




































    

 American Journal of Medical and Physical Education 
Vol.7, Issue 6; November-December 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

  

 

 

28 | A m e r i c a n  J o u r n a l  o f  M e d i c a l  a n d  P h y s i c a l  E d u c a t i o n  

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE 

PERSONALITY TYPES AND WELLNESS IN PHARMACY STUDENTS 

 

 

Jesse Shadowen, E. Sheaffe, K. Mcnutt, G. Hudson, and A. Robert 
California State University 

 

Abstract: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality assessment tool that can be used to 

understand how individuals handle stress and maintain wellness. Prior studies have shown that certain personality 

traits are more adept at maintaining an overall positive wellness in their life than others. This study investigated 

the relationship between MBTI personality type and wellness in pharmacy students. 

The study found that introverts had a more balanced sense of wellness than extroverts. Introverts were more likely 

to make time for themselves and engage in activities that helped them relax and recharge. Extroverts, on the other 

hand, were more likely to focus on emotional needs and less on personal and intellectual needs. 

The study also found that extroverts were more likely to participate in wellness-based activities, such as exercise, 

than introverts. However, introverts who did participate in these activities were just as likely to benefit from them 

as extroverts. 

Keywords: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Personality type, Wellness, Pharmacy students, Stress, 

Introvert, Extrovert, Exercise, Well-being 

 

 

Introduction    
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an assessment tool that is used to categorize individuals by 
personality traits and overall psychological types11. The assessment is made up of over one hundred questions 
that the participant swiftly answers with the first thought that comes to mind. Once the participant completes the 
assessment, they are assigned the following traits: introvert (I) or extrovert (E), sensing (S) or intuition (N), 
thinking (T) or feeling (F), and judging (J) or perceiving (P). After the participant is assigned their traits and types 
(four traits combined), inferences can be made about their personality and how they handle situations as well as 
their daily lives. This assessment is primarily used to analyze how people interact with and understand each other, 
especially in the workplace.   
Prior studies1 have used these personality traits to outline how individuals handle stress and maintain wellness. 
Wellness is defined as the balance-point between an individual’s resources and the challenges he or she faces2,10. 
However, a person can be in a state of “well-being” but not “wellness” because they are only at a balance point 
and not in a true state of overall wellness. In pharmacy school, students are faced with balancing multiple 
academic tasks and assignments along with their personal life. This can be difficult for students because it may 
be the first time they are living on their own or faced with adversity of this magnitude. Certain personality traits 
are more adept at maintaining an overall positive wellness in their life while others struggle4. Their actions and 
daily activities can be related back to MBTI types based on their behavior.  
A very notable difference in how individuals may approach their own wellness is in their personality trait of 
“introverted” or “extroverted”. Extraverts are much more sociable and include group activities as a major part of 
their own wellness because it is their preferred outlet from stress and a source of happiness. Introverts on the other 
hand, typically prefer isolation or time away from others to recharge and escape outside stressors. Current studies6 
show introverts to have a more balanced sense of wellness because they always make time for themselves, 
whereas extroverts have a more slanted wellness based primarily on emotional needs and less towards personal 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Medical and Physical Education 
Vol.7, Issue 6; November-December 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

  

 

 

29 | A m e r i c a n  J o u r n a l  o f  M e d i c a l  a n d  P h y s i c a l  E d u c a t i o n  

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE 

and intellectual needs. However, some studies have shown an extraverted personality type to include more 
wellness-based activities such as exercise in their daily lifestyle because of social interactions. Contrastingly, 
introverts who may not practice certain wellness activities, such as exercise, were less likely to complete those 
activities in the studies6.   
People with a “sensing” personality trait rely primarily on concrete facts and their five senses. These individuals 
have shown to be more likely to reach out to their support system (friends, family, etc.), while people with an 
“intuition” personality trait are less likely. This is presumed because people with an intuition personality type 
would rather resolve problems themselves and are more likely to remember patterns than facts. This means if an 
intuitive individual has dealt with significant adversity before they are more likely to use past experiences 
(patterns) to help them through the process as opposed to a sensing individual who would reach out immediately 
because of what they are feeling in that moment2. Because of this, more intuitive individuals predominately scored 
lower on scales assessing wellness, regardless of being an introvert or extrovert9.  
“Feelers” are defined as people who are concerned with values and what is best for all those involved. “Thinkers” 
are defined as people who stay true to basic principles and make logical decisions based on pros and cons. Feelers 
were shown to have more extreme differences in wellness, while thinkers maintained a relatively consistent sense 
of wellness6. In general, thinkers have a better overall wellness because they do not experience such extreme 
highs and lows6. This is likely due to thinkers staying relatively consistent in situations based on their principles, 
whereas feelers may make extreme sacrifices for others in certain situations, resulting in feelingsof depression or 
anxiousness.   
The authors did not locate any studies published on pharmacy students’ personality traits and their overall 
wellness. Pharmacy school is one of many graduate programs that provide a unique challenge and stressful 
experience for students; many studies suggest that students develop psychological disorders such as anxiety or 
depression as a result2. Being able to identify personality traits that are more susceptible to these trends and have 
a lower state of wellness can be a key factor in improving student mental health and productivity in pharmacy 
school and other graduate programs.   

2. Methods     
A Cross-sectional Qualtrics online survey was designed to collect data to assess the stress and wellness of 
McWhorter School of Pharmacy students. The survey included seven multiple choice demographic questions and 
53 questions of varying options that assessed personality traits, stress, and wellness (as well as other factors 
assessed by other investigators). The questions were sent to the Institutional Review Board at Samford University 
and received exempt status. The survey was then sent out via an email link to full-time students enrolled in the 
graduating classes of 2021 to 2023 at McWhorter School of Pharmacy to participate in the survey. The survey 
was open for four weeks, with three reminders. The responses were collected anonymously through the 
“anonymize response” feature in Qualtrics. 
 Demographic questions such as age and gender were included to ensure the responses were representative of the 
student population, as well as provide data that could be used for analyses. The personality questions contained 
in the survey were based on the MBTI and were piloted in advance: they appear to accurately determine an 
individual’s personality type/traits. Subsequent questions—on wellness, depression, resilience, and Gallup 
Strengths—were developed based on general principles in the literature for the other investigators’ research 
questions. Those questions also were piloted. The survey was voluntary but was incentivized by a drawing for 
one of five $20 Amazon.com gift cards or a hand sanitizer gift set. Once participants completed the survey, they 
were linked to a separate survey to enter an optional drawing for the gifts. Access to the second survey data was 
restricted to the faculty investigator to protect the anonymity of the participant list.   

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Medical and Physical Education 
Vol.7, Issue 6; November-December 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

  

 

 

30 | A m e r i c a n  J o u r n a l  o f  M e d i c a l  a n d  P h y s i c a l  E d u c a t i o n  

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE 

The results of the primary survey were provided to the investigators. An initial review was conducted in Qualtrics 
to eliminate incomplete responses. The complete responses were then exported to Microsoft Excel and IBM’s 
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for further analysis. A total of 179 students completed the 
survey, which was approximately 50% of the target population. Tests used for data analysis included sample t-
tests and Chi-square tests to determine significance, independence, and p-values.  

3. Results 
There were 179 total responses to the survey consisting of 122 females and 57 males. There were 24 students age 
18-21, 104 students age 22-25, 28 students age 26-29, and 17 students 30 years and older. Of the 179 responses, 
the recorded wellness scores ranged from 25 to 41 and the average wellness score was 32.72, which would be 
categorized as a C wellness rating.  
Of the total 179 responses, 32 were categorized as extroverts and 147 were categorized as introverts. Extroverts’ 
wellness rating ranged from A to C and introverts’ wellness rating ranged from B to D. The frequency of wellness 
ratings for introverts/extroverts is listed in Table 1 below. 
Table 1: Frequency of Reported Wellness Ratings of Introverts/Extroverts in Samford University McWhorter 
School of Pharmacy Students 

  Wellness Rating  

Personality Trait  A  B  C  D  

Extroversion  0.5% (1)    7.8% (14)    9.5% (17)  0.0% (0)  

Introversion  0.0% (0)  35.8% (64)  41.9% (75)  4.5% (8)  

Total  0.5% (1)  43.6% (78)  51.4% (92)  4.5% (8)  

A = wellness score of 41 or greater  

B = wellness score of 34-40  

C = wellness score of 27-33  

D = wellness score of 20-26 
Of the total 179 responses, 76 were categorized as having a “sensing” personality trait and 103 were categorized 
as having an “intuitive” personality trait (these are dichotomous traits). Sensing individuals had a wellness rating 
that ranged from A to D and intuitive individuals had a wellness rating that ranged from B to D. The frequency 
of wellness ratings for sensing/intuitive personality traits are listed below in Table 2.  
Table 2: Frequency of Reported Wellness Ratings of Sensing/Intuitive Individuals in Samford University 
McWhorter School of Pharmacy Students 

  Wellness Rating  

Personality Trait  A  B  C  D  
Sensing  0.5% (1)  19.0% (34)  22.3% (40)  0.5% (1)  
Intuition  0.0% (0)  24.6% (44)  29.1% (52)  4.0% (7)  
Total  0.5% (1)  43.6% (78)  51.4% (92)  4.5% (8)  
A = wellness score of 41 or greater  

B = wellness score of 34-40  

C = wellness score of 27-33  

D = wellness score of 20-26 
Of the total 179 responses, 106 were categorized as having a “feeling” personality trait and 73 were categorizes 
as having a “thinking” personality trait. Feeling individuals had a wellness rating that ranged from A to D and 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Medical and Physical Education 
Vol.7, Issue 6; November-December 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

  

 

 

31 | A m e r i c a n  J o u r n a l  o f  M e d i c a l  a n d  P h y s i c a l  E d u c a t i o n  

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE 

thinking individuals had a wellness rating that ranged from B to D. The frequency of wellness ratings for 
sensing/intuitive personality traits are listed below in Table 3. 
Table 3: Frequency of Reported Wellness Ratings of Feeling/Thinking Individuals in Samford University 
McWhorter School of Pharmacy Students 

  Wellness Rating  

Personality Trait  A  B  C  D  
Feeling   0.5% (1)  24.6% (44)  31.3% (56)  2.8% (5)  
Thinking  0.0% (0)  19.0% (34)  20.1% (36)  1.7% (3)  
Total  0.5% (1)  43.6% (78)  51.4% (92)  4.5% (8)  

A = wellness score of 41 or greater  

B = wellness score of 34-40  

C = wellness score of 27-33  

D = wellness score of 20-26  
Of the total 179 responses, 23 were categorized as living with a parent(s) or guardian(s), 121 were categorized as 
“living with a roommate(s) &/or spouse”, and 35 were categorized as “alone or as a single parent”.  
Both “Individuals living with a parent(s) or guardian(s)” or “alone or as a single parent” had a wellness rating 
that ranged from a B to a D and “individuals living with a roommate(s) &/or spouse” had a wellness rating that 
ranged from an A to a D. The frequency of wellness ratings based on current living arrangements is listed below 
in Table  
4. 
Table 4: Frequency of Reported Wellness Ratings Based on Current Living Arrangements in Samford University 
McWhorter School of Pharmacy Students  

  Wellness Rating  

Living Arrangements  A  B  C  D  
With Parent(s) or Guardian(s)  0.0% (0)   3.4% (06)    8.4% (15)  1.1% (2) With Roommate(s) 
&/or Spouse  0.5% (1)  31.8% (57)  33.0% (59)  2.3% (4)  
Alone or As a Single Parent  0.0% (0)    8.4% (15)  10.0% (18)  1.1% (2)  
Total  0.5% (1)  43.6% (78)  51.4% (92)  4.5% (8)  

A = wellness score of 41 or greater  

B = wellness score of 34-40  

C = wellness score of 27-33  

D = wellness score of 20-26  
 Of all the comparisons, none yielded a statistically significant result when conducting a Chi-square test. The 
closest p-value was from the comparison between introverts and extroverts seen below in Table 5. The value did 
not reach the target goal of  0.05 and therefore is not statistically significant.  
Table 5: Statistical Analysis of Wellness Ratings Comparing Introverts/Extroverts in Samford University 
McWhorter School of Pharmacy Students.  

Test Type  p-value*  
Pearson Chi-Square Test (2-sided)  0.095  
Likelihood Ratio (2-sided)  0.085  
N=179  

4. Discussion   
One hundred and forty-seven of the 179 responders were categorized as introverts and only 32 were categorized 
as extroverts. Based on previous studies, it is hypothesized that while introverts have a more consistent sense of 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Medical and Physical Education 
Vol.7, Issue 6; November-December 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

  

 

 

32 | A m e r i c a n  J o u r n a l  o f  M e d i c a l  a n d  P h y s i c a l  E d u c a t i o n  

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE 

wellness, they are more likely to have a lower overall wellness rating due to their lack of interactions with a 
support system. This hypothesis is supported by the data provided in Table 1. Though there were fewer extraverts 
in the study, they had a higher average wellness rating and did not have a rating recorded lower than a C. 
Opposingly, the results showed that introverts had a lower average wellness rating and did not have a single rating 
that was recorded higher than a B. The data was heavily skewed towards introverts and it is unclear if there was 
a misinterpretation of the E/I questions or if the results were affected by the COVID-19 stayat-home orders in 
place during the survey.  
When comparing sensing to intuitive personality traits, this was the most balanced category in terms of results, 
with 46% of sensing individuals and 42.7% of intuitive individuals having a wellness rating of a B or higher. This 
result was surprising because, based on previous studies8, intuitive individuals scored significantly lower than 
their sensing counterparts. This was believed to be due to sensing individuals being more aware of their own 
stress and likely to reach out to their support system and intuitive individuals being more likely to work through 
their own problems. However, this was not the case in this study.   
The results for feelers versus thinkers were also similar. Roughly 42.5% of feelers had a wellness rating of a B or 
higher and 46.6% of thinkers had a wellness rating of a B or higher.  Feelers had a lower overall average wellness 
rating but did not completely follow the trends outlined by prior studies. Previous studies6 suggest that feelers 
think more of how an action impacts another individual than themselves and it results in a more extreme variance 
in wellness, compared to a thinker who makes primarily logical decisions, regardless of those impacted. Feelers 
did have more A and D wellness ratings, but it was hypothesized that thinkers would only have B or C ratings 
since they are typically more consistent.    
Most participants categorized themselves as “living with a roommate(s) &/or spouse”, accounting for 67.6% of 
the total number of participants. This group had the greatest percent of members with a wellness rating of B or 
higher at 47.9% and the group categorized as “living with a parent(s) or guardian(s)” had the lowest percent of 
members with a wellness rating of B or higher at 26.1%.  
The group categorized as “living alone or as a single parent” had 42.8% of participants with a wellness rating of 
a B or higher. These results show that even if a support system is available through someone you live with, it does 
not guarantee a higher wellness rating.  
The study had enough participants to make reasonable conclusions based on the results, which was a strength. 
The survey was online and easily accessible for the participants because it was not limited by location. The 
window to complete the survey was open four weeks, which gave responders adequate time to respond even if 
they were on a clinical rotation. The length of the survey made it manageable for the survey to be completed in a 
reasonable amount of time and was incentivized to help promote full completion and response to the survey.  
 One weakness in this study was the response bias. When looking at the results it is apparent that the data is 
heavily skewed towards females and students between the ages of 22-25. However, this is likely because that 
demographic is representative of students enrolled in pharmacy schools3,5. While this data may not be as 
applicable to other professions or demographics, it is representative of most pharmacy schools. If a future study 
were conducted, it would be important to have a more diverse demographic subject group and conducted at other 
pharmacy schools or healthcare divisions if possible so more inferences and applications could be made in using 
the study.  
Another weakness in the study was the lack of statistical significance. While there were trends present or 
inferences that could be made when looking at the results of the survey, none of the research questions yielded a 
p-value 0.05 when conducting a Chi-square test. Only one of the comparisons yielded a value near the target 
goal, which was comparing introverts versus extroverts. Studies have shown a strong link between the two 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Medical and Physical Education 
Vol.7, Issue 6; November-December 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

  

 

 

33 | A m e r i c a n  J o u r n a l  o f  M e d i c a l  a n d  P h y s i c a l  E d u c a t i o n  

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE 

personality traits and wellness.  However, from a statistical perspective the null hypothesis was accepted in each 
case, meaning there is no difference between any of the groups outlined in the research questions. 
A potential weakness was the wording and number of questions used to assess personality traits. While the 
questions were based on MBTI questions, the results received from the survey were divergent from pharmacy 
students’ aggregate official MBTI assessment results over the last several years. As previously mentioned, there 
was a heavy bias towards introverts rather than extroverts we did not expect. One potential cause could have been 
the COVID-19 environment students were in (largely online classes at home). Students’responses may have been 
atypical as compared to pre-COVID conditions. The isolated and stressful environment likely lowered the 
respondents’ wellness ratings and may have caused them to either adapt or change their daily routine and 
activities. A larger sample size of both categories in an environment without a pandemic should help further 
illuminate and support this expected trend.  

5. Conclusion  
 Wellness represents an important component in mental health and observing it has led to improvements in 
individual’s productivity and outlook in the workplace in previous studies3,7,9. While this study was not able to 
provide statistical justification to assertions made between personality and wellness, it did provide insight on what 
trends to expect when looking at traits such as extroversion versus introversion. More studies need to be conducted 
to further assess the connection between personality traits and wellness to further assess the potential implications 
on learning, productivity, and mental health. This data could be used to adjust curriculum in pharmacy schools or 
anticipate potential stressors for individuals based on their personality traits or type.  

6. References  

Abdullahi, A.M., Orji, R., Rabiu, A.M., &Kawu, A.A. (2020). Personality and subjective well-being: Towards 
personalized persuasive interventions for health and well-being. Online journal of public health 
informatics, 12(1). doi:10.5210/ojphi.v12i1.10335  

Bart, R., Ishak, W.W., Ganjian, S., et al. (2018). The assessment and measurement of wellness in the clinical 
medical setting: A systematic review. Innovations in clinical neuroscience, 15(9-10), 14-23.  

Boult, M. J. L., Thompson, R. C., & Schaubhut, N. A. (2017). Well-Being and MBTI personality type in the 
workplace: An international comparison. Retrieved on February 23, 2021 from 
https://ap.themyersbriggs.com/content/ 
Research%20and%20White%20Papers/MBTI/White_Paper_Well-being_and_MBTI_Personality_Type_ 
in_the_Workplace.pdf  

Ferguson, E. (2013). Personality is of central concern to understand health: Towards a theoretical model for health 
psychology. Health psychology review, 7(Suppl1), S32. doi:10.1080/17437199.2010.547985  

Grabenstein, J. D. (2016). Trends in the numbers of U.S. colleges of pharmacy and their graduates, 1900 to 2014.  

American journal of pharmaceutical education, 80(2). doi:10.5688/ajpe80225  

Jinkerson, J., Masilla, A., & Hawkins, R.C. (2015). Can MBTI dimensions predict therapy outcome: Differences 
in the thinking-feeling function pair in CBT. Research in psychotherapy: Psychopathology, process, and 
outcome, 18(1). doi:10.4081/ripppo.2015.167  

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com


    

 American Journal of Medical and Physical Education 
Vol.7, Issue 6; November-December 2022; 

1252 Columbia Rd NW, Washington DC, United States 

https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE; mail: topacademicjournals@gmail.com 

  

 

 

34 | A m e r i c a n  J o u r n a l  o f  M e d i c a l  a n d  P h y s i c a l  E d u c a t i o n  

|  https://topjournals.org/index.php/AJMPE 

Löckenhoff, C.E., Duberstein, P.R., Friedman, B., & Costa, P.T. (2011). Five-factor personality traits and 
subjective health among caregivers: The role of caregiver strain and self-efficacy. Psychology and aging, 
26(3), 592-604. doi:10.1037/a0022209  

Schommer, J., Tieger, P., Olson, A., & Brown, L. (2017). Applying personality type theory to develop 
individualized wellness plans for reducing chronic diseases. Innovations in pharmacy, 8(1).  
doi:10.24926/21550417.1328  

Sperandeo, R., Messina, G., Iennaco, D., et al. (2020). What does personality mean in the context of mental 
health? A topic modeling approach based on abstracts published in PubMed over the last 5 years. Frontiers 
in psychiatry, 10, 1. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00938  

Srivastava, K., & Das, R. (2015). Personality and health: Road to well-being. Industrial psychiatry journal, 
24(1):1. doi:10.4103/0972-6748.160905  

Storm, Susan (2015, August 5). How each Myers-Briggs® type reacts to stress (and how to help!). Retrieved on 
March 16, 2020 from https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/2015/08/02/how-each-mbti-type-reacts-to-
stress-andhow-to-help/ 

mailto:topacademicjournals@gmail.com

