Journal of Analytical Psychology, 1995, 40, 205-234 THE GRAY-WHEELWRIGHTS JUNGIAN TYPE SURVEY: Development and history MARY ANN MATTOON, Minneapolis, and MELINDA DAVIS, Tucson At the Fourth Congress of the International Association for Analytical Psychology (IAAP), held in Zurich in 1968, C.A. Meier (1971) deliv- ered a paper entitled ‘Psychological types and individuation: A plea for a more scientific approach in Jungian psychology’. He reminded his audience that the 1923 English translation (by H.G. Baynes) of Jung’s book, Psychological Types (Jung 1921), has as its subtitle The Psychology of Individuation. Meier recounted that he had been deeply moved by his first reading of that book, in 1922, and told Jung at the time that ‘[Jung] had given nothing less than the clearest pattern for simply all the dynamics of the human soul’. Jung replied that ‘this was exactly what he had intended to do, but so far nobody seemed to have noticed’ (pp. 278-9). To observe the role of typology in the individuation process, Meier (1971) recommended that Jungian ana- lysts ‘give all their patients the Gray-Wheelwright test to start with and again during the process, in order to find out how the pattern changes, i.e. what happens to the functions and attitude’ (p. 285). Joseph Wheelwright (1972) concurred with Meier regarding the importance of Jung’s theory of types, with additional reasons: ‘These concepts have occupied a prominent place in my teaching. In the first place, I find them indispensable in relating to and communicating with my patients. There is no use in trying to talk feeling language with a thinking type, nor is thinking understandable to a feeling type. Secondly, I have yet to find a marriage problem . . . in which types have not played a leading part. ... Thirdly, . . . the individuation process is centred in the slow, painful emergence of the undeveloped functions’ (p. 212). Despite Meier’s and Wheelwright’s persuasive arguments, there is disagreement among Jungians about the importance of typology. Some Jungian theorists de-emphasize types on the ground that Jung (0021-8774/93/4002/205 © 1995, The Society of Analytical Psychology206 M. A. Mattoon and M. Davis lost interest in the subject, in favour of archetypal images of the collective unconscious. Other Jungian theorists, including Meier (1971), however, continue to value types as expressions of differences in psychic structure which, they remind us, arise out of the activation of different archetypes. Some Jungians object to types theory, asserting that it puts people into ‘boxes’. Joseph and Jane Wheelwright (1991) counter this argu- ment with their concept of ‘detyping’. They argue that the point of knowing one’s type is to understand the assets and liabilities of it and, thus, to open the way to development of the less-developed attitude (introversion [I] or extraversion [E]) and functions (one perception function — sensation [S] or intuition [U] — and one judging function, thinking [T] or feeling [F]). Jung developed his theory of types out of his reflections on his break with Freud. For many years, that event was so painful to Jung that he focused instead on the breach between Freud and Adler. To Freud, the origin of neurosis was sexual conflict; to Adler, the origin was in the individual’s will to power. Since Freud and Adler came from similar backgrounds, Jung concluded that their differences arose cout of different ways of perceiving the world, ways that he labelled ‘extraversion’ and ‘introversion’. Probably more important to the history of psychology were the differing typologies of Freud and Jung. Gray (1949a) reviewed a number of facts about each of them and concluded that they were of opposite types: Freud ESF and Jung IUT. Although not everyone would agree with Gray’s assessment, it seems likely that typology played a part in the schism. Rather quickly, Jung found introversion and extraversion inade- quate to account for all the dimensions of personality. He noticed that some people perceive primarily through sense impressions, others ‘via the unconscious’ (Jung 1921, para. 951); he called these capacities ‘sensation’ and ‘intuition’. He noticed also that some people assess their perceptions through analytical processes, others through assign- ing value, that is, through ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’ functions, respect- ively. Jung’s major work on types is, of course, his Psychological Types (1921), which forms the bulk of Volume Six of the Collected Works. The ‘First Swiss Edition’ was published in German in 1921. The text remained unaltered through the Seventh Swiss Edition (1937) and, with minor corrections, through the Eighth Swiss Edition (1949). The first English edition (translated by H.G. Baynes) was published in 1923. Translations have appeared also in Dutch, French, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Swedish. Volume Six includes also an Appendix of four works, Three areThe Gray-Wheelwrights Jungian type survey 207 lectures: ‘A contribution to the study of psychological types’ (1913), ‘Psychological types’ (1923) and ‘A psychological theory of types’ (1931). The fourth is a journal article, ‘Psychological typology’ (1936). Other writings by Jung on types are ‘The problem of the attitude- type’ (Jung 1917) and the first of the Tavistock Lectures (Jung 1935). ‘Works on types subsequent to Jung’s have focused on: (1) clarifying the three dimensions, (2) measuring them in individuals — using such instruments as the GW/JTS - and, to a lesser extent, (3) examining their reliability and validity. Meier (1971), who pointed out the link between typology and individuation, urged a more scientific approach in Jungian psy- chology, including using statistics: ‘It is imperative that we support our own convictions by statistical evaluations. ... Jung himself started his scientific work in the Word Association Test by using statistics. He made use of them again in his later work’ (p. 284); for example, in his essay on synchronicity (Jung 1952). Over the years, typology has proved to be the research area most amenable to statisti- cal evaluation. Our present work includes statistical applications to testing the reliability and validity of the GW/JTS and, less comprehen- sively, reporting on these aspects of the two other Jungian types tests, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality (SLIP). TERMINOLOGY The Gray-Wheelwrights Jungian Type Survey (GW/JTS) has been known most commonly as the ‘Gray-Wheelwrights Test’ (formerly ‘Gray-Wheelwright Test’) or GW but the instrument carries also the title ‘Jungian Type Survey’. The originators were Horace Gray, Jane Hollister Wheelwright and Joseph Wheelwright. Thus, we refer to the test as ‘GW/JTS’ or ‘the Survey’. Although Jung used the word ‘types’, he seemed to mean ‘prefer- ences’, which are paired into ‘dimensions’: the attitudes I and E, perception functions $ and U and judgement functions T and F. We use ‘types’, ‘preferences’ and ‘dimensions’ virtually interchangeably. (Leona Tyler, a leader in Differential Psychology, has suggested the term ‘directions of development’ (Tyler 1965, p. 170)). To designate the attitudes and functions that the test measures we frequently use I, E, S, U, T and F; rather than spelling out introver- sion, extraversion, sensation, intuition, thinking and feeling — or their adjectival forms (e.g., ‘introverted’). The pairs of opposites become the dimensions IE, SU and TF. We also sometimes use ‘sensing’ instead of ‘sensation’ because the function designated is that of208 M. A. Mattoon and M. Davis perception through the senses, not sensation in the sense of a thrill. People of thinking preference are sometimes designated as ‘thinkers’, those of feeling preference as ‘feelers’. Sensing is the preference of ‘sensates’, intuition of ‘intuitives’. ‘Jung’s eight-fold typology’ refers to the four functions each in conjunction with E and with I. Both attitudes and all four functions are considered to be qualities of normal personality. The extraverted attitude is characterized by a flow of psychic energy toward the outer world: an interest in events, people and things and a relation with them. The introverted attitude is characterized by a flow of psychic energy inward, a concentration on subjective factors and inner responses. Sensation is the function by which one ascertains that something exists and its characteristics. Intuition tells what the possibilities are and connections with other phenomena. Thinking categorizes the contents perceived and assigns meanings to them. Feeling evaluates the object — its desirability and degree of importance - and determines the person’s relationship to it. (For more detailed descriptions of the types see Jung 1921, paras 556-671; Fordham 1953; Jacobi 1942; Mattoon 1981; Sharp 1987; Wheelwright 1982; Whitmont 1969). DO JUNGIAN TYPES EXIST? Definitive research on the Jungian types tests has been hindered by challenges to the Jungian theory of types. Consequently, we are pro- viding a review of studies that have examined whether Jungian typology can be substantiated scientifically. (We do not review works that report no empirical examination of typology or types tests, despite the usefulness of such works for self-understanding, for clinical practice and for generating hypotheses.) Attitude Types: Introversion/Extraversion In the twenty years after the publication of Psychological Types (Jung 1921), considerable interest in the types was reflected in the psycho- logical literature, much of it by others than identified Jungians. These early works dealt almost exclusively with the attitude types, even though Jung had made it clear that the function types were essential to his typology. Gray and Wheelwright (1946) reviewed much of this literature. The early descriptions of the attitude types, beginning with Freyd’s (1924) 54 traits, did not match Jung’s descriptions. According to Wozny (1966), a researcher on the GW/JTS, ‘Freyd [writing soon after the publication of Jung’s Psychological Types] was the first toThe Gray-Wheelwrights Jungian type survey 209 misinterpret Jung’s position. . . . [He] introduced into the psychologi- cal literature an erroneous model which test constructors then fol- lowed for the next twenty years. ... Other questionnaires, for example those of Laird [1925], Thurstone [and Thurstone, 1930], Bernreuter [1933], Root [1931], Bell [1938] and Guilford [1940] . . . [were] based on Freyd’s original list of items’ (pp. 4-5). Wozny (1966) went on to point out that ‘Further contaminations of Jung’s concepts came after Freyd when many psychologists began identifyng introversion with neuroticism and extraversion with nor- mality’ (p. 4). Research by Eysenck (1953) and others supported Jung’s view — that all the types are aspects of normal personality - by demonstrating that neuroticism is a separate dimension from IE. Several additional personality tests that reflect the existence of an IE dimension evidently are not based on Freyd’s work but seem also not to be based on Jung’s concepts. These tests include Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), Neymann and Kohlstedt’s diagnostic test for IE Rorschach’s ink-blot test, the Minne- sota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Strong-Campbell Vocational Interest Inventory. The IE dimension, compatible with Jung’s but with some variation in definition, has been established quite well through empirical methods by such investigators as H.J. Eysenck, RB. Cattell and J.P. Guilford. These works are reviewed in Carrigan (1960) and Dicks- Mireaux (1964). None of these investigators took into account the four functions. Gray and Wheelwright (1946) stated their objection to this omission. Some investigators have found that I and E not only exist but are heritable traits: They include Eysenck (1956), Gottesman (1963) and Scarr (1969). If two tests — designed to measure the same dimensions — correlate with each other, the results give support to the hypothesis that the dimensions exist. One study (Shapiro and Alexander 1975) provided evidence for IE, as Jung defined it, using the MBTI and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). After categorizing records of TAT-gener- ated stories as I, E or ‘uncertain’ (p. 55), they formed subject pools of 15 I subjects and rs E subjects, for each of whom the TAT record and the MBTI score agreed. They tested their TAT categories with a second subject pool of 30 with E records and 30 with I records. Agreement with the MBTI, significant at the .o1 level, cross-validated the discriminators from the first sample. (The investigators did not report their raw data.) Two studies correlating the GW/JTS with the MBTI have been reported. Stricker and Ross (1964) administered the GW/JTS and the MBTI to 47 male students at Golden Gate College. On the two tests210 M. A. Mattoon and M. Davis the IE scales correlated .79. Rich’s (1972) comparison of 98 individuals on the two tests yielded a correlation of .68 for E and .66 for I. Function Types The evidence for the SU and TF dimensions is much less conclusive than that for IE. Nevertheless, some investigators have found evidence of these dimensions, distinguishable from IE. Stricker and Ross (1964) found that the SU/SN scales of the GWJTS and MBTI correlated . 58; the TF scales, .60. Rich’s (1972) comparable function correlations were: S, .54; U, .47; T, .33; and F, .23. (She observed that the items on the corresponding scales describe the func- tions somewhat differently.) Grant (1965) found only 21% of 159 Auburn University students to be the same type - presumably attitude, two functions and JP — on both the GW/JTS and MBTI. Unlike other investigators, he did not report correlations dimension by dimension (as contrasted with all three dimensions together). Using MBTI but not the GW/JTS, a study by Boscardin (1987) gave support for the construct validity of Jung’s four function types. Boscardin found that personal constructs (Kelly 1955) consistent with each function were used more frequently by individuals for whom that function was preferred. Hill (1970) used still another Q-sort of variables from the MBTI, the 16PF Questionnaire and the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Responses of 22 selected subjects were factored across 69 variables. The first of two factor analyses was rotated to eight factors to investi- gate for the existence of the eight Jungian types. Six of the eight factors were interpretable within the Jungian system: (1) Intuition versus Thinking, (2) Introversion, (3) Perceiving Introversion versus Perceiving Extraversion, (4) Sensing Extraversion, (5) Feeling Extra- version and (6) Thinking. The second factor analysis was rotated to four factors. Three were interpretable within the Jungian framework: Judging Extraversion, Intuition and Perceiving Extraversion. In the process of developing the Singer-Loomis Personality Inven- tory (SLIP), two factor analyses (Loomis 1982) were done. ‘The first used the initial version of the SLIP. With 218 subjects, five factors accounted for 33.9% of the variance. The factors were: feeling, intuition, thinking, introverted sensation and extraverted sensation. The third version of the SLIP was based on the findings of Loomis and Saltz (1984). In addition to a study predicting artistic styles in artists, they conducted a factor analysis with 1233 subjects. Four factors — labelled judging, judging (reflexive), perceiving and perceiv- ing (affective) - accounted for 26.73% of the variance.The Gray-Wheelwrights Jungian type survey 2u1 A few studies have tested Jungian typology without the use of Jungian types tests. In one of these, by Cook (1970), a Q-sort was administered to 183 college students. He used nine indices from Jung’s writings for each of the eight types. Generally, negative correlations appeared between E and I ‘type-resemblance’ scales, while positive correlations appeared among the E scales and also among the I scales. However, the negative correlations between countertypes (c.g., ET and IF) seemed to be solely a matter of opposing attitudes. Gorlow, Simonson and Krauss (1966) administered to 99 college students a Q-sort of 100 self-regarding propositions. By factor analysis the investigators identified six factors — accounting for a total of 46% of the variance — that seemed to correspond to five of Jung’s dimen- sions: EF, two factors of IT (labelled A and B), ET, ES and EU. (IT/A describes individuals who enjoy doing research, making new applications and problem-solving. IT/B includes ‘difficulty and lack of productivity in communicating with others’ [p. 113].) These inves- tigators suggested that the missing three types may be accounted for by the particular population studied, difficulty in reporting and/or that the instrument was not adequate for identifying the absent types. A slightly smaller proportion (42%) of the variance was accounted for in a factor analytic study by Ball (1968). With 143 college students he used observations on a wide range of variables including perceptual and cognitive style, response style, personality and occupational pref- erence. The factors obtained were: (1) Rejection of Business Extraver- sion, (2) Introverted-Thinking, Practical; (3) Introverted-Thinking, Abstract; (4) Neurotic Acquiescence; (5) Occupational Intuition and (6) Introverted Control. Ball concluded that the dimensions postu- lated by Jung have some utility. A further study that deals with the validity of Jung’s typology (Becker 1980) finds it to have ‘major inconsistences’. This investigator suggested a new typology that includes intuition, introversion, extra- version and feeling. The lack of reported empirical data limits the persuasiveness of Becker’s work. Further support for Jungian typology comes in effect from investi- gators who do not mention it by name. Cognitive psychologists have identified various types of ‘intelligence’ which are comparable to Jungian function types. A leader in this endeavour is Howard Gardner (1983), whose ‘frames of mind’ correspond roughly to some of Jung’s types. Kirk Thompson (1985) pointed out the parallels. He saw Gard- ner’s ‘linguistic intelligence’ as akin to the thinking function, ‘bodily- kinaesthetic intelligence; to the sensation function, and ‘personal intel- ligence’ to the feeling function. Intuition, according to Thompson, ‘has fallen victim to Gardner’s combative argument that there are no “higher-order” functions of consciousness — ¢.g., “originality” or212 M. A. Mattoon and M. Davis creativity, “common sense,” “metaphoric capacity,” or “wisdom” — operating above and beyond the basic autonomous intelligences or computational systems’ (p. 59). A number of academic psychologists have contributed to the increasing acceptance of a five-factor model of personality traits, a model which bears some resemblance to Jung’s typology. According to Costa and McCrae (1992), the five factors are: (1) neuroticism, (2) extraversion, (3) openness, (4) agreeableness and (5) conscient- iousness. Some researchers (e.g., Rytting & Ware 1993) familiar with Jungian categories have likened Factor 2 to EI, Factor 3 to SU, Factor 4 to TF and Factor 5 to the rational/irrational dimension. A study (McCrae & Costa 1989) correlating NEO-PI factors with MBTI continuous scales of the MBTI supports this resemblance to some degree. These investigators found that ‘the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions’ (p. 7). These dimensions correspond roughly to all but the neuroticism dimension of the five- factor model. INSTRUMENTS MEASURING JUNGIAN ATTITUDES AND FUNCTIONS Prior to most of the research that we have cited, which gives some support for the existence of Jung’s types, tests had been designed to measure those types. Following the tests based on a misunderstanding of Jung’s types theory, measures were developed designed to reflect Jung’s theory of both attitude and function types. Our primary con- cern is with the GW/JTS but we must look at it in the context of other tests of Jungian typology. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator The MBTI was developed by Isabel Briggs Myers. Her mother, Katharine Briggs, had begun to develop her own typology when she ‘discovered that Jung had evolved a similar system which she quickly accepted and began to explore and elaborate’ (Myers 1980, p. x). Myers developed an item pool and taught herself the needed statistics and psychometrics. In the United States, at least, it is now the most widely-used paper-and-pencil test for normal personality. Interest in the MBTI has been great enough to occasion the establishment of a Center for the Applications of Psychological Type (Gainesveille, FL) and a national Association for Psychological Type. Other versions of the test have been developed, such as the Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for children.The Gray-Wheelwrights Jungian type survey 213 Like the GW/JTS, the MBTI is a forced-choice test, assuming the bipolarity of the dimensions it measures, those posited by Jung: IE, SN (SU on the GW/JTS) and TF. The MBTI also measures a fourth dimension, ~ judgement/perception — which reflects the dominance of SN over TF, or vice versa. Well over 3000 studies have used the MBTI. Many of these have examined its reliability and validity. The MBTI manual (Myers & McCaulley 1985) summarizes those done prior to its publication. With regard to reliability, the split-half estimates ‘are consistent with those of other personality instruments’ (Myers & McCaulley 1985, p. 165). Moreover, ‘the test-retest reliabilities . . . show consist- ency over time’ (p. 171). Validity, measured by correlations with more than 25 psychological measures, varies with each dimension. The correlations (detailed in Myers & McCaulley 1985, pp. 176-210) vary from .75 to .40 for I, from —.67 to —.40 for S, from .62 to .40 for N, from —.57 to —.40 for T, from .55 to .40 for F, from —.59 to —.40 for J and .57 to .40 for P. Two validity studies (Carskadon 1975, 1982) have compared MBTI scores with self-estimates of type. The MBTI type agreed with the self-estimate significantly (p<.oo1) more than chance in both studies. Studies using behavioural measures found that extraverts were sig- nificantly different from introverts in giving a short talk on five minutes’ notice, in chatting with a stranger and by staff rating instru- ments (Myers & McCaulley 1985, p. 210). The Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality In the late 1970s a third Jungian types test, the Singer-Loomis Inven- tory of Personality (SLIP), was developed by two Jungian analysts, June Singer and Mary Loomis. It departs from the assumption of bipolar functions (Loomis & Singer 1980) and I and E as separate from the functions. Rather, the SLIP identifies eight types: IT, ET, IF, EF, IS, ES, IU, EU. In addition to the study mentioned above, Macdonald and Holland (1993) reviewed the development of the SLIP and evaluated it psychometrically. They found satisfactory inter-item consistency but marginal test-retest reliability. Based on comparisons with the NEO Personality Inventory, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the MBTI, the investigators found that ‘all but four of the sixteen SLIP scales have marginal validity’ (p. 317).214 M. A. Mattoon and M. Davis Other Tests of Jungian Types Sen and Kundu (1958) of India developed a 75-item test of IE ‘with a view to improving upon the existing introversion-extraversion tests which have been standardized in non-Indian situations’ (p. 264). They used concepts of other theorists (e.g., McDougall 1921 and Allport 1921) in understanding Jung’s definitions of J and E in developing their test. We have found no information on the content, use or validation of the Sen and Kundu test. Additional tests measuring the attitude and function types have been developed by investigators Wayne Detloff and David Young. To our knowledge, neither of these has been published. DEVELOPMENT OF THE GW/JTS The three original authors of the GW/JTS began work on the Survey in 1941. For all of them, Jungian types theory was a crucial element in their interest in psychology. They were Jungian analysts with many years of personal analysis, clinical experience and study of Jungian theory. Thus, their knowledge of types stems from understanding their own typologies and the perspective of Jungian psychology as a whole, including the concepts of archetypes, the shadow and — most relevant — the inferior function. Horace Gray, an early member (beginning in 1942) of the Society of Jungian Analysts of Northern California, was active there until his death in 1965. Jane and Joseph Wheelwright were both founding members of the Society; they were students and analysands of Jung in the 1930s. They credit Cary Baynes (an associate of Jung and translator of some of his works) for introducing them to types theory. In 1932, early in their marriage, she showed them Jung’s book, Psycho- logical Types ~ in response to their relationship problems which, Baynes guessed, resulted from their being of opposite types. (Joseph is EUF; Jane is IST.) From the time they began practice as Jungian analysts in 1939, they have been pre-eminent proponents of the use of types in Jungian analytic therapy and for self-understanding apart from therapy. They are now retired from analytic practice but con- tinue to encourage the work of young colleagues. John Buehler joined the Wheelwrights in developing later versions of the GW/JTS and is now listed with them as author. It was Buehler who developed the current answer sheet and the resultant rearrange- ment of the test items, which allows the scoring of the Survey — with an internal check for accuracy - to take less than one minute. He also provided material for the Sixteenth Revision manual; it was reworded and systematized by Elizabeth Wilson Buehler.The Gray-Wheelwrights Jungian type survey 215 That manual (Wheelwright, Wheelwright & Buehler 1964) reports that development of the Survey began with 300 questions, devised by the original three authors, from Jung’s descriptions of the types and the experiences of people of various typologies. These questions were selected and handed out at random, with an invitation to each responder to spend 20 minutes in answering. ‘The . . . replies were compared with clinical estimates of the respondents and progressively pruned, reworded, and restudied’ (p. 7). According to Gray (19472), 1000 people were responders. These people were ‘families and friends [of the test authors] whose psychological types were clear clinically’ (Gray & Wheelwright 1946). Each version of the test was tried on a sample of subjects. In accordance with the results, some items were dropped and others added. The first version of the test, with 75 items, was completed in 1944. The sixteenth and latest, completed in 1964, has 81 items: 34 for IE, 26 for SU and 21 for TF. The GW/JTS has been translated into German (translator’s name not available), French (by M.-J. Dicks-Mireaux), Italian (by J. Rhees & A. Carotenuto) and Spanish (by Antonio Perez-Urdaniz and others). To our knowledge, only the Eleventh, Fifteenth and Sixteenth Revisions were used clinically or in research beyond that incidental to developing the Survey. A further revision was undertaken but not completed because of a computer accident that resulted in loss of most of the data (Buehler 1985). Gray and Joseph Wheelwright published at least eleven articles on the Survey, from 1944 to 1949. We will cite these in connection with issues to which they are relevant; for example, group differences and clinical issues. One article (Gray & Wheelwright 1945) — relevant to the history of types theory, rather than to the Survey itself ~ is a presentation for non-Jungians of the theory of types and the authors’ reasons for espousing it. (Because it was written by authors of the Survey, it is an exception to our rule of not citing theoretical works.) Gray (1949b) began the psychometric work on the Survey by sug- gesting ways to interpret ‘ambiguous’ scores — those falling near the midline; for example, an I score of 18, an E score of 16. He found that the subject's type could be established by the investigator’s inter- viewing the subject, ‘discarding from the score those questions which did not speak definitely to the subject, rewording certain questions more elaborately than was practical in the space on the blank, and . re-considering certain suspected answers with the subject [as] reflections of professional pressures or personal preferences, rather than indications of the intrinsic self’ (p. 65). Gray commented:216 M. A. Mattoon and M. Davis ‘Repeats of any kind, and particularly interviews, have invariably demonstrated that patience and understanding move the score further from the midline. Hence s0-s0 scores represent to us, not fancied perfect balance, but ambiguity attributable either to imperfections in our questions, or to misunderstandings or to non-spontaneous over- conscientiousness in answering, or to overlays’ (p. 65). Gray’s statisti- cal method may not be precise but his work is a start toward evaluat- ing the Survey. CLINICAL USES OF TYPOLOGY AND THE GW/JTS Before the GW/JTS and other types tests were developed, typology was used in a ‘consistent method’ that, according to Joseph Henderson (1955), was common in Zurich when he first was there in 1929. ‘The handling of Jung’s typology... was used with great skill by Jung and his closest assistants. Initial impressions were continually checked in the light of dreams or other materials so that whoever came from an analysis in Zurich was in no doubt about his personality type and function’ (p. 24). Joseph Wheelwright (1991) commented that many Jungian training centres in recent years have not emphasized typology to the degree that he would like. It is his understanding, however, that in Zurich and at some other centres, the GW/JTS is used. Knowledge of each person’s attitude and function type is important if one is to follow Joseph Wheelwright’s (1991) recommendation: that a client’s first analyst should be of the same type as the client. Wheel- wright mentioned his own experience with his first Jungian analyst and seemed to have in mind experiences with his own clients. (Whether Wheelwright is correct or not, such a choice often is not possible, especially in localities where there are few analysts and for clients who, unlike most Jungian analysts, are E and/or S types.) When analyst and client are not of similar types, it is incumbent on the analyst to understand the differences well enough to ‘speak the client’s language’ (Wheelwright 1991). Gray (1946) used the GW/JTS to study typologies of psychiatric patients. He found that, despite being in psychotherapy, the 76 patients in the study were not outside normal limits for pathology. Most (75%) of the 76 were I (compared with 54% in Gray’s total group), 64% were U (compared with 33%) and 42% were F (com- pared with 34%). Metzner (1980) considered neuroticism in relation to types. U tended to be correlated with neuroticism (.26 for men, .22 for women; both significant at the .os level). Sensation was negatively correlatedThe Gray-Wheelwrights Jungian type survey 217 with neuroticism (—.24 for men, but not statistically significant; —.25 for women, significant at the .o5 level.) Plaut (1972) studied the use that Jungian analysts make of typology in their practices. He found that about half the 173 analysts who replied to his questionnaire found typology helpful in their analytic practices, while three-fourths thought typology to be of importance to general psychology. Extraverted analysts, more than introverts, were prone to use psychological tests. The most commonly used tests were the GW/JTS (by 28 analysts), Rorschach (by 7) and MBTI (by 5). Bradway and Wheelwright (1978) also collected information regard- ing the use of typology in analysts’ practices. They found that, of the 172 analysts who responded to their questionnaires, 28% used typology with more than 50% of their clients. An additional 46% used typology with 5% or more of their clients. The remaining 26% used typology with less than 5% of their clients. These investigators found that extraverted analysts used a greater variety of ‘aspects’ than did introverts. That is, these analysts were significantly more likely (percentage not given) to ‘use verbal art forms. . . ., enter into intense relationships with patients, comfort by touching the patient [and to] use typology in making connections or interpretations’ (p. 222). Intuitives used role-playing and non-verbal art forms more than did S types. There were no significant differences between T and F type therapists in the use of such procedures. In the same study, the investigators asked also for what approaches the analysts had a high regard. The only significant differences were in intuitives’ higher regard (than $ types) for family therapy, group therapy, body involvement techniques and marathon therapy. The investigators commented: ‘The fact that the practice of extraverts tends to be more varied than that of introverts has implications in view of the predominance of introversion among analysts, On the other hand, the practice of intuitives tends to be more varied than sensates; and the overwhelming majority of analysts are intuitives’ (p. 224). Joseph Wheelwright (1991) explained the value of types in family and couple therapy as enabling the individuals involved to understand their similarities and differences and, thus, ‘peel off projections’. When each member of the couple takes responsibility for his or her non- dominant functions, the expectations of the partner and the mutual tensions are reduced. The first study published by authors of the GW/JTS (Gray & Wheel- wright 1944) reflected experience with 66 married couples. Later Gray (1949) reported on 271 couples, apparently including the original 66. Of the 271, 15% were complementary in all three dimensions (e.g.,218 M. A. Mattoon and M. Davis one IUT, the other ESF); 32% had two complementary dimensions and one like; 38% had one complementary, two like; while 15% had all three alike. Lewis (1976) attempted to demonstrate Jung’s theory of compen- sation as operative in marital relationships. In addition to the GW/ JTS, Lewis used the Holtzman Inkblot Technique to operationalize Jungian typology. He found that individuals tend to choose marriage partners of the same attitude type and opposite judgement type. Per- ceptual type combinations were random. (Lewis’s data are not avail- able.) Therapists’ Typologies The personality of the therapist is important in the clinical situation. Among the 1000 subjects whom Gray (1945) studied in developing the GW/JTS were 54 neuropsychiatrists and psychotherapists; 74% (80% of the men and 57% of the women) had more U than S. The significance of this percentage can be seen by comparing it with the information obtained about physicians of other specialities (Gray 1946): Three-fourths of them were more S than U. Plaut (1972) did not use the GW/JTS, but we are reporting his results because they provide information on Jungian analysts. Of 378 analysts and senior trainees worldwide to whom the questionnaire was sent, 173 (46%) responded — ‘a far larger number than had ever answered a questionnaire’ (p. 138). Plaut considered the possibility that the responders were self-selected on the basis of typology. That seemed unlikely, however, because the proportion of introverts was almost identical (85% vs. 83%) with that in another survey (Bradway 1964) of ‘nearly 100%’ (Bradway & Detloff 1976, p. 134) of the analysts then practising in California. Moreover, the responders claim- ing U as their first function ~ who might be least likely to respond to a questionnaire - were more numerous (54%) than those of the other three functions taken together. Plaut’s results showed the following numbers for the 106 respon- dents who stated their primary and secondary functions (the question was designated as ‘optional’): Primary function Secondary function Intuition 54 (51%) Feeling 30 (28%), Thinking 24 (27%) Feeling 31 (29%) Intuition 22 (21%), Sensation 7 (7%) Thinking 12 (11%) Intuition 8 (8%), Sensation 3 (3%) Sensation 9 (8.5%) Thinking 6 (6%), Feeling 3 (3%) Thus, 84 (79%) considered U to be their first or second function. (These results helped to inspire a paper presented at the 1974 IAAPThe Gray-Wheelwrights Jungian type survey 219 Congress on ‘The Neglected Function of Analytical Psychology’, that is, sensing (Mattoon 1977)). A comparable study of Jungian analysts using the GW/JTS (Six- teenth Revision) was conducted by Bradway and Detloff (1976). They studied 92 California analysts, 85% of the total number practising in the state at the time. Of this group, 77% were introverted. Bradway and Wheelwright (1978) added to this group 25 from New York City, 30 from London and 25 from the European Continent, for a total of 172 (63% male, 37% female). The combined results show that, on the GW/JTS, 83% of the analysts studied were I, 70% had U as a first or second function and 52% had T as a first or second function. All these figures can be compared to those for a non-analyst population of 200: 55% I, 28% U and 60% T (presented in Gray & Wheelwright 1946). ‘To compare the typologies of Jungian analysts over time, we have information only on the 16 California analysts in a 1961 study (Brad- way 1964) who also participated in a 1974 study (Bradway & Detloff 1976). The percentage of introverts decreased from 82% to 77% by self-typing but remained constant (86%) by GW/JTS. The percentage of intuitives remained constant (82%) by selftyping but decreased from 89% to 75% by GW/JTS. The percentage of thinkers decreased from 57% to 45% by self-typing but increased slightly (50% to 53%) by GW/JTS. The changes, a few more extraverts and sensates, suggest a slight shift away from Jung’s personal typology, IUT. (The actual number of individuals shifting was at most three in any category.) Empathy in a counsellor was the focus of a study by Allen and Horvath (1977). Using the GW/JTS to determine the typology of 79 graduate students in counselling psychology, they found no significant differences among the types. Since these investigators found the GW/ JTS unreliable (see ‘Reliability Studies’, below), however, they were uncertain whether the subjects were typed correctly. Another issue of therapists’ qualities examined in these studies was analysts’ preferences for patients’ typology. Bradway and Wheel- wright (1978) found that the patients preferred by most analysts were TU, as is the preponderance of Jungian analysts. (Specific data were not given). Analysts’ typology proved to be correlated with preferences for certain kinds of patients. $ more than U type analysts said they liked to work with character disorders. U more than S types liked to work with adolescents. Typology of analysts’ spouses was another issue considered by Bradway and Wheelwright (1978). Spouses’ types were perceived by the 119 analysts (73% of the total who completed the questionnaire) who responded to the questions about spouses: 67% of spouses were