The Giving Type:
A Study on How Different Personality Types and Temperaments
Respond to Tailored Donation Appeals
Julie Gerdes
A Capstone Project
Presented to the Faculty of the School of Communication in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts
in Public Communication
Supervisor: Prof. Lauren Feldman
April 15, 2010
COPYRIGHT©
Julie Gerdes
2010
ii
Adapted from Silverstein, S. (1964)
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N TS
I must first thank my advisor, Dr. Lauren Feldman, for going above and beyond the call of duty
on a regular basis. I cannot begin to thank her enough for her patience and guidance throughout
this project. I am truly grateful for the many hours she spent with me explaining when to run a TTest, as opposed to an ANOVA. The knowledge she has shared and the support she provided are
deeply appreciated. Without her, this would not have been possible.
I would also like to thank the SOC faculty for providing me with extra help during this endeavor,
especially Professor Ivancin, Professor Stack and Professor Hayes. The suggestions and feedback
they offered were incredibly helpful. I’d also like to thank Professor Lynch, for always being understanding and conscientious of my time and workload. Thanks to Brian Twillman and
Roseann Deal for their wealth of expertise on all things personality, to the wonderful support staff
at surveygizmo and to my peer review group for all their thoughtful comments and critiques.
To Mom, Dad, Caroline, Oma, Gammie and Rach: your love and support helped me through this
process. Manda and Jess, thank you for good company and non-Capstone related conversations.
To my extended family, friends and fellow grad students: thanks for putting up with me and for
letting me “type” just about each and every one of you!
A special thanks to everyone who helped distribute my survey, especially Liz (my MBTI partner
in crime), Candace (MBTI expert in training), Cindy, Corinne, Breaux, Laura, Becca, Christin,
my fellow PC grad students and all the ladies at BRBT.
The deepest thanks and appreciation to my boyfriend, Andrew, for his unending, unwavering
support in all matters—academic and otherwise. Thank you for listening and for being an openminded sounding board. Most of all thank you for ALWAYS being there.
Finally, to everyone who took my survey or let me talk your ears off about personality types- I
truly, truly thank you for the help you have given me. I could not have done it alone.
iii
A BST R A C T
As more and more charities compete for donor support, there is a need for new strategies
that reach individual donors. Without donations from individuals, non-profits cannot
survive. When the economy lags, finding ways to tailor and match altruistic cause
appeals to donors would cut back on overhead and help non-profits to better reach their
target audience. One way to better reach donors is by understanding donor behavior via
the framework of the Myers-Briggs and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter literature based
on Jung’s theory of psychological type. Other areas ranging from health care services to
financial planning have benefited from these typologies. In an experimental study,
participants took a Jungian based psychological test and were then shown one of four ads
that was either matched or mismatched to their personality type. Participants then
answered questions related to their giving behavior, as well as their opinion on the ad that
they were shown. While results show that temperament is in fact an indicator of
likelihood to give, matched messages are not more successful at increasing likelihood to
donate. The results do show however that receiving matched messages affects other
variables related to behavior and attitude change.
Key Words:
Myers-Briggs, MBTI, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, KTS, personality,
temperament, donation, message tailoring, charitable, matching, type
iv
T A B L E O F C O N T E N TS
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….vi
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………..vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..1-3
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………4-35
Understanding Donor Behavior………………………………………………...4-8
Matching and Tailoring………………………………………………………..8-12
Personality Theory Background……………………………………………...13-21
Personality Theory Applications……………………………………………..21-34
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….35
CHAPTER THREE: HYPOTHESES………………………………………………..36-37
CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY…….…………………………………….....38-48
Sample………………………………………………………………………..38-39
Study Materials and Procedures……………………………………………...39-42
Measures……………………………………………………………………...43-48
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS…..……………………………………………………49-63
Personality and Baseline Levels of Charitable Giving……………………….49-52
Personality Differences in Responses to the Charitable Appeal……………..53-58
Effects of Message Type……………………………………………………..58-61
Effects of Matched vs. Unmatched…………………………………………..61-63
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION………………………………………………….….64-78
Differences Across Temperament and Type…………………………………64-70
Differences Across Message Type…………………………………………...70-72
Effectiveness of Matched Messages……………………………………….....72-73
Limitations and Directions for Future Research……………………………...73-77
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………....77-79
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….80-87
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
The Help Decision Process………………………………………………88
Description of The 16 Types…………………………………………89-94
The Keirsey Temperament Role Variants……………………………95-96
MBTI Flex-Care Framework………...……………………………….97-98
Frequencies of the Types in the U.S. Population………………………...99
Keirsey’s Traits of Temperament and Character……………………….100
Surveygizmo Questionnaire……………………………………….101-104
Temperament Typed Ads………………………………………….105-108
Jungian Questionnaire……………………………………………..109-112
v
L IST O F T A B L ES
Table 1: Type Dichotomies Chart………………………………………………………..15
Table 2: The 16 Personality Types………………………………………………………16
Table 3: KTS Temperaments & MBTI Types…………………………………………...20
Table 4: Temperament Self-Image………………………………………………………33
Table 5: Temperament Typed Messages………………………………………………...41
Table 6: Times Donated by Temperament….……………………………………………50
Table 7: Type of Charitable Organization……………………………………………….51
Table 8: Preference for Giving by Temperament………………………………………..52
Table 9: Preference for Giving by T vs. F……...……………………...………………...52
Table 10: Intention to Donate by Temperament…………………………………………53
Table 11: Likelihood to Donate by Type………………………………………………..54
Table 12: Emotional Reaction Based on Temperament…………………..……………..55
Table 13: Emotion Reaction Based on T vs. F…...……………………………………..56
Table 14: Open-Ended Responses by Temperament……….……………………………57
Table 15: Open-Ended Response Tone by Temperament……………………………….57
Table 16: Emotional Responses to Ad Type……...……………………………………..59
Table 17: Open-Ended Responses to Ad Type…………………………………………..60
Table 18: Open-Ended Tone of Responses to Ad Type…………………………………61
Table 19: Open-Ended Response to Matched Messages...…………………...………….62
vi
L IST O F F I G U R ES
Figure 1: Sample Ad……………………………………………………………………42
vii
IN TR O DU C TIO N
1.6 million: that is the number of charitable organizations in the United States
recognized by the Foundation Center’s nonprofit database, which roughly averages to one non-profit for every 200 Americans. That is a lot of competition. With over a million
organizations competing for donations, the market is saturated with public service
announcements, mail requests and dozens of other gimmicks designed to capture the
public’s interest. Yet, in the expanding digital media environment, audiences are
becoming increasingly fragmented, and as a result, broad stroke style strategies are less
effective. As a result, non-profits are looking for creative ways to differentiate themselves
and reach their target audiences. The future of charitable organizations depends upon
finding new ways to circumvent these challenges and reach the public. For this reason,
the better a message is tailored or matched to the characteristics of a particular target
audience, the more likely that it will have an impact.
This study will explore the potential for tailoring messages to personality type and
temperament. Specifically, it will evaluate the validity of using the Keirsey Temperament
Sorter (KTS) and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality scales as a
framework for message tailoring of altruistic appeals. To date, personality type theory, in
the form of the MBTI and the KTS, is applied in disciplines ranging from management to
health sciences to education (Keirsey, 1998; Myers & McCaulley, 1987; Myers, 1980).
1
Over the past few decades, type theory has enjoyed widespread and established use in
interpersonal communication (Hirsch & Kummerow, 1989). Teachers and managers
apply the principles of typology to better understand students and employees. Even
doctors are learning to deliver medical instructions in a way that suits a patient’s type (Allen & Brock, 2000). Moreover, there are numerous studies that show congruence
between personality type and individual behavior in areas ranging from religion (Francis,
2004, 2005, 2007, 2008; Morton, 2010) to nutrition (Horacek & Betts, 1998) and exercise
(Brue, 2004, 2008; Edelbaum, 2006). Yet little research has been done regarding the
applicability of personality to message processing in public relations (Cline, McBride &
Miller, 1989; Smith, 1993), and even less has been done in the context of social
marketing and fundraising campaigns. Studies have been done specifically in regard to
message matching based on psychological type, but they have been relatively small in
scale (Cline et al., 1989; Smith, 1993). This study is thus an important first step in
demonstrating the applicability of personality theory to the design of fundraising appeals.
Through a quantitative experiment, people’s responses to temperament tailored
altruistic appeals were tested to see how they varied according to the respondent’s personality type. Specifically, the study assessed whether people are more motivated to
make a donation in response to an appeal that matches their personality type than to an
appeal that does not match. The results helped to determine if message tailoring based on
temperament or type provides a valid framework for future study and application.
The application of type theory to the field of tailoring and matching would create
2
a new way to reach audience segments. The following paper will explore how personality
type theory can be utilized as a tool in matching and tailoring messages to make
fundraising campaigns more effective. To better understand the potential for utilizing
personality theory to craft philanthropic appeals, a brief overview of current literature
regarding donor behavior will be given, prior to literature on matching and tailoring.
Background on the development of type theory will be provided, as well as to other
applications of the MBTI and the KTS in order to understand the implications of using
type theory in communications, specifically in the message tailoring of altruistic appeals.
Following the literature review, the methodology, results, findings and conclusions will
be discussed.
3
LIT E RA TUR E RE VIE W
Understanding Donor Behavior
While some attribute donor behavior to being merely financially driven, there is a
large body of theoretical evidence that suggests that social psychology provides far more
insight into the donor motivation to give to altruistic causes (Guy & Patton, 1989;
Margolis, 1982; McClintock & Scott, 1989). Despite the opinions of many theorists who
see individuals as primarily selfish, it has been proven time and time again that people
will give, often to their detriment, in order to help others (Wispe, 1978). Yet there is still
a great deal of conflict regarding whether one’s propensity toward altruism is inherent or a learned behavior (Bar Tal & Raviv, 1982) or whether giving is a selfish or altruistic act
(Reykowski, 1982; Wong, 2009). As a result, researchers have developed various models
explaining giving behavior and shown that many variables go into one’s decision to donate (Bendapudi et al., 1996; Garner & Wagner, 1991; Guy & Patton, 1989; Sargeant,
1999; Sherry, 1983).
A variety of internal and external factors can help predict one’s propensity to give (Guy & Patton, 1989). The internal, or unseen, factors include personality variables,
mood, individual values and past experience with a particular cause or issue, while the
external, or visible, factors include the type of message appeal, other people involved and
environmental factors. Guy and Patton proposed that these internal and external
4
mitigating factors influence the various steps in the “help decision process” (1989, p. 22) that one must go through when making the decision to give. See Appendix A for a chart
that illustrates the help decision-making process. It remains unclear whether the internal
or external mitigating factors have a greater influence on donor behavior.
The internal factors listed above have been proven to be important factors in one’s decision to donate to charity. When surveyed, 70% of all participants listed a personal
relationship or “previous experience” with a cause as their main reason for making a donation (Saxxon-Harrold, Carter & Humble, 1987; Schlegelmilch & Tynan, 1989). That
being said, donation behavior remains unpredictable, as many people who are affected by
an issue still choose not to make donations, just as people who have no personal
investment in an issue readily donate. Interestingly, “values” derived from experience with an issue or personal sympathy are often a main determinant of giving behavior and
have been shown as independent of demographics or background (Ray, 1997). As a
result, the influence of these values is somewhat hard to track, as it is impossible to
measure if an issue affecting someone has been adopted as a personal value.
The
adoption of personal values can be correlated with certain personality traits such as an
individual’s empathetic disposition, whether a person is religious, one’s sense of social responsibility and one’s self-esteem or compassion (Bennett, 2003). One’s ability to empathize with others has been linked as an indicator toward giving behavior and many
people report giving to fulfill an intrinsic need to be of help or service to others (Bennett,
2003; Radley & Kennedy, 1995; Sargeant, 1999). This “altruistic” giving behavior has 5
been determined as a common motivator when donating to a charitable organization
(Bennett, 2004; Guy & Patton, 1989, Reykowski, 1982; Wong, 2010).
Also important to one’s values is the influence of the psychological congruence between a particular charity and a person’s self-image (Guy & Patton, 1989). Often
times, one’s self-image affects his relationship to a cause or issue. If a person sees the
issue as relevant to his own life and identity he is more likely to donate (Bennett, 2003).
The donation, in essence, becomes an extension of the individual. For example, a donor
might choose to donate to a popular art museum that frequently features exciting, avant
garde exhibits, if he also sees himself as bold and adventurous. So while values deal with
what one sees as important based on experience and intrinsic reflection, self-image
congruence stems from a need for identity and how one wishes to be seen.
That being said, demographics play a considerably less important role than once
thought. For example, while income level is an indicator of what type of organization
one will donate to, it is not necessarily indicative of whether an individual will donate
(Ostrower, 1997). In a 1997 study, Ostrower found that wealthy people are more likely to
donate to educational and cultural organizations that serve to reinforce their “conceptions of how society should be organized” (p. 132). Wealthy people were also less likely to
support homelessness and more likely to give to third world aid agencies and
environmental causes. There was no sign that age influenced giving behavior outside of
the type of donation made. Younger donors contributed to a variety of organizations, with
a particular predisposition for donating to third world groups. As age increased among
6
participants, so did the amount of donations to health focused organizations and medical
causes. So while demographics play a key role in donor behavior they are not the sole
motivation for choosing to give (Bennett, 2003).
Many studies have looked at the impact of perceived social status on giving. It
has been determined that helping behavior increases with the knowledge that others are
helping, particularly those who are of equal or higher status (Berkowitz, 1972; Catt &
Benson, 1977; Mullen, 1983). A perceived benefit, such as increased social prominence
based on the amount and type of the donation, may lead to conspicuous giving in hopes
of elevating one’s status (Bennett, 2003; Radley & Kennedy, 1995). It has been shown
repeatedly that people are also more likely to help if other people are aware of their
involvement (Latane & Nida, 1981). Lohmann suggested that one’s giving behavior is also directly linked to one’s membership within society or personal networks, such as a certain religion or community (1992). This obvious normative influence supports the
theory that people often give for positive attention and social status.
Recently, research has established the two central forces driving donor behavior
as either based on altruistic or selfish motivations (Wong, 2009.) Not only can charitable
giving be motivated by social preferences of the altruistic variety, but research shows that
it might result from more selfish social preferences as well. Wong defines altruism as “an unselfish concern for the welfare of others, which can be representative of any number of
social preferences related to that of being unselfish” (2009, p. 14). Selfish social preferences, on the other hand, are influenced by psychological outcomes such as
7
“satisfaction or dissatisfaction from meeting or failing to meet someone else’s expectations” (Wong, 2009, p. 14). Giving decisions can arise from both selfish and selfless social preferences. In particular, what may seem to be an altruistically motivated
act may actually be a selfish decision. Research in this area remains unclear as to whether
an individual is always motivated by a certain type of giving incentive, or if it changes
based upon certain variables. It is important to understand how these two motivations
can be utilized to both determine giving behavior and develop messages that will attract
donors based on these motivations. The next section reviews literature on message
tailoring and matching in order to develop a better understanding of how these strategies
can be used to motivate charitable giving.
T ailoring and M atching
Matching and tailoring messages is a broad and evolving area of the
communication field. Messages can be matched to reach target audiences in a variety of
ways. Traditionally, tailored messages are used to reach a specific individual, whereas
targeted messages are focused on reaching a certain group (Williams-Piehota, Schneider,
Pizarro, Mowad, & Salovey, 2003). Early tailoring focused on personalizing messages
with the recipient’s name or other basic information such as age and hometown (Kreuter,
Strecher & Glassman, 1999).
This type of personalization is distinct from demographic targeting, in which
message content varies depending on the gender or racial make-up of a group (Latimer,
8
Katulak, Mowad & Salovey, 2005). Demographic based tailoring (Kreuter & Wray,
2003) has proved that it is effective in changing behaviors and reaching audiences. As
technology has improved, messages are also being tailored based on both demographics
and other key identifying characteristics (Schneider et al., 2001), such as an individual’s information needs and interests (Rimer & Kreuter, 2006; Strecher, Rimer, & Monaco,
1989).
Recently, the use of message tailoring has gained a foothold in the health
communication field. Health messages have been shown to be more effective when they
are tailored to match key characteristics of the receiver (Kreuter, et al., 1999). These
tailored health communications (THCs) use a combination of information and behavior
change strategies to reach a specific person based on information unique to that person
(Rimer & Kreuter, 2006). Messages can be tailored to reach the individual or targeted to
the group level (Williams-Piehota, et al. 2003). While many previous tailoring strategies
have focused on predicting behavior based on the individual’s “stage of change,” others have looked at psychological constructs (Williams-Piehota, et al., 2003; 2004; 2005).
Communicators have found that tailoring messages based on recipients’ psychological style via psychological constructs such as “need for cognition” have yielded better results than traditional methods (Williams-Piehota, et al., 2003).
Psychologically tailored messages have been particularly useful in reinforcing
preventative health behaviors, such as diet (Latimer, Katulak, Mowad & Salovey, 2005)
and exercise (Marshall, et al., 2003). Research based on the Elaboration Likelihood
9
Model has found that message elaboration is required in order for long-term persuasion to
occur; moreover, elaborative processing requires that an individual is both highly
motivated and able to process the message elaborately (Cacioppio & Petty, 1986;
Hallahan, 2008; Petty, Barden & Wheeler, 2002). Thus, tailored messages are, in part,
more effective than untailored messages because they increase the personal relevance of
the message and, in turn, create stronger message elaboration by the recipient (Cacioppio
& Petty, 1986; Kreuter et al., 1999; Lavine & Snyder, 1996; Williams-Piehota et al.,
2003).
In sum, matching the correct source and message to the recipient are crucial to
persuading different types of people to change their nutritional attitudes and behaviors
(Wilson, 2007). Communicators who are able to target their audiences with messages that
speak personally to groups will have a “significantly improved chance” (p. S18) of influencing behavior.
While much has been done in the health communication field regarding
psychological tailoring as a means to behavioral change, there is promise that tailoring
captures attention in social marketing and donor appeal campaigns as well. The research
is more limited, but philanthropic appeals or donor appeal campaigns are often matched
based on demographics (Bennett, 2003), targeted to specific groups, or even tailored to
individuals (Weldon, 1984).
Guy and Patton identified external factors, such as the nature of the charitable
appeal, as playing a considerable role in one’s availability and ability to give (1989). 10
While external factors are fairly hard to control, one area where there is promise for
influencing an external factor is in developing the appeal itself. The appeal must be
clear, readily and easily understandable (Guy & Patton, 1989), and unambiguous in its
message (Clark & Word, 1972). Tailoring a message to a specific group or individual
helps eliminates barriers to comprehension, thereby increasing the likelihood of reaching
the donor. Thus, messages that are tailored to the potential member or donor have been
proven to more readily elicit the desired objective (Weldon, 1984).
A popular strategy for targeting appeals involves sending appeals to people who
have donated to the same charity or a similar type of cause in the past. This strategy
works well, as many donors are loyal, but it also neglects to reach potential donors who
might be unaware of opportunities to give.
Many donors become frustrated with
continued solicitations from organizations. This “donor fatigue” is a common reason that non-profits lose donors (Anderson, 1998). Message tailoring would increase the chance
that the donor would be receptive to the ad itself, thus increasing the probability of
another donation.
Some studies have attempted to segment groups based on personality and
behavior, but they did not use the general population. Instead, studies like the ones by
Supphellen and Nelson (2001) and Cermak, File and Prince (1994) looked at past records
of existing donors to an organization. Since the studies focused on segmenting subjects
who had already made donations, they were unable to measure what types were not being
reached by solicitations. In their typology, Supphellen and Nelson established three
11
donor categories: “Analysts,” “Relationists” and “Internalists.” Analysts focus mainly on the cause itself, whereas relationists care for just the particular organization and do not
support other charities. Internalists do not evaluate, they just give to organizations, such
as the Red Cross, who have recognizable names (2001).
Cermak et al., on the other hand, looked at not only corresponding demographic
and/or attitudinal variables (1994), but at external motivators as well. In his study he
divided his typology into four groups: “Affiliators,” “Pragmatists,” “Dynasts” and “Repayers.” Affiliators were concerned with their social relationships and the neediness
of the cause, whereas pragmatists were motivated by tax advantages. Dynasts donated
out of family obligation and supported charities that they perceived as reflecting their
values, while repayers were motivated when they or someone they knew benefited from
the donation.
While research has only begun to explore the potential of matching and tailoring
according to personality type, this is a promising strategy, particularly in the area of
donor appeals, given that personality has been identified as an important predictor of
philanthropic giving (Bennett, 2003; Guy & Patton, 1989). Moreover, tailoring donor
appeals to recipients' personality type could help increase comprehension of the message
and, in so doing increase the likelihood that they will make a donation (Bennett, 2003).
The next section provides background on personality type theories. Following this,
existing applications of these theories to communication and philanthropy are discussed.
12
Personality T heory Background
For the purpose of this study, both the literature on function type proposed by
Isabel Myers and the framework based on temperament role variants by David Keirsey
will be utilized. The synthesis of these two areas of study will provide a more holistic
approach to understanding every level of the target audiences.
The purpose of both the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Keirsey
Temperament Sorter (KTS) are to make the theory of psychological types, as described
by psychologist C. G. Jung in his book, Psychological Type (1923), both understandable
and useful in everyday life (Myers, 1980). While much of the literature on the MBTI and
KTS makes a point of separating Myers’ and Keirsey’s work, in many ways, it is impossible to separate them from one another. Much of Myers’ research was first brought to light by Keirsey’s 1978 publication, Please Understand Me, in which he recognized
Myers’ skillful adaptation of Jung’s psychological type theory. The essence of Jung’s type theory is that much seemingly random variation in an
individual’s behavior is actually orderly and consistent (1923). Unlike Freud, who was the leading psychoanalyst of the day, Jung attempted to classify people based on their
attitudes and functions, as opposed to their subconscious. Despite historical basis for his
typology, his research was met with little interest, due to the popularity of Sigmund
Freud’s competing theories at the time. In fact, his book did not gain attention until Katharine Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Myers, further developed its attitudinal
13
constructs as the framework for the MBTI.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment is a psychometric
questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the
world and make decisions (Myers, 1980). Following her mother’s early research, Myers developed the questionnaire. As mentioned above, fundamental to the MBTI is Jung’s Theory of Psychological type. In Jung’s theory, he proposed the existence of two dichotomous pairs of cognitive functions: The "rational" (judging) functions: thinking
and feeling and the "irrational" (perceiving) functions: sensing and intuition (Jung, 1923).
Perception involves how one becomes aware of outside events or ideas, whereas
judgment involves how one arrives at conclusions about what has been perceived. Jung
suggested that these functions are expressed in either an introverted or extraverted form.
From Jung's original concepts, Myers and Briggs collaborated to develop a practical
measure of one’s psychological type by which to apply the theory.
In the Myers-Briggs typology (see Table 1), letters are assigned to denote
functional pairs. Each function type is then based on a combination of letters, which
measure one’s orientation to the environment as introverted or extroverted (I or E); how
one perceives the world through either the five senses or through intuition (S or N);
whether one prefers to make judgments about the world based on thinking or feeling (T
or F); and one’s attitude or preference for judging or perceiving (J or P) (Myers, 1980).
While the EI, SN, and TF functions existed in some form in Jung’s work, albeit not so concretely, Myers added the Judgment- Perception or JP index to indicate whether Jung’s 14
rational or irrational function is dominant.
Table 1. Type Dichotomies Chart
The MBTI sorts psychological differences into four opposite pairs, or
dichotomies, with a resulting 16 possible psychological types (Myers, 1980) (See Table
2). Myers theorized that all individuals have a natural preference for one overall
combination of type differences. The resulting typology creates 16 “function types” (ISTP, ENTJ, etc.), which are then divided into four function pairs (NF, SF, NT, ST)
based on presumably shared mental processes (Myers, 1980). (See Appendix B for a
description of all 16 types).
15
Table 2. The 16 Personality Types
Adapted from EPA handout, (Brian Twillman lecture at American University, 2009)
Personality type theory is based upon the premise that if people differ from one
another in a systematic way (perception, judgment, etc.), then it is plausible that their
skills, reactions, values, interests, motivations and subsequently their behavior, will differ
as well (Myers & McCaulley, 1987). Discrepancies in behavior between different types
of people can therefore be explained by basic differences in how individuals prefer to use
their own perception and judgment.
In the late 1970’s, psychologists David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates (1978; 1984) proposed different interpretations of how the preferred functions operated together to
affect behavior (Cline, et al., 1989). They used the same constructs and types, but
divided Myers’ 16 “function types” into four new subgroups, which they called temperaments. Keirsey made his assignments based on observable behavior processes, as
opposed to pairings based on mental processes (Keirsey, 1998; Keirsey & Bates, 1984).
16
While Myers used typology to explain one’s mental make-up, Keirsey sought to measure
the observable and subsequently avoid what he deemed to be the “unavoidably subjective” (Keirsey & Bates, 1984, p. 34). Research by Hoffman and Betkouski (1981),
McCarley and Carskadon (1986) and Quinn, Lewis and Fischer (1992) validates
Keirsey’s approach to segmentation based on observed behavioral analysis. From the 16
Myers-Briggs function types, the Keirsey sorter classifies people into four basic
temperament groups: Artisan (SP), Guardian (SJ), Idealist (NF) and Rational (NT). (See
Appendix C for more temperament related information). AdvisorTeam.com (the official
provider of KTS®) describes them as follows:
SP/Artisans. Artisans have a natural ability to excel in any of the arts, the fine arts, the
performing arts, the athletic, military, political, mechanical, and industrial arts, as well as
the “art of the deal” in business. Artisans want to be where the action is; they are impulsive, competitive, and believe that the next throw of the dice will be the lucky one.
Above all, Artisans resist being tied or confined or obligated; they would rather not wait,
or save, or live for tomorrow.
SJ/Guardian. Guardians are the cornerstone of society, given to serving and preserving
our most important social institutions. Guardians have natural talents in managing and
they use these talents to keep things running smoothly in families, communities, schools,
churches, hospitals, and businesses. Guardians are cautious, loyal and disciplined. They
17
follow the rules and cooperate with others.
N F/Idealists. Idealists are passionately concerned with personal growth and development.
Idealists strive to discover who they are and how they can become their best possible self.
And they want to help others make the journey. Idealists are naturally drawn to working
with people, and whether in education or counseling, in social services or personnel
work, in journalism or the ministry, they are gifted at helping others find their way in life,
often inspiring them to grow as individuals and to fulfill their potentials.
NT/Rationals. Rationals are problem-solving people. They might tackle problems in
organic systems such as plants and animals, or in mechanical systems such as railroads
and computers, or in social systems such as families and companies and governments.
Rationals are rigorously logical and fiercely independent in their thinking. They are
skeptical of all ideas, even their own. Often they are seen as cold and distant, but this is
really the absorbed concentration they give to whatever problem they’re working on.
Keirsey organizes the groups asymmetrically, asserting Thinking-versus-Feeling
as the most salient distinction among intuitives, but Perception-versus-Judging as the
most salient distinction among sensers. His methodology emphasizes the four
temperaments, as he defines them, to generalize about each type’s different aptitudes and needs. As a behavioral scientist, Keirsey’s main goal in deviating from the Myers-Briggs
18
grouping of function pairs (NF, NT, ST and SF) was to better examine and predict the
role of type preference on behavior (Keirsey & Bates, 1984). While his deviation from
the traditional verbiage and reasoning behind the MBTI does result in subtle differences
between the MBTI and the KTS, the “temperament variants” outlined by Keirsey are in many ways just elaborations of Myers’ 16 types.
So even though his groupings and methodology differ from the pairings created
by Myers, the same core constructs and four-letter types are still present. Myers refers to
the sixteen types as function types, while Keirsey calls them temperament role variants.
The MBTI and KTS, while differing in length, have similar subject matter and result in
the same four letter groupings (Quinn et al., 1992). Since the Myers-Briggs is the original
type indicator, there is considerably more literature regarding its usage and application.
Having an understanding that both can be used synonymously, since they use the same
constructs and typology, opens up the chance for the useful application of studies that
measure personality with both the MBTI and the KTS. It is essential to remember that
both forms of the questionnaire are inherently based off of Jung’s typology. Table 3 reflects the synthesis of Keirsey’s temperaments (Artisan SPs, Guardian
SJs, Idealist NFs and Rational NTs) and the 16 function types of the MBTI:
19
Table 3. KTS Temperaments and MBTI Types
Communication Style
In Please Understand Me, Keirsey describes the communication style of each
temperament. He even identified common behavioral traits of each type, carefully
detailing the different ways that a person of each temperament gestures while speaking.
Yet for the purpose of this study the most pertinent information from his book is in the
description of the word usage and language structure of each type.
Keirsey labels the Artisans or SPs as “Concrete Utilitarians,” (1998, p. 34) which
means they prefer to speak in concrete, real terms, otherwise in a descriptive and direct
fashion and they speak out of utility or need. In essence, they do not engage in small talk
for the sake of it. On the other hand, the Guardians or SJs are “Concrete Cooperatives,” (p. 78) which means that they also prefer to communicate in a literal fashion, speaking of
topics that are observable and applicable to the real world. Yet, unlike the SPs, as
cooperatives they enjoy small talk about the weather and other day-to-day tasks. The
20
Idealists or NFs are identified as “Abstract Cooperatives,” (p. 120) making them polar communication opposites of the SPs. NFs prefer to communicate and express themselves
through metaphors and analogies, as opposed to literal terms. Like SJs they prefer to
communicate in a cooperative fashion, with a focus on harmony in their interactions.
Unlike, SJs who speak in a topical, deductive pattern, NFs follow an inductive pattern in
their communications. Finally, the Rationals or NTs are “Abstract Utilitarians,” (p. 165) which means that like the NFs they enjoy using analogy and making connections between
their ideas while speaking. Since they share the intuitive preference with NFs, they are
future oriented and tend to speak of the future and of possibilities. The NTs, share
nothing with the SJs who often speak of “tradition” and “what was.” While dissimilar in behavior, the NTs and SPs are both utilitarians; in essence both speak as needed or for a
purpose. The SPs most often speak in order to convince or achieve what they want,
whereas the NTs communicate do so out of basic necessity or to explain a position.
A pplications of T ype T heory to Communication
Many studies regarding the role of an individual’s temperament or personality type in regard to specific behaviors have been conducted. The relationship between
personality type and one’s area of study or degree field (Myers, 1980), career planning
(Ball, (2006, July)), learning style (Lawrence, 2009; Waters & Berry, 1981) and
management style (Barr & Barr 1989), have all received extensive documentation. There
has also been promising research into the role of personality and temperament on other
21
behavioral choices (Meisgeier & Meisgeier, 2000) and values (Bathurst & Moody, 2002),
including health related activities (Brue, 2008), financial planning (Linder, 2000) and
marketing (Cahill, 2006; Cline, et al. 1989). While some preliminary research has been
done regarding the use of personality and temperament theory in the public relations
field, the studies are rudimentary at best. Despite the limited scope of the research into
the application of personality theory to public communication messages, at least there is
some exploration of the field. There has been no direct research into the role of the
personality and temperament as described by Myers and Keirsey in the charitable giving
field. A few studies have looked at health donations, including blood (Weinman, 2003)
and organs (Sweeney, 1988). These studies were inconclusive, since multiple factors,
namely personal relevance, were determined to weigh heavily on individuals who are
making the decision to donate blood or organs. Others have studied hospice volunteer
motivation (Caldwell & Scott, 1994; Francis & Pegg, 2007; Mitchell & Shuff, 1995;
Rytting, Ware & Yokomoto, C., 2000). Mitchell and Shuff found that most hospice
volunteers within their group of 100 participants were of the NF temperament. Yet,
Caldwell and Scott found that within their sample of hospice volunteers, the largest
proportion of female volunteers (27.3%) were extroverted, sensing, feeling, judging
personality types (ESFJ), whereas, for male volunteers, the largest proportion (20.8%)
were introverted, sensing, thinking, judging personality types (ISTJ) . It should be noted
that both of these types ESFJ and ISTJ are temperament role variants of the Guardian or
SJ temperament.
22
Interpersonal Health Communication
Recently, research has been done regarding the application of personality type
theory in doctor/patient interaction (Allen & Brock, 2000). The study began as a result of
the basic observation that different people “use different words to express similar meanings and as a result, often have difficulty communicating with each other” (Allen & Brock, 2000, p. 30). Allen and Brock then noticed that the majority of problems occurred
when a doctor and patient had a different personality type. Under intense pressure, the
differences were only exacerbated. So, they created FLEX Care based on the MBTI as a
guide to provide a better approach to relaying health information, especially in difficult
communication situations (See Appendix D). The MBTI provided an existing framework
by which behavior differences between doctors and their patients could be better
explained. Data collected in both Allen and Brock’s preliminary and full studies on the application of the MBTI to the healthcare field found “the most powerful predictor of
how a person prefers to be communicated with consistent with the individual’s type preference” (p. 33). By applying type theory, health professionals are able to vary how they approach patients and colleagues when breaking bad news or encouraging them to
follow clinical advice.
Finance
As with health related topics, communication regarding one’s finances is often a 23
delicate subject matter.
So it can be difficult to broach issues regarding financial
concerns. In hopes of finding a way to better reach people with information about their
finances and advise them successfully, McKenna, Hyllegard, and Linder (2003)
researched the link between psychological type and financial decision making. Their
article, similar to the work by Brock and Allen in the health field, develops a framework
for using personality theory in financial counseling and planning. The framework details
advice on how to communicate about financial planning to each temperament. One
difference between the McKenna, et al. article and Brock and Allen’s research is that the article attempts to tailor communication style to the KTS temperaments, as opposed to
the MBTI function types. While both these areas of research show that interpersonal
communication can be enhanced with knowledge of temperament and type theory, the
McKenna, et al. article takes things a step further and looks at communication involving
finances and predicts motivations behind financial behavior. For example, McKenna et
al. advise on the motivations of each temperament:
Artisan/SP. “Artisans want to use their money, not manage it, so they look to the planner to tell them what’s presently happening with their money; make sure their needs are covered; and most importantly, tell them how much “fun” or “play” money they have at
their present disposal” (p. 9).
Guardian/SJ. “Guardians like to belong to groups they identify with, it’s important that the planner has had experience with people who are like the Guardians in terms of age,
24
income, and stage of life. Guardians are concerned with doing what’s right according to the norms or values of the groups they see themselves as belonging to. In addition,
Guardians need to know they are doing their duty and responsibly taking care of the
groups they belong to, usually their family. They value security, stability and a solid
financial foundation to prevent disruption to their lifestyle” (p. 8).
Idealist/N F. “An effective motivator for an Idealist, who generally shies away from
financial issues, is to keep them focused on their ideals and who their financial plans will
benefit. Idealists’ commitments are to people or causes, not the money, so they will be
motivated to comply with their financial plans as long as they see their ideals being
achieved” (p. 9).
Rational/NT. “They value autonomy, intelligence, expertise, and logical consistency. They will prefer financial plans that are intellectually as well as financially challenging,
especially if their plans are innovative and economic in the sense that they produce the
maximum benefit for the resources put to use” (p. 10).
McKenna et al. assert that understanding what motivates clients to seek financial
advice will lead to better compliance and the subsequent following of recommendations.
Tailoring the financial advice to each temperament prevents individuals from being
handicapped by their natural preferences and better equips them to understand and apply
25
financial information. The same can be true for non-profit fundraisers who are soliciting
funds, as knowledge of an individual’s values and motivations, make it easier to develop a message that will resonate effectively.
Investing
Statman and Wood looked even more deeply at the role of temperament and
finance (2004).
In their study, they determined a link between an individual’s temperament and his or her investment behavior. Statements and questions were designed
with language that would reflect the values of a particular temperament. For example,
tradition, which is a word associated with SJ values, is used in the statement “I respect tradition.” Participants were then asked to agree or disagree with the statement, and it is no surprise that 40% of SJs agreed with the statement, which was roughly double the
number of NTs who agreed and much higher than the SPs and NFs as well. This
statement was found to reflect each temperaments propensity toward investing in
“traditional” companies, such as banks, insurance, etc. as opposed to newer endeavors. SJs were more likely to invest in these traditional organizations.
Only 25% of NTs agreed strongly or somewhat strongly with the statement,
“Financial advisors deserve our trust” as opposed to 45% of SJs. The skeptical attitudes of NTs towards financial advisors reflect their skepticism towards people and social
institutions, which is relevant when soliciting funds for a charitable campaign. This study
shows that NTs will not donate just because an institution is prominent or because others
26
do so.
While those of all temperaments displayed a preference for buying stock in
socially responsible companies over conventional companies, NFs had the strongest
preferences for socially responsible investing. While 48% of SPs, 50% of NTs and 54%
of SJs preferred strongly or somewhat strongly stocks of socially responsible companies,
58% of NFs preferred them. NFs expressed the highest compassion for the needy, but
they seem to express that compassion outside the realm of investments (Statman &
Wood, 2004). The distinction between compassion for the needy and socially responsible
investing is supported by the observation that there are only small differences by
temperament in agreement with the statement, “Investing has an ethical dimension.” People of all temperaments display “home bias” but SPs and SJs display greater “home bias” than the intuitive NT and NF temperaments. Home bias is defined as a
greater propensity to invest in American companies, as opposed to international ones.
While 65% of SPs and 62% of SJs prefer strongly or somewhat strongly U.S. stocks over
foreign stocks, only 49% of NTs and 48% of NFs did. Based on this research, Statman
and Wood were then able to set up a framework that predicts the investment behavior of
each temperament.
Marketing
Audience segmentation based on psychological type has been used for years in
marketing. Marketing firms have invested millions in psychographic research through
27
private companies like Claritas and Prizm in an attempt to better understand consumer
behavior. The psychographic profiles created by these agencies differ from the MBTI and
KTS typologies, as many are linked to demographics as well. Yet, like the MBTI and
KTS, they are based on the understanding that finding ways to reach different population
segments leads to more effective campaigns. Understanding each type helps to create
messages that can be tailored accordingly to optimize the persuasive effects of the
message.
In the late 1970’s and throughout the 1980’s, there was an upsurge in literature on the effectiveness of using personality variables to segment consumers into groups that
could be behaviorally observed (Cline, et al., 1989; Kotler, 1986). There was also
research into how personality could predict response to advertising appeals (Shimp,
1978) and message design (Britt, 1978). Britt believed that one’s personality determined
behavior and action more than any other variable, including lifestyle, demographics, etc.
Keirsey’s research into temperaments further supports the influence of personality constructs on behavior and decision-making (Keirsey, 1998; Keirsey & Bates, 1984).
Cline et al. (1989) looked at marketing to type through both a traditional and a
social marketing context. They proposed that, like individuals, social marketing oriented
public relations campaigns and physical products have personality types as well. In their
study, the type matching was not done from person to message, but rather matching was
between the message type and the product or organization’s perceived type. For example, they assigned smoking, which is commonly thought of as a risk taking
28
behavior, as an SP, or Artisan, typed activity, since SPs are known to be impulsive and
make less cautious decisions. They then assigned the advertising strategy or slogan used
by several cigarette companies with a temperament variant. For example, the verbiage
and descriptions of the bold Marlboro Man was deemed to reflect an SP sensibility, while
the Salem slogan “You’ve come a long way baby” was coded as an NF, or Idealist, statement. Study participants then ranked the ads according to their effectiveness. It was
hypothesized, based upon congruency theory, that in order to avoid dissonance, people
would select the ad that was the most congruent with the perceived type of the product
(Cline, et al., 1989; Festinger, 1957). Indeed, ads that matched the perceived SP type of
the product (cigarettes) were overwhelmingly chosen over those that were mismatched.
Therefore, according to the study, Marlboro was shown to have a better and more
persuasive strategy than Salem, since Marlboro’s SP ad campaign was congruent with the
SP activity of smoking. The experiment was repeated with other product advertisements
and public service announcements, with similar results.
While this is an interesting study, typing an activity or even a product is
extremely difficult. While Keirsey refers to the SPs as “sensation seekers,” and smoking rates are often higher among “sensation seekers,” people of all types engage in risky behaviors, including smoking. The same is true for the products themselves. Cowboys
and wild-west lore generally conjure images of danger and excitement, as do cigarettes.
Still, this research indicates that typing either PSAs or direct messages based on the use
of particular language or lack thereof could be a promising field of study. Essentially,
29
this early study into type usage in PSAs and product message “type” paved the way for studies into type theory’s potential role in message effects in a public relations context.
Public Relations Application
Only recently has research been conducted regarding the effectiveness of applying
personality type to the field of public relations. In this context, Smith (1993) showed that
people prefer public communication messages that are matched to their MBTI type. In
the study, Smith had several graduate students with experience in personality theory code
messages as either “S” or “N” and “T” or “F.” They were able to predict who would be more interested in a certain type of investment. Smith chose the S/N dimension because
it deals with how people prefer to perceive the world. He selected the T/F dimension
because it deals with how people prefer to make decisions.
Smith then devised a form for the coders to use that gave a rating scale for the
four dimensions. Once the messages were coded, he showed them to students whose type
either matched the type of the message or did not. There was an overall preference for
the “S’ or sensing messages. This is not surprising, considering that almost 70% of the population prefers to exhibit sensing or “S” characteristics, whereas only about 30% are
intuitive or “N” types (Keirsey, 1998; Smith, 1993; Myers; 1980). Yet in the public relations and advertising fields, where creativity and vision are rewarded, the majority of
practitioners are “N” types (Smith, 1993).
The “T” vs. “F” or thinking vs. feeling dichotomy reflects a more even split 30
among the population. It is the only function in the MBTI typology that reflects gender
differences. While 50% of the population are thinkers and the other 50% are feelers,
women are more likely to prefer the feeling function (60% of women prefer F) and men
are more likely to prefer the thinking function (60% of men prefer T). See Appendix E
for estimated frequencies of the types in the United States population.
Matching message type to an individual’s personality type uncovers a new application of type theory. Like Allen and Brock (2000), who noticed that patients
communicated better with doctors who shared their type, this applies to other areas as
well. It is important to realize that when a message is designed by someone of one type
and received by a person of another type there might be incongruity that could cause
dissonance between the sender and the receiver. Tailoring messages to each type would
help to avoid this dilemma.
Philanthropic Appeals
No studies have established a direct correlation between the MBTI or KTS
definition of type or temperament with one’s desire to give to a charitable organization. Yet, as discussed in the section “Understanding Donor Behavior,” people donate for different reasons, which could be a function of personality.
For example, there is
evidence that people who focus on the internal or intrinsic awards caused by giving are
more likely to give than those who focus on the possible benefits, such as social status
(Reykowski, 1982). On the other hand, there is also research that suggests that selfish
31
motivations, such as desire for status, play a larger role in shaping giving behavior than
most other variables (Latane & Darley, 1970). In Please Understand Me, Keirsey identified the NF or Idealist type as having an
“orientation toward altruism,” (1998, p. 132) whereas the SJ or Guardian temperament had an “orientation toward stoicism” (p. 89). The difference between these two orientations is that the NF motivation of altruism is more internally focused, while
stoicism implies needing others to witness a behavior, as opposed to having an inner
desire to perform or behave a certain way. The influence of these orientations is apparent
in the Stanman and Wood study, in which a preference for giving to socially responsible
companies was tested. Social responsibility was shown to be of the greatest priority to
the NFs, followed by the SJs. The SPs and NTs showed less inclination for giving to
charity, which is not surprising since Keirsey describes the SPs as having an orientation
toward hedonism and the NTs orientation as toward pragmatism, neither of which signals
generosity.
In addition to outward orientations, Keirsey saw that the self-image and values of
each temperament were reflected in their behaviors.
This definitive evidence that
personality and temperament are determinants of one’s self-image and subsequently,
one’s values (Keirsey, 1998) is also reflected in the donor behavior literature.
As
discussed earlier in the literature review, when self-image or how one sees oneself are
congruent with how one views a charity or cause there is a positive influence on giving
behavior. In the Keirsey literature, self-image is described as a combination of three core
32
traits: self-esteem, self-respect and self-confidence (1998, p. 62). See Appendix F for a
complete temperament role variant chart. By understanding how each temperament
derives its self-image, it is more likely that an appeal can be tailored to be congruent with
that image. The table below illustrates how self-image varies across temperament.
Table 4. Temperament Self-Image
Self-Esteem
Self-Respect
Self-Confidence
Artisan
Artistic
Audacious
Adaptable
Guardian
Dependable
Beneficent
Respectable
Idealist
Empathic
Benevolent
Authentic
Rational
Ingenious
Autonomous
Resolute
Compassion for the needy was most pronounced among the NFs in the study, with
60% of the NFs agreeing with the statement “I feel compassion for the needy.” This was
triple the 23% rate of NTs and higher than the 38% rate of SPs and 42% of SJs. The
reason for the disparate reactions among the participants is reflective of Keirsey’s literature as well. Keirsey identified his NFs as building their self-esteem from feeling
empathic, while SJs, on the other hand, improved their self-esteem by feeling
“dependable” (1998, p. 103). Yet again, the core difference between these temperaments
is in the internal, independent focus of the NF self-esteem and the dependent self-esteem
of the SJ. This is also supported by how each temperament achieves self-confidence.
While the NF seeks “authenticity,” the SJ seeks “respectability” (Keirsey, 1998, p. 94, p. 33
138). The subtle difference between the ways each group realizes a positive self-image,
indicates a potential variance between the giving behaviors for the NF and SJ
temperaments. This contrast reflects the literature on giving behavior that identifies
altruistic versus social preference oriented giving.
Myers also looked at the values of each type. Like Keirsey, she identified values
as a role in decision-making, but her work looked at occupational choice (Myers, 1980).
“Sympathy” was found to be a determinant for the decision of SF types to enter into helping occupations, while “empathy” was a key influencer among NFs in the nursing field (Myers & McCaulley, 1987). Myers found that the thinking types were less likely to
actively engage in either form of emoting. This is reflective of Reykowski’s 1982 finding that people who focus on other people are more likely to donate to a charitable cause.
This is consistent with the MBTI literature, which describes feeling or “F” types as more likely to focus on people when making decisions (Myers, 1980). It is therefore important
to consider both the temperament and type when developing donor message appeals. The
data from these studies shows significant need for further investigation into the giving
behavior of each personality type, as well as the potential for personality based tailoring
message appeals to the orientations, self-image and core values as described by Myers
and Keirsey.
34
Conclusion
The main challenge that remains is identifying the best way for a correctly
“typed” and targeted message to get to the right “type” of recipient. The Center for the
Advancement of Personality Type (CAPT) provides numerous examples of how type can
be predicted with a great level of accuracy based on career choice and other everyday
factors. Yet, the main benefit of using messages that are psychologically tailored based
on Myers’ and Keirsey’s research is that they can be created to appeal to a person’s type and therefore be simultaneously targeted to both a group and the needs of the individual.
This versatility makes type theory a diverse avenue by which messages can be effectively
tailored and targeted. Considering the successes of applying type theory in interpersonal
communication, it is only fitting that it be tried on the mass communication level. The
literature and research synthesized in this paper shows ample opportunity and reason for
bridging the fields of message tailoring and type theory in order to shape better donor
appeal messages. As a first step in this process, the current study tests the applicability of
type theory to the design of altruistic message appeals.
35
H Y PO T H ESES
There were three primary objectives of the research experiment: (1) To determine if
certain temperaments are more likely to donate to charitable organizations than others;
(2) To determine if a certain “type” of message is most effective among all types; and (3)
To determine whether messages matched to one’s temperament are more effective than mismatched messages. Based on the literature reviewed and these three objectives,
hypotheses for the experimental study were developed.
Research Question 1: Will certain temperaments be more likely to
donate to charitable organizations?
H1(A): The SP or Artisan Temperament will be least likely to make a donation to a
charitable organization, with feeling types ESFP and ISFP more likely to donate
than thinking types ESTP and ISTP.
H1(B): The SJ or Guardian Temperament will be the second most likely to make a
donation to a charitable organization, with feeling types ESFJ and ISFJ more
likely to donate than thinking types ESTJ and ISTJ.
H1(C): The NF or Idealist Type will be the most likely to make a donation to a
charitable organization, with only slight difference among the temperament role
36
variants ENFP, ENFJ, INFP and INFJ.
H1(D): The NT or Rational Temperament will be the second least likely to make a
donation to a charitable organization, with only slight difference among the
temperament role variants ENTP, ENTJ, INTP and INTJ.
H1(E): Feeling types will be more likely to donate than thinking types.
Research Question 2: Will a certain “type” of message be most
effective among all types?
H2(A): Either the SP or SJ ad will be more effective in soliciting donations, as “sensing types” make up more of the general population and thus the messages will reach
more people, as evidenced by Smith (1993).
Research Question 3: Will messages that are matched to temperaments be more
effective than mismatched messages?
H3(A): Subjects receiving matched messages will be more likely to donate to a charitable
organization than subjects receiving mismatched messages.
37
M E T H O DS
In order to test these hypotheses, an experiment was administered via an online
survey. The experiment used a 4 x 4 between subjects design. The first factor was
personality type (i.e., SP, SJ, NF, or NT), which was determined via a baseline
personality test. The second factor was message type. Respondents were randomly
assigned to see one of four charitable appeals, which were designed to match each of the
four Keirsey temperaments (SJ, SP, NF, NT).
Sample
A combination of convenience and snowball sampling methods was used to
recruit a non-random sample of U.S. citizens 18 or older. Since the survey format was
online, respondents were recruited via social media and through email correspondence. 1
In total 1,166 respondents2 completed the online survey and these participants ranged in
age from 18-89. The mean age was 31. Survey respondents were 30.1% male and 69.6%
female.3 The median level of education was a Bachelor’s degree.4
1 As results were collected, certain personality types were found to be missing from the sample and as a
result a more targeted strategy was employed. Since the SP temperament role variants are found in more
hands-on fields, they were less likely to be reached via an online survey. As a result people working in
hands-on professions such as the military, hairdressing and the music industry, were recruited to
participate.
2 All survey participants participated voluntarily and there was no monetary reward or incentive for
participation.
3 .3% of respondents selected “prefer not to respond.”
4 Subjects varied across educational levels, with .8% having less than a high school degree, 3.1% having a
high school degree or GED, 18.6% attending “some college,” 3.3% holding an associate’s degree, 47.9% holding a bachelor’s degree, 19.9% holding a master’s degree, 1.8% holding a Ph.D. and 4.6% having an advanced professional degree (either a J.D., M.D., etc.).
38
All 16 types and each of the four temperaments were represented in the sample.
The percent of respondents with each temperament was as follows, SP 5.4%, SJ 28.1%,
NF 41.8%, and NT 24.6%.5
See Appendix E for estimated frequencies of the types in the United States population. Study M aterials and Procedures
An online questionnaire was administered via the online site surveygizmo. (See
Appendix G for complete questionnaire). Upon linking to the online survey, respondents
were required to respond to a consent form that gave them the option to decline further
participation in the study.
After
completing
a
personality
questionnaire
and
answering
several
baseline questions about past charitable giving, respondents were randomly assigned to
view one of four charitable appeals, each corresponding to one of the four Keirsey
temperaments. After viewing the appeal, respondents were asked a number of questions
assessing their evaluations of the message, their emotional reactions, and intentions to
donate. The survey then concluded with a set of basic demographic questions.
Upon answering the final questions subjects were given the option to learn more
about the charitable organization featured in the experimental message. Those who chose
to “find out more” were routed to the Capstone Giving page on the donorschoose.org site.
The website page, which was designed for the project, featured four education projects to
5 SP=30% to 35%, SJ=40% to 45%, NF=15% to 20%, NT=5% to 10% of the U.S. population. 39
which donors could give. 6
Message Development
In order to develop the messages so that they accurately reflected each
temperament, informal and exploratory research were conducted. The messages in the
ads were designed with close attention to the language preferences and usage of each
type. The text from Keirsey’s Please Understand Me (1998) and Stephen Montgomery’s People Patterns (2002) were particularly informative for message development. The
literature provided information on the communication style and techniques of each
temperament. Volunteers of each temperament were asked to help create messages that
would make them want to donate to education7. Consultations with MBTI and KTS
administrators were also conducted. Following instruction from the expert practitioners,
the language preference and “time orientation” (i.e. past, present, and future) of each
temperament was considered. As a result, the SP and NT messages were shorter than the
SJ and NF messages, as the SPs and NTs are utilitarian speakers who prefer concise
6 The four projects all served grades six through eight. Projects included, “Science Should be Fun,” “A Great Art Room” and the “Reaching our Goals in Reading” and "You Can't Change Your Past, But You
Can Change Your Future" reading programs. In total the projects received $145 from six donors. The
projects themselves were typed as NT, SP, SJ and NF respectively. "You Can't Change Your Past, But You
Can Change Your Future" received $50, while “Science Should be Fun” received $70 and “A Great Art Room” received $25. 7 12 volunteers who had been given an accredited version of the MBTI, three of each temperament type
(NF, SP, SJ, NT), were asked to write a message that would make them want to donate to education. These
messages were then sent to the other volunteers who had not been asked to develop these messages, as well
as to the MBTI and KTS professionals. In all, 12 people, outside of the two experts reviewed all four ads
together. The volunteers were asked questions relevant to the temperament such as, “Which ad emphasizes the present? The future?” Questions were also asked regarding language and framing. When asked about their favorite ad, 10 out of 12 volunteers selected the ad that matched their temperament. Again, unlike in
the actual study, the volunteers were able to choose an ad after seeing all four. The ad coded NF was
chosen by a volunteer who was an iSfP in one case, and the NF and SJ ads were both chosen by one SJ
respondent.
40
statements. Time orientation was also addressed, as the SP or Artisan message
emphasized “taking action today” because SPs tend to live in the moment and think in terms of today, whereas the NF message talked about the “future.” The text of each
message is presented below in Table 5.
Table 5. Temperament Typed Messages
SJ
SP
NF
NT
“Why give towards education in America? Because it is our responsibility to
protect our country’s children. Without a good education system, children can get caught up in violence, drugs, or alcohol, which will prevent them from
reaching their goals. By making a donation to education, you can make a
difference and save a child's life.”
“Why give towards education in America? Because education gives students the tools to build and shape their lives. You can take action today and provide
students with the skills they need for a successful career. By making a donation
to education, you make a lasting impact.” Why give towards education in America? Because every child in this country
deserves an education, no matter their race, where they live or who they are.
Our future depends on our students’ growth and success. By making a donation to education, you can help every student reach his or her potential.
"Why give towards education in America? Because our country is facing new
challenges and competition. Without an effective education system we cannot
innovate or stay on the cutting edge. By making a donation to education, you
can solve tomorrow’s problems." When selecting an image for the ad, many different considerations were taken
into account. It was important to not choose a picture that would fit one message better
than the others.
For example, images that depicted a multi-cultural classroom
environment could have influenced participants to choose the message that focuses on
“every child, no matter what race” deserving an education. The same is true for a picture with children around a computer; this image might support the message that focuses on
41
“innovating.” The final image used in the ad can be seen in Figure 1. Figure 1. Sample Ad.
This image was chosen because it features a young girl of ambiguous ethnicity, as
well as other children, in a learning environment. It was also selected because the focal
point of the image is the girl and the background is somewhat blurred, preventing the
extraneous details from being too prominent. The image also depicts an engaged child in
the foreground who seems eager to learn, as well as a child in the background who might
be in need of help. Rather than reinforce any particular message, this image was deemed
ambiguous enough to be universally applicable, without creating a bias.
Careful consideration was also given to the size and placement of the
donorschoose.org logo. The logo, which was taken from the organization’s website, was compressed as not to be too intrusive to the overall ad. (See Appendix H for copies of
all four ads).
42
M easures
Independent Variables
Personality type. In order to determine respondents’ personality types, the first question of the survey instructed respondents to click on a link labeled “Personality Questionnaire,” which routed them to an external website, www.humanmetrics.com,
where they then completed a 72-question Jungian based personality questionnaire. 8 (See
Appendix I for complete list of questions from the online questionnaire). Like the KTS or
MBTI,9 there were four basic question types within the personality questionnaire, which
measured four dichotomies. The questionnaire asked participants to agree or disagree
with statements that would identify the subject as extroverted or introverted, intuitive or
sensing, thinking or feeling, and perceiving or judging.
For example, item three, “You enjoy having a wide circle of acquaintances,” measures the E/I preference; item 57, “When considering a situation you pay more
attention to the current situation and less to a possible sequence of events,” measures the S/N preference; item 36, “You easily empathize with the concerns of other people,” measures the T/F preference and item 16, “You are inclined to rely more on
8 While the KTS online survey would have provided more scientific results as it is a valid and commonly
used research tool, it required that participants list their personal contact information. In order to respect
the privacy of the individuals participating, the humanmetrics questionnaire was chosen.
9 The
questionnaire differed from the MBTI Form G/M, and the KTS in length and question type, but it
still presented the same four-letter type combinations. In order to validate use of the humanmetrics Jungian
questionnaire, twenty people who had been given the MBTI by a certified practitioner of the Myers-Briggs
took the humanmetrics Jungian questionnaire. All 20 people had the same personality type results on the
official MBTI and on the online questionnaire. A different set of 20 people took the Keirsey Temperament
Sorter and took the humanmetrics questionnaire. Again all 20 people had the same results on the
humanmetrics and KTS instruments.
43
improvisation than on careful planning,” measures the J/P preference.
Upon completing the personality test, the humanmetrics site provided respondents
with four letters as their "score." This four-letter score represented each respondent’s personality “type” (e.g. ENTJ, ENFP, ISFJ). Participants were then instructed to return to the surveygizmo survey page and enter the four letters into the blank space provided.
Examples were given, so that respondents would put their letters in the correct order. In
order to analyze the data, a variable was created that grouped the16 personality types into
four temperaments. ENTJ, INTJ, ENTP and INTP became “NT,” while ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTJ and ISFJ became “SJ.” ENFP, ENFJ, INFP and INFJ were combined into the “NF” temperament and ESFP, ESTP, ISFP and ISTP were grouped as “SP.” The personality types were all grouped according to Keirsey’s temperaments (NT, SJ, NF, SP). A variable was also created so that all 16 personality types could be analyzed individually.
Finally, a third variable was created so that the personality types could be analyzed
according to the thinking and feeling dimension. All the feeling types (ESFP, ISFP,
ESFJ, ISFJ, ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ) were combined and labeled as feelers and all the
thinking types (ESTP, ISTP, ESTJ, ISTJ, ENTP. INTP, ENTJ, INTJ) were labeled as
thinkers.
Ad type. Exposure to one of the four ad types was achieved through random
assignment. Ultimately, there were 267 respondents assigned to the SJ ad condition, 312
assigned to the SP ad condition, 283 assigned to the NF condition, and 301 assigned to
the NT ad condition. Randomization was successful as indicated by the lack of significant
44
differences across ad conditions on any demographic or personality variables.
Matched exposure. A dichotomous variable was created to distinguish between
those respondents who saw an appeal matched to their temperament (e.g., respondents
with an SP personality type who saw an SP ad) and those who didn’t (e.g., respondents with an SP personality type who saw an SJ, NF, or NT ad). In all, 23.5% of respondents
saw a matched ad, and 76.5% saw an unmatched ad.
Dependent Variables
Baseline levels of charitable giving. To assess respondents’ prior levels of charitable giving, they were asked “In the last twelve months, how many times have you
made a donation to a charitable organization?” Respondents could answer: zero, one, two to five, six to nine, or 10 or more times. Next respondents were asked to indicate whether
they had donated to specific types of charities, including education, civic or community,
environment, poverty, arts and culture, disaster relief, animal welfare, health or medical
related, religious or other. This question allowed respondents to check all fields that
applied. Respondents were also asked whether they would like to make a charitable
organization that benefits people locally, nationally or internationally. No preference
could also be chosen. It is important to note that all of these questions were asked before
respondents were shown the experimental message.
Intentions to donate. To assess respondents’ intentions to donate in response to the experimental message, respondents were asked the question, “After viewing this
message how likely are you donate to education.” Responses on this item ranged from 1
45
to 5, where 1= “not very likely” and 5 = “very likely.” Respondents were also asked how much they agreed with the statement, “This message makes me want to donate.”
Responses again ranged from 1 to 5, where 1= “strongly disagree” 5 = “strongly agree.”
These two items were highly correlated ( r = .764); and responses were therefore averaged
together to create a single variable.
E motional reactions to the message. Respondents were asked to rate how much
the message made them feel each of five emotions (i.e., guilty, angry, sad, hopeful,
happy). For each emotion, respondents were asked to register their agreement with the
statement, “this message makes me feel [emotion].” Responses ranged from 1 to 5, where
1= “strongly disagree” 5 = “strongly agree.”
Perceived importance. After viewing the ad, subjects were asked to register their
agreement with the statement, “This message addresses an important issue.” Responses
on this item ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 = “not very likely” and 5 = “very likely.” Open-ended message evaluation. Subjects were instructed to write down all
thoughts and feelings that came to mind upon seeing the message, including any thoughts
and feelings that were not relevant to the message. They were also told not to worry
about punctuation, spelling, grammar, or the use of complete sentences. The responses
were coded according to the type of response made to the message and to the tone of the
response. With regard to the type of response, responses were coded for the presence or
absence of critiquing, prescribing, questioning, and personal reflection. Critiquing was
described as a statement that disagreed with or “critiqued” the message without giving a 46
recommendation for how to make it better.
An example of critique is: “I'm not immediately sure what it’s for, or where. I don't have a good idea of what the organization is or what exact programs they have, and I'm not especially inspired or
engaged.” Alternatively, prescribing was described as a statement that disagreed with the
message, but offered recommendations or prescribed on how to fix the situation at hand.
An example of this is “This is pretty generic, if it is trying to market specifically towards American schools, it should be talking about how many of them are being closed due to
poor staffing and poorer conditions. It should also put more emphasis on the human
aspect of the equation and talk about the children.” The code “questioning” was assigned when the respondents asked questions about the ad content or issue. Often,
respondents’ questions were posed as critique, and other times they were genuinely inquiring for more information. In many cases the respondent wrote a series of questions,
such as, “Why do I need to give money to these kids? I never got any money while in
school. What's in it for me? Who is this money going to? Do they really need the
money?” The responses were also coded for personal reflection. If personal information about the individual was shared, such as “I'm a teacher” or “my parents grew up in poverty,” it was coded as personal reflection. While many statements fit into one category, some of the longer comments engaged in critiquing, prescribing, questioning
and personal reflecting. Multi-statement responses were often coded in multiple areas.
Finally, the responses were coded as being positive, negative or neutral in tone.
Respondents often listed multiple statements and as a result responses could be coded as
47
both positive and negative, but never as neutral and either positive or negative. A
comment that included both positive and negative sentiments was coded as “positive” and “negative,” not neutral. Neutral statements had to express no tone whatsoever. More information requested. The last question gave subjects the option to learn
more about the organization or end the survey. Respondents were asked, “Based on the
message that you saw, would you like to find out more about ways that you can donate to
education?” The answer options were “No, thanks” and “Yes.” 48
R ESU L TS
Analyses were conducted to address each research question, in turn. To address
Research Question 1, the effects of personality on charitable giving were examined by
testing the relationship between personality and the baseline charitable giving items, as
well as between personality and the message evaluation and intentions to donate items. A
one-way ANOVA was used to test those relationships involving ordinal or interval level
dependent variables; cross-tabulations and chi-square tests were used to examine those
relationships involving dichotomous variables. To address Research Question 2, the
effects of the experimental manipulation on the message evaluation and intention to
donate variables were tested. Again, either one-way ANOVA or cross-tabulation and chisquare tests were used, as appropriate. Finally, to address Research Question 3, t-tests
(for ordinal and interval level dependent variables) and chi-square tests (for dichotomous
dependent variables) were conducted to compare message evaluations and intentions to
donate across the matched and unmatched conditions.
Relationship Between Personality and Baseline Levels of C ha ritable G iving
Contrary to expectations, there was no statistically significant association between
one’s temperament and the frequency with which they made donations, χ2 (12, N = 1163)
= 12.21, p=ns. As can be seen in Table 6 below, the distribution was fairly even among
types, with 49.8% of the sample reporting having made a donation two to five times in
the past year. While not significant, the SP group was the least likely to report giving 10
49
or more times in the last year, with only 9.5% of SPs giving at this rate, as opposed to the
average of 17.1%. Likewise, the SP group was the most likely to report giving just once
in the past 12 months.
Table 6. Times Donated by Temperament
SP [%]
SJ [%]
NF [%]
NT [%]
Zero
11.1
9.2
9.2
11.9
1
23.8
13.1
11.9
14.3
2-5
44.4
50.8
41.7
46.5
6-9
11.1
10.1
8.8
10.1
10 or More
9.5
16.8
18.3
17.1
χ2 (12, N = 1163) = 12.21, p=ns
N=1163
As depicted below in Table 7, respondents exhibited significant differences across
temperaments when it came to the type of charitable organization that they reported
donating to in the past 12 months. Subjects with an SJ temperament were significantly
more likely to report making a donation to health oriented and religious organizations
than the other temperaments. They were especially more likely to give to health causes
in relation to the NFs. While there are no significant differences across temperaments
when it comes to giving to education, there is a pattern that reflects NTs as most likely to
report donating to education and SPs as the least likely. There is a statistically significant
difference between temperaments in regard to reporting donating to environmental
organizations. The NT and NF, or intuitive grouped temperaments, were more likely to
report donating to an environmental cause than the SP temperament. In regard to disaster
50
related causes, the SP temperament was significantly more likely to report donating than
the NTs.
The table below indicates the percentage of each temperament group that reported
giving to a specific type of cause (e.g. health, disaster, etc.) In all tables in the results
section, percentages with asterisk(s) denote statistically significant differences across
temperaments, based on the chi-square statistic.
Table 7. Type of Charitable Organization
SP [%]
SJ [%]
NF [%]
NT [%]
Health**
41.3
48.3
38.6
33.9
Religious***
30.2
39.8
26.7
33.2
Civic
25.4
33.3
39.2
35.3
Education
12.7
21.7
24.2
26.9
Animal
12.7
14.1
15.6
11.9
Poverty
22.2
22.6
29.8
22.7
Environment*
3.2
7.6
12.1
12.2
Disaster*
49.2
39.4
43.5
33.2
Arts
14.3
15.3
21.6
18.2
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
N=1163
In response to whether they preferred to make donations to international, national
or local charitable organizations, SJs (49.5%) and NTs (48.3%) were significantly more
likely than SPs (36.5%) and NFs (35.3%) to report giving locally, χ2 (9, N = 1163) =
31.72, p < .05. NFs (49.1%) were the most likely to report having no preference. There
was also a significant difference between SP and SJ temperaments in regard to
51
international giving, with 14.3% of SPs preferring to donate internationally, as opposed
to only 4.9% of SJs, as shown in the following table.
Table 8. Preference for Giving by Temperament
SP [%]
SJ [%]
NF [%]
NT [%]
Local
36.5
49.5
35.3
48.3
National
4.8
7.6
7.4
8.0
International
14.3
4.9
8.2
9.1
No Preference
44.4
37.9
49.1
34.6
χ2 (9, N = 1163) = 31.72, p < .001.
N=1163
Table 9 shows the results when examined according to the MBTI thinking and
feeling dichotomy. Thinking types were significantly (51.6%) more likely to donate
locally, as compared to feeling types (37.6%), χ2 (3, N = 1163) = 29.83, p ≤ .05. Feeling
types, on the other hand, were more likely to have no preference in where they donated
(47.8%), which differed significantly from thinking types, with less than a third (31.8%)
stating no preference.
Table 9. Preference for Giving by T vs. F
T [%]
F [%]
Local
51.6
37.6
National
7.5
7.5
International
9.2
7.1
No Preference
31.8
47.8
χ2 (3, N = 1163) = 29.83, p ≤ .05
N=1163
52
Personality Differences in Responses to the C haritable A ppeal
Intentions to Donate
As shown in Table 10, there were significant differences in intentions to donate
across personality type ( F (3, 1159) = 6.273, p < .001). Specifically, the NF temperament
was the most likely to donate and the NT temperament the least likely to donate, with
significant differences between these two groups (p < .001).
Table 10. Intention to Donate by Temperament
SP
Donate
SJ
NF
NT
2.68(1.07) 2.59(1.16) 2.78(1.14) 2.43(1.08)
Note. Cell entries are means, with standard deviations in parentheses. N=1160.
***p<.001
There were also significant results that showed feeling types ( M = 2.77, S D =1.14)
to be overall more likely to donate than their thinking counterparts ( M = 2.42, S D =1.09)
( F (1160) = 25.88, p < .001).
Considering the importance of the personality variable and the findings that there
were significant differences in intentions to donate based on temperament, differences in
intentions to donate across the 16 types were also examined. The ENFJ and ESFJ types
were significantly more likely to give than the INTJ and ESTJ types. As evidenced by
the table below, ENFJ type was most likely to give, followed by the ESFJ type, while the
ESTJ type was the least likely to indicate giving followed by the INTJ type ( F (15, 1159)
= 2.64, p < .001).
53
Table 11. Likelihood to Donate by Type
Personality Type
M
ESTP
2.78(1.39)
ESFP
2.71(1.11)
ISTP
2.63(1.00)
ISFP
2.62(.89)
ESTJ***
2.25(1.05)
ESFJ***
2.80(1.14)
ISTJ
2.38(1.14)
ISFJ
2.60(1.23)
ENFP
2.79(1.20)
ENFJ***
2.88(1.16)
INFP
2.67(1.00)
INFJ
2.69(1.10)
ENTJ
2.48(1.07)
ENTP
2.72(.90)
INTJ***
2.28(1.10)
INTP
2.73(1.10)
Note. Cell entries are means, with standard deviations in parentheses. N=1162 ***p<.001
Perceived I mportance
Overall, respondents rated the mean importance of the issue at 4.38 (S D =.94), and
the results showed no significant differences between each temperament in regard to how
54
important they viewed the issue presented in the message (education) ( F (3, 1159) = 2.72,
p =ns).
E motional Reactions to the Ad
There was evidence that people of a certain temperament were more likely to
have an emotional reaction than others. The NTs were significantly less likely to report
being sad after viewing an ad than their SP and NF counterparts ( F (3, 1159) = 5.32, p <
.001). There was also a significant difference between temperaments and their reporting
of feeling “hopeful” ( F (3, 1159) = 2.88, p < .001). The table below examines the
differences in emotional response based on temperament.
Table 12. Emotional Reaction Based on Temperament
SP
SJ
NF
NT
Guilty
2.27(1.23) 2.13(1.16) 2.13(1.17) 2.01(1.13)
Angry
2.45(1.23) 2.35(1.23) 2.35(1.29) 2.31(1.35)
Sad***
2.87(1.21) 2.52(1.25) 2.67(1.28) 2.35(1.14)
Happy
2.73(.99)
Hopeful***
2.71(1.01) 2.84(1.16) 2.66(1.01)
3.11(1.21) 3.13(1.18) 3.22(1.24) 2.95(1.17)
Note. Cell entries are means, with standard deviations in parentheses. N=1163.
***p<.001 There is substantial evidence that the thinking/feeling dichotomy causes people to
express and feel emotions differently depending on their preference. As a result, it is
postulated people of a certain temperament were more likely to have an emotional
reaction than others. The thinking types were significantly less likely to report being sad
or hopeful after viewing an ad than their feeling counterparts, as shown in Table 13, ( F
(1, 1160) = 14.17, p < .001) and ( F (1, 1160) = 14.724, p < .001).
55
Table 13. Emotional Reaction Based on T vs. F
T
F
Guilty
1.97(1.11)
2.18(1.18)
Angry
2.39(1.34)
2.31(1.28)
Sad***
2.28(1.17)
2.66(1.27)
Happy
2.63(1.08)
2.82(1.13)
Hopeful***
2.94(1.17)
3.22(1.21)
Note. Cell entries are means, with standard deviations in parentheses. N=1162.
***p<.001
Open­ended Message Evaluation Items There were statistically significant results based on whether a person of a
particular temperament was more likely to “critique” the message they were shown, χ2 (3,
N = 1163) = 15.203, p ≤ .05. Respondents with the NT temperament (54.5%) were significantly more likely to engage in critique than those with the SJ temperament
(39.8%). When analyzed according to “prescribing,” the NF group (48.7%) was
significantly more likely to give such direction in comparison to the NT group (38.1%),
χ2 (3, N = 1163) = 9.02, p ≤ .05. In their commentary, 21.8% of respondents questioned the information given to them. SJs were significantly less likely to question than the other
temperaments. The table below further looks at the coded response patterns of each
temperament.
56
Table 14. Open Ended Responses by Temperament
SP [%]
SJ [%]
NF [%]
NT [%]
Critique**
44.4
39.8
42.7
54.5
Prescribe*
46.0
41.9
38.7
38.1
Question*
23.8
15.6
24.2
24.5
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05
N=1163
When analyzed according to the thinking/feeling dichotomy, thinking types (54%)
were more prone to give critique than feeling types (39.8%), χ2 (1, N = 1163) = 21.802, p
≤ .05. There was no significant difference among thinkers and feelers in regard to the
“prescribe” and “question” variables.
The NFs (35.5%) were significantly more likely to list a positive response to the
ad, than the NT (20.6%) and SP groups (20.6%), χ2 (3, N = 1163) = 22.53, p ≤ .05. NFs were also significantly less likely than all other groups to report a “neutral” opinion on the ad viewed, χ2 (3, N = 1163) = 12.69, p ≤ .05. This is illustrated below in Table 15.
Table 15. Open Ended Response Tone by Temperament
SP [%]
SJ [%]
NF [%]
NT [%]
Positive***
20.6
27.2
35.5
20.6
Negative
28.6
25.4
30.0
35.3
Neutral**
50.8
51.4
39.6
47.9
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05
N=1163
There were findings in regard to the thinking/feeling dichotomy, with feelers
(33.3%) being significantly more likely to report positive feelings after viewing the
message than thinkers (20.5%), χ2 (1, N = 1162) = 21.51, p ≤ .05. Similarly, thinking 57
types (34.2%) were significantly more likely to report negative feelings after viewing a
message than feelers (27.4%), χ2 (1, N = 1162) = 5.85, p ≤ .05.
More Information
Temperament played a significant role in whether respondents indicated that they
would like to “find out more,” or get more information on the issue and organization featured in the ad, χ2 (3, N = 1160) = 15.424, p ≤ .05. The NF (24.7%) and SP (22.2%)
groups were significantly more likely than the SJ (15%) and NT (15.8%) groups to
indicate that they wanted more information.
When analyzed according to the thinking and feeling dimension, there were also
significant results, χ2 (1, N = 1159) = 10.934, p ≤ .05, with feelers (22.6%) being
significantly more likely to say that they wanted to seek additional information than
thinkers (14.5%).
Effects of Message Type Intentions to Donate There was no effect of message type on intentions to donate ( F (3, 1162) = 2.165,
p = ns). In other words, no message was significantly better than the others in increasing
likelihood to donate. Yet the SP message was marginally (p ≤ .077) more likely than the
NT message to make people want to donate.
58
Perceived I mportance
In regard to the whether people were more likely to perceive an issue as important
based on the message received, there is no significant correlation between the message
type itself and how important the issue was perceived to be ( F (3, 1162) = .879, p=ns).
E motional Reactions to the Ad
There were strong results as to whether people were more likely to have an
emotional reaction based on the ad viewed. As referenced in the table below, there was a
significant correlation between which ad respondents viewed and the responses “makes me feel angry” ( F (3, 1162) = 11.327, p < .001), “makes me feel sad” ( F (3, 1162) = 7.24,
p < .001), “makes me feel happy” ( F (3, 1162) = 7.87, p < .001) and “makes me feel hopeful” ( F (3, 1162) = 8.22, p < .001).
People were least likely to feel angry or sad
and most likely to feel happy and hopeful in response to the SP message.
Table 16. Emotional Responses to Ad Type
SJ Ad
Guilty
Angry***
Sad***
SP Ad
NF Ad
NT Ad
2.06(1.1)
2.09(1.2)
2.56(1.28) 2.01(1.25) 2.31(1.30)
2.51(1.3)
2.23(1.15) 2.05(1.18)
2.75(1.24) 2.30(1.24) 2.60(1.22) 2.61(1.22)
Happy***
2.66(1.1)
2.99(1.16) 2.77(1.09) 2.58(1.09)
Hopeful***
3.01(1.2)
3.40(1.23) 3.11(1.18) 2.95(1.17)
Note. Cell entries are means, with standard deviations in parentheses. N=1162.
***p<.001
59
Open-ended Message Evaluation Items
Across all variables the SP ad was met with the least criticism or reactance. In
regard to the ads themselves, the ads typed “NT” (50.2%) and “SJ” (50.9%) were significantly more likely to be critiqued or cause the respondent to “prescribe” than the “SP” ad type (36.7%), χ2 (3, N = 1163) = 16.251, p ≤ .05.
The ads typed “NT” (48.7%) and “SJ” (47.2%) were also significantly more likely
to inspire suggestions or prescriptions than the “SP” ad (38%), χ2 (3, N = 1163) = 8.337,
p ≤ .05. There is no significant relationship between ad type and the amount of
“questioning” done by the respondent, χ2 (3, N = 1163) = 6.650, p =ns, or the amount of
“personal reflection” that the response engendered, χ2 (3, N = 1163) = 4.382, p =ns.
These results are illustrated in the table below.
Table 17. Open Ended Responses to Ad Type
SJ Ad [%]
SP Ad [%]
NF Ad [%]
NT Ad [%]
Critique***
50.9
36.7
42.8
50.2
Prescribe*
48.7
38.0
42.8
47.2
Question
18.0
24.6
25.1
19.3
Reflection
28.5
31.0
28.6
23.6
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05
N=1164
As referenced in Table 18 below, there was a significant correlation between
which ad respondents viewed and the tone of their responses. The NT ad elicited
significantly less comments that were positive in tone, χ2 (3, N = 1164) = 10.52, p ≤ .05,
and significantly more comments that were negative in tone, χ2 (3, N = 1164) = 12.97, p ≤ .05, than the SP and NF ads.
60
Table 18. Open Ended Tone of Response to Ad Type
SJ Ad [%] SP Ad [%]
NF Ad [%]
NT Ad [%]
Positive*
28.1
30.7
33.9
22.3
Negative**
31.5
28.1
23.3
36.5
Neutral
45.7
43.8
46.6
46.5
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05
N=1164
More Information There was no significant finding regarding whether a certain message was more
likely to encourage respondents to seek more information, χ2 (3, N = 1164) = 10.52,
p=ns. A pattern did show the SP and NF typed ads to be slightly more likely to cause
respondents to request more information, but this was not statistically significant.
E ffects of M atched vs. Unmatched
Intentions to Donate People were no more likely to donate if they received a matched (M=2.71=,
SD=1.11) or unmatched ad (M=2.62, SD=1.14), t (1161) = -1.158, p = ns.
Perceived I mportance
People were more likely to perceive an issue as important when receiving a
matched message (M=4.48, SD=.83) than an unmatched message (M=4.35, SD=.97),
t(1161)=-1.948, p≤.035.
61
E motional Reactions to the Ad
There was no significant correlation between receiving a matched or mismatched
ad and reported emotions. In essence, respondents who received matched ads were no
more likely to report feeling guilty ( t (1161) = -.081, p = ns), angry (t (1161) = .304, p =
ns), sad (t (1161) = -1.641, p = ns), happy (t (1161) = .272, p = ns), or hopeful (t (1161) =
-.096, p = ns) than those who received unmatched ads.
Open-ended Message Evaluation Items
Respondents seeing an unmatched message were no more likely to critique, χ2 (1,
N = 1163) = .045, p =ns, prescribe, χ2 (1, N = 1163) = .093, p =ns, question, χ2 (1, N =
1163) = .053, p =ns, or reflect, χ2 (1, N = 1163) = .040, p =ns then when seeing a matched
message.
While there was no significant difference between the types of responses given to
matched and unmatched messages, there was a significant difference with regard to tone.
Subjects who saw matched messages were more likely to respond in a positive tone, χ2
(1, N = 1163) = 23.35, p ≤ .05, and less likely to respond in a negative tone, χ2 (1, N =
1163) = 6.36, p ≤ .05 than those who saw unmatched messages (see Table 19).
Table 19. Open Ended Response to Matched Messages
Matched [%]
Unmatched [%]
Positive***
40.3
25.2
Negative*
23.8
31.8
Neutral
41.8
46.7
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05
N=1163
62
More Information
There was a significant correlation between receiving a matched or mismatched
ad and respondents indicating that they wanted more information. Those receiving a
message matched to their temperament (23.9%) were significantly more likely to indicate
that they wanted more information on the cause and issue presented then those who
receive unmatched messages (18.4%), χ2 (1, N = 1160) = 4.05, p ≤ .05.
63
D ISC USSI O N
Differences A cross Temperament and T ype
One of the chief objectives of the study was to determine if personality plays a
role in one’s decision to donate to a charitable organization. The results of this study
showed that the NF temperament was in fact more likely to make a donation to a
charitable cause than the NT temperament.
In regard to the first hypothesis, which predicted that the SP type would be the
least likely of the four temperaments to give, the data is still inconclusive. Of the 1,163
respondents, only 63 were SPs, making this group underrepresented in the sample and as
a result, their propensity for giving is still not fully determined. It is telling, however, that
the SPs were much less likely to volunteer to take a survey than the other types, making
up only 5.4% of the respondent pool. Considering the small SP sample size, results
regarding whether the STP or SFP types differed are inconclusive as well.
Contrary to the second hypothesis, which proposed that the SJ group would be the
second most likely type to give, this group actually came in third behind the SPs. Yet
while the only statistically significant findings regarding the influence of temperament on
likelihood to donate were between the NF temperament and the NT temperament, there
were significant findings among the 16 personality types as well. A pattern within the SJ
temperament group emerged that supported the hypothesis that the SJ feeling types (ESFJ
and ISFJ) were in fact more likely to give than the thinking types (ESTJ and ISTJ). There
64
were significant findings that showed that the ESFJ type was the second most likely type
to give out of all 16 types. Also significant was the fact that the ESTJ type was the
second least likely to give. While the behavior of SJs might be similar: valuing tradition
and order, etc., the information that SFJs and STJs rely on to make decisions might be
different. As noted, while the S/N dimension informs perception, the T/F function drives
action. This might explain the disparity between the ESFJ and ESTJ intentions to donate,
as well as the absence of significant findings. This wide distribution within the SJ
temperament group could reflect a skew in the results. Perhaps future studies should
further split the SJ temperament along the thinking and feeling dichotomy or even utilize
the MBTI grouping of SF, ST, NT, NF.
The third hypothesis was fully supported by the results, as the NF temperament
was shown to be the most likely to want to make a charitable donation. Additionally,
there were significant results that showed the ENFJ type as the most likely of all types to
indicate wanting to donate to charity. Interestingly, of all the types, ENFJ had the most
respondents to the survey, with 19% or 222 of the 1,163 total. Guy and Patton concluded
that personality was one of the internal factors that influenced the decision to give, and
now this study provides concrete evidence that this is the case. The Statman and Wood
study, which showed NFs as the most likely to donate or “give to the needy” or invest in “socially responsible” organizations, was also supported by the results. Bennett (2003)
and Sargeant (1989) both identified one’s ability for empathy or an empathetic disposition as a key factor for giving. Myers and Keirsey also described NFs at the most
65
empathetic types, thus both type theory and the donor behavior models support that NFs
would be the most likely to give.
The hypothesis that the NT type would be the third most likely to donate was
partially supported. As discussed above, the NT temperament was the least likely to
donate to charity, yet the hypothesis predicted that they would give more than the SPs.
Due to the small SP sample, these results, as previously stated, are inconclusive. Yet, as
predicted the NT temperament was less inclined to give than the NF temperament, which
supports the hypothesis. Overall, the INTJ type was significantly less likely to give than
the ENFJ and ESFJ types.
As expected, the results of the study supported the hypothesis that feeling types
would be more likely than thinking types to make donations to charity. This is heavily
supported by the literature, as a primary division between thinking and feeling types is
the priority each places on being of help to others. While thinking types prefer to remain
objective, feeling types are often subjective, making decisions that put others’ feelings ahead of their own. Also as discussed above, the T/F dichotomy is reflective of how each
group “takes action,” thus further highlighting the significance of this variable among the types. It is important to consider that the feeling types, who aim to please others, might
have indicated wanting to donate because they believed it to be the socially preferable
answer. Thinking types, on the other hand, were more objective, and as a result, they may
have been more prone to give a critical response.
66
Incidentally, the baseline questions in the study that established past giving
preferences were extremely telling in regard to both how often people of each
temperament donated, as well as to what types of charitable organizations they made
these contributions. Thus, this provides even more information on what issues and
organizations each type might be predisposed to be interested in.
Surprisingly, there were no significant differences among how often each
temperament reported donating in the past. While a pattern showed SPs as less likely to
give “10 or more times” and more likely to make “one time” donations than other types,
the median donation range for all temperaments was “two to five times” annually. So, despite the fact that NTs were less likely to donate in this particular study, there was no
indication through reported donation that they gave with significantly less frequency than
the other types. This might be a result of the origins and apparent type of charitable
appeal (pop-up ad) used in the study and the natural skepticism of most NT Rationals
who would want more information before making a decision.
In this study, the SPs and the NFs were significantly more likely to report
donating internationally than the SJs or the NTs, who were significantly more likely to
report donating locally. The Statman and Wood study identified both SJs and SPs as
displaying a “home bias” in investment decisions, while NTs and NFs preferred investing internationally. This did not prove to be the case for the NTs, who were actually more
likely to donate locally or the SPs who reported a greater tendency to donate abroad.
When looked at according to the thinking and feeling dimension, it was found that the
thinkers were more likely to donate locally, whereas the feelers were more likely to
67
donate internationally. Further research should be conducted to look into the nature of
the local vs. international appeals in order to determine what created this discrepancy.
Keirsey’s research shows that while temperament does not account for all individual abilities, in many instances those who have the same temperament often have
like interests as well (1998). This study shows that donor behavior, at least in relation to
what type of organization people give to, can in fact be, in part, predicted by
temperament.
The findings that the SJ temperament was the most likely to donate to religious
and health/medical related causes are very much supported by the literature (Keirsey,
1984; Myers & McCaulley, 1986; Myers, 1980), which describe SJs as valuing
“tradition” and “respectability.” Statman and Wood identified SJ Guardians as the most
likely of all temperaments to make investments in “traditional” companies. Caldwell and Scott also found the SJ temperament to be the most prominent of the types working in a
church-operated hospice (1994). Myers also established that “S” types prefer to give
their services via occupational choice, to practical, tangible causes (1980). Donations to
a health or medical cause, such as St. Jude’s, can have direct, visible influence on the health of an individual. Also, SJs are more likely to be affected by actions they directly
experience, as opposed to the abstract (Keirsey, 1998). So, personal experience with a
disease or having a loved one who is affected would be stronger motivators for an SJ than
the other types. Charitable organizations should take note of this, as an emphasis on
“tradition” and the visible ways that they are making a difference would help to attract 68
SJs who show a propensity to give to these types of organizations.
As intuitive types are more likely to be influenced by the future and the abstract
(Keirsey, 1998; Myers, 1980), it is not surprising that they would be significantly more
inclined to donate to environmental causes. The NT and NF types were more likely to
donate to the “environment” than the SJs and SPs, who would rather a more obvious and
visible problem to which to donate. While not statistically significant, there was also a
pattern in the data that showed NTs and NFs as more likely to donate to the arts and
education. Like the environment, arts and education donations do not pay-off in the shortterm and the payoff from one’s contribution is not always directly visible. Environment, arts and culture, and education focused charitable organizations should continue to
engage their intuitive donors, while finding ways to show sensing types what type of
impact they can make today.
Interestingly, SPs were significantly more likely to donate to disaster causes than
all the other temperaments, particularly the NTs. Considering the value-system of the
SPs and their “yearning for impact” as Keirsey puts it, they might be more compelled to donate where they feel they can make a big change. NTs, on the other hand, were by far
the least likely to donate to disaster relief. This is perhaps because as Keirsey describes,
they are driven by pragmatism (1998) and might be less inclined to donate to a cause that
they have little time to research.
Also of note is the unprecedented disaster relief
fundraising for the Haiti earthquake, which occurred in the 12 months preceding this
study. The celebrity appeals, telethons, text-message campaigns and so forth engaged
69
many new donors. Also, the disaster was heavily covered in the media, with highly
visceral and dramatic visuals. Considering that SPs were also more likely to report one
time and international donations, this may have had some effect on the results. Either
way, disaster relief efforts should continue to draw attention to the boldness of their
causes in hopes of rallying SP support. Gaining NT support would require less dramatic
calls for help, with an emphasis on the logical steps for which the money would be used.
Differences A cross M essage T ype
In regard to the study’s second objective, concerning whether a certain “type of message” would be better than the other typed messages, the hypothesis proved to be
partially true. While no message made people more likely to donate, there was marginal
significance in the results that those receiving the “SP” typed message were slightly more
likely to report intention to donate than those receiving the “NT” typed message.
The
“SP” typed message was the least likely to promote reactance (i.e., an emotional reaction
that can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what
was intended) from participants. That is, those who received the SP message, regardless
of if it was a matched message, were significantly less likely to prescribe about or
critique the ad or to report anger and sadness, than those receiving the SJ or NT
messages. Respondents to the SP message were also significantly more likely to report
feeling “hopeful” and “happy,” than those who received the SJ and NT messages. It would appear that these positive emotions had some influence on increasing one’s 70
likelihood to donate, as the SP message was marginally more likely than the NT message
to make people donate. The results show that the SP message was significantly more
likely to cause respondents to report positive comments and engage in less critique or
prescription.
Studies like the one by Smith (1993) proposed that sensing messages would be
more effective.
He posited that because more of the population is sensing, the sensing
messages would reach a larger cross-section of the population. Yet, in the sample for this
study, a disproportionate percent were intuitive types (66.4%) as compared to the actual
population, in which roughly 27% is made up of intuitive types. So while the popularity
of the SP message supports Smith’s findings, it is not congruent with his reasoning. It is likely that the language of the SP message contributed to its popularity, or
even more likely that the language in the other messages made them less popular. Unlike
the other messages, the SP message did not prime respondents to any one issue. On the
other hand, the NT message, which focused on our country “innovating” and “staying on the cutting edge,” primed respondents to focus more on America’s world-standing and
less on the issue of education itself. Many respondents critiqued the message, saying that
it was “too competitive” and detached. At the same time, the SJ message addressed
education as a way to keep kids “off violence and drugs” and told donors they could “save a child’s life.” The strong language likely explains participants’ reactance to this
message, and the use of the word “responsibility” in the message primed participants to engage in critique and prescribe about the need for parental responsibility. Finally, the
71
NF message, which asserted, “Every child deserves an education, no matter their race,” distracted some participants who were primed to think of the statement as a political
stance on illegal immigration. There was less critique about the NF message than the NT
or SJ ones, but the SP message was still the clear frontrunner. This is most likely a result
of the simplicity and relatively generic nature of the SP message.
The relative effectiveness of the SP message might also be related to Cline et al.’s (1989) assessment of congruency theory and ad type, which posited that people seek
congruence between an ad and the organization’s “type.” While education is certainly not an SP issue, as an organization, donorschoose does aim to give teachers the “tools” to “build and shape” their classrooms as the message states. Essentially, the message was
more congruent with the cause than the other messages. Also, unlike the other messages,
it focuses on “making an impact today” and not in the future. Despite the differing time frames that each temperament is “oriented toward” (Keirsey, 1998), perhaps this
immediate call for action was integral to the success of the SP message. Further research
would be needed to explore whether this factor played a role in the message’s popularity.
E ffectiveness of M atched M essages
The hypothesis that subjects receiving matched messages would be more likely to
have intentions to donate, which relates to the study’s third objective, was not supported.
With regard to intentions to donate, there were no statistically significant differences
between those receiving matched or mismatched messages.
Yet, examination of other
dependent variables revealed some positive benefits of message tailoring. When
72
participants received a matched message they were more likely to say that the ad
“addresses an important issue” than those receiving mismatched messages. Subjects receiving matched messages were also more likely to indicate that they would “like more information.” Comments from respondents who received matched messages were also significantly more likely to be positive than those receiving unmatched messages. These
findings are critical to further development of type theory in message tailoring and
matching. While matched messages did not increase the likelihood to donate, they did
increase the importance of the issue in the minds of those taking the survey and they also
caused participants to want more information on the organization and issue featured in
the ad. The ramifications of this are huge for initial solicitations and social marketing
campaigns that aim to increase awareness and disseminate information.
L imitations and Directions for F uture Resea rch
The primary limitation of the study is that the measurement used to determine
personality type was not a valid form of either the MBTI or the KTS.
Validation
procedures were set in place and the results did show congruency between the Jungian
measure used and the KTS and MBTI. Still, as in accordance with the policy of the
Myers-Briggs foundation, when administering the MBTI questionnaire, it is essential that
follow up is conducted to establish that the person’s “true type” was actually indicated by the measure. The MBTI is at best 85% accurate without consultation, with the T and F
dichotomy having the highest rate of error. That being said, this is a limitation of most
studies that utilize the MBTI, as most sample sizes are too large to properly administer
the test and consult with each individual.
73
Also, while all 16 personality types were represented in the sample, representing
all four temperaments, the percentages were not representative of the actual population.
NFs and NTs, which typically make up about 26.5% of the general population, made up
66% of this study. Likewise, the SJ group, which is typically 40-45% of the population,
only represented 28% of respondents in the study. This of course was due in part to the
fact that it required self-selection and that it was a non-random, convenience sample.
Also, as the study required people to “volunteer” to participate, naturally those who
participated were more likely to be types that were inclined to give. This was evidenced
by the over-representation of ENFJs and NFs in general. The most common responders
were ENFJs and ESFJs, both of which were more likely than the other types to indicate
donating. This is not a coincidence.
Interestingly, the large number of NTs is less easily explainable, as the NTs did
not indicate wanting to donate and in general had more negative responses. Keirsey
described NTs as “seeking knowledge” and maybe for this reason NTs participated to
share their knowledge and contribute for the sake of enlightenment.
While the results of this study showed the NT temperament as less likely to
indicate wanting to donate than the other types, this was not evidenced by their past
giving behavior, as they gave with as much frequency as the other groups. The NTs also
reported having made past donations to education more often than the other types. For
these reasons, it appears that the messages themselves failed to capture their interest. In
the critiques of the messages, many NTs said that the ads did not give enough
information or that they would not donate without knowing more. McKenna et al. (2003)
identified NTs as valuing “logical consistency” and preferring “plans that are
74
intellectually as well as financially challenging, as well as innovative and economic in the
sense that they produce the maximum benefit for the resources put to use.” For this reason, more long-term donor stewardship might be necessary when approaching this
temperament.
The limited information in the ad could not possibly meet all these
standards. Also the NTs were the least likely of all types to have an emotional reaction to
the ads viewed. This is not surprising, as it is consistent with the literature, but the types
that showed more emotional arousal also gave more positive reactions and were more
likely to indicate that they would donate. Further research should be done to look at what
role elicited emotion plays in each type’s decision to donate, particularly the NT group,
which is less likely to express emotion. Despite the NT reticence to say that the ad made
them “sad” or “hopeful,” they were more apt to critique and express negativity when the ads did not meet their standards.
Clearly, SPs were vastly under-represented. This is due in part to the overall
absence of SPs from higher education and the available sample. Yet efforts were made to
reach those in professions that are typically associated with being SP dominated
(athletics, sales, military, cosmetology, etc.) (Keirsey, 1998; Myers, 1980). McKenna et
al. (2003) identified SPs as being driven to use their money for “fun or play,” and Keirsey
(1998) described SP interests as “oriented toward hedonism.” Donating to charitable
organizations and volunteering to participate in surveys do not tend to fall into these
categories. While a financial incentive might have diversified the sample to include more
SPs, it also could have negatively influenced the results.
In regard to message design, several other limitations are apparent. While the
messages were designed with reference to the existing literature and validation was done
75
via volunteer testing, the messages had flaws. The language used was meant to represent
the values and frame of reference for each type, but the messages were also written in a
way that they would be similar to one another. This created limitations in how each
message could be expressed. For example, as discussed above, the NT message included
few facts and little to no information on who was asking for the donation. This proved to
be disconcerting to NTs who make decisions based on pragmatism. The omission of
these details raised a great deal of critique from NTs. Yet to include detail in one ad and
not another would have differentiated them too much.
A synthesis of the existing literature, as well as future research into message
design, should be conducted to make message design to temperament more streamlined.
Having guidelines to support the creation of “typed messages” would reduce researcher bias and error.
Utilizing the existing resources available from the Center for the
Application of Personality Type (CAPT) would also help with the targeting and
dissemination of the messages, as they have an extensive research library that is full of
resources on how to find people of each type.
Finally, it is important to recognize that there is a big difference between intention
and action.
While the study attempted to measure interest in donating by asking
participants if they would donate, this is not a reliable indicator as to if they actually will.
Going a step further, a link to the donorschoose website was provided, yet only six
participants of the 1,166 actually made a donation. That being said, participants who
indicated that they would donate might have returned to the general website at a later
time to do so, but the study limitations prevent this from being measured.
76
Given the context of the study, however, and the brief amount of information on
the cause available to the participants, these results are somewhat remarkable. If this
study was replicated with fewer time constraints, an even larger respondent pool and
professionally designed donor appeals it is likely that the benefits of tailoring and
matching to type would be even better represented. Also, respondents knew that this was
a research study, as opposed to a “natural” or “real-world” appeal situation, which might have also worked against intentions to give. Obviously, further research is needed in the
field of personality tailored altruistic message appeals to see what effect these other
variables might have on increasing likelihood to donate. Yet the results of the study offer
positive support for this avenue of research.
Conclusion
An unexpected yet key takeaway from this study is the effect that matched
messages had on increasing participants’ belief in an issue’s importance, as well as increasing their desire for more information on the issue. This shows that tailoring
messages to temperament in order to raise awareness might prove to be a fruitful
endeavor. Social issue campaigns that focus on getting individuals to seek out more
information or to increase the salience of a health issue or positive behavior could benefit
from tailoring messages to personality. For example, past success in identifying a link
between type and nutritional habits (Horacek & Betts, 1998) and exercise behavior (Brue,
2008) could provide an avenue for testing the effectiveness of tailoring preventative
health message to type. Since type matched messages have now been shown to both
77
increase issue salience and encourage receivers to seek more information, awareness
campaigns should conduct further research in this area.
Many studies have attempted to create frameworks to understand donor behavior,
(Bendapudi et al., 1996; Garner & Wagner, 1991; Guy & Patton, 1989; Sargeant, 1999;
Sherry, 1983) and even more have cited personality as a potential role in both donor
behavior (Bennett, 2003; Reykowski, 1982, Wong, 2009; etc.) and behavior (Keirsey,
1998; Keirsey & Bates, 1978, etc.) as a whole. Not only does this study join the rich body
of literature that posits type theory as a way to predict behavior, it also provides a link
between the existing research on donor behavior with both personality type and message
tailoring theories. It has been shown that tailoring altruistic cause messages based on
demographics alone has been relatively unproductive, as donor behavior varies widely
among supposedly similar groups (Sargeant, 1999). The application of type theory to
message and tailoring theory can help account for these differences by targeting the
temperament.
While other studies have attempted to do this (Bennett, 2003; Cermak, et al.,
1994; Supphellen & Nelson, 2001), they created their own types to reflect certain values,
as opposed to using an existing framework. The benefit of using the MBTI or KTS
framework is not only that it comes with a rich body of literature, but also that existing
research already supports being able to target certain types based on occupation (Hirsch,
1989), lifestyle choices (Keirsey, 1998), education (Myers & McCaulley, 1986) and
more. Instead of creating “donor types,” as others have done, this study furthers the theoretical and the practical, by bridging existing areas of research.
78
Non-profits and those designing social marketing campaigns should take note of
the results from this study, as it not only identifies a significant correlation between
personality and reported interest in donating, but it also proposes a way to reach the
different types. While many organizations are already using tailored messages to reach
audiences, this method of tailoring signifies a promising new avenue to be pursued.
79
R E F E R E N C ES
Allen, J. & Brock, S. (2000). Health Care Communication. Philadelphia, PA: Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group. (Print).
Anderson J.R. (1998). Selected policy issues in international agricultural research: on
striving for international public goods in an era of donor fatigue. World
Development, 26 (6), pp. 1149-1162.
Ball, I. L. (2006, July). Career planning and the four temperaments: An Australian
investigation of the responses of high school students. Proceedings of the Eighth
Biennial National Conference of the Australian Association for Psychological
Type, Brisbane [CD]. Available from http://www.aapt.org.au/
Barr, L. & Barr, N. (1989). The leadership equation: Leadership, management, and the
Myers-Briggs. Austin, TX: Eakin Press.
Bar Tal, D. & Raviv, A. (1982). A cognitive learning model of helping behavior
development, in The Development of Pro-Social Behavior, ed. N. Eisenberg.
New York: Academic Press, pp. 199-215.
Bathurst, J., & Moody, R. A. (2002, June). New Zealand database delvings: Type and
culture: Values study. New Zealand Association of Psychological Type,
TYPEtype, 39, pp. 10-11.
Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. & Bendapudi , V. (1996). “Enhancing helping behavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning,” Journal of Marketing, 60, pp. 3349.
Bennett, R. (2002). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of
charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
Volume 8, Number 1, February 2003, pp. 12-29(18)
Berkowitz, L. (1972). “Social Norms, Feelings, and other Factors Affecting Helping and
Altruism,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz,
New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Britt, S.H. (1978). Psychological principles of marketing and consumer behavior.
Lexington, MA: D.C Health.
Brue, S. W. (2004, July). Type and physical exercise: Sixteen roads to fitness. Handout
from presentation at APT-XV, the Fifteenth Biennial International Conference of
the Association for Psychological Type, Toronto, ON.
80
Brue, S. W. (2008). The eight colors of fitness: Discover your color-coded fitness
personality and create an exercise program you' ll never quit. Delray Beach, FL:
Oakledge Press.
Cacioppio, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, pp. 123205.
Cahill, D. J. (2006). Lifestyle market segmentation. New York: Haworth Press.
Caldwell, J., & Scott, J. P. (1994). Effective hospice volunteers: Demographic and
personality characteristics. A merican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care ,
11(2), pp. 40-45. -45.
Campbell M.K, DeVellis B.M, Strecher V.J, Ammerman A.S, DeVellis R.F, Sandler R.S.
(1994). Improving dietary behavior: the effectiveness of tailored messages in
primary care settings. Journal of Public Health, 84(5), pp. 783-787.
Catt, V. & Benson, P.L. (1977). Effect of verbal modeling on contributions to charity.
Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 62(1), pp. 81-85.
Cermak, D., File, K. & Prince, R. (1994). A benefit segmentation of the major donor
market, Journal of Business Research, 29, pp. 121-130.
Cline, C. G., McBride, M. H.. & Miller, R. E. (1989). The theory of psychological type
congruence public relations and persuasion. C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.),
Public Relations Theory Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp.
221-239.
Edelbaum, M. (2006, Summer). Fit the profile: What is your exercise personality? New
Zealand Association of Psychological Type, TYPEtype, 53, pp. 17-19.
Festinger, L.A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.
Francis, L. J., & Robbins, M. (2008, January). Psychological type and prayer preferences:
A study among Anglican clergy in the United Kingdom. Mental Health, Religion
and Culture, 11(1), pp. 67-84.
Francis, L. J., & Pegg, S. (2007). Psychological type profile of female volunteer workers
in a rural Christian charity shop. Rural Theology, 5, pp. 53-56.
Francis, L. J. (2005). Faith and psychology: Personality, religion and the individual.
London: Darton, Longman and Todd.
81
Francis, L. J., Jones, S. H., & Craig, C. L. (2004). Personality and religion: The
relationship between psychological type and attitude toward Christianity.
(Archive for the Psychology of Religion), 26(1), pp. 15-33.
Garner, I.T. and J. Wagner (1991). Economic dimensions of household gift
giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, pp. 368-379.
Guy, B. & Patton, W.E. (1989). The marketing of altruistic causes: understanding why
people help. Journal of Services Marketing, 2(1), pp. 5-16.
Hallahan, K. (2008). Need for Cognition as Motivation to Process Publicity and
Advertising. Journal of Promotion Management, 14(3,4), pp. 169-194.
Hirsch, S. K., & Kummerow, J. M. (1989). Life Types. New York: Warner Books
Hoffman, J. L., Waters, K. & Berry, M. (1981). Personality types and computer assisted
instruction in a self-paced technical training environment. Research in
Psychological Type, 3, pp. 81-85.
Hoffman, J.L. & Betkouski, M. (1981). A summary of Myers-Briggs type indicator
research applications in education. Research in Psychological Type, 3, pp. 3-41.
Horacek T. & Betts, N. (1998). College Students' Dietary Intake and Quality According
to Their Myers Briggs Type Indicator Personality Preferences, Journal of
Nutrition Education, 30, pp. 387-395.
Isachsen, O., & Berens, L. (1999). Working Together: A Personality Centered Approach
to Management. New York, NY: Institute for Management Development.
Jung, C. G. (1964). Psychological types, or the psychology of individuation (H. G.
Baynes, Trans.). London: Pantheon. (Original work published 1923)
Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984), Please Understand Me. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus
Nemesis.
Keirsey, David (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, and
Intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
Keirsey Temperament Sorter Web site. (2009, November 22). The Four Temperaments.
Kotler, P. (1986) Principles of marketing (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kreuter, M. W., Strecher, V. J., & Glassman, B. (1999). One size does not fit all: the case
for tailoring print materials. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 21, pp. 276–283.
82
Kreuter, M. W. & Wray, R. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication:
strategies for enhancing information relevance. A merican Journal of Health
Behavior, 27(3), S227–S232.
Latane, B. & Darley, J.M. (1970). The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help?
New York: Appleton-Coventry-Crofts.
Latane, B. and S. Nida (1981), Ten Years of Research on Group Size and
Helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89 (2), pp. 308-324.
Latimer, Amy E. Katulak, Nicole A., Mowad, Linda & Salovey, Peter (2005). Motivating
cancer prevention and early detection behaviors using psychologically tailored
messages. Journal of Health Communication, 10, pp. 137–155.
Lavine, H., & Snyder, M. (1996). Cognitive processing and the functional matching
effect in persuasion: the mediating role of subjective perceptions of message
quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, pp. 580–604.
Lawrence, G. D. (1982). People types and tiger stripes (2nd ed.). Gainesville, FL: Center
for Applications of Psychological Type.
Lawrence, G. D. (2009). People types and tiger stripes: Using psychological type to help
students discover their unique potential (4th ed.). Gainesville, FL: Center for
Applications of Psychological Type.
Linder, R. (2000). What will I do with my money? How your personality affects your
financial behavior. Chicago, IL: Northfield Publishing.
Lohmann, R. (1992). The Commons:New Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations and
Voluntary Action. Jossey-Bass: New York, NY.
Margolis, H. (1982). Selfishness, Altruism and Rationality. Cambridge, Mass.,
Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Marshall, A. L., Bauman, A. E., Owen, N., Booth, M. L., Crawford, D., & Marcus, B. H.
(2003). Population-based randomized controlled trial of a stage-targeted physical
activity intervention. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, pp. 194–202.
McCarley, N.G., & Carskadon, T.C. (1986). The perceived accuracy of elements of the
16 type descriptions of Myers and Keirsey among men and women: which
elements are most accurate, should type descriptions be different for men and
women and do the type descriptions stereotype sensing types?” Journal of
Psychological Type, 11, pp. 2-29.
McClintock, Charles G. and Scott T. Allison (1989). Social Value Orientation
and Helping Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, pp. 353-362.
83
Meisgeier, C. H. & Meisgeier, C. S. (2000, March). Behavior management, individual
differences, and psychological type. Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial
International Conference on Education of the Center for Applications of
Psychological Type (pp. 225-234). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of
Psychological Type.
Mitchell, C. W. & Shuff, I. M. (1995). Personality characteristics of hospice volunteers as
measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 65(3), pp. 521-532.
Montgomery, Stephen (2002). People Patterns: A Modern Guide to the Four
Temperaments (1st Ed. ed.). Archer Publications.
Morton, J. (2010, Winter). Religion and spirituality: Theological reflections and
personality type. British Association for Psychological Type, TypeFace, 21(1),
pp. 18-19.
Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the Effect of Group on the Individual. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 19, pp. 295-322.
Myers & McCaulley (1981). MBTI Uses in Medicine and other Health Professions 19641981. Gainesville FL: CAPT.
Myers (1987). Introduction to type. Gainesville FL: CAPT
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. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ostrower, (1997). Why the Wealthy Give. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Petty, R. E., Barden, J., & Wheeler, S. C. (2002). The elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion. In R. J. DiClemente, R. A. Crosby, & M. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging
theories in health promotion practice and research (pp. 71–99).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass:.
Quinn, M.T., Lewis, R.J. & Fischer, K. L. (1992). A cross-correlation of the MyersBriggs and Keirsey instruments. Journal of College Student Development, 33(3),
pp. 279-280.
Radley, A. & Kennedy, M. (1995) Charitable giving by individuals: A study of
attitudes and practice. Human Relations, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 685-709.
84
Rakowski, W. (1999). The potential variances of tailoring in health behavior
interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 21, pp. 284–289.
Rakowski, W., Ehrich, B., Goldstein, M. G., Rimer, B. K., Pearlman, D. N., Clark, M. A.,
et al. (1998). Increasing mammography among women aged 40–74 by use of a
stage matched, tailored intervention. Preventive Medicine, 27, pp. 748–756.
Ray, P. (1997). Using values to study customers. American Demographics, Vol.
19, No. 2, pp. 34–35.
Reykowski, J. (1982). Development of prosocial motivation in The Development of
Prosocial Behavior, ed. N. Eisenberg, New York: Academic Press, pp. 77-102.
Rimer, Barbara K. & Kreuter, Matthew W. (2006) Advancing tailored health
communication: A persuasion and message effects perspective. Journal of
Communication, 56, S184–S201.
Rytting, M., Ware, J. R. & Yokomoto, C. F. (2000, October). Psychological type and
motivation of individuals who volunteer of their time. Report submitted to the
Indiana University Center on Philanthropy. Indianapolis: Indiana University
Purdue University.
Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: towards a model of donor behavior
Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp. 215-238
Saxon-Harrold, S., Carter, J. and Humble, S. (1987). The charitable behavior of the
British people: A survey of patterns and attitudes to charitable giving. Charities
Aid Foundation, London.
Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Tynan, A. (1989). The scope for market segmentation within
the charity market: an empirical analysis. Managerial and Decision Economics,
Vol. 1, pp. 127-34.
Schneider, T. R., Salovey, P., Apanovitch, A. M., Pizarro, J., McCarthy, D., Zullo, J., et
al. (2001). The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography
use among low-income women. Health Psychology, 20, pp. 256–266.
Sherry, J.F. (1983), Gift giving: An anthropological perspective,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 10(8), pp. 157-168.
Shimp, T.A., (1978) Application of the personality construct in advertising research.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the A merican Academy of Advertising
(p. 78).
Silverstein, S. (1964). The Giving Tree. New York: Harper & Row.
85
Smith, R. (1993). Psychological type and public relations: theory, research, and
applications. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(3), pp. 177-199.
Strecher VJ, Rimer BK, Monaco KD. (1989). Development of a new self-help guide-freedom from smoking for you and your family. Health Education, (1), pp. 101112.
Supphellen, M. & Nelson, M. (2001). Developing, exploring, and validating a typology
of private philanthropic decision making,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 22,
pp. 573-603.
Sweeney, K. M. (1988). Personality type and educational treatments as factors in
willingness to donate organs among community college students (Doctoral
dissertation, Rutgers University of New Jersey - New Brunswick, 1988).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(06), 1355A. (University Microfilms No.
AAC88-13195)
Updegraff, J. A., Sherman, D. K., Luyster, F. S., & Mann, T. (2007). Understanding how
tailored communications work: The effects of message quality and congruency on
perceptions of health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43,
pp. 248-256.
Weinman, E. A. (2003). The effects of empathic disposition, mental health, and
personality style on intention to be a blood donor (Doctoral dissertation, Fairleigh
Dickinson University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06), 2946B.
(University Microfilms No. AAT 3093995)
Williams-Piehota, P., Pizarro, J., Navarro, S., Mowad, L., & Salovey, P. (2006). The
impact of messages tailored to need for cognition on increasing fruit and
vegetable intake among callers to the cancer information service. Health
Communication, 19, pp. 75–84.
Williams-Piehota, P., Pizarro, J., Schneider, T. R., Mowad, L., & Salovey, P. (2005).
Matching health messages to monitor-blunter coping styles to motivate screening
mammography. Health Psychology, 24, pp. 58–67.
Williams-Piehota, P., Schneider, T. R., Pizarro, J., Mowad, L., & Salovey, P. (2003).
Matching health messages to information processing styles: Need for cognition
and mammography utilization. Health Communication,15, pp. 375–392.
Williams-Piehota, P., Schneider, T. R., Pizarro, J., Mowad, L., & Salovey, P. (2004).
Matching health messages to health locus of control beliefs for promoting
mammography utilization. Psychology and Health, 19, pp. 407–423.
Wilson, B. (2007). Designing media messages about health and nutrition: what strategies
are most effective? Journal of Nutrition Education Behavior, 39, S13-S19.
86
Wispe, L. (1978) Altruism, sympathy and helping. New York: Academic Press. pp. 307309.
Weldon, E. (1984). De-Individualization, interpersonal affect, and productivity in
laboratory task groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, pp. 469-485.
Wong, L. (2009). Understanding donor response to donation appeals: The role of
deservingness in the dictator game and optimum donation promises in charity
auctions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alberta (Canada), Canada. Retrieved
March 14, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT
NR56624).
87
A PP E N D I X A 88
A PP E N D I X B
89
90
91
92
93
94
A PP E N D I X C
T he K eirsey Temperaments
A rtisans

Artisan temperament SP (ISTP, ISFP, ESTP, ESFP) 30 to 35 percent of the
population.

All Artisans (SPs) share the following core characteristics: fun-loving, optimistic,
realistic, and focused on the here and now.

Artisans pride themselves on being unconventional, bold, and spontaneous.

Artisans make playful mates, creative parents, and troubleshooting leaders.

Artisans are excitable, trust their impulses and want to make a splash, seek
stimulation, prize freedom, and dream of mastering action skills.
G uardians

Guardian temperament SJ (ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ESFJ) 40 to 45 percent of the
population

All Guardians (SJs) share the following core characteristics:

Guardians pride themselves on being dependable, helpful, and hard-working.

Guardians make loyal mates, responsible parents, and stabilizing leaders.

Guardians tend to be dutiful, cautious, humble, and focused on credentials and
traditions.

Guardians are concerned citizens who trust authority, join groups, and seek
security, prize gratitude, and dream of meting out justice.
95
Idealists

Idealist temperament NF (INFP, INFJ, ENFP, ENFJ) 15 to 20 percent of the
population

All Idealists (NFs) share the following core characteristics:

Idealists are enthusiastic, they trust their intuition, yearn for romance, and seek
their true self, prize meaningful relationships, and dream of attaining wisdom.

Idealists pride themselves on being loving, kindhearted, and authentic.

Idealists tend to be giving, trusting, spiritual, and they are focused on personal
journeys and human potentials.

Idealists make intense mates, nurturing parents, and inspirational leaders.
Rationals

Rational temperament NT (INTP, INTJ, ENTP, ENTJ) 5 to 10 percent of the
population.

All Rationals (NTs) share the following core characteristics:

Rationals tend to be pragmatic, skeptical, self-contained, and focused on problemsolving and systems analysis.

Rationals pride themselves on being ingenious, independent, and strong willed.

Rationals make reasonable mates, individualizing parents, and strategic leaders.

Rationals are even-tempered, they trust logic, yearn for achievement; seek
knowledge, prize technology, and dream of understanding how the world works.
Keirsey Temperament Sorter Web site. (2009, November 22). The Four Te mperaments. Retrieved from:
http://www.keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=1&c=overview
96
A PP E N D I X D
M B T I F lex-C a re F ramewor k
(Allen & Brock, 2000, p. 51) 97
(Allen & Brock, 2000, p. 31)
Patient Behavior Cues by MBTI type 98
A PP E N D I X E
Estimated Frequencies of the Types in the United States Population TOTAL E 45­53% S 66­74% T 40­50% J 54­60% I 47­55% N 26­34% F 50­60% P 40­46% FEMALES E 45­55% S 70­75% T 24­35% J 55­60% I 45­55% N 25­30% F 65­76% P 40­45% MALES E 45­50% S 65­72% T 55­67% J 52­58% I 50­55% N 28­35% F 33­45% P 42­48% ISTJ 11­14% ISFJ 9­14% INFJ 1­3% INTJ 2­4% ISTP 4­6% ISFP 5­9% INFP 4­5% INTP 3­5% ESTP 4­5% ESFP 4­9% ENFP 6­8% ENTP 2­5% ESTJ 8­12% ESFJ 9­13% ENFJ 2­5% ENTJ 2­5% ISTJ 7­10% ISFJ 15­20% INFJ 2­4% INTJ 1­3% ISTP 2­3% ISFP 6­10% INFP 4­7% INTP 1­3% ESTP 2­4% ESFP 7­10% ENFP 8­10% ENTP 2­4% ESTJ 6­8% ESFJ 12­17% ENFJ 3­6% ENTJ 1­4% ISTJ 14­19% ISFJ 6­8% INFJ 1­2% INTJ 2­6% ISTP 6­9% ISFP 4­8% INFP 3­5% INTP 4­7% ESTP 5­6% ESFP 3­7% ENFP 5­7% ENTP 3­7% ESTJ 10­12% ESFJ 5­8% ENFJ 1­3% ENTJ 3­6% 99
A PP E N D I X F
(Keirsey, 1998, p. 195).
(Keirsey, 1998, p. 195)
100
A PP E N D I X G
Q uestionnaire
1.)
The first part of the survey requires you to complete a questionnaire that will
determine your personality type. The personality questionnaire is on an external
website. The questionnaire consists of 72 questions and takes most people 10-15
minutes to complete. This is the longest part of the survey.
Without closing out of this survey, please click the link below to open the
personality questionnaire in a new browser window. It will bring you to the
questionnaire. After answering ALL the questions click on the button that says
"score it." You will get four letters as your "score." Make sure you correctly enter
the four letters into the blank below.
Link: Personality Questionnaire W hat were your fou r letters? For your results to be valid you must enter A L L
F O U R letters in the order they appear. Example: ISFJ, ENTP *
_____________
2)
In the last year, how many times have you made a donation to a charitable
organization? *
Zero
One
Two to Five
Six to Nine
Ten or More
101
3)
What type of charitable organization(s) did you donate to in the last twelve
months? Check all that apply.
Health or medical related
Religious
Civic/Community
Education
Poverty
Environment
Disaster relief
Arts & Culture
Other____________
4)
Would you prefer to make a donation to a charitable organization that benefits
people: (Check one.) *
Locally (In your community)
Nationally (In the US)
Internationally (Worldwide)
No preference
102
5)
We are interested in what you were thinking when you saw this message. Please
write down all thoughts and feelings that came to mind upon seeing the message,
including any thoughts and feelings that are not relevant to the message. Do not
worry about punctuation, spelling, grammar, or the use of complete sentences. *
6)
This message:
(Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree,
Disagree)
Makes me feel guilty
Makes me angry
Makes me sad
Makes me hopeful
Makes me happy
7)
This message:
(Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree, Disagree)
Addresses an important issue
Appeals to my emotions
Appeals to my sense of logic
Is informative
Is relevant to me
Makes me want to donate to the cause
103
8)
After viewing this ad how likely are you donate to education? (1 being not
very likely, 5 being very likely). (1
9)
2
3
4
5)
What is your gender?
Male
Female
Prefer not to answer
10)
How old are you?
11)
What is the highest level of education that you completed?
Less than High School Degree
High school degree/GED
Some College
2-year college (Associate’s)
4-year college degree (BA, BS)
Master’s Degree
Doctoral Degree
Professional Degree (MD, JD)
12)
Based on the ad would you like to find out more about ways that you can donate
to education?
Yes
No, Thanks.
104
A PP E N D I X H
Temperament T yped A ds
SJ
105
SP
106
NF
107
NT
108
A PP E N D I X I
Jungian Questionnaire
1. · You are almost never late for your appointments 2. · You like to be engaged in an active and fast-paced job 3. · You enjoy having a wide circle of acquaintances 4. · You feel involved when watching TV soaps 5. · You are usually the first to react to a sudden event: the telephone ringing or unexpected question 6. · You are more interested in a general idea than in the details of its realization 7. · You tend to be unbiased even if this might endanger your good relations with people 8. · Strict observance of the established rules is likely to prevent a good outcome 9. · It's difficult to get you excited 10. · It is in your nature to assume responsibility 11. · You often think about humankind and its destiny 12. · You believe the best decision is one that can be easily changed 13. · Objective criticism is always useful in any activity 14. · You prefer to act immediately rather than speculate about various options 15. · You trust reason rather than feelings 16. · You are inclined to rely more on improvisation than on careful planning 17. · You spend your leisure time actively socializing with a group of people, attending parties, shopping, etc. 18. · You usually plan your actions in advance 109
19. · Your actions are frequently influenced by emotions 20. · You are a person somewhat reserved and distant in communication 21. · You know how to put every minute of your time to good purpose 22. · You readily help people while asking nothing in return 23. · You often contemplate about the complexity of life 24. · After prolonged socializing you feel you need to get away and be alone 25. · You often do jobs in a hurry 26. · You easily see the general principle behind specific occurrences 27. · You frequently and easily express your feelings and emotions 28. · You find it difficult to speak loudly 29. · You get bored if you have to read theoretical books 30. · You tend to sympathize with other people 31. · You value justice higher than mercy 32. · You rapidly get involved in social life at a new workplace
33. · The more people with whom you speak, the better you feel 34. · You tend to rely on your experience rather than on theoretical alternatives 35. · You like to keep a check on how things are progressing 36. · You easily empathize with the concerns of other people 37. · Often you prefer to read a book than go to a party 110
38. · You enjoy being at the center of events in which other people are directly involved 39. · You are more inclined to experiment than to follow familiar approaches
40. · You avoid being bound by obligations 41. · You are strongly touched by the stories about people's troubles 42. · Deadlines seem to you to be of relative, rather than absolute, importance 43. · You prefer to isolate yourself from outside noises 44. · It's essential for you to try things with your own hands 45. · You think that almost everything can be analyzed 46. · You do your best to complete a task on time 47. · You take pleasure in putting things in order 48. · You feel at ease in a crowd 49. · You have good control over your desires and temptations 50. · You easily understand new theoretical principles 51. · The process of searching for solution is more important to you than the solution itself 52. · You usually place yourself nearer to the side than in the center of the room 53. · When solving a problem you would rather follow a familiar approach than seek a new one 54. · You try to stand firmly by your principles 55. · A thirst for adventure is close to your heart 56. · You prefer meeting in small groups to interaction with lots of people 111
57. · When considering a situation you pay more attention to the current situation and less to a possible sequence of events 58. · You consider the scientific approach to be the best 59. · You find it difficult to talk about your feelings 60. · You often spend time thinking of how things could be improved 61. · Your decisions are based more on the feelings of a moment than on the careful planning 62. · You prefer to spend your leisure time alone or relaxing in a tranquil family atmosphere 63. · You feel more comfortable sticking to conventional ways 64. · You are easily affected by strong emotions 65. · You are always looking for opportunities 66. · Your desk, workbench etc. is usually neat and orderly 67. · As a rule, current preoccupations worry you more than your future plans 68. · You get pleasure from solitary walks 69. · It is easy for you to communicate in social situations 70. · You are consistent in your habits 71. · You willingly involve yourself in matters which engage your sympathies 72. · You easily perceive various ways in which events could develop 112