Journal of Analytical Psychology, 2013, 58, 118–136

Temperament and typology

Kesstan Blandin, Vermont, USA

Abstract: This paper takes a cue from Harvard neuroscientists Jerome Kagan and
Nancy Snidman’s (2004) comment that Jung’s work on typology has remarkable rele-
vance to their research on neurobiological correlates of temperament and develops the
links between the theorists separated by almost a century. The paper begins with a brief
review of temperament traits in personality psychology. Kagan and Snidman’s 11-year
longitudinal study is then analysed and correlated with Jung’s psychological attitude
types of introversion and extraversion, demonstrating that Jung’s close empirical obser-
vations of human nature fit explicitly with objective measurements of neurobiological
sensitivity thresholds and their expression in temperament. Emerging research on neuro-
biologically sensitive adults and children from Aron (1997, 2004, 2011) and differential
susceptibility theory (DST) is presented as extrapolating the same links between temper-
ament and physiological sensitivity found in Jung’s introversion and Kagan and
Snidman’s high-reactive type. The paper concludes with a consideration of the subjective
psyche as a necessary aspect to understanding the self and human consciousness as
whole.

Key words: amygdala, extravert, highly sensitive person, introvert, Jung, Kagan, orchids
and dandelions

In 1929, Jung speculated that through typology, a bridge might eventually be

found between psychology and physiology that would establish a definite relation-
ship between the two (1929, para. 221). Seventy-five years later, in 2004, report-
ing on the findings from a large, longitudinal study on temperament in children
that involved establishing biological correlates, Harvard researchers Jerome
Kagan and Nancy Snidman referred to Jung’s work on typology, stating that his
insights into introversion and extraversion ‘apply with uncanny accuracy’ to their
research findings (Kagan & Snidman 2004, p. 218). Jung noted the necessity of
proceeding from the mind to the body in methodological attempts to understand
the psyche.

. . . it is necessary that research should follow this direction until certain elementary
psychic facts are established with sufficient certainty. But once having established these
facts, we can reverse the procedure. We can then put the question: What are the bodily
correlatives of a given psychic condition?
(Jung 1931, para. 917)

0021-8774/2013/5801/118 © 2013, The Society of Analytical Psychology

Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5922.2013.02020.x
Temperament and typology 119

Jung’s question is our starting point: what are the neurobiological correlates of intro-
version and extraversion? With the descriptive and phenomenological categories of
introversion and extraversion well established in various fields over decades, and
burgeoning neurobiological work into structures of the self and personality, we can
now begin to connect these psychic attitudes with functions of the brain. Actually,
Kagan and Snidman’s research has accomplished this by linking temperaments of
high- and low-reactive behavioural types with sensitivity thresholds in the limbic
system of the brain. Here, I follow-up on Kagan and Snidman’s recognition of the
correlations with Jung’s attitude types, connecting analyses of introversion and extra-
version with the temperaments discussed in Kagan and Snidman’s work. I will then
present additional theories of neurobiological sensitivity and temperament types, sug-
gesting that the different theorists are locating and explicating the same phenomenon.
What is this phenomenon? We all know that individuals have a wide range of
sensitivities; this is not new. What is new is the suggestion of innate sensitivity
levels that appear to stem from neurobiological origins which then shape the
response to environmental influences. The idea that the nature or nurture debate
is really a nature and nurture debate has been the consensus in developmental
psychology discourses for some time now, and the current conversation further
refines the influence of each force. As we will see, the influence of neurobiological
sensitivity thresholds in personality and behavioural outcomes are demonstrated
most dramatically in introverted temperaments.

Temperament and personality

The distinction between temperament and personality is the line between biology
and environment; temperament stems from the biological properties of the
nervous system found in animals as well as humans, whereas personality is a social
construction unique to human beings (Vernon 1994, p. 240). Temperament arises
from the regulation of arousal and emotion reliably producing characteristic,
habitual responses to experience, whereas personality is the constructed, storied
level of identity that emerges through our relationships with others and the world.
Animals other than human beings have temperaments, but personality is a human
achievement. Obviously, temperament and personality have an intimate relation-
ship. We need to keep in mind that traits of temperament and personality are
thoroughly enmeshed in experience and expression and therefore the terms are
often used interchangeably, though the ideas presented in this paper are concerned
with temperamental bias and innate disposition. Jung’s typological theory strad-
dles both temperament and personality theories and has been difficult to correlate
with either, though temperament theorists in the mid-20th century found reliable
correlations with Jung’s concepts of introversion and extraversion and neurobio-
logical functions (Eysenck 1973, pp. 49–50).
Personality psychology focuses on traits—specific behaviours and patterns—
such as smiling easily with strangers or enjoying crowds. A type is a higher-order
120 Kesstan Blandin

function of inter-correlated traits. One reason Jung’s typology has not carried
forward into academic personality theories is that the comparison of single traits
with over-arching types is difficult to correlate statistically (McCrae & Costa
1989). Also, personality psychology moved into descriptive categories, via the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the popular
research tool, the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality,1 while incorporating
evidence of environmental influence from developmental and cultural perspec-
tives. Yet the FFM’s validation in research and across cultures demonstrates that
biological underpinnings to temperament are present universally, even if they hold
different meanings and values across cultures and time. Jung also noted the wide-
spread distribution of introversion and extraversion throughout gender, classes,
cultures, and time periods and concluded, accurately, that the distinction in atti-
tude types could not come about solely through experience, culture, or deliberate
choice. ‘As a general psychological phenomenon . . . the type antithesis must have
some kind of biological foundation’ (Jung 1921, para. 558). With the surge in
research on the brain and temperament over the last two decades, we are now able
to again link Jung’s observations with temperamental dispositions in developmen-
tal neuroscience, as Kagan and Snidman have demonstrated.

Kagan and Snidman’s research

In The Long Shadow of Temperament (2004), Kagan and Snidman present an
11-year research study of two primary temperamental types they term high-reactive
(HR) and low-reactive (LR) from an original cohort of 500 infants followed from
4 months to 11 years old. Kagan and Snidman’s hypothesis is that the amygdala is
the primary brain structure that determines the affective reactivity of an infant, pro-
ducing characteristic responses of being a high-reactive or low-reactive infant.
‘Human beings . . . are exquisitely sensitive to changes in facial expression, voice,
and posture that signify anger, empathy, fear, seduction, delight, or disapproval
from another person’ (Kagan & Snidman 2004, p. 11). This sensitivity, mediated
in part by the amygdala (and also the right hemisphere), represents an innate index
of temperamental bias. An individual with low amygdalar thresholds for stimula-
tion, or heightened amygdalar sensitivity, is predicted to be high-reactive, expressed
behaviourally as introverted, shy, reflective, anxious, and timid. The complement is
an individual in whom a high amygdalar threshold creates low sensitivity to stim-
ulation; this is a low-reactive who does not perceive threat or danger so readily
from the environment and is more likely to exhibit an extraverted attitude of being
outgoing, exploratory, and rather fearless. The longitudinal study incorporated
physiological testing of biological markers for amygdalar activation—such as
heart rate, brain scans, and sympathetic nervous system activation—as well as
qualitative, descriptive assessments from the child when appropriate, the parent
(usually the mother), and when possible, from teachers. In addition, research diag-
nostics included direct observations of behaviour in various situations in the lab by
trained observers who were not known to the participating children.
Temperament and typology 121

The research revolves around the sensitivity level of the amygdala, which modu-
lates fear and reactions to novelty. It is our reaction to the unfamiliar that is then trans-
lated into surprise or fear. Depending on the assessment of the unexpected event, we
respond with approach, avoidance, or waiting to see. The amygdala receives direct
neuronal wiring from sensory modalities, such as the thalamus, allowing immediate
responses that bypass conscious cognitive processing in the prefrontal cortex.

[The amygdala] is the only brain structure that detects change in both the outside
environment and the body, and in addition, can instruct the body to flee, freeze, or fight.
Every sensory modality sends information to one or more areas of the amygdala, and
each area, in turn, sends projections to sites in the brain and body that mediate emotions
and actions, including the cerebral cortex, brain stem, and autonomic nervous system.
(Kagan & Snidman 2004, p. 10)

The researchers first made assessments of 4-month-old infants, categorizing

them as either LR or HR to unfamiliar events in their environment. Amygdalar
excitation sends messages to the motor centres of the body, and in infants this is
expressed as a thrashing of limbs, arching of the back, and crying. Thus, the
hypothesis was that a HR infant with a low stimulus threshold in the amygdala
would respond to unfamiliar stimuli with a vigorous motor and emotional
display, whereas a LR infant would have a minimal display. After categorizing
4-month-old infants as high-, low-, or mixed-reactive, the research followed
up with further testing of amygdalar sensitivity and temperamental bias at
approximately 2, 4, 7, and 11 years old.
In the original cohort of 500 4-month-old infants, a fifth (20%) were classified
as HR and almost half (40%) as LR; of the remainder, 35% were a mixed
classification of traits and a small group, 5%, were difficult to classify (Kagan
& Snidman 2004, pp. 13-14). These classification percentages have been repeated
in similar temperament studies (Kagan 2010, p. 31).
Across the testing ages, HRs showed greater activation in the right hemisphere
as compared to the left, higher cortisol arousal (hormone released under stress),
and greater sympathetic tone in the cardiovascular system (Kagan & Snidman
2004, p. 21). The right hemisphere has denser neuronal connections to the limbic
system in general and the amygdala in particular, which makes it dominant in
processing non-linguistic communications, such as body language, pitch and tone
of voice, and facial expressions. Greater activation of the right hemisphere in HRs
resonates with the greater sensitivity of the amygdala in these children. Consider-
ing the proliferation of research correlating the functions of the right hemisphere
with implicit consciousness and Allan Schore’s (2002) work linking the right
hemisphere with the depth psychological unconscious specifically, this also implies
a more intense or ready connection to the unconscious in HR children than LR
children, a link that will be unpacked in the later discussion correlating HR tem-
peraments with introversion and LR temperaments with extraversion.
By age 11, 20% of the pre-adolescents who had been categorized as HR infants
and just over 30% of pre-adolescents who had been categorized as LR infants
122 Kesstan Blandin

preserved their expected behavioural profiles; that is, by age 11, one in five of
the HRs were still predominantly shy, paused in response to the unfamiliar, and
disliked interacting with large groups, and about one in three LRs remained
predominantly active as opposed to reflective, attracted to novelty, and enjoyed
large groups. Yet less than 5% of each group displayed characteristics of the
complementary type. Most of the 11-year-olds had constrained characteristics:
HRs who did not preserve expected behaviours did not act like LRs nor did LRs
who did not retain the expected profile act like HRs (less than 5% did), but rather
most of the children categorized at the extremes of temperament in infancy had a
modified mixture of high- and low-reactive traits by 11 years old (Kagan &
Snidman 2004, p. 190).
Why would a majority of those classified as HR (80%) or LR (70%) in
infancy not develop a behavioural profile at 11 years old congruent with the
assessment at infancy? This consequence is believed to be due to the effect of
environmental influences. ‘The biology of the high-reactives had not prevented
them from learning ways to cope with strangers and new challenges, but it did
prevent them from displaying the relaxed spontaneity . . . characteristic of
many low-reactive children’ (Kagan & Snidman 2004, p. 23). Kagan and
Snidman continue with this assessment of the contrast between external
behaviour modified by environmental influences and the internal experience
of the individual:

The more important fact is that very few high-reactives became exuberant, sociable,
minimally aroused pre-adolescents, and very few low-reactives became fearful, quiet
introverts with high levels of biological arousal . . .. The power of each infant temper-
amental bias lay in its ability to prevent the development of a contrasting profile.
(ibid., p. 23)

The results of the research showed that it is easier to predict what an infant with a
definite temperamental bias will not become by age 11 than what he or she will
become. For example, it was far more predictable that a high-reactive infant
would not become spontaneous, ebullient, and fearless than that they would be
marked as extremely fearful and shy. ‘An infant’s temperament, therefore,
constrains the acquisition of certain profiles more effectively than it determines
the development of a particular personality’ (ibid., p. 24).

High-reactive introverts and low-reactive extraverts

Jung calls introversion and extraversion ‘attitude types’. These characteristics are

distinguished by their attitude to the object. The introvert’s attitude is an abstracting

one; at bottom he is always intent on withdrawing libido from the object, as though
he had to prevent the object from gaining power over him. The extravert, on the
contrary, has a positive relation to the object. He affirms its importance to such an
extent that his subjective attitude is constantly related to and oriented by the object.
(Jung 1921, para. 557)
Temperament and typology 123

The extravert has a style that assimilates subject to object, whereas the introvert
has a style that assimilates object to subject. Stated differently, the extravert adapts
to the external world, while the introvert attempts to make the external world
adapt to his subjective reality.
Worringer’s distinctions between types of art from the classic Abstraction and
Empathy (1911), analysed by Jung (1921), bring depth to the attitudes of introversion
and extraversion. In abstraction is the desire to find haven in a self-made form from
an overpowering and dissonant reality; in art created from the empathic attitude we
find harmonious works into which we can project our internal affective states, achiev-
ing alignment with the art object. The introverted attitude, represented in abstraction,
in finding the world threatening, attempts to devalue the object, to leech it of its power
over him and therefore feel dominant and secure. In contrast, the extraverted attitude
represented in empathic art, in finding no threat from the external world experiences
rather a universe of dead objects, and seeks to animate them through the projection of
her libido. This projection of her own libido into the object produces empathy, a har-
monious relationship between viewer/artist and object/world.
Kagan and Snidman’s inhibited, HR type correlates with Jung’s introverted type.
Again, the HR is characterized biologically by a low excitability threshold in the
amygdala which translates into intense and consistent subjective feelings of limbic
arousal, threat, anxiety, fear, shame, and guilt, all producing an automatic desire to
be cautious and withhold one’s self from others, the world, and especially, the
unknown. The inner world of the HR fits easily with the introvert’s experience of
finding the world threatening correlated with an automatic attitude towards the
object which attempts to attenuate its dominant vitality. In Kagan and Snidman’s
lab experiments, HRs were characterized by traits of shyness and strong reactions
to the unfamiliar causing them to be more vigilant in scanning the environment for
danger or unfamiliarity and therefore more likely to be exquisitely sensitive to tone
of voice, facial cues, or actions. By comparison, consider Jung’s observation that
‘one of the earliest signs of introversion in a child is a reflective, thoughtful manner,
marked shyness and even fear of unknown objects . . .. Everything unknown is
regarded with mistrust; outside influences are usually met with violent resistance’
(Jung 1923, para. 897). This heightened sensitivity also produces a disposition to
deep reflection and thought about the world, others, the self, and events, character-
istics of both the introvert and the HR individual.
We can speculate that an HR child was more vigilant in reading and analyzing
her own inner environment because she needed to be; the HR pre-adolescents and
adolescents reported more anxiety about others’ perceived judgments of them and
a heightened, painful sensitivity to transgressions of their own standards (Kagan
& Snidman 2004, p. 218). There is a sense of being bombarded with thoughts
and feelings, that the world provokes much emotion, and therefore an internal
focus that understands, organizes, and interprets these constant messages is a
way of coping or managing an easily aroused internal state. This matches Jung’s
description of the introvert’s world as highly charged and alive, where one feels
in constant battle for equilibrium; a characteristic solution is to withdraw from
124 Kesstan Blandin

the world, understand the dynamics deeply, and to interact only under certain
circumstances. A high concern and focus with inner states cause an introvert to
be much more concerned with her own subjectivity than with the circumstances
of the world or others external to her. In this way, an introvert’s subjectivity –
what he thinks and feels about things – takes a priority and even superiority
over facts or the subjectivity of others. Jung noted that this over-valuation of the
subjective ‘is sufficient in itself to create the impression of marked egocentricity’
(Jung 1921, para. 625). After all, the primary and immediate route an introvert
has to find peace is to manage and control inner space, since it is so easily stirred.
An easily aroused psycho-somatic life provides the pressure for a strong thinking
function to arise as a way to mediate subjective experience through
understanding.
The extraverted attitude, oriented by the external object rather than subjec-
tive states, shows an early sign of

quick adaptation to the environment, and the extraordinary attention he gives to

objects and especially to the effect he has on them. Fear of objects is minimal; he lives
and moves among them with confidence . . .. He likes to carry his enterprises to the
extreme and exposes himself to risks. Everything unknown is alluring.
(Jung 1923, para. 896)

A high amygdalar arousal threshold in LRs correlates with the extravert’s minimal
fear of objects. Consider the descriptions of LRs from the research observers as
playing easily with unfamiliar children or smiling within the first few minutes of
entering a room alone with an unfamiliar adult (Kagan & Snidman 2004, p. 19).
The LR could be described as finding the ‘unknown alluring’ because it does not
disrupt his inner life; he does not experience dissonance between self and world
but rather seeks alignment, an experience of pleasure and harmony. For the extra-
vert, ‘objective happenings have an almost inexhaustible fascination for him, so
that ordinarily he never looks for anything else’ (Jung 1921, para. 563). It’s not that
the extravert’s objective world is that fascinating compared to his inner world, but
that the objective world is the inner world. Recalling the analogy in Worringer’s
types of art, the extravert is associated with empathic art because he projects his
subjective experience into the art object and experiences his subjectivity there. So
again, it’s not that an extravert does not have an inner world but that he or she rea-
lizes the inner world through the external world, in contrast to the introvert who
makes moves to keep the external world from exerting too much influence or dom-
inance on subjective experience. We could also say that an introvert experiences the
world in his subjectivity analogous to the extravert experiencing his subjectivity
through the world. A highly extraverted nature finds, through projection, her inner
world in external objects and events, hence Worringer’s interpretation that the
empathic artist-extravert lives in a world of dead objects, whereas the abstract
artist-introvert is perpetually pursued by an all too alive object world. The extra-
vert experiences subjectivity through fusing with the external world, whereas the
introvert experiences subjectivity through resisting the same.
Temperament and typology 125

The LR-extravert finds an ease of communication between his inner world and
outer world in that the outer world is not threatening—it does not easily provoke
the amygdalar-limbic system—and therefore we can presume that objects are for
the most part pleasing or neutral in comparison to a predominant experience of
the threatening power of objects in the HR-introvert. This affinity between the
internal state and objective circumstances allows an easy adaptation to external
circumstances. Whereas an HR-introverted temperament, finding a general disso-
nance between inner and outer worlds, does not feel an easy fit between who she is
and the circumstances she finds herself in and therefore easy adaptation eludes
her; or, an introvert is more aware of the process of adaptation. In Jung’s assess-
ment, this dissonance between inner and outer causes the introvert to orient the
object world to the subjective world. The LR-extravert, on the other hand, tends
to elevate circumstance and objects, thereby appearing gregarious, exploratory,
superficial, or sometimes slavish in the attempt to adapt to external circumstances.
In Jungian theory the unconscious is autonomous, possessing its own attitude
and volition, and these functions are compensatory to the conscious attitude. A
compensating attitude in the unconscious of an extravert, therefore, would have
a decidedly introverted nature. What does this mean? It points to an unconscious
focus on the subjective factor as a complement to the conscious focus on the
object; that is, an unrecognized self-centredness in the extravert’s attitude,
whereas the unrecognized attitude in the consciously subjective introvert is the
tendency to objectify internal objects. Jung’s writing on the unconscious attitude
is sometimes not as clear as his explication of the conscious attitude. For example,
he focuses on the infantile and primitive manifestations of the extravert’s
unconscious, but this general claim could be made on anyone’s unconscious ma-
terial as the unconscious is, in part, that which has not been integrated, developed,
and thus matured through conscious reflection and application. Therefore, we all
have infantile and primitive unconscious attitudes, qualities, and content, whether
we are predominantly extraverted, introverted, or somewhere in-between.
However Jung also writes that the egocentric nature of the extravert’s uncon-
scious attitude ‘goes far beyond mere childish selfishness; it verges on the ruthless
and the brutal’ (Jung 1921, para. 572). This is borne out in Kagan and Snidman’s
research which showed that boys in the extreme end of the LR spectrum from
deprived backgrounds who did not effectively sublimate or socialize aggressive
urges had a higher tendency towards criminality; criminal behaviour, in general,
is sourced by a self-centred focus on one’s own feelings, desires, and needs without
concern or consideration for others. Further, the researchers note that studies of
criminals revealed LR biological profiles and attitudes with a low concern for the
opinions and judgments of others (Kagan & Snidman 2004, p. 223). An extreme
LR-extravert will tend not to register others’ opinions and feelings as important be-
cause they do not experience these responses as fearful, producing anxiety or per-
sonal threat. When conditioned in an environment that does not shape his atten-
tion towards learning to care for and consider the feelings and concerns of
others, a LR-extravert could easily develop along the path of least resistance where
126 Kesstan Blandin

there is a marked lack of concern for other’s feelings, culminating in brutality or

ruthless self-centredness.
Jung considers the introvert to be oriented by inner psychic structures, albeit not
merely the ego per se. Rather, he asserts that the introvert, in his focus on his inner
state, is identified with innate psychic structures beyond the ego. More specifically,
Jung believes the introvert tends to identify with the promptings, impulses, and
movements of the collective unconscious.

It is a characteristic peculiarity of the introvert . . . to confuse his ego with the self, and to
exalt it as the subject of the psychic process, thus bringing about the aforementioned
subjectivization of consciousness which alienates him from the object. The psychic struc-
ture is. . .what I call the ‘collective unconscious’.
(Jung 1921, para. 623)

This identification with subjective states leads to an over-valuation of one’s

internal world. But it also leads to the unconscious compensation in introverts
of objectifying their subjective world. In Jungian parlance, the ego is inflated
with the transcendent material of the collective psyche. ‘Should he [the intro-
vert] become neurotic, it is the sign of an almost complete identity of the ego
with the self’ (ibid., para. 625).
When noting the distinction between expressed behaviour and internal experi-
ence in pre-adolescents and adolescents from the study, Kagan and Snidman
acknowledge that ‘each adolescent’s dominant feeling tone, not the degree of
shyness or sociability in his outward persona, is the seminal property that differenti-
ates these temperamental groups’ (Kagan & Snidman 2004, p. 218). Dominant feel-
ing tone is how Kagan and Snidman describe the predominant subjective experience
of the individual which may or may not match the public persona. This is precisely
what Jung’s typological classifications capture: the primary internal orientation and
attitude to the world of others and objects. Kagan and Snidman note that ‘the devel-
opmental journey that leads to a relaxed or a tense feeling tone requires a more sub-
stantial contribution from temperament than does a sociable or shy posture with
others’ (ibid., p. 218). Their research found that the interiority of an individual is
more determined by biological temperament than conditioning, whereas the expres-
sive and behavioural style or personality is more reflective of conditioning and
learning. Even if a HR 11-year-old had acquired a persona of being friendly and re-
laxed, their subjective feeling tone was more tense, vigilant, thoughtful, and easily
over-stimulated. Recall that the high-reactive pre-adolescents and adolescents
reported more anxiety about others’ perceived judgments of them and a heightened,
painful sensitivity to transgressions of their own standards (ibid., p. 19). Jung also
noted the significance of temperament or disposition as the determining factor of
type. ‘Although nothing would induce me to underrate the incalculable importance
of parental influence, this familiar experience compels me to conclude that the deci-
sive factor must be looked for in the disposition of the child’ (Jung 1921, para. 560).
Parental conditioning is powerful and complex; parental response to innate tem-
peramental profiles is a significant developmental factor. For example, in Kagan
Temperament and typology 127

and Snidman’s research they found that ‘the mothers of high-reactives who, out of
equally loving concern, were reluctant to cause them distress and protected them
from new experiences had the most fearful 2-year-olds’ (Kagan & Snidman 2004,
p. 24). On the other hand, the small number of parents who interpreted an HR
child’s distress as an act of willfulness, and responded with angry punishment,
tended to have the most detrimental effect, producing children who became severely
irritable and withdrawn (ibid., p. 30). Finally, some families of HRs held the belief

that they must prepare their children for a competitive society in which retreat from
challenge is maladaptive . . .. Children reared this way are less likely to be avoidant when
it is time to begin first grade. Such children often display a high energy level, talk too much,
and ask too many questions.
(Kagan & Snidman 2004, p. 29)

It could be that these traits of talking too much and asking many questions are a
manifestation of an innate tendency towards vigilant attention channelled into
assertively conditioned behaviours. It is easy to imagine that a naturally shy
child conditioned to be more assertive may ask a lot of questions out of anxiety
and the desire to know what is going on in order to feel more secure. Further,
tendencies towards shyness can be combined with innate predispositions
towards traits that hide shyness, such as impulsivity or aggression, which would
make fearful responses of the child go unrecognized as such by others and even
the child himself.
An uninhibited temperament—i.e., LR-extravert—manifests as a relaxed,
spontaneous, curious dominant feeling tone due to low levels of fear of others’
evaluation or judgment, low fear of punishment, and low guilt response in
violating personal or social ethical standards. A disposition of a low fear and
guilt response can lead to self-centred aggression and callousness as mentioned
above; in studies of aggression and criminality in boys, a relationship has
been demonstrated between an extremely uninhibited temperament, low
socioeconomic status in childhood, and parents who do not successfully
socialize aggressive behaviours. ‘But low-reactive boys living in nurturant
families, free of psychopathology, that effectively socialize aggression do not
have higher rates of delinquency. Indeed, these boys are likely to be popular
with their peers’ (Kagan & Snidman 2004, p. 223).

Temperament makes a more substantial contribution to feeling tone than to the public
personality during adolescence and adulthood. . ..The developmental journey that
leads to a relaxed or a tense feeling tone requires a more substantial contribution from
temperament than does a sociable or shy posture with others.
(ibid., p. 218)

The concept of dominant feeling tone and public personality is easily linked
with Jung’s combination of attitude type, innate subjective disposition, and
persona, the mask we cultivate to navigate relationships and get our needs
met in the world.
128 Kesstan Blandin

Cultural bias
Extraversion has been the benchmark against which introversion is defined and
valued in temperament and personality models and theories of Western culture,
especially the Five Factor Model (FFM). If extraversion is defined as the tendency
to experience positive emotions such as warmth and gregariousness, this makes in-
troversion the tendency to experience negative emotions but this is an insufficient
(and biased) understanding of introversion. Introversion tends towards neuroticism
(unstable, negative emotions) only under the influence of specific environments.
This bias towards extraversion is reflected in Kagan and Snidman’s work as
well; the authors used ‘tense’ to describe an HR, but not ‘attentive’, and ‘curious
and spontaneous’ to describe an LR, but not ‘unreflective.’ Aron has noted how
in his early work on introversion, before Psychological Types, Jung himself
demonstrated an ambivalent bias against introversion; ironic, indeed, for a pre-
dominantly introverted-intuitive personality for whom a primary mission was to
advocate the value of introversion in modern society (Aron 2004).
The tide is changing, however. A quiet revolution is occurring in the growing recog-
nition of the positive value of introversion in Western culture. Christopher Lane’s
Shyness: How Normal Behaviour Became a Sickness (2007) and Susan Cain’s Quiet:
The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking (2010) both document this
cultural re-definition incorporating the theories discussed here, among others. And in
the revisions of the DSM-V, due to be published in 2013, a fierce debate has ensued
over the proposal to include the term ‘introversion’ as a mental disorder; the term
‘detachment’ has currently been settled on as distinct from introversion.
The re-valuing and re-definition of introversion is reflected in current research as
well. There are two areas of research in neurobiological sensitivity that further dem-
onstrate the role of physiological thresholds girding extraversion and introversion as
revealed in Kagan and Snidman’s (2004) work: Aron and Aron’s (1997, 2004) highly
sensitive person (HSP), and Boyce and Ellis’ differential susceptibility theory (DST).

Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS)

Aron and Aron (1997, 2004, 2005; Jagiellowicz et al. 2011) have developed a theory
of sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) which they posit as the underlying cause of the
heightened cognitive-emotional processing of highly sensitive persons (HSP). Their
research, conducted on adults’ cognitive-emotional styles, as well as visual processing,
defines SPS as a temperament trait ‘characterized by sensitivity to both internal
and external stimuli, including social and emotional cues’ (Jagiellowicz et al. 2011,
p. 38). HSPs are further described as ‘particularly sensitive to subtle stimuli, easily
overstimulated, prone to ‘pause to check’ in a novel situation, and preset to reflect
and revise their cognitive maps after an experience’ (Aron et al. 2005, p. 181).
Many personality models tend to see the basic difference between extraver-
sion and introversion as sociability; the DSM, FFM, and even Kagan and
Snidman’s descriptions of LR, being sociable is used as synonymous with extraver-
sion, as though introverts are not sociable at all rather than holding different
Temperament and typology 129

preferences for social interaction. Aron’s work makes important distinctions in

causes of behaviour of low sociability. A distinction is made between shyness that
is innate and shyness that is acquired, the former being biological and the latter in-
volving insecure attachment styles (Aron & Aron 1997, p. 346). ‘What has been
called shyness may involve preferring to be alone because of an avoidant attachment
style, fearing but preferring to be with others due to an anxious attachment style, and
some purely biological reasons for low sociability and shyness’ (p. 347). There are
two types of shyness of biological origins: inheriting a trait of low sociability (such
as found in schizotypy or detachment) and sensory processing sensitivity.
Aron and Aron’s research (1997) involved interviews and surveys with highly sen-
sitive adults and their findings conclude that though the three expressions of ‘shyness’
are inter-related, there is a clear distinction between innate biological sensitivity, so-
cial introversion, and negative emotionality resulting from insecure attachments.
‘The development of shyness is now well understood to be, in most cases, the result
of a combination of an inherited trait, which we presume to be sensory-processing
sensitivity, and a poor home environment’ (ibid., p. 355). In fact, this speculation
was confirmed in later research of HSPs and reported childhood conditions which
found ‘that highly sensitive individuals are especially more likely to be shy when they
experienced an adverse childhood environment. Otherwise, they are not more likely
to be shy than non highly sensitive individuals’ (Aron et al. 2005, p. 191).
More distinguishing than sociability is the cognitive processing style of HSPs,
who are predominantly introverted and/or intuitive when tested by Aron. ‘An
equally or more important characteristic [of introversion] is a greater physical
sensitivity and cognitive depth of processing’ (Aron 2004, p. 339), though, again,
there is a clear overlap of this sensitivity and sociability, in that a person with height-
ened biological sensitivities tends to have distinct preferences for low-stimulus social
interactions. Aron speculates that this depth of mental and emotional processing
places a high demand on the HSP, making it difficult to process too many objects
at a time and requiring more time and attention to attend to novelty. There is an
easy link between this understanding of the HSP’s more dense emotional-mental
processing and the above discussion of the HR-introvert’s noisy and easily aroused
inner world which causes the individual to pause and reflect on events before acting.
HSPs expressed more physical sensitivity to noises or stimulus as well as a more
active dream and fantasy life, self-consciousness and poorer performance when be-
ing observed, and a preference for more intimate, substantial social interactions
(Aron 2004). Recall the HR child behaviours and pre-adolescent reports of feeling
more self-conscious, having an easily burdened or sensitive conscience, a more
active dream and inner life in general, and preferences for smaller, intimate social
engagements (Kagan & Snidman 2004).

Orchids and dandelions

Differential susceptibility theory (DST) is an evolutionary and developmental
theory based on the two primary temperaments representing a basic approach
130 Kesstan Blandin

or avoiding orientation to stimulus. DST define these types by their susceptibility

to environmental conditions and influence, i.e., their malleability. The popular
terms orchids and dandelions, coined by Boyce and Ellis (2005) and discussed
in recent works such as Susan Cain’s Quiet (2012) and David Dobbs’ articles
in The Atlantic (2009), New Scientist article (2012) and upcoming book,
differentiate between the sensitive, tender-minded, malleable orchids and hearty,
tough-minded, resilient dandelions as the two basic temperamental types.
Referring to William James’ designations, Jung also used the terms tender-minded
and tough-minded (1923) when referring to innate sensitivity levels of the
subjective psyche, whereas DST describes this sensitivity in terms of its biological
origins.
More reactive children displayed heightened sensitivity to both positive and negative
environmental influences and thus were given the shorthand designation of orchid
children, signifying their special susceptibility to both highly stressful and highly nurturing
environments. In contrast, children low in reactivity were designated as dandelion chil-
dren, reflecting their relative ability to function adequately in species-typical circumstances
of all varieties.
(Ellis et al. 2011, p. 11)

Boyce and Ellis noted Aron and Aron’s research and linked the HSP as the adult
version of the orchid child (ibid., p. 8). Research in DST is emerging and far from
complete, but promising results are being uncovered in genetic, neurochemical
and neurobiological sensitivity underpinning orchid and dandelion tempera-
ments. Research suggests that the variations of susceptibility in orchids and
dandelions ‘might be underpinned by allelic variation in the dopaminergic and
serotonergic circuitry of the brain that govern thresholds of responsiveness to
reward and punishment’ (ibid., p. 15).
While much past psychological research has established various genetic
vulnerabilities to psychopathology or negative health outcomes in concert with
adverse environmental conditions, a significant difference in DST research is of
‘positive outcomes of the same genes interacting with positive rearing environ-
ments’ (Ellis & Boyce 2011, p. 3). The heart of DST is the primacy of individual
characteristics in mediating these developmental outcomes. ‘Much work still
focuses on contextual effects that apply equally to all children and thus fails
to consider the possibility that whether, how, and to what degree early experi-
ences influence child development may critically depend upon individual
characteristics’ (p. 1). Orchids populate the best and worst outcome categories,
where we find ‘disproportionately high rates of mental and physical health
problems among reactive children and adolescents raised in adverse environ-
ments and unusually low rates . . . among such individuals raised in low-stress,
supportive settings’ (p. 2).
Individual differences in susceptibility to environmental factors are defined by
heightened sensitivity to both positive and negative factors that impact develop-
mental change (as opposed to transient impacts) and are neurobiologically
grounded in genetic heritability. Susceptibility varies among individuals and
Temperament and typology 131

across the lifespan, and differences in susceptibility are evolutionarily driven

and adaptive (Ellis et al. 2011, pp. 7–8).

At the level of neural function, differential susceptibility to environmental exposures may

be determined by systematic differences in the functioning of specific brain circuitry, neu-
ronal activity, and neurotransmitter production, processing, and metabolism. A variety of
brain regions have been implicated in the filtering of incoming sensory information, in-
cluding the temporal cortex . . . prefrontal cortex . . . amygdala . . . and thalamus . . .
and such filtering might arguably act as a neural substrate of context sensitivity
(ibid., p. 16).

There are many examples of orchid susceptibility from studies of various

genes for neurotransmitters, so that it is becoming a reliably replicated result.
As mentioned, the link between orchids and HSPs has been made by DST
researchers, and Aron’s testing of HSPs reliably reflects introverted and/or
intuitive types, thereby creating a link between the orchid and the introvert as
well. And these connections are also found in the descriptions of subjective
experience, behaviours, and underlying neurobiological sensitivity levels in all
four types of sensitive persons discussed here: HRs, introverts, HSPs, and
orchids.
Jung’s work on typology pre-dated attachment theory by several decades, but
the other three theories discussed here all incorporate the influence of attachment
and/or conditioning in the child-rearing environment. As mentioned previously,
HSPs were no more likely to be insecure or secure in their attachments, but, if
insecure, they were more likely to be anxious-ambivalent; non-sensitive adults
with insecure attachments tended towards avoidant attachment styles (Aron
2004, p. 354). Citing research on infant temperament, sensitivity to novelty, and
developmental outcomes, Aron notes that the specific stressors that turn an innate
sensitivity to novelty into a chronic fear of novelty is captured in attachment style
and in particular ‘an insecure attachment style’ (Aron et al. 2005, p. 183). The
characteristic preoccupation with the relationship and attachment figure leads to
the emotional paradox of ambivalent feelings towards the attachment figure, in
both fearing abandonment and being unable to trust or tolerate the other’s
treatment. In an adverse environment, the more sensitive temperament may need
protection from both worlds, inner and outer.
From an amygdalar sensitivity perspective, Kagan and Snidman’s research
uncovers a similar modifying relationship of physiological sensitivity to rearing
conditions between HR children and parenting styles, discussed above. We have
long known that environmental conditions influence individuals differently and
now we are able to understand how neurobiological differences influence develop-
mental outcomes. Many researchers have noted that temperament does not
determine secure or insecure attachments but the type of insecure attachment. In
the same vein, temperament alone does not determine the outcome of health or
pathology, but it does determine how environmental conditions are perceived,
received and incorporated into the self.
132 Kesstan Blandin

Conclusion
A missing element of the research presented here and of personality theories in
general is the experience of extraverts in against-type contexts, such as environments
of quiet solitude and contemplation, and of introverts in with-type environments that
suit their disposition. Psychologists have noted that introverts avoid over-stimulation
while extraverts avoid boredom. We know what over-stimulation does to an intro-
vert, but what does under-stimulation do to an extravert? I can’t help but think the
typical response might be similar to a dear extraverted friend of mine who found
meditation downright terrifying. She lasted eight minutes and never tried it again.
Researchers are asking questions such as would Introverts be better off if they acted
more like Extraverts? (Zelenski et al. 2012), not a bad inquiry in and of itself, but no
one is asking questions such as, does quiet contemplation make extraverts deeper?
Another personal anecdote of an extremely extraverted friend recalls his initial in-
tense difficulty with spending a lot of time alone when his only child left for college
and a long time relationship ended at the same time. He suffered great anxiety and
doubt as uncomfortable existential questions about the meaning of his life surfaced.
He tried to escape along his usual routes but they did not provide the same padded
pathway as before. Eventually, he began reading classic literature and found a new
level of peace, reflection, and solidity within himself. He didn’t turn into an introvert,
he just became a fuller extravert with a deeper understanding of human beings and
our inner terrain. In the same vein, an introverted friend whose work demanded
she learn public speaking suffered crippling self-consciousness at first, but with per-
severance became an engaging, effective educator. She did not become an extravert
but a better introvert, more comfortable in her skin and able to share the boon of
her many hours of contemplation with others.
In Jung’s work we find rich descriptions of the subjective experience of neurobiolog-
ical profiles of temperament. I believe Jung observed and noted the first lifting off of
psyche from physiology. The attitude types develop organically from physiology,
moulded in partnership with early relationships, environmental and cultural factors,
into characteristic ways of being in and responding to the world. Evidence of neurobi-
ological structures girding personality is not enough to explain behaviour without
context and individual history. The introvert doesn’t withdraw due only to biological
arousal. Biological arousal focuses and orients consciousness, in both extraverts and
introverts, creating habitual tendencies and dispositions that contribute to mental and
emotional patterns. These neurobiological sensitivities and temperamental dispositions
meet environmental factors, are shaped by them, and develop into characteristic traits.
Kagan and Snidman note that an impediment to understanding research results of
temperament is an assumption that behaviour is reduced to biology; it is not, and
cannot be actually, any more than a wave crashing on a beach can be reduced to the
billions of water molecules that it’s made of (Kagan & Snidman 2004, p. 49). However,
each aspect of the wave is real and necessary to truly understand an ocean wave. In the
same manner, in order to truly understand the role of temperament we must consider
both its biological ground and the context through which it is realized. Yet these two
Temperament and typology 133

aspects of the self—temperament and conditioning—do not complete the picture. It is

important to consider the layer in between biology and environment: the subjective in-
terior, or the psyche. Represented in part in the dominant feeling tone or the predom-
inant attitude type, the subjectivity of an individual contains the implicit interpretations
of self and others, and in this way, the psyche is the key to understanding motivations
behind expressed behaviour. One who is described by their behaviours as being cau-
tious and reflective does not merely possess these traits as clothes, but is making certain
interpretations about self and world that are represented in personality. A consideration
of subjectivity is missing from neuroscience because it eludes measurement; subjectivity
is considered in developmental and cultural perspectives, but these theories tend to con-
sider how subjectivity is constructed by environmental factors, neglecting the contribu-
tion of neurobiology and temperament on subjective content and interpretation. Depth
psychology, through object relations, transference, complexes, and archetypes, contri-
butes an understanding of the psyche that must be incorporated into holistic theories
of self and identity, integrated with the perspectives of the brain and environmental con-
ditioning, as we continue to grasp the reality and mystery of the self.

TRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT

Cet article est une réponse au commentaire des neuroscientifiques Jérôme Kagan et
Nancy Snidman de Harvard selon lequel le travail de Jung sur la typologie est remarqua-
blement pertinent dans leur recherche sur les corrélations neurobiologiques de tempéra-
ment, et développe des liens entre des théoriciens séparés par près d’un siècle. L’article
commence par une brève revue des traits de caractère en psychologie de la personnalité.
L’étude longitudinale de 11 ans de Kagan et Snidman est ensuite analysée et mise en cor-
respondance avec les types d’attitude psychologique d’introversion et d’extraversion de
Jung, démontrant que les observations empiriques attentives de la nature humaine par
Jung correspondent explicitement aux mesures objectives des seuils de sensibilité neuro-
biologique et leur expression dans le tempérament. Les nouvelles recherches d’Aron
(1997, 2004, 2011) sur des adultes et des enfants neurobiologiquement sensibles ainsi
que la théorie de susceptibilité différentielle (DST) sont présentées comme extrapolation
des mêmes liaisons entre tempérament et sensibilité physiologique retrouvées dans l’in-
troversion de Jung et dans le type hautement réactif de Kagan et Snidman. Cet article
conclut en considérant la psyché subjective comme aspect nécessaire à la compréhension
du soi et de la conscience humaine dans son ensemble.

Dieser Beitrag nimmt einen Hinweis der Harvard Neurowissenschaftler Jerome Kagan und
Nancy Snidman (2004) darauf auf, daß Jungs Arbeiten zur Typologie bemerkenswerte
Bedeutung für ihre Untersuchungen der neurobiologischen Korrelate des Temperamentes
hat und baut die Verbindungen zwischen für fast ein Jahrhundert getrennten Theorien aus.
Die Ausführungen beginnen mit einer kurzen Übersicht über die Behandlung des
Temperamentes innerhalb der Persönlichkeitspsychologie. Anschließend wird Kagan und
Snidmans elfjährige Langzeitstudie analysiert und zu Jungs psychologischen
134 Kesstan Blandin

Einstellungstypen von Introversion und Extraversion in Beziehung gesetzt wobei gezeigt

wird, daß Jungs dichte empirische Beobachtungen der menschlichen Natur deutlich mit
objektiven Messungen neurobiologischer Sensibilitätsschwellen und ihrem jeweiligen
Ausdruck im Temperament übereinstimmen. An neurobiologisch sensitiven Erwachsenen
und Kindern gewonnene Forschungsergebnisse von Aron (1997, 2004, 2011) und aus der
Differential susceptibility theory (DST) werden als Extrapolationen derselben Verbindungen
zwischen Temperament und physiologischer Sensitivität dargestellt, wie sie in Jungs
Introversion und Kagan und Snidmans Hochreaktivem Typus beschrieben sind. Der Beitrag
schließt mit einer Betrachtung über die subjektive Psyche als einem für das Verständnis des
Selbst und des menschlichen Bewußtseins als ganzem notwendigen Aspekt.

Questo lavoro prende spunto da un commento dei neuroscientisti di Harward Jerome

Kagan e Nancy Snidman (2004) sul fatto che il lavoro di Jung sulla tipologia ha una
importante rilevanza per la loro ricerca sui collerati neurobiologici del temperamento
e amplia i collegamenti fra teorici separati da almeno un secolo. Il lavoro inizia con
una breve rassegna dei tratti di temperamento nella psicologia della personalità. Viene
poi esaminato uno studio longitudinale di 11 anni di Kagan e Snidman e correlato con i
tipi psicologici di Jung di introversione e estroversione, dimostrando che le osservazioni
strettamente empiriche di Jung sulla natura umana aderiscono esplicitamente con le
misurazioni oggettive delle soglie della sensitività neurobiologica e con la loro espres-
sione nel temperamento. Viene presentata una ricerca emergente di Aron (1997,
2004,2011) sulla sensitività neurobiologica di bambini e adulti e viene esposta la teoria
della suscettibilità differenziale(DST) come esempio della possibilità di trovare gli stessi
collegamenti tra il temperamento e la sensibilità fisiologica trovata nell’introversione di
Jung e nel tipo altamente reattivo di Kagan e Snidman. Lo scritto si conclude con la con-
siderazione di una psiche soggettiva come un aspetto necessario per comprendere il sé e
la coscienza umana come un tutto.

Эта статья подхватывает комментарий гарвардских нейрологов Джерома

Кагана и Нэнси Снидмэн (2004) о том, что работа Юнга по типологии весьма
важна для их исследования нейробиологических корреляций темперамента, и
развивает связь между теоретиками, разделенными почти столетием. Статья
начинается с краткого обзора темпераментов в личностной психологии.
Длившееся на протяжении 11 лет долговременное исследование Кагана и Снид-
мэн анализируется и соотносится с Юнговской психологической установкой
интровертированного и экстравертированного типов; статья показывает, что
пристальные эмпирические наблюдения Юнга за человеческой природой явно
совпадают с объективными измерениями нейробиологического порога
чувствительности и его выражения в темпераменте. Появившиеся исследования
нейробиологически-сенситивных взрослых и детей Арона (1997, 2004, 2011) и
теория дифференциальной восприимчивости (DST) представлены как экстрапо-
лирующие те же связи между темпераментом и физиологической
чувствительностью, о которых говорит Юнг в связи с интровертами, а Каган и
Снидмэн – в связи с остро реагирующим типом. Статья завершается рассмотре-
нием субъективной психики как необходимого аспекта в понимании самости и
человеческого сознания как целого.
Temperament and typology 135

Este trabajo se basa en los comentarios de los neurocientíficos de Harvard Jerome Kagan
y Nancy Snidman (2004) sobre la relevancia que los trabajos de Jung sobre la tipología
tienen para sus investigaciones sobre los correlatos neurobiológicos del temperamento y
desarrolla algunos lazos de unión entre los teóricos que han estado separados por casi un
siglo. El trabajo comienza por una breve revisión de los tratados sobre temperamentos en
la psicología de la personalidad. Se analiza el trabajo longitudinal de más de 11 años rea-
lizado por de Kagan y Snidman y se relaciona con los de las actitudes psicológicas de In-
troversión y Extraversión, demostrándose que la observación empírica de Jung sobre la
naturaleza humana se corresponde explícitamente con las mediciones objetivas de lo
umbrales de sensibilidad neurobiológica y sus expresiones en el temperamento. Los tra-
bajos emergentes sobre neurobiológica-sensibilidad de adultos y niños De Aron (1997,
2004, 2011) y se presenta la teoría diferencial de susceptibilidad (DST) para extrapolar
los mismos eslabones entre temperamento y sensibilidad fisiológica en la introversión de
Jung y el tipo altamente reactivo de Kagan y Snidman. El estudio concluye con una con-
sideración sobre la psique subjetiva como un aspecto necesario para entender el Self y la
conciencia humana como un todo.

References
Aron, E. N. (2004). ‘Revisiting Jung’s concept of innate sensitiveness’. Journal of
Analytical Psychology, 49, 337–67.
Aron, E. N. & Aron, A. (1997). ‘Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to
introversion and emotionality’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 2,
345–68.
Aron, E. N., Aron, A. & Davies, K. M. (2005). ‘Adult shyness: The interaction of tem-
peramental sensitivity and an adverse childhood environment’. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 2, 181–97.
Boyce, W. T. & Ellis, B. J. (2005). ‘Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-
developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity’. Development
and Psychopathology, 17, 2, 271–301.
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking. New
York: Crown Publishers.
Dobbs, D. (2009). ‘The science of success’. The Atlantic, December, 51–60;
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/7761/.
Dobbs, D. (2012). ‘The orchid children’. New Scientist, 28 January 2012, 42–5.
Ellis, B. J. & Boyce, W. T. (2011). ‘Differential susceptibility to the environment: Toward
an understanding of sensitivity to developmental experiences and context’. Develop-
ment and Psychopathology, 23, 1–5.
Ellis, B. J., Boyce, W. T., Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. & van Ijzendoorn, M.
H. (2011). ‘Differential susceptibility to the environment: an evolutionary-neurodeve-
lopmental theory’. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 7–28.
Eysenck, H. J. (1953). The Structure of Human Personality. New York: John Wiley.
——— (1973). Eysenck on Extraversion. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Jagiellowicz, J., Xu, X., Aron, A., Aron E., Cao, G., Feng, T. & Weng, X. (2011). ‘The
trait of sensory processing sensitivity and neural responses to changes in visual scenes’.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6, 1, 38–47.
Jung, C. G. (1921). ‘General description of the types’. Psychological Types, CW 6.
——— (1923). ‘Appendix 2: Psychological types’. Psychological Types, CW 6.
——— (1929). ‘The significance of constitution and heredity in psychology’. CW 8.
——— (1931). ‘Appendix 3: A psychological theory of types’. Psychological Types.
CW 6.
136 Kesstan Blandin

Kagan, J. (2010). The Temperamental Thread: How Genes, Culture, Time, and Luck
Make Us Who We Are. New York: Dana Press.
Kagan, J. & Snidman, N. (2004). The Long Shadow of Temperament. Cambridge, MA:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Lane, C. (2007). Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1989). ‘Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs type indicator
from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality’. Journal of Personality,
57, 1, 17–40.
Schore, A. N. (2002). ‘The right brain as the neurobiological substratum of Freud’s
dynamic unconscious’. In The Psychoanalytic Century: Freud’s Legacy for the Future, ed.
D. Scharff. New York: The Other Press.
Vernon, P. A. (1994). The Neuropsychology of Individual Differences. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Worringer, W. R. (1911). Abstraktion und Einfühling. Munich, 3rd edn. Trans. M.
Bullock. New York: International Universities Press, 1953.
Zelenski, J. M., Santoro, M. S. & Whelan, D. C. (2012). ‘Would introverts be better off
if they acted more like extraverts? Exploring emotional and cognitive consequences of
counterdispositional behavior’. Emotion, 12, 2, 290–303.

[MS first received October 2011; final version September 2012]