Do Myers-Briggs Types Line Up with the Big Five? What Science Says

Two of the most popular personality models – the 16-type Myers-Briggs system and the Big Five traits – often seem to describe similar things in different languages. Many people wonder how their four-letter MBTI type might translate into Big Five traits (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism). Here we explore the latest research on observable correlations between MBTI dimensions and Big Five traits, highlighting what studies and large-scale surveys have found, and why the mappings aren’t perfectly one-to-one.

MBTI vs. Big Five: A Quick Primer

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) categorizes personality into four dichotomies:

• Introversion (I) – Extraversion (E): where you focus your energy (internally vs. externally).

• Sensing (S) – Intuition (N): how you prefer to take in information (concrete facts vs. big-picture patterns).

• Thinking (T) – Feeling (F): how you prefer to make decisions (logical analysis vs. personal values/empathy).

• Judging (J) – Perceiving (P): your lifestyle orientation (structured and decided vs. flexible and open-ended).

Combining these yields 16 types (like INTJ, ESFP, etc.).

Big Five (OCEAN) is a trait model measuring five continuous dimensions:

• Openness to Experience (curiosity and preference for novelty),

• Conscientiousness (organization and dependability),

• Extraversion (sociability and assertiveness),

• Agreeableness (cooperativeness and compassion),

• Neuroticism (tendency to experience negative emotions).

Unlike MBTI’s “type” approach, Big Five gives a percentile or score on each trait, with no sharp cut-offs. Despite these structural differences, researchers have found clear statistical correlations between certain MBTI dichotomies and Big Five traits . In other words, your Big Five profile can often be predicted in broad strokes from your MBTI preferences – with some caveats.

How MBTI Dimensions Correlate with Big Five Traits

Decades of studies (beginning with work by McCrae & Costa in the 1980s) have repeatedly shown that each MBTI dimension corresponds most strongly to one of the Big Five traits . The table below summarizes these typical correlations, based on peer-reviewed research:

[^1]: Correlation coefficients are approximate ranges from multiple studies. For example, a correlation of 0.70 means a strong positive relationship. Positive values indicate the second trait (Extraversion, Openness, etc.) increases when a person leans toward the second named MBTI preference (E, N, F, or P) and decreases when they lean toward the first (I, S, T, or J).

In plain English, MBTI’s Extraversion–Introversion overlaps a lot with Big Five Extraversion. If you’re an MBTI “E,” you’re likely to score high on Extraversion in Big Five; if you’re an “I,” you’ll score lower (more introverted) . In fact, one classic study found a correlation around r = 0.74 between MBTI E–I scores and Big Five Extraversion – a pretty high correspondence.

Similarly, Intuition (N) vs. Sensing corresponds to Openness. Intuitive types, who enjoy ideas and possibilities, tend to score high on Openness to Experience, whereas Sensing types who prefer concrete details score lower on Openness . Reported correlations are often in the 0.5–0.7 range, meaning a moderate-to-strong relationship.

Thinking vs. Feeling maps to Agreeableness, though less perfectly. “Feelers” (F) – who prioritize harmony and values – generally rank higher on Big Five Agreeableness (being cooperative and empathetic) than “Thinkers” (T), who prioritize logic even at the expense of harmony . The correlation (around r = 0.3–0.4) is modest but significant: on average, Thinking types are more tough-minded (lower Agreeableness), while Feeling types are more tender-minded (higher Agreeableness) . This aligns with facet-level findings: MBTI Thinking is negatively related to Big Five facets like Altruism and Tender-mindedness, which are part of Agreeableness .

Finally, Judging vs. Perceiving correlates with Conscientiousness. Those who identify as Judging (preferring planning, structure, and decisiveness) tend to score higher on Big Five Conscientiousness (being organized and disciplined) than Perceivers, who are more spontaneous and flexible . Reported correlations around 0.4–0.5 indicate a solid link. In one study, MBTI “J” was associated with Big Five facets like Orderliness and Self-Discipline, whereas “P” was linked to a more spontaneous, less structured approach .

It’s important to note these are statistical tendencies. Not every individual will fit the pattern perfectly, but across large groups the trend is clear. One analysis of over 900 people by Furnham et al. (2003) confirmed all four of these MBTI–Big Five alignments, essentially replicating earlier findings by McCrae and Costa .

What About the Fifth Trait, Neuroticism?

You might notice MBTI’s four letters don’t include Neuroticism (emotional volatility), and indeed there is no MBTI scale for Neuroticism . The Myers-Briggs framework deliberately avoids labeling anyone with “negative” traits – it focuses on stylistic preferences rather than emotional stability. However, researchers have observed a weak side correlation: on average Introverts score a bit higher on Neuroticism than Extraverts , and some data suggest Feeling types may be slightly higher in Neuroticism than Thinking types . For example, one study found MBTI Introversion had a small positive correlation (~0.16) with Big Five Neuroticism . Still, these effects are relatively minor. The Big Five’s Neuroticism stands apart as something MBTI doesn’t really capture, which is one reason psychologists consider the Big Five more comprehensive for predictive purposes (Neuroticism is a strong predictor of mental health outcomes ).

Real-World Data: Bridging Types and Traits

These correlations aren’t just abstract statistics – they show up in real-world personality data and can even let us guess an MBTI type from Big Five scores (or vice versa). For example, consider the MBTI type INTJ (Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging). According to a report from a large testing platform, over 90% of INTJs score above average on Openness and Conscientiousness, but below average on Agreeableness and Extraversion, on Big Five tests . This makes perfect sense: an INTJ’s N and J correspond to high Openness and Conscientiousness, while I and T correspond to lower Extraversion and Agreeableness. If you saw a Big Five profile with that pattern (high Openness & Conscientiousness, low Extraversion & Agreeableness), you’d have a good chance of guessing the person is an INTJ .

Another example: ENFPs are often suspected to be among the highest in Big Five Openness. Why? ENFP stands for Extraverted, iNtuitive, Feeling, Perceiving – three of those letters (E, N, P) are traits that each positively correlate with Openness . Indeed, researchers note that Intuition is the strongest MBTI predictor of Openness (r ≈ 0.64), but being Extraverted and Perceiving also adds to Openness . So an ENFP (being N + E + P) tends to love novelty and imagination, reflected in very high Openness scores (with INFP or ENTP not far behind) . On the flip side, a very practical, down-to-earth type like ISTJ (Sensing, Thinking, Judging) might score quite low on Openness, since they have none of the MBTI preferences associated with that trait.

Such patterns show that while MBTI and Big Five are different frameworks, in practice a person’s four-letter type does paint a rough outline of their Big Five profile. Each of the 16 MBTI types corresponds to a distinctive blend of Big Five traits. For instance, surveys have found types with an “F” (Feeling) letter tend to average higher Agreeableness than their “T” (Thinking) counterparts, and “P” types (Perceiving) generally score a bit lower on Conscientiousness than “J” types (Judging), consistent with their more spontaneous style . However, within any given MBTI type there’s still variation – e.g. not all INTJs are exactly alike in Big Five terms, but most will at least share the high Openness, low Agreeableness leanings. Tools like TraitLab even visualize the Big Five score distributions for each MBTI type, showing the ranges and common values (see figure below for an example).

Distribution of Big Five trait scores for individuals identifying as INFJ (one of the 16 MBTI types). Darker blue areas mean many INFJs score in that range. For instance, INFJs tend to score high on Openness and Conscientiousness, and mostly low-to-average on Extraversion, with a spread on Agreeableness and Neuroticism. Such charts illustrate how each MBTI type has characteristic Big Five tendencies, but also a range of variation within the type.

Where the Models Don’t Align: Limitations of Mapping MBTI to Big Five

Despite these correlations, MBTI and Big Five are not interchangeable. Knowing someone’s exact MBTI type doesn’t let you precisely predict their Big Five scores , and vice versa. There are several important reasons (backed by research) why the mapping is imperfect:

• MBTI “Types” Force a Dichotomy: The MBTI sorts you into either one side or the other for each dimension – there’s no middle ground. In reality, human traits are continuous. Many people are near the middle of, say, Introversion–Extraversion, but MBTI will still label them “I” or “E” depending on a cutoff. This loss of nuance can reduce predictive power. In statistical terms, dichotomizing continuous traits causes a lot of information loss . McCrae and Costa (1989) noted that treating the MBTI dimensions as categories (types) rather than continuous scores makes the instrument less reliable and lowers correlations with other measures . So, while an extreme Extravert will clearly be “E” and high on Big Five Extraversion, a moderate extravert might score only slightly above average on Big Five Extraversion but still end up labeled “E” by MBTI – blurring the correlation.

• No Neuroticism in MBTI: As mentioned, MBTI intentionally omits Neuroticism (emotional instability). This means any aspects of personality related to stress, moodiness, or emotional volatility are ignored in the MBTI system. In the Big Five, however, Neuroticism is a core dimension, and it often shows up as an important factor in behavior and life outcomes (e.g. high Neuroticism predicts anxiety and depression risk). Because MBTI doesn’t measure this at all, a big chunk of personality variance has no place in the MBTI–Big Five correspondence . You might be a very neurotic (anxious) person or very emotionally stable – MBTI doesn’t tell us, whereas Big Five does. This is a fundamental mismatch between the two models.

• MBTI Dimensions Are Blends of Multiple Traits: One might expect each MBTI scale to correspond cleanly to one Big Five trait, but in practice each MBTI scale correlates with several Big Five dimensions . For example, MBTI Introversion relates mostly to low Big Five Extraversion, but it also has a secondary link to higher Neuroticism (introverts are a bit more likely to be anxious) . MBTI Judging vs. Perceiving correlates with Conscientiousness primarily, but also modestly with Openness – Judging types tend to be a bit lower on Openness, preferring familiarity and order, whereas Perceiving types are a bit more open to new experiences (as noted by a ~0.3 correlation between MBTI Perceiving and Big Five Openness) . Likewise, Thinking–Feeling, while chiefly an Agreeableness difference, may intersect with other traits; some studies found Feeling types scored slightly higher on facets of Big Five Openness (like openness to feelings/aesthetics) than Thinking types . These cross-trait influences mean MBTI dimensions aren’t “pure” measures of a single Big Five factor. They each capture a unique mix. Recent large-scale research supports this: a 2023 study of nearly 10,000 adults found that all five Big Five traits together had some influence on each MBTI dimension, not just one trait . For instance, they observed that the MBTI Thinking–Feeling dimension was predicted not only by Agreeableness, but also by Conscientiousness and (inversely) by Openness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism to small degrees . This complexity reduces the simple clarity of the mapping.

• Evidence for “True Types” is Lacking: The MBTI assumes that the combination of your four letters (e.g. “INTJ”) has meaning as a holistic type. However, statistically, there’s little evidence that the 16 types represent qualitatively distinct groups beyond the four component dimensions . Research finds no special interactions between the MBTI scales – meaning an introverted, intuitive, thinking, judging person is basically just the sum of those traits, not a fundamentally different category of person compared to someone one letter off . The Big Five perspective would say that an INTJ differs from an ISTJ mostly by being more Open (N vs. S) and slightly less Agreeable (T vs. F), for example – and indeed, data support that view. The lack of emergent differences suggests you can’t map each of the 16 MBTI types to a unique Big Five profile without overlap, because types that share letters will share trait tendencies. (For example, INTJ and ENTJ will differ mainly in Extraversion, but both will be high in Openness and Conscientiousness due to N and J.) In short, the Big Five “five-dimensional space” subsumes what MBTI measures – any MBTI type can be described as a point in Big Five space – but MBTI types don’t cover all of Big Five (missing one dimension) and they clump people into broad regions of that space rather than precise coordinates.

• Differences in Emphasis and Approach: The MBTI is based on Carl Jung’s theory and emphasizes how people process information and make decisions, framing traits as neutral “preferences.” The Big Five, by contrast, emerged from empirical data (factor analyzing trait adjectives) and makes no value judgments – you can score high or low on any trait. Because of this, MBTI results are often presented in a more affirming, positive language (no type is supposed to be “better” than another), whereas Big Five will plainly tell you if you’re high in a potentially problematic trait like Neuroticism . This philosophical difference means the tests have different item styles and focuses. MBTI questions force choices between two modes (e.g. socialize at a party vs. read a book), while Big Five questions rate your typical behavior/feelings on a scale. These differences can lead to somewhat different respondent mindsets and outcomes. For example, MBTI’s Extraversion–Introversion includes aspects of social orientation but also what energizes you, which might not map perfectly onto the assertiveness and sociability facets of Big Five Extraversion. Thus, some variance in MBTI results isn’t captured by Big Five traits one-to-one (and vice versa).

• Measurement Variability: Different instruments and contexts can yield different correlation strengths. Earlier studies (1980s–90s) often found quite high correlations (as noted above, ~0.7 for E–I vs Extraversion, ~0.6 for S–N vs Openness, etc.). Newer research with more diverse samples sometimes finds lower correlations. For instance, a 2023 study using comprehensive Big Five facet measures reported only r ≈ 0.20 between MBTI E–I and Big Five Extraversion in their sample of working adults – much lower than expected. They similarly found weaker-than-expected simple correlations for S–N with Openness and J–P with Conscientiousness, while T–F vs Agreeableness remained moderate (around 0.35) . These results surprised many and led the authors to suggest that the MBTI and Big Five might be more different than assumed, or that the MBTI scales capture additional nuances . However, the same study noted that at the facet level and with regression analysis, the predicted alignments did emerge (e.g. MBTI Judging correlated with being orderly and disciplined – facets of Conscientiousness – even if the overall Conscientiousness correlation was modest) . Restricted range (most participants were professionals) and the binary scoring of MBTI could also attenuate correlations. The takeaway is that the strength of MBTI–Big Five correlations can vary, and while the direction of relationships is consistent (e.g. Extraverts are always more extraverted!), the degree of overlap is still a topic of ongoing research.

Wrapping Up: Two Frameworks, One Personality

In summary, the four MBTI dichotomies clearly correspond to four of the Big Five traits in predictable ways – a fact established by multiple studies . If you know someone’s MBTI type, you can make good educated guesses about their Big Five profile (for example, an ENFP will likely be high in Extraversion and Openness, moderate in Agreeableness, and lower in Conscientiousness, whereas an ISTJ will likely be opposite on many of those traits). This is why, despite different origins, the MBTI and Big Five often “complement each other quite well” in describing personality . Many people even find value in taking both assessments to see themselves through two lenses – the trait lens (Big Five) and the type lens (MBTI).

However, it’s crucial to appreciate the limitations of translating between the two. The MBTI simplifies personality into neat categories that don’t capture the full variability or certain key traits (like Neuroticism) , and it treats all traits as binary “preferences” rather than spectra. The Big Five provides a more fine-grained, empirically grounded measurement, but it lacks the intuitive, narrative appeal of the MBTI’s type descriptions. Each system has its strengths: Big Five is lauded for scientific validity, while MBTI wins on approachability and practical insight (especially in career or team contexts).

Modern research continues to explore these mappings and even how to use them together. For instance, some studies in “personality computing” attempt to predict someone’s MBTI type from their Big Five scores or vice versa using machine learning . Others have looked at integrating MBTI with additional models (like the Enneagram) to see if combining systems gives a more complete picture . There is even speculation that understanding the correlation between MBTI and Big Five could help “overcome each of their individual shortcomings” by leveraging the strengths of both .

For an intelligent non-specialist interested in personality, what does all this mean? In practical terms, if you know your MBTI type, you’ve got a head start on knowing your likely Big Five tendencies (especially on Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness). But remember that people are more than four letters or five scores. Two INTJs might both be very high in Openness, but one INTJ might be much more neurotic (which MBTI won’t tell you but Big Five would). Or two people could both be high in Big Five Extraversion, but one is an ESFP and another is an ENFJ – sharing enthusiasm and sociability, but differing on other aspects like how they make decisions or how organized they are.

Bottom line: The MBTI and Big Five describe the same human personality space from different angles. Research shows they do correlate in meaningful ways (so the “language” of one can be translated into the other to a degree) . Yet, each model also leaves out pieces that the other includes. Being aware of the correlations and the gaps gives you a more nuanced understanding. So if you’re an MBTI enthusiast, it’s worth exploring your Big Five traits to fill in the details; if you’re a Big Five devotee, understanding your MBTI type can add a richer narrative to those trait scores. In the end, neither system has a monopoly on describing you – taken together, they offer a more complete picture of the complex person you are.

References

1. R. R. McCrae & P. T. Costa Jr. (1989). “Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model.” Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17–40. (Classic study mapping MBTI scales to Big Five traits)

2. A. Furnham (1996). “The big five versus the big four: The relationship between the MBTI and NEO-PI five factor model of personality.” (Early evidence that MBTI E–I aligns with Extraversion, S–N with Openness, etc., plus noting MBTI doesn’t measure Neuroticism)

3. A. Furnham, J. Moutafi, & J. Crump (2003). “The relationship between the revised NEO Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.” Social Behavior and Personality, 31(6), 577–584. (Large sample of 900; found E–I correlates ~0.7 with Extraversion, S–N ~0.65 with Openness, T–F ~0.4 with Agreeableness, J–P ~0.46 with Conscientiousness, mirroring earlier studies)

4. A. Furnham & L. McClelland (2022). “The Big Five Facets and the MBTI.” Psychology, 13(8), 1307–1325. (Recent study of ~9,500 adults; found expected MBTI–Big Five relationships but surprisingly low direct correlations; discusses facet-level nuances and questions overlap)

5. TraitLab Blog (Gregory Park, Ph.D.) – “MBTI and the Big Five Personality Traits.” (Explains how each MBTI scale correlates with multiple Big Five traits; includes visual distributions for each of the 16 types)

6. Truity/True You Journal (Nathan Falde) – “How unity emerges from difference: the surprising Myers-Briggs/Big Five correlation.” (Gives a narrative, example with INTJ having specific Big Five high/low pattern; emphasizes that taking both tests can be complementary)

7. Personality Junkie (A.J. Drenth) – “Big Five & MBTI Correlations.” (Blog citing Furnham’s study; provides detailed correlation breakdown, e.g. Openness correlates strongly with N, moderately with P and E, etc., and speculates which types are highest on Openness)

8. Psychology Stack Exchange – User discussion summarizing McCrae & Costa’s findings. (Convenient summary of key correlation figures: E–I vs Extraversion ~0.74, S–N vs Openness ~0.72, T–F vs Agreeableness ~0.44, J–P vs Conscientiousness ~0.49, etc., plus note on Neuroticism)

9. The Myers-Briggs Company – MBTI Facts & Common Criticisms. (Acknowledges that MBTI doesn’t measure “good/bad” traits like Neuroticism, and that it should be used for self-development rather than diagnosis – aligning with differences vs Big Five)