The main objective of this study was to analyze the MBTI of medical students in relation to their demographic features, academic performance, preferred learning styles, specialty interests and career values. This study uniquely analyzes these variables amongst medical students at a single, 4-year allopathic medical school in the United States. Based on the results of this study, resources may be developed to provide personalized academic and student wellness support for medical students that are more tailored to their personality types during this rigorous phase of their career journey.
4.1: Prevalence of Unique MBTIs
When compared to the general population internationally, physicians have been more associated with particular MBTI personality characteristics [12, 13, 14]. Our results demonstrate that a majority of medical students in the sample utilized belonged to Extraverted/Sensing/Thinking/Perceiving (ESTP) personality types (Table 1). Among Taiwanese physicians, one previously conducted study identified Sensing, Thinking, and Judging (STJ) personality types most frequently when compared to junior doctors [12]. These findings corroborate the majority personality types found in our study, with the exception of the Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P) category. Another study on the MBTI in senior ED medical staff found that the Extraverted/Intuition/Thinking/Judging (ENTJ) personality type was dominant in these individuals [14]. Our study similarly found a majority of medical students exhibit Extraverted (E) and Thinking (T) personality traits, but are more commonly associated with Sensing (S) and Perceiving (P) characteristics as well.
The disparities between these results may in part be due to the differences in sample groups of these studies. These studies and others primarily survey doctors in comparison to the general population, rather than medical students. Some studies have demonstrated that an individual’s MBTI may evolve significantly as an individual ages, which may lead to the personality types of medical students varying from their physician counterparts [19, 20, 21]. One study comparing medical students with surgeons found increased conscientiousness and extraversion, and decreased openness in surgeons compared to medical students, clearly demonstrating the ability for personality traits to change as one progresses through the medical profession [21]. Furthermore, many studies that are currently analyzing the personality types of physicians draw their sample from within a specific medical specialty. Different medical specialties have been shown to be correlated with distinct MBTI personality characteristics as well, which may confound findings regarding MBTI in physicians as a whole [10, 11, 15, 16]. For example, surgery and emergency-based specialties have demonstrated an association with more risk-taking personality traits and higher stress resilience [12, 22]. Beyond these rationale, there are numerous confounding variables, including gender and geographic location, that may influence one’s personality [23, 24, 25]. Future studies should be conducted that investigate the personality characteristics of medical students as a whole to affirm our results.
4.2: Demographic Characteristics
Within our cohort of medical students, specific personality types were associated with particular demographic characteristics. In regard to age, younger medical students were found to be significantly associated with Extraverted (E) and Judging (J) personality types compared to older medical students (Table 2). As previously mentioned, age may greatly impact personality traits in individuals, which may in part contribute to these findings [19, 20, 21]. Additional studies have shown that older medical students may have unique responsibilities outside of medical school compared to younger students, as well as different learning strategies due to potential gaps between periods of schooling—both of which may impact their extraversion among other personality characteristics in the challenging medical school environment [26]. Furthermore, there may be intrinsic personality differences between the older and younger medical school applicants admitted at the institution surveyed in this study, or at medical schools in general.
The only significant finding in regard to the relationship between MBTI and medical student gender was that males were more likely to possess the Thinking (T) personality type compared to females (Table 3). Yet, this finding has been corroborated in other studies as well. One study looking at veterinary students also found that men were significantly associated with the Thinking (T) personality type, while females were more so correlated with Feeling (F) [24]. Other studies have shown that females are more associated with choosing primary care specialties than males, which have also been shown to correlate with the Feeling (F) personality type [10, 27, 28, 29]. The Feeling (F) personality type may reflect individuals with strong emotional intelligence, which may be beneficial in establishing strong physician-patient relationships in people-oriented specialties such as those of primary care [30].
Beyond these age and gender related differences, our study found no significant relationship between the first generation status of medical students nor the SES of medical students with the MBTI (Table 3). Interestingly, one study found that first generation medical students were more likely to be male and aged 21-26, qualities that we found associated with distinct MBTI personality characteristics [31]. It may be possible that other demographic factors have a more significant relationship with an individual's personality type, however there is a substantial lack of research investigating the personality types of medical students in relation to these variables specifically. More studies should be conducted specifically looking at these factors in relation to medical students' personalities to ensure adequate support is provided to medical students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
4.3: Academic Performance & Learning Styles
In regard to the academic performance of medical students, the only statistically significant finding was that Thinking (T) individuals tend to perform better than Feeling (F) (Table 4). Additional studies have corroborated these results as well. One study found that for osteopathic medical students in the United States, Feeling (F) medical students were also associated with lower COMLEX-USA Level 1 standardized test performance than Thinking (T) students [8]. As previously discussed, Feeling (F) type individuals are also more associated with choosing primary care specialties, including Family Medicine and Internal Medicine [10, 11, 15]. Interestingly, these specialties have been found to score, on average, lower on USMLE Step I and II scores than non-primary care specialties, such as dermatology, further affirming this association of academic performance and MBTI [32]. Other studies found that Extraverted (E) medical students and residents have also been associated with stronger academic performance and less burnout than their Introverted (I) counterparts, however our study did not show significance in this comparison [6, 17].
It was additionally found that different MBTI personalities prefer varying forms of learning styles and learning environments. Extraverted (E) individuals were found to significantly prefer a hands-on learning style compared to Introverted (I) individuals (Table 7). Judging (J) individuals also prefer a hands-on learning style, and a quiet individualized studying environment, as opposed to Perceiving (P) individuals (Table 7). The official MBTI describes the specific ESTJ personality type as individuals preferring “practical, hands-on activities”, paralleling the findings we identified in Extraverted (E) and Judging (J) medical students [33]. In addition, various studies have analyzed other facets regarding the difference in preferred learning style based on student personality. One Iranian study described that Extraverted (E) individuals may be associated with a group-based learning style compared to working alone [34]. Another study in United States dental students found that students with personality types containing Judging (J) prefer well-structured and logical instruction as well as clearly knowing their expectations, among other findings [35]. It has been shown that medical students’ learning style may significantly impact their academic achievement; therefore the described association between learning style and MBTI further highlights the potential for providing educational support based on individual personalities [36, 37].
4.4: Specialty Interests & Career Values
In addition to the academic performance and preferences of medical students, there were various differences found in students’ specialty interests and prioritized values in their medical career. The major significant finding in regard to students’ specialty interests is that Feeling (F) students had a higher interest in people-oriented specialties than technology-oriented specialties compared to Thinking (T) students (Table 5). Another study looking at 12 U.S. medical schools also found that Feeling (F) types matched into Family Medicine significantly more often than Thinking (T) types, whereas Thinking (T) types were associated with surgical specialties more frequently [10]. This makes intuitive sense considering the Feeling (F) archetype, as the continuity of patient care and the importance of empathy in primary care physicians may appeal to those with a Feeling (F) personality type [10, 30]. Meanwhile, Thinking (T) individuals tend to make decisions based more on objectivity and less on emotion—resonating more closely with technology-oriented specialties such as surgery [10, 30]. However, there are other students that contrast these findings. Matching in psychiatry, a people-oriented specialty, was found to have no significant association with any MBTI personality characteristics in another U.S. study [16]. Additionally, other studies have identified differences regarding the other three MBTI categories besides Feeling (F) vs. Thinking (T) when looking at the profile of medical specialties and those interested in them as well, especially Extraversion (E) vs. Introversion (I) —however we did not find significance in these areas [11, 15]. These results may be disparate due to numerous confounding factors that may impact MBTI, emphasizing the importance of large and multi-institutional studies to more thoroughly look at the relationship between MBTI and specialty choice.
Finally, there were multiple significant differences found when looking at the career values of medical students (Table 6). Thinking (T) medical students were found to care more about the type of patient contact they will experience (i.e., long term, short term, minimal, etc.) compared to Feeling (F) students. Meanwhile, Feeling (F) medical students were found to care more about variety in patient care compared to Thinking (T) students. In addition to the Feeling (F) vs. Thinking (T) category, Perceiving (P) students were found to value prestige higher than Judging (J) students, while Judging (J) students were significantly more likely to value lifestyle. Many of these findings make rational sense when considering the personality archetypes of these students. For example, several people-oriented medical specialties such as Family Medicine and Pediatrics have potential for a high variety of patient care, emphasizing the fit of Feeling (F) personality types in these roles [10, 30]. Although various factors may be at play when analyzing specialty preference and values in medical students, personality is undoubtedly a crucial component of how students approach their career roles and their ability to excel in specific professions [38].
4.5: Limitations and Future Directions
There were multiple limitations to this study. First, this study utilizes a cross-sectional design, in which data collected demonstrates a specific time frame of medical students’ MBTI personality types. As previously stated, MBTI personalities are dynamic and may change significantly with time. Due to this cross-sectional design, a cause-and-effect relationship could not be established in this study. Secondly, a major limitation of this study was the response rate and sample size. All medical students at the Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas were invited to participate in this study, however only 83/246 (33.7%) individuals actually completed the survey. There may be substantial differences in the personality types of students that did complete the survey compared to those who did not, decreasing the validity of the study results. This study was additionally a single-institution study, and regional variations in personality type may confound results and reduce generalizability of findings. Future studies should take a multi-institutional approach to looking at personality types of medical students in the United States, or even on a global scale, to achieve a larger sample size and prevent regional confounding. This may also provide the unique opportunity to compare the personality types of medical students present in different medical programs or regions, which could assist students in finding programs with a good fit for their specific personality type. Additionally, it would be beneficial for future studies to further analyze the differences in personality characteristics of United States medical students compared to resident and attending physicians in the United States in varying specialties in order to develop resources for individual personality types designed to prevent burnout and provide support throughout the medical training pathway.