Does the Effect of Enacting One’s Type Exist?

(V. L. Talanov - continuation of an important topic)

As an example, we compared different methods of calculating ITR on a subsample of 161 opposite-sex romantic couples characterized by the fact that, first, the duration of their relationships was at least 1 year, and second, all participants in these couples reported their presumed sociotypes in the questionnaires.

Thus, ITR in each couple can be calculated in several ways:

1. By the types directly reported by the members of the couples, without taking into account the results of their questionnaire-based diagnosis. All identified ITRs are then included in the statistics with equal weight.

2. By the highest (leading) peaks in the members’ type profiles as diagnosed by the questionnaires (ignoring any socionic accents, that is, all lower peaks). All identified ITRs are likewise included in the statistics with equal weight.

3. By the full trait profile of the members of the couples – with this calculation method, when identifying the dominant ITR, not only the signs of the traits but also the magnitudes of their deviations from zero are taken into account. As a result, two respondents both having LII as their leading peak (for example) will not necessarily turn out to be identicals with respect to the dominant ITR; a different ITR may prove dominant for them. Similarly, not every LSI-EIE pair (according to the leading peaks of their profiles) will turn out to be duals, because the ITR calculation depends strongly on the accents – a different dominant ITR may likewise result. This calculation method is undoubtedly more accurate. The resulting dominant ITR can also be included in the statistics either with equal unit weights or with different weights depending on the degree of expression of the resulting ITR. In this third method of calculating ITR statistics, we will use a simplified method of calculating ITR – that is, all identified dominant ITRs in the couples are included in the subsequent statistics with the same unit weight (analogously to how this was done in the first and second methods of calculating the statistics).

4. The same calculation method as in the third method (the most accurate and the closest to reality for identifying the dominant ITR), but the identified ITRs of the couples are now included in the statistics using the actual weights of the identified dominant ITRs. For the statistics themselves, this is the most accurate calculation method, but it differs from the first two methods, where the ITR weights in all couples were assumed to be equal. Therefore, it is appropriate to compare the first and second methods with the third, not the fourth.

The table presents calculations of ITR statistics for the subsample of 161 opposite-sex romantic couples for all four calculation methods specified above.

What do we see from the table? The proportion of duality and activation relations in the sample is slightly higher when calculated from the self-reported types than when calculated more objectively from the diagnosed type and trait profiles (comparison of the first calculation method with the second and third). When reporting their socionic types “by self-assessment,” members of romantic couples somewhat overestimate the probability of being in dual relations. Activation, semi-duality, and quasi-identity relations are also overestimated. At the same time, supervision, benefit, and conflict relations are underestimated by respondents.

The fact that, under the second calculation method (by leading peaks), the percentage of dual ITRs is higher than when calculated from the full socionic profile taking all of its accents into account (calculation method No. 3) indicates that the phenomenon of “enacting one’s type” when completing questionnaires does occur, but this enactment mainly affects only the leading peak of the profile (an increase in which is easier to unconsciously falsify in one’s responses), without affecting the finer structure of socionic profiles. Additional confirmation of this conclusion is the monotonic decline in the frequency of duality, extinguishment, and quasi-identity relations when moving from the first calculation method to the second and then to the third. By contrast, the frequency of underestimated conflict relations increases slightly but monotonically.

Nevertheless, it is very unlikely that the effect of enacting one’s type is substantial and capable of significantly affecting the socionic regularities studied using questionnaires. Against such a possibility is also the fact that the proportion of dual relations differs very little when they are determined from self-reported types and from questionnaires (under very different methods of calculating ITR); in particular, the results presented in our previous post also argue against a substantial role of “enacting one’s type”: they showed a substantial increase in the proportion of dual relations diagnosed by questionnaires when moving from short-term romantic relationships to long-term ones (which in itself contradicts the idea of “dual enactment”).

Intertype-relation statistics for 161 opposite-sex romantic couples who indicated their types through self-typing and whose relationship duration was at least 1 year (4 different methods of calculating ITR)