: Masculinity-Femininity (Mf), Gender
Role-
Feminine (GF), Gender Role-Masculine (GM), and Ego Inflation
(Ma4). The choice of these scales for the
Masculinity/Femininity
subsection were determined based on content validity and item
overlap, scale internal consistencies, and pattern confirmation
de-

termined by item correlation and factor analysis (Nichols &
Green,
1995). All statistical analyses were conducted with a sample of
1,054 psychiatric inpatients and outpatients referred for psycho-
logical assessment. These four scales measure traditional
mascu-
line and feminine gender role concepts often identified with
vio-
lent offenders (Beesley & McGuire, 2009). However, the four
scales lack the finer-grain gender role detail associated with
some
current research (see Moore & Stuart, 2005, for review). The
scales may be less appropriate for assessing gender role for
other
populations (e.g., nonoffender populations), or for research en-
deavors that examine masculinity constructs such as restrictive
emotionality (O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman,
1986), attitudes about wife abuse (Dobash & Dobash, 1998)
and/or
for examining more contemporary constructs of masculinity
such
as gender role conflict/strain (Pleck, 1995).
IPV Typologies
Research suggests that partner-violent men are a diverse group
(Dixon & Browne, 2003). In fact, IPV researchers have
identified
several typologies of partner-violent men based on various
meth-
odologies. Different types commit IPV for different reasons and
may warrant different treatments (Saunders, 1996). Holtzworth-
Munroe and Stuart (1994) proposed three types of partner-
violent
men (i.e., family only/nonpathological, generally violent/

antisocial, and dysphoric/borderline) based on severity of
violence,
generality of violence, and psychopathology. This typology has
been consistently empirically validated (Dixon & Browne,
2003).
Other studies have used one of the following characteristics to
distinguish abuser types: (a) psychopathology (Hamberger,
Lohr,
Bonge, & Tolin, 1996); (b) type of partner violence (e.g.,
Chase,
O’Leary, & Heyman, 2001); or (c) physiological responses and
psychopathology (Gottman et al., 1995). Lastly, White and Gon-
dolf (2000) employed a profile interpretation of the Millon
Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory III (Millon, 1983) to determine type
catego-
ries rather than statistical methods (e.g., cluster analysis). IPV
typology research largely has produced consistent results across
studies. Nevertheless, these studies have been criticized on a
number of issues. Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994)
typolo-
gies confound violence dimensions and psychopathology in
deter-
mining abuser types (Hamberger et al., 1996). Hamberger et al.
hold that typologies first should be identified based on
psychopa-
thology and then the resulting types can be compared based on
relevant variables such as violence severity. Furthermore, Dixon
and Browne (2003) note that Holtzworth-Munroe’s tripartite
model was derived from a priori speculation and thus fails to
identify other subtypes falling between the boundaries of the
types.
To date, little research has examined gender role differences
between partner abuser types. Most studies compare partner-
violent with nonpartner-violent men with respect to gender role

(e.g., Thompson, 1991). However, limited research suggests that
more severe types of partner-violent men report stronger beliefs
in
male dominance than less severe types (Saunders, 1992).
Violence Variables
Research indicates that childhood exposure to parental violence
increases the possibility of later aggression toward a partner
(Dut-
ton, 2007; Widom, 1989). Men with more severe
psychopathology
report witnessing more frequent and more severe interparental
violence in childhood than do men with little or no
psychopathol-
ogy (Waltz, Babcock, Jacobson, & Gottman, 2000).
Furthermore,
261ASSESSING GENDER ROLE OF PARTNER-VIOLENT
MEN
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co

py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia

tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is

in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du

al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
the more severe the IPV, the more severe the psychopathology

(Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart,
2000).
Given this evidence, we would expect IPV typologies to differ
with respect to childhood witnessing of parental violence and
IPV
severity.
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of our research was to examine male
partner abusers’ gender role using the MMPI-2 Structural Sum-
mary (Nichols & Greene, 1995) Masculinity/Femininity scales.
In
addition, we examined self-esteem and dependency given their
association to gender role and IPV (Murphy et al., 1994). With
research indicating the importance of distinguishing between
abuser types (Dixon & Browne, 2003) we first determined
abuser
types and then compared the groups along with a nonpartner-
violent group on the gender role scales and self-esteem (Ham-
berger et al., 1996). Secondarily, we examined differences be-
tween abuser types with respect to exposure to childhood
parental
IPV and severity of IPV used against a partner.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: More severe abuser types (e.g., borderline,
antisocial) will report more traditional masculine gender role
than less severe abuser types (e.g., nonpathological) and
nonpartner-violent men.
Hypothesis 2: More severe abuser types will report using
more severe IPV and greater exposure to childhood parental
violence than less severe abuser types and men that are
nonpartner-violent.

Method
Participants
One hundred fifty-eight men on probation for either IPV or
nonpartner violence crimes were invited to participate in the
study.
Twelve men declined after the initial request. Of the 146 who
completed the materials, 25 cases were omitted from analysis
because of excessive item omission and/or invalid results based
on
MMPI-2 validity scales. The final sample included 121 men
who
were on probation for either violence against their partner (n �
95)
or a nonpartner violence offence (n � 26; e.g., illegal drug use
or
sale, DUI, theft). Of the partner abusive men, 96% had a history
of
drug/alcohol use or abuse. The nonpartner-violent men had no
history of IPV based on self-report and arrest records, whereas
the
partner-violent men had engaged in at least one incident of
partner
assault based on arrest record and partner report. The IPV group
ranged in age from 17 to 58 years (M � 31.0; SD � 8.5). Thirty
(31.6%) were African American, 36 were Hispanic/Latino
(37.9%), and 29 (30.5%) were Caucasian. Their education
ranged
from 5 to 18 years (M � 11.4; SD � 2.1). Twenty-nine were
single, 41 were currently married, 9 were separated, and 16
were
currently divorced. The nonintimate violent group ranged in
age from 18 to 54 (M � 30.3; SD � 10.6). Eleven (42.3%) were
African American, 8 (30.7%) were Hispanic/Latino, and 7

(26.9%)
were Caucasian. Their education ranged from 7 to 18 years (M
�
12.3; SD � 2.8). Fourteen were single, 6 were married, 3 were
separated, and 3 were divorced.
Instruments
Typology. We conducted a profile analysis of the MMPI-2’s
(Butcher et al., 1989) eight clinical scales (i.e.,
Hypochondriasis,
Depression, Hysteria, Psychopathic Deviant, Paranoia,
Psychoas-
thenia, Schizophrenia, and Hypomania). This analysis involved
identifying the predominant code type (e.g., 2- or 3-point
highest
score elevations) for each participant.
Masculinity and Self-Esteem scales. Masculinity constructs
were examined using the four MMPI-2 scales that emphasize
gender role: Masculinity-Femininity (Mf), Gender Role-
Feminine
(GF), Gender Role-Masculine (GM), and Ego-Inflation (Ma4).
Interpretable scores are those with T scores of 65 or higher and
T
scores less than 45 (Greene, 2000). Men who score higher on
the
Mf scale are described as dependent, insecure regarding their
masculinity, passive, and identify with feminine roles. Lower
scoring men strongly identify with traditional masculine role
and
present as extremely masculine. Men with higher scores on the
GF
scale have stereotypic feminine characteristics such as
sensitivity

and interdependency while lower scorers have little interest in
stereotypic feminine interests. Higher scores on the GM scale
are
self-confident, independent, and engage in stereotypic
masculine
activities. Lower scorers are fearful, socially introverted, and
have
little interest in masculine activities. Lower scorers on the Ma4
scale have stereotypic feminine characteristics (e.g., ease in
speak-
ing about emotions, preference for cooperation) and higher
scores
represent stereotypic masculine characteristics (e.g., impulsive-
ness, rebelliousness, and hostility). Higher scorers on the Low
Self-Esteem scale (LSE) reflect feeling less capable, less self-
confident, and more dependent. Low scorers view themselves as
capable and self-confident. The LSE scale measures the same
constructs as earlier research (e.g., dependency, self-
confidence)
using self-report measures (e.g., Murphy et al., 1994). With the
exception of the Ma4 scale (.44), coefficient alphas ranged from
.60 to .79 (Graham, 2000).
Assessing for IPV and parent violence. Participants were
assessed to be either partner violent or nonpartner violent based
on
arrest records, victim reports, face-to-face interviews, and
partner
responses on the 19-item Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus,
1979). The CTS assesses three types of aggression (current
study
alphas): (a) psychological aggression (.74)(e.g., insulted,
swore);
(b) mild/moderate physical aggression (.77) (e.g., pushed,
slapped,
grabbed); and (c) severe physical aggression (.86)(e.g., kicked,

choked, beat up). A dichotomous variable was created denoting
engagement in either mild/moderate IPV or severe IPV.
Evidence
supports both the content and construct validity of the CTS
(Straus,
1979). Only the mild and severe physical aggression subscales
were used as the focus of this research was IPV. Psychological
aggression was not included.
We obtained information about exposure to interparental vio-
lence with one question: Were you ever exposed to parent-on-
parent violence during the time you were growing up at home?
Examples of interparental violence were included. Their
response
was cross checked with the police report, historical information
in
the men’s files, and interview material. We found no
inconsisten-
cies between these sources.
262 LAWSON, BROSSART, AND SHEFFERMAN
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co

al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.

Procedures
Participants were administered the CTS and the MMPI-2 in
groups of 15 to 30. The men were informed about the study and
signed a consent form approved by the university IRB if they
were
willing to participate. They completed demographic forms and
signed consent forms at the time of administration. Participants
were interviewed individually to determine the nature of the of-
fence, criminal history, family history, work history, and a psy-
chosocial history.
MMPI-2 profile analysis. The eight clinical scales were used
to identify the predominant code type (i.e., spike, 2- or 3-point
highest scores). Profiles were examined for predominant high
point code types with T-scores of �65, denoting clinically
signif-
icant profiles. Next, clinical profiles were separated into similar
code type groups based on interpretive materials.
Results
Several analyses were conducted to examine the hypotheses.
First, a profile analysis was conducted with the MMPI-2 to
deter-
mine typology groups based on psychopathology. Next, based
on
the resulting groups, we compared the groups on demographic
variables and gender role variables. Finally, we compared the
groups on violence variables.
Profile Analysis of MMPI-2
Prior to the primary analysis, we determined specific typology
groups based on the predominant MMPI-2 code type. The group
designations (e.g., antisocial) are based on typologies

associated
with specific behavioral features in the IPV literature (e.g.,
Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). Group designations should
not be viewed as formal diagnostic categories but groups of
similar, but not necessarily identical, symptom clusters that
have
characteristics akin to specific diagnostic categories. Although
the
groupings are comprised of similar profiles symptoms, there is a
degree of heterogeneity within each group.
Code type composition. We identified four groups of inti-
mately violent men based on predominant code types.
Responses
by men in group one (n � 19) indicated chronic distress and
serious psychological problems characterized by emotional
insta-
bility, anxiety, anger, depression, low self-esteem, dependency,
impulsivity, irritability, and interpersonal insensitivity. All 19
cases had scale elevation combinations of 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 code
types that are often associated with borderline personality
features
(Bell-Pringle, Pate, & Brown, 1997; Kelley & King, 1979;
Trull,
1991). The majority of cases had one of the following profile
configurations: 8-4-2, 8-2-4, 8-4-7, or 8-2-7 (see Table 1 for
specific typology code types). Furthermore, the 19 cases were
not
well defined, because the top two or three scores for the code
type
definition were often accompanied by two to three additional
elevations that were less than 5 points lower and still in the
high
(65–70) to very high (70 –79) range. Within this group, 21.1%
(n � 4) engaged in mild to moderate partner violence, 78.9% (n
�

15) engaged in severe partner violence, and 53% (n � 10)
reported
exposure to parent violence.
The predominant psychological/behavioral characteristic of
group 2 (n � 24) was strong antisocial features. The overriding
characteristics of this group were rebellion toward authority,
acting
out behavior, anger, hostility, and interpersonal problems. Addi-
tional characteristics included egocentricity, lack of insight into
their own behavior, and low frustration tolerance and poor self-
control. Furthermore, scale 4 (Psychopathic Deviant) was either
the highest or next highest score. The 4-9/9-4 and spike 4 were
the
most common code types (see Table 1). Forty-six percent (n �
10)
engaged in mild to moderate partner violence, 54% (n � 13)
engaged in severe partner violence, and 54% (n � 13) reported
exposure to parent violence.
The third group (n � 26) had profiles with a number of char-
acteristics similar to group 1, including chronic and serious psy-
chological problems, emotional instability, intense anxiety, and
interpersonal problems. However, they are distinct from the
other
groups because of a number of strong psychotic features such as
confusion, disorientation, deep mistrust of others, disturbance
in
thought, and feeling alienated from others. Spike 9, spike 6, 9-
6,
and 8-9 were the most common (Table 1). Within group 3,
57.7%
(n � 15) engaged in mild/moderate partner violence, 42.3% (n
�
11) engaged in severe partner violence, and 46.2% (n � 12)

reported exposure to parent violence.
Results for the fourth group (n � 26) indicated that all eight
clinical scales were within normal limits. Within the group,
61.5%
(n � 16) engaged in mild/moderate partner violence, 38.5% (n
�
10) engaged in severe partner violence, and 15.4% (n � 4) re-
ported exposure to family of origin violence. These men were
identified as nonpathological partner abusers.
The fifth group consisted of nonpartner-violent men who were
on probation for nonviolent crimes. Of the 26 men, 7 had
clinically
elevated scores. The clinically elevated code types were as
follow:
1-2-9, 1-3-2, 3-9-2, spike 8, spike 9 (n � 2) and 9-8.
Group Comparison for Demographic Variables
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted
to examine differences between the four profile derived types of
intimately violent men and the one nonpartner-violent group on
marital status, education, age, and ethnicity. There was a
signifi-
cant main effect between the five groups on these three
variables,
multivariate F(16, 345) � 2.3, p � .03 (�2 � .074). Significant
differences were found between the groups on age ( p � .05),
with
the borderline group being significantly older (M � 36.4, SD �
9.2) than the psychotic features group (M � 27.4, SD � 6.2).
Table 1
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) Code
Types for Typology Groups of Partner-Violent Men

Borderline features
(n � 19)
Antisocial features
(n � 24)
Psychotic features
(n � 26)
8–4-2 (n � 3) 4–9 (n � 3) 9 (n � 10)
8–4-7 (n � 9) 9–4 (n � 3) 9–6 (n � 5)
8–2-4 (n � 2) 4 (n � 9) 8
8–2-7 4–1 (n � 2) 8–6
2–3-4 (n � 2) 4–2 8–7
2–6 (n � 2) 4–3 8–9 (n � 3)
4–6 (n � 3) 6 (n � 5)
4–7
4–8
MEN
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i

s
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss

oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic

le
is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di

vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.

Group Comparison for Gender Role Variables
A MANOVA was performed to examine differences between
the four profile derived partner-violent groups and one
nonpartner-
violent group on the five gender variables. There was a main
effect
indicating differences between the groups, multivariate, F(20,
372) � 4.0, p � .001 (�2 � .154). Between-subjects effects
were
significantly different ( p � .05) for all variables except the Mf
scale. Post hoc analyses indicated a number of between group
differences (Table 2).
The borderline group reported being more fearful, socially in-
troverted, and having less interest in masculine activities (GM)
than all the other groups except the psychotic features group.
Further, this group reported feeling less capable, less
competent,
less self-confident, less adequate, more insecure, and more
depen-
dent (LSE) than all groups.
Similar to the borderline group but less extreme, the psychotic
features group reported feeling less capable, less competent,
less
self-confident, and more dependent (LSE) than all groups
except
the borderline group. This group also reported more traditional
masculine characteristics (e.g., impulsive, rebellious, and
hostile;
Ma4) than all groups except the antisocial group.
The antisocial group reported a lower level of interest in ste-

reotypic feminine activities (e.g., interpersonal affiliation; GF),
than the nonpathological domestic violence group. They viewed
themselves as more capable and self-confident (LSE) when
com-
pared with the borderline and psychotic features groups. Scores
indicated a narcissistic, over evaluation of their abilities.
As anticipated, the nonpathological IPV group and the
nonpartner-violent group reported no extreme scores when com-
pared with the other three groups. Overall, results partially
support
Hypothesis 1, with only the antisocial group reporting a
consistent
traditional masculine gender role when compared with other
groups.
Comparison of Intimate Violent Groups on Violence
Variables
The borderline (53%) and antisocial groups (54%) reported the
most exposure to family of origin violence, �2(3, N � 95) �
41.98,
p � .000, followed by the psychotic features group (46.2%), and
nonpathological abuse group (15.4%). Furthermore, men in the
borderline group (78.9%) engaged in more severe IPV than any
of
the other partner-violent groups, �2(3, N � 95) � 42.60, p �
.000,
followed by the antisocial, psychotic features, and
nonpathological
abusers groups (54%, 42.3%, and 38.5 respectively). These
results
support Hypothesis 2.
Discussion

Results indicated similarities and differences between the vari-
ous abuser types and gender role characteristics, thus providing
support for using the MMPI-2 to obtain a general profile of
gender
role for partner-violent men. The borderline group reported the
most consistent traditional feminine gender role orientation of
all
groups. With respect to the borderline group, results support re-
search indicating that low self-esteem and dependency are
associ-
ated with IPV (Flournoy et al., 1989; Hale et al., 1988) and
specifically, with borderline partner abusers (Holtzworth-
Munroe
et al., 2000). However, these results clearly contradict research
that
attributes IPV to more stereotypic masculine characteristics
(Par-
rott & Zeichner, 2003). Dutton (2007) holds that IPV
perpetrated
by men with borderline personality features is often a result of
exposure to parental violence, attachment anxiety, dependency,
and fear of abandonment. The borderline group in the present
study reported similar characteristics such as being fearful,
inse-
cure, and dependent, along with a majority having been exposed
to
parental violence. Perhaps these personal characteristics along
with traditional feminine gender role contribute to IPV for this
group.
In contrast, the antisocial group reported more features associ-
ated with a traditional masculine gender role when compared
with
the borderline, psychotic features, and nonpathological groups.
These characteristics are in greatest contrast to those of the bor-

derline group but are consistent with theories of masculinity
that
attribute IPV to hypermasculinity (Parrott & Zeichner, 2003),
traditional masculinity (Thompson, 1991), and masculine
ideology
(Jakupcak et al., 2002).
Research indicates that antisocial and borderline men tend to be
the
most violent of the IPV types (Holtzworth-Munroe et al. 2000;
Waltz
et al., 2000). Some suggest that the exposure to family violence
in
childhood and the severity of psychopathology may account for
this
fact (Ehrensaft et al., 2006). This is consistent with our results
indi-
Table 2
Post Hoc Gender Role Between Group Differences (Profile-
Derived Groups)
Variables
Clusters M (SD)
FBorderline Antisocial Psychotic features Nonpathological
Nonviolent
Mf 47.5 (6.2) 43.16 (6.5) 43.8 (8.1) 42.1 (6.8) 45.5 (8.4) 0.76
GM 38.5 (7.8) 48.12 (10.4) 44.6 (9.4) 50.5 (7.6) 50.5 (9.8)
6.40a�,b��,c��
GF 45.3 (10.0) 41.4 (7.7) 43.2 (9.1) 50.2 (7.8) 45.1 (10.4)
2.70e�

Ma4 54.4 (11.3) 58.8 (8.8) 64.2 (10.9) 53.3 (7.7) 54.4 (11.7)
3.60 f�,g��,h�
LSE 64.3 (9.3) 44.2 (6.7) 54.4 (9.6) 44.8 (6.5) 45.4 (10.5) 13.8
a��,b��,c��,d�,f�,g��,h��
Note. Mf � Masculinity/Femininity; GM � Gender-Role
Masculine; GF � Gender-Role Feminine; Ma4 � Ego-Inflation;
LSE � Low Self-Esteem.
a Contrast between borderline and antisocial was significant. b
Contrast between borderline and nonpathological was
significant. c Contrast between
borderline and nonpartner violent was significant. d Contrast
between psychotic features and antisocial was significant. e
Contrast between antisocial and
nonpathological was significant. f Contrast between psychotic
features and borderline was significant. g Contrast between
psychotic features and
nonpathological was significant. h Contrast between psychotic
features and nonviolent was significant.
� p � .05. �� p � .01.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i

cating that the borderline and antisocial groups have the highest
use of
severe violence and the highest rate of exposure to parental
violence.
A sole, monolithic gender role may be a less prominent
influence on
IPV when more serious psychopathology and exposure to
parental
violence are present. However, the fact that the borderline and
anti-
social groups represent different traditional gender roles may
indicate
some contribution of gender role to IPV. Although
counterintuitive,
perhaps either gender role taken to a more extreme traditional
level
(masculine or feminine) contributes to IPV.
The psychotic features group reported characteristics associated
with both traditional masculinity and traditional feminine
gender
role when compared with the other groups, making it distinct
among all the groups. Furthermore, this group reported the third
highest amount of exposure to family of origin violence and use
of
severe violence. This group may approximate what some refer
to
as a multidimensional view of masculinity (Levant, 1996). It
assumes there is no single criterion for masculinity or a single
invariant masculine ideology as masculinity is a social
construc-
tion and varies with age, social class, race/ethnic group, and life
stage.

The nonpathological intimately violent and the nonpartner
violence groups scores were in the normal range on masculine
gender role compared with the other three groups. Their scores
support the view that a less traditional gender role is less
associated with IPV. Of the five groups, we would expect these
two to be the most flexible in gender role. Furthermore, the
nonpathological violent group reported the least exposure to
parental IPV and used severe violence the least of the violent
groups. This is consistent with the evidence linking severity of
psychopathology and exposure to parental IPV, to severity of
IPV (Chase et al., 2001).
Limitations
This study had several limitations. Arguably, the most signifi-
cant limitation was the relatively moderate sample size. This
may
have reduced the power to detect additional significant
differences
and relationships. Furthermore, participants may have provided
socially desirable responses even though they were informed
that
names would not be affixed to their response materials nor
would
they be shared with probation officers. Finally, a limitation
noted
from the outset was using the MMPI-2 to evaluate masculine
gender role. Other instruments would provide more fine grain
and
contemporary gender role information such as the Male Role
Norms Scale (Thompson & Pleck, 1986) or the Gender Role
Conflict Scales (O’Neil et al., 1986). However, most clinicians
would be less likely to use such instruments in practice, which
was
a major premise of this article.

Clinical Implications
Treatment programs that employ feminist-based treatment mod-
els emphasize resocialization of abusers with respect to their
views
of women, power, and control. This focus assumes all male
partner
abusers hold to traditional masculine roles and attitudes,
including
the use of violence to dominate women (Pence & Paymar,
1993).
Thus, much of treatment focuses on challenging and changing
traditional masculine gender roles. Although the MMPI-2 scales
do not address men’s “right to dominate women,” traditional
masculine gender roles often support such beliefs and ultimately
IPV (Loseke & Kurz, 2005). From this perspective, IPV is about
challenges to a man’s authority, self-esteem, and status. Our
results
suggest that treatment should include a focus on both masculine
and feminine traditional gender roles and how they contribute to
IPV, especially for antisocial and borderline types.
Furthermore, a
partner-violent male may subscribe to both masculine and femi-
nine traditional gender roles, as with the psychotic features
group.
Thus, therapists should be sensitive to a multidimensional
perspec-
tive regarding gender role.
In sum, these results support the view that partner-violent men
are a diverse group in terms of psychopathology and severity of
IPV, but also in gender role. Thus, treatment must be tailored to
the
person not one stereotypic view of masculine gender role. Not-
withstanding its limitations as noted, the MMPI-2 appears to be

a
useful instrument for obtaining general profile information on
traditional gender role for partner-violent men.
References
Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does
batterers’ treatment
work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment.
Clinical
Psychology Review, 23, 1023–1053.
Beesley, F., & McGuire, J. (2009). Gender-role identity and
hypermascu-
linity in violent offending. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 251–
268.
Bell-Pringle, V. J., Pate, J. L., & Brown, R. C. (1997).
Assessment of
borderline personality disorder using the MMPI-2 and the
Personality
Assessment Inventory. Assessment, 4, 131–139.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A.,
& Kaem-
mer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
(MMPI-
2): Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis:
University of
Minnesota Press.
Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital
aggression:
Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives.
Archives of
Internal Medicine, 152, 1178 –1184.

Chase, K. A., O’Leary, K. D., & Heyman, R. E. (2001).
Categorizing
partner-violent men within the reactive-proactive typology
model. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 567–572.
Dixon, L., & Browne, K. (2003). The heterogeneity of spouse
abuse: A
review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 107–130.
Dobash, R., & Dobash, R. (1998). Rethinking violence against
women.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dutton, D. G. (2007). The abusive personality (2nd ed). New
York:
Guilford.
Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. G. (2006).
Development of
personality disorder symptoms and the risk for partner violence.
Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 474 – 483.
Erwin, M. J., Gershon, R. R., Tiburzi, M., & Lin, S. (2005).
Reports of
intimate partner violence made against police officers. Journal
of Family
Violence, 20, 13–19.
Flournoy, P. S., & Wilson, G. L. (1991). Brief Research Report:
Assess-
ment of MMPI profiles of male batterers. Violence and Victims,
6(4),
309 –320.

Gottman, J. M., Jacobson, N. S., Rusche, R. H., Short, J. W.,
Babcock, J.,
LaTallidade, J. J., et al. (1995). The relationship between heart
rate
reactivity, emotionally aggressive behavior, and general
violence in
batterers. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 227–248.
Graham, J. R. (2000). MMPI-2: Assessing Personality and
Psychopathol-
ogy (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Greene, R. L. (2000). The MMPI-2: An interpretive manual
(2nd ed).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hale, G., Duckworth, J., Zimostrad, S., & Nicholas, D. (1988).
Abusive
MEN
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s

co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc

ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le

is
in
te
nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi

du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.

partners: MMPI profiles of male batterers. Journal of Mental
Health
Counseling, 10, 214 –224.
Hamberger, L. K. (2005). Men’s and women’s use of intimate
partner
violence in clinical samples: Toward a gender sensitive
analysis. Vio-
lence and Victims, 20, 131–151.
Hamberger, L. K. (2008). Twenty-five years of change in
working with
partner abusers-Part II: Observations from the trenches about
changes in
understanding of abusers and abusers treatment. Journal of
Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 17, 1–22.
Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. F.
(1996). A large
sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its
relationship to
dimensions of abuse. Violence and Victims, 11, 277–292.
Harway, M., & O’Neil, J. M. (Eds.). (1999). What causes men’s
violence
against women? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U.,
& Stuart,
G. L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994)
batterer
typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68,
1000 –
1019.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of
male
batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them.
Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 116, 476 – 497.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Stuart, G. L., & Hutchinson, G. (1997).
Violent
versus nonviolent husbands: Differences in attachment patterns,
depen-
dency, and jealousy. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 314 –
331.
Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2002). The role of
masculine
ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration
of
relationship violence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3,
97–106.
Jennings, J. L., & Murphy, C. M. (2000). Male-male dimensions
of
male-female battering: A new look at domestic violence.
Psychology of
Men and Masculinity, 1, 21–29.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common
couple violence:
Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and
the
Family, 57, 283–294.
Kelley, C., & King, G. (1979). Behavioral correlates of
infrequent 2-point
MMPI code types at a University Mental Health Clinic. Journal

of
Clinical Psychology, 35, 576 –585.
Lawson, D. M., Weber, D., Beckner, H. M., Robinson, L.,
Marsh, N., &
Cool, A. (2003). Men who use violence: Intimate violence
versus non-
intimate violence profiles. Violence and Victims, 18, 259 –277.
Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional
Psychol-
ogy: Research and Practice, 27, 259 –265.
Loseke, D. R., & Kurz, D. (2005). Men’s violence toward
women is the
serious social problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & Mary
M.
Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence
(2nd ed.,
pp. 79 –96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Millon, T. (1983). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory.
Minneapolis, MN:
National Computer Systems.
Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2005). A review of the literature
on
masculinity and partner violence. Psychology of Men and
Masculinity, 6,
46 – 61.
Murphy, C. M., Meyer, S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1994).
Dependency char-
acteristics of partner assaultive men. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology,
103, 729 –733.

Nichols, D. S., & Greene, R. L. (1995). MMPI-2 structural
summary
interpretive manual. Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment
Resources
Inc.
O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B., Gable, R., David, L., & Wrightsman,
L. (1986).
Gender Role Conflict Scale: College men’s fear of femininity.
Sex Roles,
14, 335–350.
Office of Violence Against Women. (2009, March). About
domestic vio-
lence. Retrieved from
http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/domviolence.htm
Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of
hypermasculinity on
physical aggression against women. Psychology of Men and
Masculin-
ity, 4, 70 –78.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who
batter:
The Duluth model. New York: Springer.
Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update.
In R. F.
Levant & W. S. Pollock (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp.
11–32).
New York: Basic Books.
Saunders, D. G. (1992). A typology of men who batter: Three

types derived
from cluster analysis. American Orthopsychiatry, 62, 264 –275.
Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Yossef, S., Baum, L. J., Erez, E., &
Gregory, C.
(2008). Predictive validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical
(RC)
scales in a batterers’ intervention program. Journal of
Personality As-
sessment, 90, 129 –135.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and
violence: The
Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 41,
75– 88.
Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in
reporting marital
violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M.
A.
Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American
families:
Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp.
151–166).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence
by women:
A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science
analysis. In
X. B. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate
relationships
(pp. 17– 44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson, E. H. (1991). The maleness of violence in dating

relationships:
An appraisal of stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 261–279.
Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male
role norms.
American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the
prevalence, inci-
dence, and consequences of intimate partner violence against
women:
Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey.
Retrieved
from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf
Trull, T. (1991). Discriminant validity of the MMPI-Borderline
Personality
Disorder Scale. Psychological Assessment, 3, 232–238.
Wallace, R., & Nosko, A. (1993). Working with shame in group
treatment
of male batterers. International Group Psychotherapy, 43, 45–
61.
Waltz, J., Babcock, J. C., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M.
(2000).
Testing a typology of batterers. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical
Psychology, 68, 658 – 669.
White, R. J., & Gondolf, E. W. (2000). Implications of
personality
profiles for batterer treatment. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 15,
467– 488.

Widom, C. S. (1989). Does violence beget violence?
Psychological Bul-
letin, 106, 3–28.
Yllo, K. (2005). Through a feminist lens: Gender, diversity, and
violence.
In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & Mary M. Cavanaugh (Eds.),
Current
controversies on family violence (2nd ed., pp. 19 –34).
Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Received September 18, 2009
Revision received February 22, 2010
Accepted March 2, 2010 �
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t i
s
co
py
ri

gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n

or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te

nd
ed
s
ol
el
y
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u

se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
This is an example only assignment. PLEASE DO NOT
COPY!!!!

For this discussion question, I have been asked to take on the
role of a counselor of a mental health facility, and asses and
evaluate the case study of June Smith. Before we move forward
in this assigned topic. I would first like to explain and define
what the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
(MMPI-2) is. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-
2 is a test that is given to people who are believed to have some
kind of mental illness. In an article called Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 profiles of Patients with
Gender Identity Disorder Requesting Sex Reassignment surgery,
the article states, “(MMPI-2) have been used in many studies to
understand psychopathology in patients with GID … (MMPI-2)
demonstrates depression and varied psychopathology while
some studies fail to demonstrate any psychopathology and may
point out toward GID being a disorder” (Kari, S. 2016. Pg.
444).
As a counselor the first thing that I would like to give jane
would be the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), by
giving Jane this test, it will help me better understand Janes and
what is exactly her needs, to better help her during this difficult
time in her life. From the test results, we first noticed that Janes
score on depression came out to (T=94) which may indicate that
Jane may be feeling lack of hope or dissatisfaction with her life.
“depression symptoms take many forms and no two people
experiences are alike … they may be feeling completely
unmotivated to do just about anything” (Gruholn M.J. 2016).
Secondly, we have also noticed that Janes assessment result also
indicated that she scored a (T=92) on the Psychedelia which
indicates that Jane may be having a phase of obsessive-
compulsive disorder (OCD). Jane could be doing a number of
things to satisfy her obsession, for example, Jane could be a
perfectionist when things are out of place, many times people
with OCD. Also, according to Janes test results, she also suffers
from high levels of depression (D1=101, D2= T=89..) However,
what really captures my attention on Jane’s Social Introversion
scale is that she scored a (T=79) which indicates a chance of

suicidal. With this being said as the counselor I am not allowed
to let the patient just leave or walk out. In this situation what I
must do then is to have another staff step in to have that extra
support, then it would be best for Jane if I have her transported
to a facility where they will be able to do a full assessment and
to see what would be the best treatment for her. According to
the article called, Managing Suicide attempts: Guidelines of
Primary Care Physician it states, “The Patient should not be
allowed to leave the office until the physician can thoroughly
asses his or her condition” (Carrigan, G. et al. Pg. 2). In janes
reaction to stress, it has been documented that she is
overwhelmed and many of time she tends to withdraw from the
group by isolating herself. In this case what I would
recommend it to start reintroducing jane into a social setting.
But before we move forward I must first mentally prepare Jane,
for what she will be experiencing. Through meditation, Jane
must be able to calm herself, once this is established the next
step would be to attend a social gathering small crowd and a
location that she would feel most comfortable in. I would also
recommend that jane bring a close friend or relative for support.
According to an article called Isolation help it states, “Spend
less time on social media, and instead invite social media
friends to in-person outings, if you feel isolated with kids at
home, ask a friend or family member for help with childcare.
Even an hour of "adult time" each week can help ward off
loneliness” (Good Therapy, 2016). With further analysis of
janes test, it has indicated that jane, “social judgment appeared
good, as evidenced by appropriate interaction with staff and
other patients in the center and by cooperative efforts to achieve
treatment goals required for discharge” (Case study). What I
would also recommend is that jane continue to see a therapist,
in order to prevent any depression occurring in the future, this
time Jane was not affected as bad with depression however if
this happens again and Jane does not continue to seek help her
depression may become worse. I would recommend a treatment
jane to participate in art treatment, according to the article, Art

therapy as an adjuvant treatment for depression in elderly
women: a randomized controlled trial the article states, “ Art
therapy can help establish communication between patient and
therapist and may aid in the emergence of personality aspects or
facts of life to be dealt with in the therapeutic process…An art
therapy session is often preceded by activities that promote
relaxation and introspection, such as mental imagery. It can be
used to link sensory perception and emotions, and thus relieve
the discomfort associated with mood disorders (Eliana C.
Ciasca, 2018. Pg. 257).
References
Carrigan CG1, Lynch DJ, (2003). Managing Suicide Attempts:
Guidelines for the Primary Care Physician. Department of
Family Medicine, The Medical College of Ohio, Toledo.
5(4):169-174. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419387
Ciasca, Eliana C.; Ferreira, Rita C.; Santana, Carmen L. A.;
Forlenza, Orestes V.; dos Santos, Glenda D.; Brum, Paula S.;
Nunes, Paula V. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria. Jul-Sep2018,
Vol. 40 Issue 3, p256-263. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=c424
20d4-1791-4196-93eb-f1f52211e471%40sessionmgr4010
Karia, Sagar; Jamsandekar, Sanhita; Alure, Alpa; De Sousa,
Avinash; Shah, Nilesh. Indian Journal of Psychological
Medicine. Sep/Oct2016, Vol. 38 Issue 5, p443-446. Retrieved
from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=c424
20d4-1791-4196-93eb-f1f52211e471%40sessionmgr4010
Good Therapy, 2007-2018, https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-
about-therapy/issues/isolation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication
at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263596981
MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their
Success: A Field Survey
Article in Project Management Journal · June 2013
DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21338
CITATIONS
23
READS
10,100
3 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on
these related projects:
Personal Rapid Transit - PRT View project
Re-layout of an assembly area: A case study at Bosch Rexroth
Oil Control View project
Yuval Cohen
Afeka Tel-Aviv Academic College of Engineering
99 PUBLICATIONS 493 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Hana Ornoy
The Open University of Israel
SEE PROFILE
Baruch Keren
Shamoon College of Engineering
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Baruch Keren
on 10 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263596981_MBTI_Per
sonality_Types_of_Project_Managers_and_Their_Success_A_Fi
eld_Survey?enrichId=rgreq-
ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo
1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%
3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263596981_MBTI_Per
sonality_Types_of_Project_Managers_and_Their_Success_A_Fi
eld_Survey?enrichId=rgreq-

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Personal-Rapid-Transit-
PRT?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Re-layout-of-an-assembly-
area-A-case-study-at-Bosch-Rexroth-Oil-
Control?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-
https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yuval_Cohen2?enrichId=r
greq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Afeka_Tel-
Aviv_Academic_College_of_Engineering?enrichId=rgreq-

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hana_Ornoy?enrichId=rgre
q-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/The_Open_University_
of_Israel?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Baruch_Keren?enrichId=rg
req-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Shamoon_College_of_
Engineering?enrichId=rgreq-

P
A
P
E
R
S
78 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI:
10.1002/pmj
INTRODUCTION ■
N
ominating a project manager with a personality profile that
matches
the project he or she will be heading is one of the most
influential
decisions for the success of a project (Turner & Müller, 2006).
For
any project that requires substantial management effort, the
com-

petency of its project manager is an essential ingredient for its
success
(Müller & Turner, 2010). Bredillet (2008) also identifies the
project manager
as affecting project success while presenting the success as one
of the nine
major research perspectives on project management. Turner,
Huemann,
Anbari, and Bredillet (2010) develop and discuss these “nine
schools of proj-
ect management” and dedicate a chapter to the subject under
consideration
titled “Choosing appropriate project managers: Matching their
leadership
style to the type of project.” In this chapter, they identify the
project manager
as a major factor related to project success and discuss the
relationship
between his or her leadership style and the success or failure of
projects.
Project success factors are parts of a broad field of research and
there are
many other such factors in addition to the project manager’s
personality
(Cooke-Davies, 2002; Fortune & White, 2006; Westerveld,
2003).
This paper describes a survey of 280 project managers, which
reveals both
their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality traits
(Hammer &
Barger, 1996) and their success. The paper uses the survey to
study the rela-
tionship between the MBTI personality type classification of

project man-
agers and the success of their projects. In general, personality
may be regard-
ed as a complex system of traits (Mischel & Shoda, 1995); the
MBTI focuses
on a relevant part of that system and describes it using major
four dichoto-
mous traits. The combinations of these traits and their
implications are well
documented in MBTI literature (e.g., Hirsh & Kummerow,
2007; Michael,
2003).
Compared with other managers, project managers must be more
suited
to tackling non-routine activities and uncertain environments
(Leybourne &
Sadler-Smith, 2006); this requires both creative thinking and
quantitative
analysis (Tullett, 1996). The survey clearly shows that, in
comparison with
the rest of the population, project managers have personality
types charac-
terized not only by a willingness to risk making decisions with
partial data,
but also less readiness to give up thorough analysis of the scant
data they
have. These personality types characterize managers who can
logically spec-
ulate about the future and would feel more comfortable doing so
than the
rest of the population.
MBTI Personality Types of Project
Managers and Their Success:
A Field Survey

Yuval Cohen, The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel
Hana Ornoy, The Lander Academic College, Jerusalem, Israel;
The Open University of Israel,
Raanana, Israel
Baruch Keren, SCE—Shamoon College of Engineering, Beer-
Sheva, Israel
ABSTRACT ■
This paper describes a survey of 280 project
managers that reveals both their personality
types (via Myers-Briggs personality inventory)
and their success in project management. The
results show that a project manager’s personali-
ty is better suited for functioning with partial
data and under ambiguity than the rest of the
population. These traits were found for both
women and men. The conclusion is that project
managers (females and males) have a unique
personality-type distribution that distinguishes
them from the general population. The findings
can contribute to better understanding the traits
that characterize the project management popu-
lation, and their relationship to project success.
KEYWORDS: project management; person-
ality; key success factors; personality types;
Myers-Briggs; MBTI
Project Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3, 78–87
© 2013 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21338

June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
79
Project managers face more chal-
lenges in planning, organizing, and
motivating efforts. The fit between a
project manager’s personality and the
nature of the project that he or she con-
ducts has received relatively scant
research attention (Dolfi & Andrews,
2007). Traditionally, more attention has
been paid in the literature to findings
about the qualifications of managers in
general (Colinson & Hearn, 1996;
Cromie, Callaghan, & Jensen, 1992) and
their psychological profiles (Kets de
Vries, 1991; Zaleznik, 1966). In recent
years, the differences between projects
and the different managerial practices
required for managing them have
attracted growing attention (e.g.,
Crawford, Hobbs, & Turner, 2004;
Shenhar, 1998; Shenhar & Dvir, 2004).
The relationship between a project man-
ager’s personality and the project type
was studied by Crawford et al. (2004),
and the implication of this relationship
on project success was studied by
Turner and Müller (2006), using MBTI.
Only a few previous studies have
addressed the personalities of project
managers and their influence on proj-
ect performance and success: Dolfi and

Andrews (2007) studied the effect of
optimism on a project manager’s ability
to overcome obstacles. A study based
on person–organization (P–O) theory
and Holland’s (1997) classification of
vocational personalities was presented
by Dvir, Sadeh, and Malach-Pines
(2006) and Sadeh, Dvir, and Malach-
Pines (2007). The P–O theory is based
on the fit between the individual’s
needs, desires, and preferences and the
position offered within the proposing
organization. In this study, the focus is
on whether the personality of the indi-
vidual project manager fits the job.
A more recent paper (Thal & Bedingfield,
2010) used the five-factor model (FFM)
for a similar purpose. Although FFM is a
descriptive model, Myers-Briggs was ini-
tially developed as a job matching and
assignment tool during World War II;
since then, this tool has improved and is
used by many job specialists and
human resource corporations (Myers-
Briggs & Myers, 1980; Rushton, Morgana, &
Richard, 2007). It is estimated that mil-
lions of people are assigned jobs annual-
ly around the world and many of them
are diagnosed by derivatives of the
Myers-Briggs questionnaire (Hammer &
Barger, 1996). Thus, the appointment of
a project manager, as well as other job
assignments, is more closely associated
with the Myers-Briggs personality ques-
tionnaire (e.g., Wideman, 2002) than

the FFM; therefore, this paper uses the
Myers-Briggs personality question-
naire, which is widely used by job
assignment specialists.
The remainder of the paper is struc-
tured as follows: the next section describes
the main themes in the Myers-Briggs
personality analysis method (typically
used in job fitting); then, a section is ded-
icated to the description of the survey
details and its administration; an addi-
tional section describes the results and
discusses their implications; and the
last section concludes the paper.
Myers-Briggs Personality Type
Classification
Although there is no real consensus yet
in psychology on what exactly consti-
tutes personality, intelligence, or lead-
ership, the wide use of scaling methods
is prevalent in describing them (e.g.,
MMPI, IQ, and CLI, respectively) and
other abstract psychological terms.
Trait theory in psychology is a trend to
emphasize the importance and central-
ity of stability parameters in human
personality. Carl Jung is considered to
be one of the first to emphasize this
approach ( Jung, 1990; Quenk, 2009;
Rushton et al., 2007); hence, different
models have been developed around
Jung’s theory. One of the better known
theories is the “Big Five Personality
Traits” that characterize humans by

placement in one or more of the follow-
ing five traits: Openness, Conscientiou-
sness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and
Neuroticism. Another model is the
Enneagram, a method that describes
nine personality types. According to
this theory, these nine types are subdi-
vided into three separate groups: the
triad of “feelings,” characterizing per-
sons with possible “feelings” problems;
the triad of “doing,” characterizing
problems related to performance; and
the triad of “power,” characterizing
problems related to control by power.
The Keirsey and Bates (1984) model
of personalities is also based on Jung’s
theories but gives them new and differ-
ent meanings. According to Keirsey’s
Temperament Theory, people can be
classified into four categories of Temper-
aments (Artisans, Guardians, Rationals,
and Idealists). Each of Keirsey’s four
scales detects a respondent’s preference
for Expressive versus Attentive, Obser-
vant versus Introspective, Tough-Minded
versus Friendly, and Scheduled versus
Probing.
One of the oldest and most popular
methods for classifying personality
traits as part of job fitting is the Myers-
Briggs personality type indicator
(Furnham, 1996; Hammer & Barger
1996). The Myers-Briggs type indicator

(MBTI) technique is a method based on
the personality theory of Jung (1990).
The technique was developed by
Katharine C. Briggs and her daughter
Isabel Briggs-Myers during World War II
to assist in fitting a person to a job and
vice versa (Quenk, 2009). The technique
involves answering a short questionnaire,
which enables classification of a person’s
traits according to four dichotomous
types: (1) Extrovert (E) versus Introvert (I);
(2) Sensing (S) versus Intuitive (N);
(3) Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F); and
(4) Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P). The
letters in parenthesis above are used
to symbolize each of the traits used to
describe personality, as shown in Table 1.
Thus, any person can be classified into
one of the 16 personality categories
shown in Figure 1.
The personality categories are use-
ful for matching a person to a job or a
task. The MBTI technique proved to be
useful during World War II and has been
popular ever since; for example, it was
reported that over two million MBTI
10.1002/pmj
P

A
P
E
R
S
questionnaires were administered dur-
ing 2006 (Rushton et al., 2007).
Keirsey and Bates (1984) adopted
the MBTI typology and used it to exam-
ine Jungian psychological preferences
known as temperament types. While
the MBTI uses 16 psychological types,
Keirsey and Bates categorized observed
behavior into four broad temperament
groups, which were suggested by prior
research: (1) sensing and judging (SJ),
(2) sensing and perceptive (SP),
(3) intuitive and thinking (NT), and
(4) intuitive and feeling (NF). Each of
the 16 psychological preferences could
be categorized into one of the four tem-
perament types. The research of Keirsey
and Bates has shown that SP and SJ
temperaments each represent approxi-
mately 38% of the general population,
whereas NT and NF temperament
types, each represents roughly 12% of
the general population.
Wideman (2002) compared the

characteristics of successful project
managers with the distribution of
MBTI types across the population, as
identified by Keirsey and Bates (1984).
Wideman categorizes the MBTI types
into groups that can be summarized as
follows:
1. Project leaders: INTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ,
ESTJ (—, —, T, J)
2. Project leaders and followers: INTP,
ENTP, ENFJ, ESFJ (—, N, T, P; E, —, F, J)
3. Project followers: INFJ, ISFJ (I, —, F, J)
4. Unsuited/Questionable: INFP, ISFP,
ESFP, ENFP, ISTP, ESTP (—, —, F, P; —,
S, T, P)
The results of our study (see Table 5)
show that the reported project success
rates of these groups did not reveal sig-
nificant differences.
Survey Details and Its
Administration
The survey was conducted using four
different questionnaires, each completed
by all participants, as follows:
(1) Self-developed questionnaire (based
on Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz,
2001), which examines how project
managers judge their project success
and performance in four dimen-
sions:

1. Project manager satisfaction with
following the planned framework
(e.g., spending within budget,
completion time within schedule,
performance meets specs).
2. Customer satisfaction with the
project (e.g., satisfaction based on
performance and deliverables).
3. Managerial satisfaction with the
project’s contribution to the orga-
nization’s overall success.
4. Overall satisfaction with the pro-
ject’s contribution to the future of
the organization (e.g., new research
and development capabilities).
The answers to the questions were
given on a Likert-type scale (1 to 5), with
1 being the lowest level of satisfaction
and 5 the highest (a non-applicable
option was marked by filling “99”). Prior
to the study, a test case of 10 project man-
ager participants was chosen to answer
the questionnaire; their answers revealed
that two questions were misunderstood,
so they were subsequently corrected.
Some minor changes in wording were
also made; however, most of the ques-
tionnaire remained unchanged.
All the participants’ answers were
converted to standard grades on a scale

of 0 to 100, and the mean grade for each
question was computed. Cronbach’s a
(alpha) of our questionnaire was 0.73,
validating its internal consistency.
(2) The Three Personality Factors ques-
tionnaire proposed by Jung (1921).
This questionnaire includes 33
questions, which are categorized
into three major personality charac-
teristics: (I) stability, (II) organiza-
tion, and (III) extroversion. The
grades are normalized to a scale of
0% to 100%, where 0% reflects the
Extroversion Introversion
Personality focused on the outside world, Personality focused
on the inner world,
gets its motivation from interaction with gets its motivation
from thought,
other people and by doing things. information, ideas, and
concepts.
Thinking Feeling
Person decides by logic and unbiased Person decides with
emphasis on the
analysis of cause and effect. Decisions try expected effect upon
feelings of others
to be objective without involving feelings, and the self. The
decision may be based
as much as possible. on gut feeling, tries to harmonize and
satisfy others.
Sensing Intuition
Person decides based on facts and trusts Person decides based

on intuition, rela-
palpable current facts, figures, and details. tionships, and
speculations.
Judging Perceiving
Person judges quickly and takes sides or Person tries to be a
spectator and leave
decides, wants to be part of the game—not themselves all the
options open as long
a spectator. More organized than as possible. Very slow to
judge.
spontaneous.
Table 1: The four dichotomies of the Myers-Briggs technique.
INTJINFJISFJ
ISFP
ESFP
ESFJESTJ
ESTP
ISTP
ISTJ
INFP
ENFP
ENFJ
INTP

ENTP
ENTJ
Figure 1: The 16 possible personality types of
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
81
lowest level of the feature and 100%
is the highest level of the feature.
(3) The Myers-Briggs questionnaire
(Myers-Briggs & Myers, 1980), which
reveals personality orientation along
four dichotomous scales: (I) Internal
versus external attention focus:
Introversion versus Extroversion;
(II) Style of receiving outside infor-
mation: Sensing versus Intuition;
(III) Decision-making style: Feeling
versus Thinking; and (IV ) Style of
involvement in the world arena:
Judgmental versus Perceiving.
(4) A self-developed socio-demographic
questionnaire, which examines the
gender, age, education level, marital
status, number of children, years of
work experience, years of experi-
ence as a project manager, industry
type, and organization’s name.

Sample Population
The participants were 280 managers
with experience in project manage-
ment, working in a variety of business
areas: software, construction, banking,
communications, food, engineering,
security, transportation, and education.
The participants’ average age was 38.7
years. In terms of gender: 72% were males
and 28% were females. Other studies and
Project Management Institute (PMI) data
suggest a male female distribution in
project management of approximately
66% male and 34% female (Cartwright &
Gale, 1995; Gale & Cartwright, 1995;
Stackman & Henderson, 2010; Tullett,
1996). So, the percentage of men versus
women in the survey is biased toward
men (but is still less than two standard
deviations from the population per-
centage). The average education level of
men in the study was 15 years and for
women 14.8 years (practically identi-
cal); however, their experience as a proj-
ect manager is very different (8.1 years
for men and 2.8 years for women).
Research Procedure
The participants were selected by a
group of MBA students who conducted
the field research as part of their studies.
The students came from various com-
panies in a variety of businesses and
typically picked participants from their

home organization; therefore, the 280
participants who volunteered to answer
the questionnaires can be considered a
representative sample. The question-
naires were given to the participants
between January and February of 2010.
The participants were given an explana-
tion of the research objective and
detailed guidance about how to fully
and accurately fill out the question-
naires. Filling out the questionnaire typ-
ically took 20 to 30 minutes and was
conducted under the supervision and
with the assistance of the MBA students,
who had been specially trained by the
researchers. The participating project
managers were assured that their priva-
cy would be protected (i.e., the results
would not be linked back to participants
and be used only for research purposes).
Data Analysis Method
The data were entered onto an Excel
spreadsheet, and averages and stan-
dard deviations as well as distributions
and statistical tests were computed on
copies of this spreadsheet.
The Survey Results
Empirical Type Distribution Among
Project Managers
Several studies discuss the general
personality-type distribution in the
population (e.g., Ball, 2001; Wideman,
2002) and others explore the personali-
ty-type distribution of special popula-

tions (e.g., Allison & Hobbs, 2010, for
natural resource managers.)
In Table 2, we compare the personality-
type distribution in the survey with the
same distribution estimated by the Myers-
Briggs Institute. The estimated frequency
of the total population is taken from the
Myers & Briggs Foundation and was
Survey Population vs. Total Population
Description Breakdown by Type Total
IJ INTJ INTJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ
Survey Empirical PM % 9.2% 2.3% 1.2% 7.3% 20%
Population % 2.1% 1.5% 13.8% 11.6% 29%
Difference �7.1% �0.8% 12.6% 4.3% 9%
IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP
Empirical PM % 9.2% 2.7% 2.3% 8.8% 23%
Population % 3.3% 4.4% 8.8% 5.4% 22%
Difference �5.9% 1.7% 6.5% �3.4% �1%
EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP
Empirical PM % 11.9% 4.2% 0.8% 4.6% 22%
Population % 3.2% 8.1% 8.5% 4.3% 24%
Difference �8.7% 3.9% 7.7% �0.3% 3%
EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ
Empirical PM % 12.7% 3.5% 2.7% 16.9% 36%
Population % 1.8% 2.4% 12.3% 8.7% 25%
Difference �10.9% �1.1% 9.6% �8.2% �11%
Total NT NF SF ST Total
Empirical PM % 43.1% 12.7% 6.9% 37.7% 100%
Population % 10.4% 16.4% 43.4% 30.0% 100%
Difference 32.7% �3.7% �36.5% 7.7% 0%
Source. The estimated frequency table was compiled by The

Myers & Briggs Foundation from a variety of MBTI
results between 1972 and 2002, including data banks at the
Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP,
Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Retrieved from
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-
type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp
Table 2: Total population personality type comparison: The
project manager survey versus the
general population.
10.1002/pmj
P
A
P
E
R
S
compiled from a variety of MBTI results
between 1972 and 2002, including data
banks at the Center for Applications of
Psychological Type; CPP, Inc.; and
Stanford Research Institute (SRI).
Table 2 shows major gaps in the SF
(Sensing, Feeling) and NT (Intuitive,

Thinking) columns. Overall, the survey
population has 36.5% fewer SF people
than the total population and 32.7%
more NT people than the total popula-
tion. These results are in line with studies
that relate project management to intu-
ition and thinking (e.g., Leybourne &
Sadler-Smith, 2006; Tullett, 1996). Berens
(2006) called the NT personality type
“Theorist,” whereas the SF type was
either “Stabilizer” or “Improviser.” Also,
of the judgmental (J) types in the first
and fourth rows, the survey has 10%
more extroverts (EJ) and 9% fewer
introverts (IJ) than the general popula-
tion. The slant toward extroverted
judgmental-type project managers may
be associated with communication
skills required for project leadership.
The goodness of fit test was used in
order to test the hypothesis (H0) that our
280 project managers (observed data)
have the same MBTI distribution as in
the general population (expected data).
The statistic is p with
9 degrees of freedom and it shows that
H0 must be rejected for any a � 0.01. The
conclusion is that project managers
form a special population.
Although these differences were
found for both males and females, they
were much more significant in females.

While 23.6% fewer SF types were found
among the males of our project man-
agers’ sample (compared with the total
male population), 48.4% fewer SF types
were found in the sample females
(compared with the total female popu-
lation). Furthermore, 25.0% more NT
types were found in males (compared
with the total male population), and
44.1% more NT types were found in
females (compared with the total female
population). Since approximately 56%
x2 � a
k
i � 1
(Oi � ei )
2
ei
of the females are the SF type, this phe-
nomenon excludes close to 50% of
women from taking part in the project
management profession.
The conclusion is that project man-
agers (females and males) have a
unique personality type, in terms of
MBTI distribution, which distinguishes
them from the general population. The
population of project managers has
many fewer SF types than the general
population and many more NT types.

In general, people in the NT category
focus on analyzing possibilities in an
ambiguous environment, whereas peo-
ple in the SF category base their focus
on gathering facts and human relations.
Because many projects are carried out in
an uncertain environment, project man-
agers have to manage their projects
based not only on facts but also by con-
sidering many possibilities. Myers-Briggs
(1962) claimed that the possibilities that
the NT people choose are often theoret-
ical or technical, whereas the human
elements are more or less ignored. It
seems that these NT characteristics are
the prevalent characteristics of project
managers. Tables 3 and 4 depict the
male and female distribution of project
managers compared with the general
public distribution.
Risk Preferences Among Project
Managers
While the MBTI personality type index
is not directly related to risk prefer-
ences, some researchers reported that
such a relationship exists. For example,
Henderson and Nutt (1980) found in
their study that SF managers are likely
to be risk takers, whereas the NT
MALE DATA: Project Managers vs Population
IJ INTJ INFJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ

Empirical Male % 7.0% 2.2% 1.1% 6.5% 17%
Male pop. % 3.3% 1.3% 8.1% 16.4% 29%
Difference 3.7% 0.9% �7.0% �9.9% �12%
Empirical Male % 8.1% 2.2% 1.6% 10.8% 23%
Male pop. % 4.8% 4.1% 7.6% 8.5% 25%
Difference 3.3% �1.9% �6.0% 2.3% �2%
Empirical Male % 12.4% 4.3% 0.0% 5.4% 22%
Male pop. % 4.0% 6.4% 6.9% 5.6% 23%
Difference 8.4% �2.1% �6.9% �0.2% �1%
Empirical Male % 12.4% 2.7% 3.8% 19.4% 38%
Male pop. % 2.7% 1.6% 7.5% 11.2% 23%
Difference 9.7% 1.1% �3.7% 8.2% 15%
Empirical Male % 39.8% 11.3% 6.5% 41.9% 99%
Male pop. % 14.8% 13.4% 30.1% 41.7% 100%
Difference 25.0% �2.1% �23.6% 0.2% �1%
Table 3: A comparison of the male project manager personality
type distribution with the overall
male population distribution.

83
and the NF groups take moderate risks, and
ST managers are the risk-averse group.
Filbeck, Hatfield, and Horvath (2005)
explored the relationship between the
personality type (MBTI) and risk toler-
ance of investors in the expected utility
theory framework. Their results conflict
with those of Henderson and Nutt and,
in fact, arrive at the opposite conclu-
sions. Filbeck et al. concluded that indi-
viduals with a preference for thinking
(T) tend to be more risk tolerant than
those with a preference for feeling (F).
Moreover, they concluded that individ-
uals with a preference for sensing (S)
are willing to tolerate more upside or
downside potential than those with a
preference for intuition (N), but the
sensing-intuition dimension did not
indicate any differences in risk toler-
ance as measured by variance. Note
that the results of our study are closer
to the results of Henderson and Nutt.
The opposite findings of Henderson and
Nutt compared to those of Filbeck et al.
may be attributed to the difference in
framework presented to the subjects by
the different questionnaires. For exam-
ple, the gap could be better explained if
Filbeck et al. present stock purchasing

in a way that F and N subjects perceive
as a risky gamble, whereas T and S sub-
jects perceive stock purchasing as a
statistical problem. An additional expla-
nation may be the different types of
subjects (managers and workers versus
students) and a different distribution of
characteristic combinations.
One of the main findings in this
paper is that project managers are much
more NT than the population and much
less SF (Table 2). The question is how this
fact might be related to the risk preference
of project managers. The MBTI classifica-
tion implies that the risk in a project man-
agement environment can be categorized
into two major dimensions: input risk
preference and output risk preference.
On the input side the sensing (S) project
manager is risk averse (decides by facts,
see Table 1), and the intuitive (N) project
manager is a risk taker (decides by intu-
ition and speculation). However, on the
output side, the thinking (T) project
manager is risk averse (decides by logic
and unbiased analysis), and the feeling
(F) project manager is more of a risk
taker (may decide by gut feeling). Since
project managers from the NT type
are more prevalent, they tend to manage
projects with less data and rely more on
their intuition. On the other hand, they
tend to be cautious and analyze whatever
data they have in order to make a good

decision. Our insight is that intuitive (N)
project managers can live with ambigui-
ty and less data better than others; there-
fore, they can take more risks on the
input side, meaning that collecting data
and facts is not as critical for them as for
the sensing (S) project managers.
However, project managers will then
perform a full analysis of whatever limit-
ed data they do have. These traits and
capabilities are very important for a per-
son who manages projects.
Types and Project Success
Project success was estimated using
many questions regarding compliance
with time, budget, and specifications,
as well as stakeholder satisfaction and
project effectiveness, and its contribu-
tion to the organization and its strategy.
The answers were normalized to a scale
of 0 to 100, and the average grade for
each personality type was computed.
Table 5 depicts the success estimation
as a function of personality type.
The results in Table 5 show that,
although NT is the most prevalent type,
the NT project managers have the low-
est reported success rates. At the other
end, while the fewest project managers
are SF types, these project managers
report the highest success rates. The
average grade of success in the survey is
74 (on a scale of 0 to 100). Although the
SF combination is rare (7% of project

FEMALE DATA: Project Managers vs Population
Empirical F. PM % 14.5% 2.6% 1.3% 9.2% 28%
Female pop. % 0.8% 1.6% 19.4% 6.9% 29%
Difference 13.7% 1.0% �18.1 2.3% �1%
Empirical F. PM % 11.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 24%
Female pop. % 1.8% 4.6% 9.9% 2.4% 19%
Difference 10.0% �0.7% �6.0% 1.5% 5%
Empirical F. PM % 10.5% 3.9% 2.6% 2.6% 20%
Female pop. % 2.4% 9.7% 10.1% 3.0% 25%
Difference 8.1% �5.8% �7.5% �4.0% �5%
Empirical F. PM % 13.2% 5.3% 0.0% 10.5% 29%
Female pop. % 0.9% 3.3% 16.9% 6.3% 27%
Difference 12.3% 2.0% �16.9% 4.2% 2%
Empirical F. PM % 50% 16% 8% 26% 100%
Female pop. % 5.90% 19.20% 56.30% 18.60% 100%
Difference 44.1% �3.4% �48.4% 7.7% 0%
Table 4: A comparison of the female project manager

personality type distribution with the overall
female population distribution.
10.1002/pmj
P
A
P
E
R
S
manager survey population) compared
with the NT combination (43% of the
survey population), the SF success
grades are significantly higher than
those of the NT project managers. This
is tested and shown at the bottom of
Table 5. The ISF combination is only 3%
of the total project management popu-
lation, but 22% of the general popula-
tion. Moreover, the ISF project managers
are shown to be extremely successful
(82.5) in comparison with the average
grade (74). The FP project managers
(12% of the survey population) also
have a higher than average grade (78).

This is important, because FP types rep-
resent approximately 30% of the general
population.
The following reasons may explain
the success reported by the SF project
managers (and other rare types) in our
study:
1. The few SF people who become proj-
ect managers have special talents
and the qualifications needed to be
project managers.
2. They manage unique projects, in
which the SF type is an advantage.
3. The success perception of these SF
respondents is inflated compared to
other groups.
4. There were only 19 project managers
in the SF group, which might not be a
large enough group to establish the
phenomenon.
Gender Effects
All the above findings are consistent for
both genders, with very slight differences.
The gender differences in our study, as
they emerge from the socio-demographic
survey are depicted in Table 6.
Note that the male and female expe-
rience in the workplace is 9.9 and 8.9

years, respectively (only one year differ-
ence); however, their experiences as
project managers are very different: 8.1
years for males and 2.8 years for
females. Also, the males are on the aver-
age 4 years older than the females; thus,
we must conclude that the female proj-
ect managers had begun working in
project management positions only
in the last decade or two, whereas the
male project manager had been holding
project management positions for quite
some time. This also explains the large
percentage of male project managers
and their higher number of children.
Also, on the average, male project man-
agers are heading higher budget projects
(average of US$80.7 million budgets for
men and US$36.8 million by women).
Finally, the distribution of sectors
between male and female project man-
agers in the survey was significantly
different. Figures 2 and 3 depict these
distributions. For example, it is evident
that there are more female project
managers in education and finance and
fewer in the construction and software
industries than there are men.
Conclusions
This paper presents an empirical,
exploratory study based on a survey of
280 project managers. The main survey
findings show that:

Overall Project Success Estimates by Personality Types
Scores 71 71 82 73 74
Scores 71 75 83 70 75
Scores 73 78 78 76 76
Scores 71 75 73 75 74
71 71 82 73 74
NT vs. SF test
Avg. St. Dev.
NT score 71 1.00
SF score 82 4.55
Pooled St. Dev for Avgs 1.2
Z-value 6.22
Alpha � 0.0001
Table 5: The average reported success scores of various
personality types and a comparison of NT
with SF scores.
Male Female Difference
Percentage in the survey 72% 28% 44%

Average age 38.7 34.9 3.8
Average number of children 2.4 1.7 0.7
Average education level 15 14.8 0.2
Average years in the workplace 9.9 8.9 1
Average years as a project manager 8.1 2.8 5.3
Average number of subordinates 15.8 7.8 7.9
Average project budget (US$ millions) 80.7 36.8 43.9
Table 6: Differences between male and female characteristics in
the project manager survey.
85
1. Project managers have a unique dis-
tribution of personality type (MBTI),
which separates them from the gen-
eral population.
2. There are significantly more NT
(Intuitive, Thinking) type project man-
agers than their percentage in the
general population. The NT project
managers base their decisions on intu-
ition and analysis. This is expected,
because project managers must make
decisions in the face of ambiguity and
uncertainty and have to rely on intu-

ition while lacking some of the facts.
3. There are significantly fewer project
managers of the SF (Sensing, Feeling)
type than those found in the general
population. These SF project man-
agers base their decisions on full
sensory data while cognizant of com-
passion and the other human feel-
ings of their peers and subordinates.
4. The special group of ISF, represent-
ing 23% of the general population
formed only 3% of the project man-
ager survey population. This is a
strong sign for their inadequate pro-
file; however, the 3% ISF reached the
highest project success scores. This
finding points at their being placed
in special projects.
5. The results were found for both
women and men. In terms of gender,
females are about 28% of the project
manager survey population. They
were as successful as males, but sig-
nificantly younger than the male
project managers in the survey which
reflects their absence from project
management in previous decades.
A word of caution is in place: As stated
in the code of ethics of the Center for
Applications of Psychological Type–CAPT
(2010, Interpreting MBTI® Results, para. 3):
“One should not state or imply that type

explains everything. Type does not reflect
an individual’s ability, intelligence, likeli-
hood of success, emotions, or normalcy.
Type is one important component of the
complex human personality.” Also, this
study did not control the project type;
Security
1%
Construction
10%
Education
14%
Finance
7%
Government
5%Retail
13%
Medical
7%Marketing
7%
Software
18%
Transportation
5%
Tourism and
Entertainment

7%
Electronics and
Communications
6%
Figure 2: Distribution of the female project manager survey
population by industry sector.
Electronics and
Communications
7%
Tourism and
Entertainment
3%
Security
3%
Construction
31%
Education
2%
Agriculture
2%
Technology
2%
Finance

3%
Government
2%
Retail
8%
Medical
5%
Marketing
2%
1%
Software
24%
Aviation
2%
Manufacturing
3%
Figure 3: Distribution of the male project manager survey
population by industry sector.
10.1002/pmj
P

A
P
E
R
S
however, the subject of matching project
manager personality to a project type is
important and is left for future research.
Moreover, the issue of finding relation-
ships between certain success metrics to
personality traits also requires more data
collection and further research.
Despite the limitations of the study
as an exploratory study, its findings
have important theoretical and practi-
cal implications. The findings con-
tribute to better characterization of the
project management population and
the relationship between certain com-
mon project manager characteristics
and project success. ■
References
Allison, H., & Hobbs, R. (2010). Natural
resource management at four social
scales: Psychological type matters.
Environmental Management, 45(3),
590–602.
Ball, I. (2001). Gender differences in
the distribution of types in Australia.

Australian Psychological Type Review,
3(1), 15–16.
Berens, L. V. (2006). Understanding
yourself and others: An introduction to
the 4 temperaments. West Hollywood,
CA: Telos Publications.
Bredillet, C. N. (2008). Exploring
research in project management: Nine
schools of project management
research (Part 6). Project Management
Journal, 39(3), 2–6.
Cartwright, S., & Gale, A. (1995).
Project management: Different gender,
different culture? A discussion on gen-
der and organizational culture–Part 2.
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 16(4), 12–16.
Center for Applications of
Psychological Type–CAPT. (2010).
MBTI code of ethics. Retrieved from
http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment
/ethical-use.htm
Colinson, D. L., & Hearn, J. (1996). Men
as managers, managers as men: Critical
perspectives on men, masculinity and
management. London, England: Sage.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The ‘‘real’’
success factors on projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 20, 185–190.

Crawford, L., Hobbs, J. B., & Turner, J. R.
(2004). Project categorization systems
and their use in organizations: An
empirical study. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Cromie, S., Callaghan, I., & Jensen, M.
(1992). Entrepreneurial tendencies of
managers: A research note. British
Journal of Management, 3(1), 1–5.
Dolfi, J., & Andrews, E. J. (2007). The sub-
liminal characteristics of project man-
agers: An exploratory study of optimism
overcoming challenges in the project
environment, International Journal of
Project Management, 25(7), 674–682.
Dvir, D., Sadeh, A., & Malach-Pines, A.
(2006). Projects and project managers:
The relationship between project man-
agers’ personality, project types and
projects success. Project Management
Journal, 37(5), 36–48.
Filbeck, G., Hatfield, P., & Horvath, P.
(2005). Risk aversion and personality
type. Journal of Behavioral Finance,
6(4), 170–180.
Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing
of project critical success factors by a
systems model. International Journal
of Project Management, 24(1), 53–65.

Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx

Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx

Similar to Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx (20)

More from galerussel59292

More from galerussel59292 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx