MBTI Classification of Undergraduate Engineering Personalities

Running head: MBTI CLASSIFICATION OF ENGINEERING PERSONALITIES
MBTI Classification of Undergraduate Engineering Personalities
Nayera H. Elsaady
Nile University
MBTI CLASSIFICATION OF ENGINEERING PERSONALITIES
Abstract
In the simplest way, studying the personality types of people helps us understand each other on a
higher level than we normally do, which plays a supreme role in many fields. Classifying the
personality types of engineers according to the MBTI contributes to various goals, from
developing teaching techniques to fit each personality, to finding the best way to group people
into efficient and productive work teams. Another focus of this paper is defining the qualities
successful engineers have. The research is done using quantitative and qualitative analysis, by
conducting interviewees with six participants, and publishing an online survey, filled by 64
participants. The findings showed that INTJ, ISTJ and ENFP are the main personality types
between engineers. As for the accomplished students, those of GPA 3.5 and above and the ones
with a positive effect on either their community or other students, were mainly INTP, ISTJ and
INFJ. It was also pointed out that accomplished engineers should show high creativity and
intelligence, along with being honest, innovative, and an efficient thinkers, especially when it
comes to technical problems. The interviews’ results also showcased the highly operative
mentality of the students.
Keywords: MBTI, Egyptian personality types, teaching styles, accomplished engineers

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................3
List of Tables................................................................................................................................................5
List of Figures...............................................................................................................................................6
MBTI Classification of Engineering Personalities.........................................................................................7
Statement of Problem...................................................................................................................7
Aim of the study...........................................................................................................................7
Defining Variables.......................................................................................................................8
Research Gap...............................................................................................................................8
Literature Review........................................................................................................................................9
Myers-Briggs Test Indicator (MBTI) Tool..................................................................................9
Background review...................................................................................................................9
The four MBTI categories of personality...............................................................................10
Developing Education-Focused Studies....................................................................................11
Success-Related Traits and High Team Productivity Focused-Studies.....................................14
Influence of Human Personality in Software Engineering........................................................19
Forty Years of Research on Personality in Software Engineering.............................................20
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................21
Methodology.............................................................................................................................................22
Research Design.........................................................................................................................22
Participants.................................................................................................................................22
Sampling....................................................................................................................................23
Instruments.................................................................................................................................23
Data Collection..........................................................................................................................24
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 25
Survey Results............................................................................................................................25
First section’s results..............................................................................................................25
Second section’s results..........................................................................................................29
Interview Results........................................................................................................................30
Discussion 33
Conclusion35
Limitations.................................................................................................................................36
Implications................................................................................................................................36
References.................................................................................................................................................37
Appendix A................................................................................................................................................42
Appendix B................................................................................................................................................52
MBTI CLASSIFICATION OF ENGINEERING PERSONALITIES 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Distribution of the collected MBTI Extrovert personalities ...................................29
Table 2: Distribution of the collected MBTI Introvert personalities ...................................29
Table 3: Illustration of the answers to the survey’s first question .......................................30
Table 4: Illustration of the answers to the survey’s second question ...................................31
Table 5: Illustration of the answers to the survey’s third question. .....................................31
Table 6: Illustration of the answers to the survey’s fourth question ....................................32

List of Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of the age results from the survey by percentages.....................................25
Figure 2. Distribution of Gender results from the survey by percentages.....................................26
Figure 3. Distribution of the University results from the survey by percentages..........................26
Figure 4. Distribution of the survey’s engineering major results..................................................27
Figure 5. Year of study results distribution by percentages..........................................................27
Figure 6. Distribution of the students’ GPA from the data collected from the survey..................28
Figure 7. A bar chart illustrating the top group’s personality variation........................................30

MBTI Classification of Engineering Personalities
Statement of Problem
As one of the most strenuous departments, engineering majors have an unyielding
pressure on its students' mentality. Engineering studies are extremely wearisome, and it only
serves the right to study the structure of engineering student's characters. Mainly to focus on how
they adapt in the major and balance their lives, and to relate the level of academic and
professional success in engineering with the students' characters and traits. This research will
discuss and classify engineering students' characteristics in general and derive a set of specific
traits that define successful students, both according to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
test.
Aim of the study
Understanding the whys and wherefores of these student's behavior plays a unique role in
defining multiple aspects. For one, it serves a higher purpose that has been researchers' focus for
centuries; understanding the behavior of a specific segment of humans. All psychological studies
focus on classifying and defining who we are as a species, which, in return, helps us develop
products and technologies that meet our needs.
Secondly, helping students choose a major and developing learning styles. A person's
success is not only defined by their capacity to learn and their IQ level, but also on how their
behaviors affect them in the future working place, and researches have shown that every major in
engineering requires a focus on one specific aspect in character than the other.
Thirdly, and most importantly, different personalities attribute to levels of success.
Seddigi and Capretz (2015) pointed out that studying the students' characters can help professors
and researchers and even psychologists develop new and more efficient instruments and teaching
techniques, establishing a system where the curve of academic and practical progress is much
higher. Each student has his persona, and educating every student with the same method is a
flop. It also helps build up a motivational aura, allowing each scholar to reach his maximum
potential; knowing that the institution considers his differences, and has made efforts to provide
the most efficient environment suiting every student.
Defining Variables
The type of personality is the independent variable which affects the learning styles and
behavior of engineering students. It also affects the level of success of engineers. These all are
the independent variables that will be determined during the research.
Research Gap
Previous researches mainly focused on the characteristics of software engineering
students only and were done in western countries, like Canada, USA, Brazil, and some Asian
countries like India and Pakistan. The only Arabic country that has published related research
was Saudi Arabia. The study has never been conducted in Egypt before, which opens new
aspects for this topic in the researching field.

Literature Review
Myers-Briggs Test Indicator (MBTI) Tool
Background review.
Psychological and personality assessments are tools to understand human behavior,
therefore understanding various aspects regarding flora and fauna. Carl G. Jung initially designed
the Myers-Briggs test in 1921, and later on, modified by mother and daughter Katharine Cook
Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers. Personalities were classified initially according to three
categories; Extroversion/introversion, sensing/intuiting, and thinking/feeling (Jung, 1976). Later
on, another group was added, which was Judging/perceiving, classifying personalities to four
groups, a total of eight types, each symbolized by its first letter (Myers & Myers, 1980).
The MBTI proved to be extremely valuable in numerous fields and supported with
uncountable resources by all communities; academic, business, and counseling, but "The greatest
gift that the MBTI gives individuals is the increased understanding of both themselves and
others" (Varvel, Adams & Pridie, 2003). The MBTI tool has been admitted as the most used tool
for psychological assessments related to research-based studies, and it has been used by
numerous accredited and prestigious universities and research centers across the globe. It also
evident that it could be used as a tool to develop education by providing different learning
techniques that suit each personality, in detail. It is also used as a coaching instrument,
improving the techniques, efficiencies, and productivity of groups and individuals in multiple
fields. (Barroso, Madureira, Soares & Nascimento, 2017; Rosati, 1997,1999; Vollaro & Klein,
2015; Yokomoto & Ware, 1999).

The four MBTI categories of personality.
Extraversion (E) and introversion (I).
According to Myers and Myers (1980), and Jung (1976); Extroverts are more into the
objective side of things. They always look into the outside world and the flow of things around
them. They express and communicate openly, mainly focusing on outdoor perspectives and
sharing them. Introverts are subjective. They work internally, focusing on their feelings and
emotions, without the need to contribute outwardly. They are private people who live in their
inner world.
Thinking (T) and feeling (F).
Thinking is oriented by perceptive data. Thinkers depend on the mental and logical
perception of things. On the other hand, the feeling is oriented by emotional data. The feeler
depends on the surrounding's perspective driven by his emotions and his feelings. People who
rely on feeling are easily agreeable and warm-hearted, while those who are thinking depend on
the right answer while avoiding people's feelings. (Myers & Myers, 1980; Jung, 1976).
Sensing (S) and intuition (N).
The sensation is built on the object, and the impressions gathered from the
surroundings. Intuition, on the other hand, is considered an act of the subconscious. It is an act of
perspective and vision, depending on the mentality and intellectuality of a person. In conclusion,
sensing relies on the feel of the situation delivered to the person, while intuition is more relevant
to logic and the potential events. (Myers & Myers, 1980; Jung, 1976).
Judging (J) and Perceiving (P).
The judging, unlike the literal meaning of the word, indicates in personalities punctuality.
Judging types perform all their tasks according to schedules, and every step is well thought-out
and planned before. They stick to their decisions. (Myers & Myers, 1980).
Developing Education-Focused Studies
The following studies were done to mainly observe the students of specific
universities and develop a better educational system that suits every student's personality based
on the MBTI classifications. These researches are classified according to the University and the
location the tests were done.
King Fahd University, Saudi Arabia and the University of Western Ontario,
Canada.
Seddigi, Capretz, and House (2009) conducted a multicultural experiment between the
Canadian and the Saudi Arabic engineering student's characters according to the MBTI test.
Their objective was determining their student's attitudes to find the best practical approach for
each personality for the learning styles applied at the universities. 96 students participated from
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals. The results showed that INTJ had the highest
ratio (15.6%). It was also discussed that the introverts (I) proportion were nearly the same as that
of the extroverts (E). Intuitive (N) was more significant than sensing (S) with a ratio of 64% to
36%, thinking (T) to feeling (F) was 66% to 34% and judging (J) to perception (P) was 60% to
40%, respectively.
As for the Canadian test, it was conducted at the University of Western Ontario with 235
participants from all engineering programs. Unlike in Saudi Arabia, ISTJ had the most
significant percentage (21.7%). The introverts (I) ratio in this test was merely higher than
extroverts (E). Sensing (N) was slightly larger than intuitive (N) with a ratio of 40% to 60%,
thinking (T) to feeling (F) was 82% to 18% and judging (J) to perception (P) was 60% to 40%,
respectively.
The results Seddigi et al. (2015) showed, for both countries, that engineering students
depend highly on thinking than feeling, and more dependent on judgment than perception.
Finally, depending on the results, it is elaborated than engineering students are more introverts
than extroverts. Seddigi et al. (2015) then discussed the best teaching techniques used for the
different character scales, referring to DiTiberio (1993) in their paper. DiTiberio (1993)
summarized his findings on the best mental approaches related to teaching according to the
psychological groups.
University of Tennessee, USA.
Scott, Parson, and Seat (2002) research also focused on finding the best learning styles
according to the student's characters based on the MBTI test as well. Their research is a
discussion about existent data for engineering students from 1990 till 2002 at the University of
Tennessee in the United States of America, with nearly one thousand participants. The first
conducted research was comparing UT students' MBTI results with those of existing datasheets
from the ASEE schools and Canadian students. In 1997, they modified the taught curriculum
based upon the MBTI results and graduation percentage of freshman classes that started in 1990,
1994 and 1995 and compared these results to the ones of the new 1997 class with the changed
curriculum. The most profound results were ISTJ, ESTJ, INTJ, ENTJ, proving yet again that
engineering students are more judging than perceiving, and more of thinkers than feelers, with no
evident tendency towards introversion or extraversion. The results correspond with those of
Seddigi et al.'s (2015).
Scott et al. (2002) widened their research also to include data related to gender, where
although the sample of males to females was 873 to 191, respectively, and the females had a
higher percentage in graduating. They also included statistics relative to ethnicity. Their results
showed intuition is favored for all the races participating whom where; Caucasians, Asians, and
African-Americans. Caucasians and Asians were more judgmental than perceiving, unlike the
African-Americans. African-Americans and Asians tend to be more feelers than thinkers. Results
tied to ethnicity prove the need to delve into this topic more in the MENA region to generalize
data.
The National University of Science and Technology, Pakistan.
Raza, Mustafa, and Capretz (2015) conducted research studying the personalities and
temperaments but only for software engineers - both faculty members and students. Their focus
was on developing the software engineering educational system. They also focused on the lack
of research on this topic in South-Asian countries.
The test was done on 18 professors and 92 students from the software engineering
department at The National University of Science and Technology in Pakistan. Their reason for
choosing the MBTI is its wide popularity and multiple previous applications relevant to
understanding learning styles according to the different personalities. After comparing the results
of faculty members with students, it was evident that the percentages of I, N, T, and J are higher
in faculty members than students, indicating that a person continuing their career in engineering
is mainly subjected to be more introvert, intuitive, judging and more dependent on thinking.
These results elaborate on the increase of the intellectual abilities of those who continue the path
of engineering and especially as professors. However, there have been some differences
concerning the temperaments. For faculty members, ITs and IJs are more dominant, while in
students, ISs and SJs take the lead. The paper, later on, implemented the best techniques that can
be used during teaching for the mostly spread personalities for software engineers.
The University of British Columbia, Canada.
Another contribution by Ostafichuk and Naylor (2013), discussed the manifest;
educational development. Using the MBTI, they analyze the characters of second-year
mechanical design engineering students from 2007 to 2013 at the University of British
Columbia. It is mentioned and clarified that also the diversity of personalities in a team may
boost the productivity of the group; it may cause increased tension between its individuals. The
results showed a slight difference between extroversion (E) and introversion (I) across the years.
However, it showed a higher tendency to intuition (N) than sensing (S), an immense preference
of thinking (T) to feeling (F), and judgment (J) was faintly higher than perceiving (P). The paper
also measured the tendency of these students to be influenced by others or to influence others,
based on a project-related test. Also, a peer evaluation was conducted between the four cohorts
of the MBTI. As mentioned, judging, thinking, sensing, and introversion were the most affecting
scores.
Success-Related Traits and High Team Productivity Focused-Studies
The following studies, unlike the previously mentioned, focused on defining the most
dynamic personalities according to the MBTI, who contribute highly to team productivity. These
studies also concentrated on specifying traits that define an engineer as successful, creative,
efficient, and others. The tests were done on a wide range of engineers, from different countries.
The next studies are categorized according to the location where these studies were conducted.
Consulting engineers focused-study at the USA.
Another study assessed 740 consulting engineers from 13 different workplaces in the
USA using the MBTI, to study the engineering personalities and their connection with various
skills as consulting, management, leadership, planning, and the quality of work in general. The
results were also linked to profitability (Culp & Smith, 2009). Their argument illustrated that the
most spread characteristics are; Introversion (I) with 54.5%, Sensing (S) with 51.1%, thinking
(T) was more dominant dramatically (73.8%), as well as judging (J) (70.8%). The highest
percentage of personalities was that of the ISTJ and the INTP.
Johnson Space Center, NASA, USA.
Original contributions, done by Nelson and Bolton (2008) demonstrated the traits of
talented engineers. The research was conducted on six "highly regarded" engineers from the
Johnson Space Center (JSC) for NASA. They used the MBTI instrument to check for repetitive
traits common between these six engineers to identify various aspects of the personality that
contribute to success.
The results were divided into six groups; attitudes and attributes, problem-solving and
critical thinking, technical acumen, communication, leadership, and systems thinking. Each
group was defined by a set of traits. Nelson and Bolton's (2008) results where; 34% for the NTs,
34% for the SPs and 17% for the SJs. Also, the "I" ratio overwhelmed the "E". What
distinguishes Nelson's and Bolton's (2008) paper is that the six groups had detailed descriptions
and asserted traits that are tied to highly-oriented qualities like being trust-worthy, curious, open-
minded, dedicated to the missions, positive, intuitive, flexible, analyzes and synthesizes data, and
many others that complete the aura of a brilliant engineer.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Sixty graduate students of the product design major in the mechanical engineering
department at MIT has been subjected to testing to find a relationship between personalities,
creativity, and sense of humor. (Greenberg, 2008). The article's primary focus is creativity as it is
mentioned; to be human is to be creative (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The findings of the paper
focus on constructing a relationship between the level of creativity and each personality type as
creativity is a leading factor in any development process and especially in engineering. They also
focused on the sense of humor as it is an essential attribute when dealing with the surroundings
rationally and effectively. The highest correlation between personality types and creativity was
for the intuitive (N) type. As for humor, perceiving and extroverted personalities took the lead.
University of Nebraska, USA.
It is a priority to focus on evaluating personality types who are more competitive and
efficient in teamwork, which is tied to the ability to develop products and technologies in
general, despite the technical factors required in any field. (Varvel et al., 2003). One aspect they
also focused on is the influence one character can have on another, which is directly related to
who should be a team coordinator. Using the MBTI, they tested 193 senior engineering design
student at the University of Nebraska, USA, whom 84% were males and 16% females. The
results showed that the most dominating type was ISTJ.
North Carolina State University, USA.

Felder, Felder, and Dietz (2002) conducted a research to measure how the performances
of engineering students are consistent with previous investigations and personality types and
attitude defined by books. The population tested consisted of 116 students studying chemical
engineering at North Carolina State University, USA. They also wanted to experiment if
changing the course teaching technique affected the performance of these students – their second
goal. The sample was 70% males and 30% females. As for the ethnicity, 84% were white, 6%
African-Americans, 5% Asians, 3% Native-Americans, and 2% Hispanic. Intiuitives (N) whose
GPA was 3.38 outperformed the sensors (S) (3.17). Thinking (T) to feeling (F) was 3.34 to 3.09.
Judging (J) to perceiving was 3.37 to 3.10. The difference between the GPA of both extroverts
(E) and introverts (I) was minimal. Also, ISTJ was the leading personality in both females and
males. As for ESTJ, it was the second leading for females, INTP came second for males. They
also categorized students into two groups; the weaker and the stronger, based on their SAT
scores, GPA, and high school grades.
Tufts University, USA.
A research on senior and junior students at Tufts University majoring in electrical and
computer engineering was conducted by Alperin (2014) to study the effect of each personality on
the working environment. She gathered 22 responses from a distributed MBTI electronic survey.
The results showed ISTJ at the top (40.63%), followed by ESTJ (21.88%). Other high
percentages were those of ESFJ (15.63%), ENTJ (12.5%) and ENFJ (12.5%). It was later
explained that it is logical for the ISTJ to be the dominating personality, as ISTJ are organized,
and methodological. They also depend on facts and logic (Thinking type). They also described
ESTJ as "practical and detail-oriented in their work." (Alperin, 2014).
Royal College of Art and Imperial College London, United Kingdom (UK).
The panorama of the literature by Yan, Childs, and Hall (2013) is the relationship
between creativity and personalities according to the MBTI and KTS tools. The participants were
graduate students enrolled in the innovative design engineering (IDE) master degree, classes
2011, and 2012 at the Royal College of Art and Imperial College London. These students were
chosen explicitly as their option of study is directly relevant to creativity if not dependent on it.
Engineering diplomas were not the only party, but also others studying economics, arts, fashion,
and others. The key factor behind the paper was not dependent mainly on engineering students
but on defining what a creative person is by characteristics. The most prominent characters of the
whole sample according to the MBTI were INFP covering 16.4%, and INFJ and ENFP, both
taking 10.4%. Some personalities were nearly non-existent like ISTP, ESTP, ISFP, ISFJ, and
ESFP. As for the mechanical engineers included in the sample, thinking (T) was more dominant
to feeling (F), 70.2% to 29.8%, Introverts (I) over extroverts (E), 53.4% to 46.6%, sensing (S)
over intuition (N), 58.5% to 41.5% and lastly, judging (J) over perceiving (P), 62.2% to 37.8%.
An innovative card game design in Ireland.
Yilmaz and O'Conner (2012) designed a card game with seventy questions based on
profound psychological studies and evaluations, that measures the personality traits in a way
accordant to the MBTI. The innovative idea emphasizes on collecting enough data to classify
and study software personas and techniques to develop the efficiency and productivity of the
software society in general.
Before conducting the final tests, they proceeded with a pilot case to gain feedback on
their cards' system and the questionnaire for potential improvements before collecting data. The
tests then were done in a software company on 60 individuals, classified into six groups; each
group contains 10-12 members. The analysis of one of the most productive teams included
ENFP, ESFJ, both 20% of the total sample, ENTJ, and ENFJ represented 13%, ISTP and ESFP
were 6%, and ISFJ was 2%.
Industrial Engineering Bachelor's degree, Spain.
Understanding the personality of each engineering student and having the ability to
provide project-based learning (PBL) to maintain a high level of success and work efficiency
discussed in the paper by Montequin, Fernandez, Balsera, and Nieto (2012) is a valuable addition
to literature reviewed. A population of 120 students studying industrial engineering at one of
Spain's prominent universities participated in the research. They majored in different fields:
mechanical, electrical, electronics, civil, and organizational engineering. They were divided into
eight groups, each containing from 12-17 student. The grouping aimed to let each team work on
a project, and measure the competency of each side, and referring to each personality type
contributing to that productivity according to the MBTI. The project was developing a design of
a logistic platform and was specifically chosen as it shows multiple aspects of the students'
personalities, germane to communication, design creativity, planning and management skills, and
others. They put into consideration the gender difference, with a ratio of female to male, 30% to
70%.
The results showed divided the MBTI personalities found to percentages, with ISTJ
taking the lead with 26.67%, followed by ESTJ, 20%. ENTJ ratio was 10%, 9.17% for ISFJ,
7.5% for ENFJ, 6.67% FOR ESFJ, and finally ENFP with 4.17%. The rest of the personalities
were deemed extremely insignificant. They also showed consensus with other reviews. Another
point added was monitoring each student's contribution to the team by an instructor. These data
provided an active collaboration between the personality descriptions and each's real
psychological attributes.
Influence of Human Personality in Software Engineering
Barroso et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis on the personality traits of software
engineers. They explored the ways to reach better job and team productivity and efficiency in
software companies and how to develop the software persona. The research calculated the
number of contributions done on studying the personalities of software engineers and their
founding was total of 391 papers from conferences, journals and others by IEEE, ACM, and
Elsevier; of the top main scientific contributors in the field of engineering, especially software.
They ended extracting only 21 paper to compare. To generalize their data as much as possible,
Barroso et al. (2017), they used the MBTI, the Big 5 and the FFM (Five-factor model) as tools
and to increase their foundings.
Comparing the three tools used, it is agreed that the MBTI has been the most used for
many years, and its validity concerning scientific research is the strongest. The MBTI test has
been conducted on student and professionals in companies. Some foundings were that ISTJ is the
most prominent personality type among software engineers (Gorla & Lam, 2004; Mourmant &
Gallivan, 2007). Others proved that INTJ, ISTJ, ESTP, and ESTJ are the most dominant. (Raza
& Capretz, 2012; Yilmaz & O'Connor, 2012). Another research conducted by Hannay et al.
(2010) argued that thinking (T) and judging (J) are the most common attributes in Software
engineers. Most of the literature focused on studying the personalities and their yields in working
places. Other studies focused on the educational development of learning techniques for students
or the connection between graduation rates and personality types.
Forty Years of Research on Personality in Software Engineering
Another meta-analysis of 90 articles showed, yet again that the main focuses of the study
were education and team developing, and Cruz, da Silva, and Capretz (2015) targeted grouping
and classifying the articles discussing personalities of software engineers and the reasons behind
each study. They discussed firstly, previous studies and their focuses were quite similar, as
conducted by McDonald and Edwards (2007), Hannay, Arisholm, Engvik, and Sjoberg (2010)
and Capretz (2003). A unique dimension in their article was the mention of one research paper
concerning pair programming by Salleh, Mendes & Grundy (2014). They also rooted that
although Big 5 is gaining popularity, the MBTI is still the most widely used and famous tool for
assessing personalities for scientific researches, based on numerous articles. (Balijepally,
Mahapatra & Nerur, 2006).
Conclusion
The MBTI is, indeed, the most well-known, used, and valid personality test, especially
when it comes to academics and researches. The MBTI’s application on engineering students
across the world has collected different results, some having a repeated correlation between
specific characters and engineering majors. Some personalities had strong relationships with
traits like creativity, being smart, productive, and others. The most prominent result was that
engineers, in general, tend to be more introverts, more intuitive, and rely on thinking. However,
these results might be completely different in Egypt, since this type of research has never been
conducted in the MENA region except in Saudi Arabia. Since this topic opens a wide range of
research and development-related options, it is the best option to build a new study, starting with
answering this paper’s research questions: What is the classification of engineering students’
personalities according to the MBTI test? And what are the specific traits engineering students
should have to be successful academically or professionally?

Methodology
Research Design
This paper’s main questions are classifying the engineering personalities according to the
MBTI and defining the attributes of a successful engineer. The main goal is to identify the
dependent variables, the personality types of engineers and their relationship with the level of
success. The best approach to collect valid data is to use both qualitative and quantitative
models of research. Qualitative research explores social interactions, studying the sample in its
natural setting, and evaluates things from different perspectives to provide an in-depth
understanding of the topic discussed. In this paper, the qualitative analysis is done by a set of
interviews with specific participants. The quantitative research provides statical data, depending
on data analysis and break-down using numbers and figures to offer adequate detailed
descriptions related to the study. The quantitative analysis is applied in this research through an
online survey. Using both qualitative and quantitative approaches provides validity and
reliability to the data collected, the ability to generalize results more effectively and provide both
objective and subjective outcomes.
Participants
The subjects are all undergraduate engineering students from all majors. The sample
included both males, and females, of ages 18 – 23. The variation between the subjects is for
collecting broad data and providing a well-structured analysis that could be generalized. Six of
the students will be chosen for an interview process; those who are highly regarded as
“accomplished.” The criteria to which accomplished students are selected is based upon that of
Jennings, Lovett, Cuba, Swingle, and Lindkvist (2013). The measure of success for these
students is based on their GPA – those with a GPA of 3.5 or higher – and their individual
experience; the number of student activities or competitions they have participated in and their
influence on other students or in the community. The data from the rest of the participants would
be collected from a survey published online.
Sampling
The sample is gathered from various universities – both public and private – from across
Egypt, for undergraduates. For the online survey, the sampling is biased – voluntary response
sampling as the sample consists of numerous participants from across the population who filled
the survey voluntary – only those who showed interest in the topic. As for the interviews, the
sampling is purposive/judgmental. The interviewees are chosen based on a specific criterion
defined by the subject to fit the research question, while the rest of the population is rejected.
Instruments
The first data-collecting technique is through an online survey. The survey is 57-
questions long with 50 scale-questions – agree, somewhat and disagree. The questions used in
the survey are gathered from the PsychCentral website (see Appendix A for survey questions), as
it is one of the most valid and reliable sites with enough detailed data and results about the MBTI
personalities. The website’s questions have also been measured using Cronbach’s alpha measure,
test-retest reliability, and discriminant validity analysis. These measures are to prove that the
website’s data are accredited and valid and that it provides consistent results. The second
technique is conducting a one-to-one interview with six participants. The questions of the
interview were a slightly modified version of these used by Nelson and Bolton (2008). The
modification was done accurately to fit the type of sample used. The interview consisted of 4
open-ended questions (see Appendix B for interview questions).

Data Collection
The survey was published online on social media, and shared between people, to reach
the maximum number of participants. The data collected from it was re-submitted on the original
“PsychCentral” website to obtain the results, each participant’s personality and the percentages
of each MBTI asset in his personality, along with detailed features about the previewed
character. The collected data were gathered and analyzed to find a specific pattern between the
Egyptian engineer’s personalities. Then, these data were compared to previous ones, to show if
there is a similarity between the Egyptians’ results and other ethnicities. As for the interviews,
they were conducted at a public/general place, so that the environment would not affect the
interviewee’s answers. The results then were analyzed based on each’s perspective and
assembled to find a detailed definition of what a successful engineer resembles.

Results
Survey Results
First section’s results.
The survey was filled by 64

3%
5% 13% applicants, from engineering
18
department only as required, from
20%
19
20
universities across Cairo and Giza. The
31% 21
22
main findings related to the first
23
section of the survey, covering the age,
28%
gender, engineering major, and year of
study of all the participants, are shown
in the following graphs in details.
Figure 1. Distribution of the age results from the survey by percentages.
Figure 1 shows the data collected from the first question in the survey – Age. As
illustrated, 31.3% of students were 19 years old, 28.1% where 20, 20.3% were 21, and 12.5%
were 18, 4.7% were 22, and the least percentage was 3.1% – those aged 23. The results of the
second question regarding gender, as shown in figure 2 below, were mainly males, covering 75%
of the participants, and 25% were females.

25%
Females
Males
75%
Figure 2. Distribution of Gender results from the survey by percentages.
2%
2% 2% 2%
3%
3% NU
AUC
BUC
ASU
22% ACU
MUST
63% Sinai
Helwan
Zewail
3%
Figure 3. Distribution of the University results from the survey by percentages.
The third question focused on which university the students attend. As in figure 3, 40
students were from the Nile University (NU), one student from Zewail University, and 14
students from Badr University in Cairo (BUC). Two from the American University in Cairo
(AUC), two students from Ain Shams University (ASU), one from Misr University for Science
and Technology (MUST), one from Helwan University, one from Sinai University, and two from
The Ahram Canadian University.

Number of participants
25
20
20
15
12
10 9
7
6
5
5
2 2
1
0
l l r il s al
d ca ria te iv gy ic ur
e
fie ni t u C er on ct ric
ci a s p
En ct
pe ch du om ct
r
hi
te e
ns e In C e El
U M El A
rc
Figure 4. Distribution of the survey’s engineering major results. X-axis represents the major and
the y-axis represents the number of participants.
In figure 4, nine students had unspecified major yet, 20 mechanical students, five
industrial students, 12 computer students, six civil students, seven electronics students, one
mechatronics students, one energy student, two architecture students, and two electrical students.
As for figure 5, 43.8% of the sample were first-year students, 25% were in their second year,
17.2% were third-year students, 12.5% were in their fourth year, and 1.6% were fifth-year
students.
2%
12%
First
Second
17% 44%
Third
Fourth
Fifth
25%
Figure 5. Year of study results distribution by percentages.
6
Number of participants
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
GPA Distribution (scale of 4)
Figure 6. Distribution of the students’ GPA from the data collected from the survey.
The scatter diagram in figure 6 shows the distribution of the students’ GPA on a scale of
4. The X-axis represents the GPA variation, and the Y-axis represents the number of students
with a specific GPA. The participants’ GPA results could be categorized into three groups.
According to most of the USA universities, Students with grade A are the top students, those
with grade B are average students, and those with C are below average. A corresponds with GPA
from 3.5 – 4.0, B corresponds with GPA 2.5 – 3.5 and C with 1.5 – 2.5. Students below the C are
considered weak students.
The number of students lying in the top category is 26. The average category contained
30 students. Four students were in the below the average group, and only one student fitted the
weak category. There was also a percentage of error, nearly 4.7% as some of the inputs in the
GPA question were irrelevant to the 4-scale GPA or incorrect.
Second section’s results.
As for the personality type results, the answers to the questions in the second section of
the survey were re-entered on the website, as mentioned before, to collect the MBTI personality
of each participant. The personality distribution of the sample is shown in tables 1 and 2.
Table 1
Distribution of the collected MBTI Extrovert personalities
ENTP ENTJ ENFP ENFJ ESTP ESTJ ESFP ESFJ
Females 2 1 1 1 - 1 - 1
Males 3 1 7 1 - 1 - 1
Total % 7.8% 3.1% 12.5% 3.1% - 3.1% - 3.1%
Table 2
Distribution of the collected MBTI Introvert personalities
INTP INTJ INFP INFJ ISTP ISTJ ISFP ISFJ

Females 2 2 1 2 - 1 - 1
Males 4 6 6 5 - 7 2 4
Total % 9.4% 12.5% 10.9% 10.9% - 12.5% 3.1% 7.8%
Table 1 and 2 shows each of the 16 personality types, based on the results of the second
section’s questions from the survey. The total number of introverts was 43, while extroverts were
21. The intuitive group contained 45 while sensors were 19. The judging category contained 36
persons, while the perceiving contained 28. To further relate the findings to the main research
questions, figure 7 shows the personality distribution of those with a GPA of 3.5 and higher.
ENFP
ENTJ
ENTP
ESFJ
INFP
INTJ
ISFJ
ISTJ
INTP
INFJ
0 1 2 3 4 5
Males Females
Figure 7. A bar chart illustrating the top group’s personality variation.
Interview Results
The main results for each of the interview’s question are shown in the following tables.
Table 3
Illustration of the answers to the survey’s first question.

Interviewee no. Q1: How would you identify/describe the role of an engineer?
Interviewee 1 An essential/basic role in all life aspects from huge buildings to electronics.
Interviewee 2 Fix yesterday’s problems, develop tomorrow, and build the present.
Interviewee 3 To apply all laws of scientific discovery.
Interviewee 4 Converting ideas into some useful stuff creatively.
Interviewee 5 An essential part in all scientific disciplines.
Interviewee 6 The leading part in any project that needs technical/leading skills.
Table 4
Illustration of the answers to the survey’s second question.
Q2: Identify the attitudes and attributes a “highly regarded/leading”

Interviewee no.
engineer should possess.
Interviewee 1 Honesty, Intelligence, high creativity, and promptitude.
Interviewee 2 Innovative and updated in his field.
Interviewee 3 Critical thinker, patient, logically approaches problems.
Interviewee 4 Creative, organized, and cooperative.
Interviewee 5 Creative, innovative and quick thinker “efficient”.
Interviewee 6 Intelligent, risk-taker, and good with technical problems.
Table 5
Illustration of the answers to the survey’s third question.

Q3: What general knowledge should a “highly regarded” engineer possess?

Interviewee no.
General knowledge represents any knowledge unrelated to engineering.
Interviewee 1 Climate change and weather-related topics.
Interviewee 2 A touch of art and a business mindset.
Interviewee 3 A little bit of everything other than engineering.
Interviewee 4 Communication and marketing basics.
Interviewee 5 An excellent business background and a little bit of art.
Interviewee 6 General knowledge is dependent on the type of projects he works on.

Table 6
Illustration of the answers to the survey’s fourth question.
Interviewee no. Q4: Can you describe the steps that you take while solving a problem?
Define a problem, search for previous solutions and then brainstorm for a
Interviewee 1
new solution.
Identify it, study and understand it well, check previous solutions, and then
Interviewee 2
develop my own solution.
Interviewee 3 I Panic and act compulsively most of the time
Interviewee 4 The basic engineering design process.
Interviewee 5 I follow the main design process in any engineering application.
Interviewee 6 Write the problem in bullets, think of a solution, then draft an implement it.
Discussion
The previously mentioned findings revealed, regarding the first hypothesis of the paper;
classifying engineers' personality types, that the majority of the students lied within the IN group
with 67.2% of sampling are introverts, and 70.3% were intuitive. The judging personality
slightly outcome the perceiving one, with a ratio of 56.25% to 43.75%, respectively. Finally, the
feeling group was moderately higher than the thinking group, covering 51.6% of the sample. The
most prominent personalities were the INTJ, ISTJ, and ENFP. It was noticed that some types
made no appearance in the sample, as the ESFP, ESTP, and ISTP, concluding that the sensing
type is quite infrequent between engineers, proving a manifest attribute, which is that engineers
are theoretical, inventive, more focused on the future and have an abstract nature, which fits their
role perfectly. A point to be taken is that the female factor was nonexistent in the ISFP.
The results regarding the most prominent personality type agreed with those of Seddigi et
al. (2015), as INTJ had the highest ratio in this paper and Saudi Arabia's findings. It also partially
agreed with the Canadian results, as their highest rate was for the ISTJ, while the ISTJ came in
second place following the INTJ in this discussion. It also approved with their results as the
judging types are more leading. The only disagreement was that Seddigi et al. (2015) had a
higher percentage for thinkers, while in this research, the feelers overwhelmed the thinkers. Both
Seddigi et al. (2015) and our findings were in line with those of Scott et al. (2002) and Raza et al.
(2015), proving that the INTJ is the most spread personality type between engineers. Again, the
results had a good correlation with those of Culp & Smith (2009), Varvel et al. (2003), Felder et
al. (2002), Alperin (2014) and Montequin et al. (2012) as they all identified the ISTJ as the
leading personality, which followed the INTJ in this paper. There was also an obvious
correlation with the findings of Yan et al. (2013) and Yilmaz & O'Conner (2012) as they both
had the ENFP as one of the top personalities, same as mentioned in this research.
Concerning the second hypothesis; measures of success for engineers, students were
grouped into a specific category – the top group – to identify their level of success. These
students were of GPA of 3.5 and higher. The noticed dominating personality in this group was
the INTP, followed by the ISTJ and the INFJ. The findings, in general, revealed that excellent
students are mainly introverts (77.3%), intuitive (63.6%), thinkers (59%), and judgmental (59%).
Distributing the top category furthermore, into females and males, the leading personalities for
the females were INTP and ENTP and for males, the INTP and the ISTJ.
As for the interviews' analysis, the six participants were from the top category, in
addition to having a very active role in the society through their participation in multiple student
activities, and are very accomplished regarding the engineering department, as they participated
in various competitions, and won some. The first question's results indicate, directly and
indirectly, that the engineer's role is essential in all fields, scientific or not. This statement was
pointed out directly by half of the interviewees, while the rest focused on the implantation of
ideas for the present and the future in all scientific fields. As for the second question, again half
of the interviewees agreed on creativity and intelligence as the main qualities for a highly
regarded engineer. This proves the importance of both these attributes in defining a successful
engineer. The technicality of solving problems or being efficient/logical has also been
highlighted by the interviewees. Being innovative, along with other skills, have been pointed out
as well. The answers concerning the third question highlighted the importance of business-
related studies to the mindset of an engineer, with a visible inclination to have a background on
all topic unrelated to science, according to the interviewee's opinion. As for the final question, it
is agreed on that the general Engineering Design process, which is implemented in all fields, is
the mechanism any successful problem-solver would approach, which most of the interviewees
showcased in their answers. It also shows a positive relationship between the top students'
thinking style and their efficient and operative mentality regarding engineering.
Conclusion
Studying the personalities and the psychology behind the reason human beings interact in
a specific way helps us predict how people will respond to particular situations, and how they
behave and interact daily. The evidence from this study implies that the INTJ, ISTJ, and ENFP
are the most spread personality types between engineers, elaborating more that engineers are
mainly intuitive, introverts, feelers, and judgmental. These data could be used as ground
information to develop teaching techniques for engineers, or for classifying engineers in groups
or teams to provide better productivity in work.
The paper also helped find a relationship between engineers with high intellectual
abilities and the personality types, showing that INTP, ISTJ, and INFJ are the dominating
personality types between top/excellent students, based on definitions specified by top
universities around the world. This is evidence that top students are introverts, and mainly
intuitive, thinkers, and judgmental. Also, it was clarified that a highly successful/ regarded
engineer should possess multiple attributes, mostly being creative and intelligent, along with
being honest, innovative, patient, and being a logical/quick thinker. Mentioning various traits
that are dissimilar proves that engineers showed have multiple qualities, creating a nearly
idealistic personality.
Limitations
Inevitably, there were some discrepancies, mainly due to the small sample size, which
lead to the nonexistence of some personality types, the unequal distribution between students’
universities and majors., and the small number of interviewees. The time range for conducting
the research was also somewhat limiting.
Implications
Future studies, taking the findings of this paper into account, should focus on developing
educational systems in Egyptian Universities, and develop a selection system for students
admitted in engineering majors to distribute and group them according to their personalities to
provide a better work yield. Studying the personality types of each major, independently, is also
recommended.
References
Alperin, K. (2014). Personality Types. Electrical and Computer engineering design handbook.
Retrieved from http://sites.tufts.edu/eeseniordesignhandbook/2014/personality-types/
Balijepally, V., Mahapatra, R., & Nerur, S. P. (2006). Assessing personality profiles of software
developers in agile development teams. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 18, 54–75. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.01804
Barroso, A. S., Madureira, J. S., Soares, M. S., & Nascimento, R. P. (2017, January). Influence
of Human Personality in Software Engineering - A Systematic Literature
Review. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information
Systems,3, 53-62. doi:10.5220/0006292000530062
Culp, G., & Smith, A. (2009, April). Consulting Engineers: Myers-Briggs Type and
Temperament Preferences. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 9(2), 65-70.
doi:10.1061/(asce)1532-6748(2009)9:2(65)
Cruz, S., Silva, F. Q., & Capretz, L. F. (2015, January). Forty years of research on personality in
software engineering: A mapping study. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 94-113.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.008
Capretz, L. F., House, D. & Seddigi, Z. S. (2009, April). A Multicultural Comparison of
Engineering Students: Implications to Teaching and Learning. Journal of Social Sciences,
5(2), 117-122. doi:10.3844/jssp.2009.117.122
Capretz, L.F. (2003). Personality types in software engineering. International Journal of
Human–Computer Studies, 58, 207– 214. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(02)00137-4

DiTiberio, J. K., & Hammer, A. L. (1993). Introduction to type in college. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Felder, R., Felder, G., & Dietz, E. (2002, January). The Effects of Personality Type on
Engineering Student Performance and Attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education,
91(1), 3-17. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00667.x
Gorla, N. and Lam, Y. W. (2004). Who Should Work With Whom?: Building Effective Software
Project Teams. Communications of the ACM, 47(6),79–82. doi:10.1145/990680.990684
Greenberg, H. C. (2008). A Study on the Relationship between Personality Type, Sense of
Humor and Creativity. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle/net/1721.1/45838
Hannay, J. E., Arisholm, E., Engvik, H., & Sjoberg, D. I. K. (2010). Effects of personality on
pair programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36(1), 61–80.
doi:10.1109/TSE.2009.41
Jennings, N., Lovett, S., Cuba, L., Swingle, J., & Lindkvist, H. (2013). "What Would Make This
a Successful Year for You?" How Students Define Success in College. Liberal
Education: What do employers want from college graduates?, 99(1), Washington, DC:
Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from
https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/what-would-make-successful-
year-you-how-students-define-success
Jung, C. G. (1976). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mcdonald, B. S., & Edwards, H. M. (2007). Who should test whom?. Communications of the
ACM-The patent holder's dilemma: buy, sell, or troll?, 50(1), 66–71.
doi:10.1145/1188913.1188919
Montequín, V. R., Fernández, J. M., Balsera, J. V., & Nieto, A. G. (2012). Using MBTI for the
success assessment of engineering teams in project-based learning. International Journal
of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 1127-1146. doi:10.1007/s10798-012-9229-1
Mourmant, G. & Gallivan, M. (2007). How Personality Type Influences Decision Paths in The
Unfolding Model of Voluntary Job Turnover: An Application to IS Professionals.
Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMIS CPR conference on Computer personnel
research: the global information technology workforce, 134-143.
doi:10.1145/1235000.1235032
Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Mountain
View, CA: CPP.
Nelson, J. & Bolton, J. (2008, September). Johnson Space Center Systems Engineering Behavior
and Leadership Study. Retrieved from
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/291034main_10.5.2_APPENDIX_JOHNSON.pdf
Ostafichuck, P. M., & Naylor, C. (2013). The Influence Of Personality Type On Teamwork In
Engineering Education. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education
Association. doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4844
Raza, A., Ul-Mustafa, Z., & Capretz, L.F. (2015, July). Personality Dimensions and
Temperaments of Engineering Professors and Students - A Survey. Journal of
Computing, 3(12), 13-20, Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/electricalpub/150/

Raza, A. & Capretz, L. F. (2012). Do Personality Profiles Differ in The Pakistani Software
Industry and Academia. International Journal of Software Engineering, 3(4), 60-66.
Retrieved form https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.06888
Rosati, P. (1997). Students psychological type and success in different engineering
programs. Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching
and Learning in an Era of Change,781-784. doi:10.1109/fie.1997.635950
Rosati, P. (1999, June). Graduation in Engineering Related to Personality Type and Gender.
1999 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, 4.279.1 - 4.279.10
Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/7698
Salleh, N., Mendes, E., & Grundy, J. (2014, June). Investigating the Effects of Personality Traits
on Pair Programming in a Higher Education Setting through a Family of Experiments.
Empirical Software Engineering, 19(3), 714–752. doi:10.1007/s10664-012-9238-4
Scott, T.H., Parsons, J.R. & Seat, J.E. (2002, June). Use of Myers-Briggs type indicator in the
University of Tennessee engage freshman engineering program. 2002 ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition Proceedings, 7.1235.1-7.1235.15. Retrieved from
https://peer.asee.org/10352
Varvel, T., Adams, S.G. & Pridie, S.J. (2003, June). A Study Of The Effect Of The Myers Briggs
Type Indicator on Team Effectiveness. 2003 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition
Proceedings, 8.124.1 - 8.124.9. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/11800
Vollaro, M., & Klein, R. (2015, June). Training for Leadership and Team Skills from Freshman
Year Forward. 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, 26.1598.1-
26.1598.17. doi:10.18260/p.24934
Yan, Y., Childs, P. R. N. & Hall, A. (2013, August). An assessment of personality traits and their
implication for creativity amongst innovation design engineering masters students using
the MBTI and KTS instruments. Proceedings of the 19th International conference on
engineering design (ICED13), 7, 317-326. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/12282
Yilmaz, M., & O’Connor, R. V. (2012, September). Towards the understanding and
classification of the personality traits of software development practitioners: situational
context cards approach. 2012 38th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and
Advanced Applications, 400–405. doi:10.1109/SEAA.2012.62
Yokomoto, C.F. & Ware, R. (1999, June). Applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in
Engineering and Technology Education Part II. 1999 ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition Proceedings, 4.88.1 - 4.88.10. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/7640

Appendix A
Engineering personalities Survey Questions
Section 1
1. Age?
2. Gender?
- Female
- Male
3. University?
4. Engineering major?
- Unspecified yet
- Mechanical
- Industrial
- Electrical
- Computer
- Communication/Electronics
- Civil
- Architecture
- Other
5. Year of study?
- First
- Second
- Third
- Fourth
- Fifth
6. Your total GPA?
Section 2
On a scale from 1 to 3, how much do you think ... ?
1. I like to stay at home than hang out
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
2. I like to make definite plans when going out.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
3. I avoid public speaking whenever possible.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
4. I work best in a group or with others.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
5. I like to fix things more than I like to try and fix people.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
6. I like tests that have essay questions.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
7. I prefer to use logic and reason in my thinking first and foremost
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
8. I like to improvise whenever possible.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
9. Morality should be based on justice.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
10. I like to rely on my memory.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
11. I largely accept things as they are.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
12. I like to procrastinate.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
13. I'm largely uncomfortable with my emotions.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
14. I'm bored being alone.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
15. I like to be focused on the future than the present.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
16. I like to talk more than I listen.

- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
17. I like to follow my head more than my heart.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
18. I like devoting my all to work.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
19. I prefer hard data over theory.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
20. I prefer looking at the overall big picture.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
21. I want people's love.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
22. I find it difficult to yell at others.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
23. I prefer to stand out.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
24. I like to plan things at the last minute.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
25. I feel I'm more energetic than laid-back.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
26. I like to tell people what an event meant to me personally, rather than just describing it.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
27. I like to keep my room clean.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
28. Parties wear me out pretty quickly.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
29. I tend to believe what others tell me wholeheartedly.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
30. I like to know the "why" of things.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
31. I like to perform in front of others.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
32. I prefer to take a multiple choice test.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
33. I think logic is sometimes overrated.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
34. I like to prepare for things rather than just doing things on the fly.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
35. Morality should be based on compassion.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
36. I like to make lists to help my memory.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
37. I'm generally unsatisfied with the way things are.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
38. I like to get my work done as soon as I can.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
39. I need time to be by myself.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
40. I like to play hard more than work hard.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
41. I am easily hurt by others' words.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
42. My life is pretty organized.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
43. I always like to get as much detail as possible.

- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
44. I want people's respect more than their love.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
45. I don't mind yelling when I need to.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
46. I prefer to fit in than stand out.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
47. I just put stuff wherever, it doesn't need to go in a specific place.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
48. I love and get fired up by parties or social gatherings.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
49. I'm pretty skeptical about most things.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
50. I like to know the "Who," "what" and "when" of things.
- Agree
- Somewhat
- Disagree
Appendix B
Interview Questions
1. How would you describe the role of an engineer?
2. Identify the attitudes and attributes a “highly regarded/leading” engineer should possess.
3. What general knowledge does a “highly regarded” engineer possess?
4. Can you describe to me the steps to take to solve a problem?

MBTI Classification of Undergraduate Engineering Personalities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MBTI Classification of Undergraduate Engineering Personalities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: MBTI CLASSIFICATION OF ENGINEERING PERSONALITIES

MBTI Classification of Undergraduate Engineering Personalities

mentality of the students.

Keywords: MBTI, Egyptian personality types, teaching styles, accomplished engineers

MBTI Classification of Engineering Personalities.........................................................................................7

Aim of the study...........................................................................................................................7

Myers-Briggs Test Indicator (MBTI) Tool..................................................................................9

The four MBTI categories of personality...............................................................................10

Developing Education-Focused Studies....................................................................................11

Success-Related Traits and High Team Productivity Focused-Studies.....................................14

Influence of Human Personality in Software Engineering........................................................19

Forty Years of Research on Personality in Software Engineering.............................................20

First section’s results..............................................................................................................25

Second section’s results..........................................................................................................29

Table 1: Distribution of the collected MBTI Extrovert personalities ...................................29

Table 2: Distribution of the collected MBTI Introvert personalities ...................................29

Table 3: Illustration of the answers to the survey’s first question .......................................30

Table 4: Illustration of the answers to the survey’s second question ...................................31

Table 5: Illustration of the answers to the survey’s third question. .....................................31

Table 6: Illustration of the answers to the survey’s fourth question ....................................32

Figure 1. Distribution of the age results from the survey by percentages.....................................25

Figure 2. Distribution of Gender results from the survey by percentages.....................................26

Figure 3. Distribution of the University results from the survey by percentages..........................26

Figure 4. Distribution of the survey’s engineering major results..................................................27

Figure 5. Year of study results distribution by percentages..........................................................27

Figure 7. A bar chart illustrating the top group’s personality variation........................................30

MBTI Classification of Engineering Personalities

As one of the most strenuous departments, engineering majors have an unyielding

Aim of the study

products and technologies that meet our needs.

Thirdly, and most importantly, different personalities attribute to levels of success.

the most efficient environment suiting every student.

the independent variables that will be determined during the research.

Previous researches mainly focused on the characteristics of software engineering

aspects for this topic in the researching field.

Myers-Briggs Test Indicator (MBTI) Tool

Psychological and personality assessments are tools to understand human behavior,

categories; Extroversion/introversion, sensing/intuiting, and thinking/feeling (Jung, 1976). Later

2015; Yokomoto & Ware, 1999).

The four MBTI categories of personality.

Extraversion (E) and introversion (I).

Thinking (T) and feeling (F).

Sensing (S) and intuition (N).

Judging (J) and Perceiving (P).

Developing Education-Focused Studies

location the tests were done.

University of Tennessee, USA.

Seddigi et al.'s (2015).

The National University of Science and Technology, Pakistan.

of research on this topic in South-Asian countries.

The University of British Columbia, Canada.

Another contribution by Ostafichuk and Naylor (2013), discussed the manifest;

Success-Related Traits and High Team Productivity Focused-Studies

Consulting engineers focused-study at the USA.

percentage of personalities was that of the ISTJ and the INTP.

Johnson Space Center, NASA, USA.

many others that complete the aura of a brilliant engineer.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

mentioned; to be human is to be creative (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The findings of the paper

University of Nebraska, USA.

results showed that the most dominating type was ISTJ.

North Carolina State University, USA.

African-Americans, 5% Asians, 3% Native-Americans, and 2% Hispanic. Intiuitives (N) whose

scores, GPA, and high school grades.