Daniel W. Salter
Gender bias in the classroom is a complex phenomenon that continues to reside in the collective unconscious of educational practice. In an attempt to bring this problem into focus, Myra and David Sadker reprised the history of the education of American girls and women in their book, Failing at Fairness (1994). While some advances have been realized, in their opinion, the current approach to public education still favors male students from the first day of kindergarten. Certainly, by the time a woman enters the higher educational system, much damage has been done and the climate continues to be "chilly" (Sandler, Silverberg, & Hall, 1996), especially in math and science.
Advancing the Sadkers’ approach, the question was asked in this study: What is the nature of the interaction between female undergraduate students and college classroom settings? Furthermore, based on this understanding, what are some educational strategies that could potentially remediate problems encountered by women at the college level? As a specific venue for insight into the learning interaction, this author employed Jungian constructs to describe differences among female students and classroom environments.
This study originally evolved from classroom discussions of Jung's theory of psychological types (Jung, 1971; Myers & Myers, 1980) in the context of an undergraduate course in developmental psychology. Because of both its descriptive and prescriptive powers, type theory has experienced phenomenal acceptance as a basis for educational interventions over the past couple of decades (Carskadon, 1995; Lawrence, 1993). As discussed below, what made Jung's typology especially cogent to this study was the psychology of gender differences contained with it (Carskadon, 1995).
Jung observed that people are oriented to one of two types of psychic energy. Extraverts prefer to interact with the external world of people and things around them. Introverts prefer the energy from within themselves, which is derived from ideas, feelings, thoughts, or perceptions. Within these preferred worlds, Jung believed that people must utilize two different adaptive processes: perception and judgment. A person's preferred perceptive process can be expressed in one of two ways. Individuals with a sensing preference prefer to take in information through their five senses and tend to be concrete learners (Lawrence, 1993). An intuitive preference is built on a "sixth sense" and appears to fit the theoretical orientation of higher education.
The manners in which people make decisionsÑthe judging processÑare the primary foci of gender differences in type theory. Thinking-oriented people employ analytical, cause-and-effect reasoning that is based on objective appraisal. Thinkers look at the logical flow of ideas and products with a critical frame of mind. People with a thinking preference also favor behavioral environments that reward competency, efficiency, and productivity. While an estimated 53% of the general population have thinking preferences, almost two-thirds (62%) of thinkers are men (Hammer & Mitchell, 1996).
People with a feeling preference prefer to make value-oriented judgments and to check objective data with their personal beliefs. Feelers consider the effects of decisions on people and often strive for harmony in the environment. Sometimes charismatic and usually interpersonally adept, feeling individuals may develop strong loyalties to other people and/or ideas. Of the 47% of feeling types in the general population, over two-thirds (69%) are women. Or, as viewed by gender, 61% of women showed feeling preferences, and 69% of men scored as thinking in Hammer and Mitchell's national sample.
These gender-related, evaluative styles described by Jung (1971) seem consistent with research on women by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) and Gilligan (1982), as well as observations by Sadker and Sadker (1994). In contrast to men and boys, women and girls tend to consider the needs of others before self in making judgments. They appear to be less academically competitive than their male counterparts and to seek "win/win" resolutions to problems. Because of the value they place on subjective judgments, women may also struggle with the teacher-as-authority relationship, especially in regard to classroom structure and learning evaluation.
In the opinions of many writers and researchers into psychological type, as summarized in a survey by Stokes (1987), "the interface of gender and type is a rich field to explore" (p. 43). Consequently, Jung's proposed relationship between the thinking/feeling dimension and gender psychology has been tested in some type-based research. For example, regarding moral judgments, Otis and Quenk (1989) and Moody (1989) demonstrated that feeling preferences seemed related to the female care voice and thinking to the male justice voice as described in Gilligan's (1982) pioneering work.
Before moving forward, however, it is worth repeating that the thinking/male and feeling/female correspondence is not pure. To start, more than one third of the population has the cross-gender type preference (e.g., 39% of adult women are thinkers). And interestingly, Otis and Quenk and Moody uncovered a stronger relationship between moral voice and psychological type than gender. Therefore, any assumption of a global "female learning style”Ñwhich seems implied in much of the new scholarship on womenÑmay be somewhat simplistic. However, based on previous research, psychological type seems to offer a method to discern the differences in women's learning styles that may be relevant to understanding the "chilly classroom" experience. That is, are the experiences of feeling women somehow different than thinking women, who have a learning style that is more "male" in orientation?
Understanding the interplay between personality and gender may be but one factor in explaining differences in the educational experiences of women. Clearly, the classroom settings themselves contribute to the interaction, and the impact may be insidiously negative in some circumstances (Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Sandler et al., 1996). Since any discussion of learning styles must be couched in terms of the various "teaching styles" or classroom climates that students encounter, the author made the assumption that college classrooms exhibit predictable "environmental personalities" (Moos, 1979) that may also be relevant to understanding the educational outcomes of women.
For consistency with psychological type constructs, the author utilized a theory of environmental types (Salter, 1991, 1995a, in press-a) to describe these differences among classrooms as behavioral settings. Built on Jung’s suggestion that the "collective psyche" (1971, para. 692) of a setting can also demonstrate type characteristics, this approach to describing behavioral settings expands Jung's work within an interactional context. And, because environmental type dimensions parallel psychological type constructs, a researcher is able to entertain type congruence--the matching of person and environment--as a process to understand behavioral outcomes.
An extraverted environment pulls people into the interaction, where they must be involved and active. Activities in an extraverted class might include group projects or class discussions. An introverted setting pushes the responsibility for interaction back to the individual and allows for more reflection and self-directed work. Reading assignments and note-taking might be found in introverted classroom settings.
Perceptive processes in environments focus on the "pieces" that are organized by a judging process. Sensing settings tend to emphasize facts and figures or may involve learning procedures, skills, or methods. Intuitive classrooms foster more experimentation and inquiry and may stress creativity and/or theoretical material.
The environmental judging process provides the necessary collective reality to guide behaviors in a classroom. Thinking classrooms are somewhat deterministic in their approach. They tend to fit subjects that are empirical and quantitative. Students are expected to prove and substantiate their efforts, which are graded objectively. Competition and debate may also be emphasized. By contrast, feeling classrooms are humanistic in their orientation. They may be more process-oriented with an intellectual approach that is naturalistic and qualitative. The classrooms foster learning through collaboration and consensus.
Using environmental type descriptors, the chilly classroom and proposed ways to address it can be framed in more Jungian terms. For example, the Sadkers (1994) observed an educational life for female students that would be a better fit for introverts: where feeling preferences are not valued and thinking skills attract the wrong type of attention, especially in high school. They advocate strategies such as collaborative learning in small groups that, to this author, seem consistent with feeling constructs. Furthermore, the recommended pedagogical approaches for women by Belenky et al. (1993) appear especially consistent with the feeling domain in type theory and imply that female students might be expected to experience more type incongruence in thinking classrooms, which have been associated with the "chillier" science and math courses (Salter, 1996).
To summarize, the central questions of this exploratory study addressed whether the self-reported performance of female college students could be understood as an interaction between their learning style (as indicated by psychological type) and the educational style of classrooms (as indicated by environmental type). Furthermore, if these findings are consistent with previous studies of women's educational experiences, what are the implications for pedagogy?
Results from 268 female students were used in this study. Drawn from seven different class cohorts, 150 of these students were undergraduate women enrolled in a course in lifespan developmental psychology at a metropolitan community college in the Midwest. This sophomore-level course was a core requirement for several human services majors (e.g., nursing, mental health, and gerontology) and an elective for an Associate of Arts degree. To provide a wider range of educational experiences, 118 additional women were added to the sample group. These participants were students in various upper-division and graduate-level courses in counseling psychology and counselor education (e.g., test and measurements, career counseling, counseling theory, etc.) at a large, research institution in the Northeast. While class-standing information was not collected (in order to protect anonymity), participants in the second group ranged from junior-level to doctoral candidates.
The methodology of this study and its limitations can best be understood with three important caveats in mind. First, as this project evolved from classroom discussions, the data were not collected purely for research purposes. Rather, this author first used students' responses to augment and enhance classroom activities. Early trends in those data prompted continued collection and analysis, as well as the addition of upper-division and graduate students to diversify the sample. Therefore, the use of convenience samples from two different institutions suggests caution in generalizing the findings.
Second, the question of representativeness arises. While the sample was limited primarily to students who were studying for careers in the "soft" sciences (Biglan, 1973), the classes that they chose to assess appeared to be spread throughout the Biglan taxonomy and included courses in chemistry, algebra, and statistics, as well as psychology and counseling (Salter, 1996). Furthermore, attributes other than personality (e.g., parental educational level) may be relevant to understanding why these women chose to study psychology and counseling in the first place. But, while one may question whether these female students were representative of the larger cohort of women in higher education, their personality profiles were consistent with population norms and one might contend that their developmental histories were not too divergent from the women studied by the Sadkers or by Belenky and her associates.
Finally, the author chose to exclude male students as a comparison group in this preliminary study by design. As suggested by the Sadkers (1994), a woman and a man may have very different educational experiences even though they are seated next to each other in the same classroom with the same teacher. These differences were not at issue in this study and the author wanted to avoid understanding the experiences of women by comparing them to men. Additionally, in light of some previous type-based studies, inclusion of male subjects only seemed to complicate this research. An examination of math students by Wolverton (1993) indicated that the judging functions (thinking and feeling) may need to be viewed in terms of the gender of the person using them: that male thinking and male feeling may be qualitatively different than female thinking and female feeling, respectively. Furthermore, Grandpré (1995) observed gender-based perceptual differences on all type dimensions.
Participation in this study was voluntary and had no bearing on a student’s grade, although the counseling students could receive extra credit for participating in a research project. For students in the psychology course, both instruments (discussed below) were completed in class during the initial weeks of the course and prior to any discussion of gender bias in education. In conjunction with a video on gender bias (Pauley, 1994), the psychology students' results were used to supplement discussions of personality differences and of educational practice. After a brief explanation of the project, counseling students received an instrument packet to complete and return to the researcher through campus mail. A debriefing on the project occurred later in the term and focused primarily on the use of type theory in education and counseling. No formal accounting of non-responses was made.
Psychological type profiles were obtained with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or MBTI (Myers, 1987). The MBTI offers 16 profiles produced from four scales: Extraversion/Introversion or EI, Sensing/Intuition or SN, Thinking/Feeling or TF, and Judging/Perceiving or JP. As a principal measure of psychological type, the MBTI has been shown to be a valid and reliable measure of Jung's theory for the millions of individuals who have taken it (McCaulley, 1990; Myers & McCaulley, 1985).
To assess the profiles of classroom environments, the Salter Environmental Type Assessment or SETA (Salter, in press-b) was used. The SETA’s format is similar to the MBTI and provides 16 corresponding environmental type profiles based on four parallel scales (EI, SN, TF, and JP). Environmetric testing of the SETA has shown it to be a validand reliable assessment of the behavioral environments in which it has been used (Salter, in press-a, 1995-b, 1991), many of which have been educational settings.
When completing the SETA, students were instructed to focus on a former college classroom experience in which they either felt “at home” and did well or felt “out of place” and did poorly. Each student was allowed to choose whether she would focus on a good classroom experience or a bad one. To encourage the reporting of negative classroom experiences, students were not required to identify the actual course on the answer sheet, although many did. Also, a student gauged her performance in a particular class in relation to her performance in other classes. That is, a marginal student who received a "B" in a class might have considered that a good job. A talented student might have deemed a grade of "B" to be inadequate.
Associations from each of the four corresponding pairs of MBTI and SETA scales were studied with asymmetrical log-linear analysis or ALLA (Kennedy, 1992). Based on the likelihood chi-square, the log-linear approach provides a method to estimate probabilities of various associations within multidimensional contingency tables, such as those found in type data (O’Shea & Mamchur, 1989). ALLA is an inferential technique and is somewhat similar in approach to ANOVA. In this study, the three explanatory components--scores on the MBTI, the SETA, and the interaction between the SETA and MBTI--were assessed for the strength of their relationship to the “well/poor” outcome. Standardized residuals (SR) were screened to determine the strength and directionality of significant components.
From the group of 268 women with complete data sets, 155 students assessed classes where they performed well and 113 assessed classes where they felt they performed poorly.[1] Three of the four ALLAs of type dimensions produced significant null models. Analysis of the JP dimension did not produce a null model worth pursuing (G2 = 3.75, p < .05). In each other instance, the environmental factor explained differences in the well/poor outcome. The G2 and lambda (l) estimate for each environmental component were EI = 86.18 (l = .63 p < .00), SN= 42.79 (l = .47, p < .00), and TF= 84.39 (l = .70, p < .00).
The post hoc analyses of the standardized residuals (SRs) indicated that environmental extraversion was associated with the "well" outcome (SR = 3.93, p < .00) and that "poor" outcomes were associated with environmental introversion (SR = 5.12, p < .00) for both extraverted and introverted women. That is, even introverted women did not seem to feel congruent with introverted classrooms. For the sensing-intuition dimension, a similar effect was noted. Generally, sensing environments seemed associated with negative outcomes (SR=2.87, p < .00) and intuitive classrooms produced better self-reported performance (SR = 3.28, p < .00), regardless of whether a woman showed sensing or intuitive preferences on the MBTI.
Examination of the SRs from the thinking/feeling domain, which also offered the largest test statistic for the environmental component, revealed an interesting and more complex trend. Thinking women tended not to indicate much preference for thinking (SR = 1.58, p < .11) or feeling (SR = 1.54, p < .12) classrooms. Feeling women, on the other hand, seemed to indicate a strong preference for feeling classrooms (SR =4.31, p < .00) and against thinking classrooms (SR = 3.90, p < .00).
At first blush, these findings seemed to conflict with a traditional view of educational interventions based on psychological type theory: teach toward their type and they will learn (e.g., Carskadon, 1994). If student/classroom type congruence were the underlying process that predicted success, then the interaction terms between student and classroom might have been expected to be larger (i.e., congruence would suggest that introverted students might do better in introverted classrooms than in extraverted ones). Instead, the atmosphere of classroom environments seemed to be the key factor in explaining the difference between the "good" and "poor" experiences of the students in this sample. Positive outcomes were associated with extraverted and intuitive classrooms and negative experiences with introverted and sensing classrooms.
Still, the results also seemed to support contentions that the feeling function mirrors constructs from the emerging educational psychology of women. While the TF environmental component was by far the key explanatory factor to self-reported outcomes, most of that effect was "experienced" by the feeling students in the sample, who possess the more common learning style among all women. In light of the results from thinking women, however, the challenge to the supposition of a global female learning style appeared to be supported by these findings as well, and psychological type seemed to provide a means of describing relevant differences among women. Furthermore, if perceived incongruence and self-reported poor performance are indicators of interactions with an adverse learning environment, then the dynamic of feeling women in thinking classrooms may be one way to frame the complexities implied by the "chilly" classroom phenomenon.
As a point for classroom discussion of gender bias, the more meaningful observation was not which classroom environments seemed to predict success, but rather, the environmental dimensions that resulted in poor outcomes. For the women who reported negative experiences, environmental introversion, sensing, and thinking appeared to be especially difficult forces with which to cope. Further, while not statistically significant, judging also seemed related to self-reported problems. As a matter of fact, the ISTJ environmental profile accounted for 62% of cases of disclosed poor performance. Any movement away for the ISTJ environmental profile seemed to bring improved results: a situation that was not lost on participants in this study.
What does the ISTJ classroom look like? In many ways, and in the opinions of many students in this study, this type of setting mirrors the first class used by the Sadkers in their Dateline interview (Pauley, 1994) to demonstrate the educational challenges facing women. In this calculus-based physics class, few interactions occurred among students or with the instructor (the latter being one-way, teacher-to-student). Lecture and demonstration were used to communicate course material. Students took detailed notes and worked independently. The atmosphere was competitive, and high achievers were publicly reinforced. Even the set-up of the classroom, with student desks lined-up in rows, bespoke the underlying character of the class.
The Sadkers contrasted the abovementioned classroom with one that they suggest works better for women. In the second class (same subject, same teacher, but all girls), the students worked collaboratively while seated around small tables. Everyone in a group had to understand a problem before receiving reinforcement. The instructor worked with students by wandering around the classroom. A flurry of questions and comments surrounded most interactions (which were more two-way). Many hands-on demonstrations were executed by the students to build what the instructor called "physical intuition" and to premeditate previous experiential gaps. The classroom structure seemed less rigid and controlled than the first classroom profiled in the video. If the instructor needed to devote an entire class period to one concept, he did so, even though the class got behind. If an environmental type profile could be assigned to this classroom setting, it might be the ENFP (extraversion, intuition, feeling, and perceiving).
As mentioned above, the original intentions for collecting these data were to enable classroom discussion in the psychology course, and later, to improve the author's own instructional methods. As regards these, a few points were apparent after the debriefing of results with the students in this study. For all the attention given to learning style in education, especially as indicated through psychological type constructs, the atmosphere of a classroom may be a stronger determinant of a female student's academic experiences. Certainly, introversion, sensing, and thinking seemed to be a lethal combination for the women in this study, especially those women with feeling preferences.
Once this fact was pointed out to them, most of the psychology students who chose to report their positive outcomes could quickly recollect similar classroom experiences that had resulted in their diminished performance. After a cursory examination of the actual courses, coupled with in-class discussions, this author observed that the lower-division students generally saw college algebra and chemistry classes as ISTJ and that ISTJ was almost perfectly correlated with statistics for upper-division students. While courses in the hard sciences have been traditionally noted as chilly and were found to be somewhat associated with the ISTJ profile, a need for more research is certainly indicated before drawing that conclusion.
On the other hand, departure from the ISTJ academic environment seemed to improve the situation and suggested some changes in pedagogy. As occurred in the psychology course, the author used environmental type constructs to improve his educational practice. More opportunities for collaborative learning and group projects, which may combine extraversion and feeling, were built into the flow of the class (e.g., working as a team to solve a moral dilemma). Hands-on experiences, to provide a sensing basis for the theoretical intuitions, were also incorporated (e.g., playing with toys and reading children’s books to facilitate a discussion of cognitive and language development). Naturalistic research projects (such as a personal case study) became part of course expectations, as well. Additionally, the author "personalized" the content by relating stories of his own development. While no formal assessment was made of these interventions, many students have noted the helpfulness of these activities on the instructor's course evaluations over the years.
Whether these findings were due to the expression of gender-based differences in psychological or environmental type dimensions or to the limited experiences of this rather small sample needs to be explored. A larger sample would have allowed an examination of type dynamics and higher order interactions. Inclusion of students from less feeling-oriented academic areas, such as math or science, might also have strengthened the results by diversifying the range of classroom experiences. A more classic research design (e.g., collecting all the data at the same time and with the same method) might also impact the results.
Even though the findings suggested it, educators may be ill-advised to assume that avoidance of introverted, sensing and thinking settings may provide a single key to educating women. In the "type community," there is a type aphorism that suggests that "even though you may score as thinking on the MBTI, having this preference does not necessarily mean that you are good at thinking." This admonition may apply equally well to environmental types. For instance, perhaps the introverted students in this study have not encountered a good introverted setting for learning, or did not recognize it as such.
Still, some educational strategies were suggested from these results, and in the author's experiences, met with success when implemented. Importantly though, as the Sadkers caution, adoption of alternative approaches must be weighed against pedagogical goals and an instructor's ability to perform within institutional guidelines. For example, when a fixed amount of content must be covered in a fixed amount of time (as was the case for the psychology course), an instructor may not have the luxury to work on a flexible or self-paced schedule. The students in this study recognized that group/experiential exercises consume valuable class time and that an “SJ” approach tends to “get us through the material.” A balanced approach seemed important to both the students and the instructor by the end of the in-class discussions of this topic.
Unfortunately, the recommendations in this paper are educationally reactive and do little to address the underlying problems associated with gender bias. As noted (Belenky et al., 1986), the macro-educational environment has been traditionally oriented toward the education of men and boys: an educational style in the hard sciences that possesses near paradigmatic qualities. When viewing the video of the Sadkers' research, many women in this study were amazed to see the female-oriented science class and lamented the fact that they had not had a similar experience. The video clearly demonstrated that two very different classroom environments can be created by the same teacher teaching the same supposedly "male" subject. Perhaps teachers of courses that seem to be especially problematic for women should be challenged to reexamine their approach, as well as long-held disciplinary stereotypes.
While they were not part of this analysis to understand women's experiences, the impact of alternative educational strategies on male students may be an issue for future consideration, especially feeling-oriented men. At the end of her interview with the Sadkers, Pauley raised this very question in light of the fact that most public classrooms are coeducational. The male students in the psychology course appeared to grasp the issue of gender-bias and the differences among classroom settings. But, in concert with the women in the class, they were less than enthusiastic about the merits of single-sexed classrooms, which was a primary strategy offered by the Sadkers to ameliorate gender bias. Few individuals, male or female, supported the need for more ISTJ classrooms.
In the end, applied Jungian theory may provide one vehicle to improve the education of both sexes with less polarization. Initially, the girls who were interviewed by Pauley about the Sadkers' intervention were angry that a "special class" had been designated for them. We can only speculate on the boys' reactions and the opinions of other instructors. The findings in this study suggested that more extraverted, intuitive, and feeling-oriented activities might serve to improve pedagogy without the paternalistic overtones. Given the scope of this problem in education, any strategy that improves the education of women must be considered.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger,
N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The
development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter
characteristics and the structure and output of university
departments. Journal of Applied Psychology 57,
204-213.
Carskadon, T. G. (1994). Student personality factors: Psychological
type and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In K. W. Prichard & R.
M. Sawyer (Eds.). Handbook of college teaching: Theory and
applications (pp. 68-81). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory
and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Grandpré, E. A. (1995). Comparison of the real and ideal
perceptions of a student living unit by psychological type.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation research, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH.
Hammer, A. L., & Mitchell, W. D. (1996). The distribution of MBTI
types in the US by gender and ethnic group. Journal of
Psychological Type 37, 2-15.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. (H. G. Baynes,
Trans., revised by R. F. C. Hull). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press. (Original work published in 1921)
Kennedy, J. J. (1992). The analysis of qualitative data:
Introductory log-linear analysis for behavioral researchers (2nd
ed.). New York: Praeger.
Lawrence, G. (1993). People types and tiger stripes: A practical
guide to learning styles (3rd ed.). Gainesville, FL: Center for
the Applications of Psychological Type.
McCaulley, M. H. (1990). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A measure
for individuals and groups. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development 22, 181-195.
Moody, J. (1989). Type and moral development: Kohlberg and Gilligan.
Journal of Psychological Type 18, 11-13.
Moos, R. H. (1979) Evaluating educational environments. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Myers, I. B. (1987). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Form G.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to
the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Myers, I.B., & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts Differing. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Otis, G. D. & Quenk, N. L. (1989). Care and justice
considerations in “real” life moral problems.
Journal of Psychological Type 18, 3-10.
O’Shea, T., & Mamchur, C. (1989). Using a loglinear model to
analyze MBTI Distributions. Journal of Psychological Type 17,
45-55.
Pauley, J. (1994). Equal possibilities? In Kavetas, E. (Producer) and
Brandel, R. (Editor), Dateline NBC. New York: National
Broadcasting Company.
Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How
America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons.
Salter, D. W. (1991). Design of the Environmental Personality Type
Assessment (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University,
Columbus). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (5),
1724A. (University Microfilms No. 91-30549).
Salter, D. W. (1995a). A Jungian view of the dimensions of behavioral
environments. Journal of Psychological Type, 34, 24-28.
Salter, D. W. (1995b). Design and testing of the Environmental
Personality Type Assessment. Journal of Psychological Type,
34, 29-35.
Salter, D. W. (1996, March). Psychological and environmental type
congruence in educational settings. Proceedings of International
Symposium: Quality Education-Evolution and Revolution (pp.
195-197). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of
Psychological Type.
Salter, D. W. (in press-a). SETA manual: A users' guide to the
Salter Environmental Type Assessment. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Salter, D. W. (in press-b). The Salter Environmental Type
Assessment Ð Experimental Form.. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Sandler, B. R., Silverberg, L. A., & Hall, R. M. (1996). The
chilly classroom climate: A guide to improve the education of
women. Washington, DC: National Association for Women in
Education.
Stokes, J. (1987). Exploring the relationship of type and gender,
part 1: Anecdotal experiences of MBTI users. Journal of
Psychological Type 13, 34-43.
Wolverton, R. E. (1993). The relationship of gender and
thinking-feeling preference to mathematics self-efficacy. Journal
of Psychological Type 25, 54-60.
NOTE: Tabular data, type tables, and complete ALLA results are available from the author.
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Daniel W. Salter is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Counselor Education, Counseling Psychology, and Rehabilitation Services at Penn State, where he teaches in the College Student Personnel program. He is the developer of the Salter Environmental Type Assessment and has been involved in both women’s and men’s issues, as well as Jungian psychology, for over fifteen years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Tabular data, type tables, and complete ALLA results are available from the author.