Jungian Personality Preference Profiles as Predictors of Maladaptive Daydreaming in Adults    

Jungian Personality Preference Profiles as Predictors of Maladaptive Daydreaming in Adults | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 7 January 2026 V1 Latest version Share on Jungian Personality Preference Profiles as Predictors of Maladaptive Daydreaming in Adults Author : Deen Mohd Dar 0009-0002-5203-8054 [email protected] Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176780730.07335194/v1 419 views 162 downloads Contents Abstract Theoretical Framework Objectives and Hypotheses Method Statistical Analysis Plan Results Correlation Analysis Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Interpretation Profile-Based Analysis of Personality Preferences Discussion References Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Maladaptive daydreaming is characterized by excessive, immersive fantasy activity that interferes with daily functioning and psychological well-being. While prior research has linked maladaptive daydreaming to absorption, dissociation, and emotional regulation difficulties, limited attention has been given to underlying personality preference patterns that may predispose individuals to this phenomenon. Drawing on Jungian personality theory, the present study examined whether dimensional personality preferences predict maladaptive daydreaming tendencies in adults. A non-clinical sample of 160 adults completed the Trait Profiler Jungian Preference Scale (TP-JPS) , assessing four bipolar personality dimensions—Introversion–Extraversion, Sensing–Intuition, Thinking–Feeling, and Judging–Perceiving—and the Deenz Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale (DMDS-26) , measuring immersive imagination, emotional involvement, distraction, and time distortion. Pearson correlation analyses and hierarchical multiple regression were conducted to evaluate associations and predictive relationships between personality preferences and maladaptive daydreaming. Results indicated that internal-oriented and abstract cognitive preferences were meaningfully associated with higher maladaptive daydreaming scores. After controlling for demographic variables, Jungian personality dimensions accounted for a significant proportion of variance in maladaptive daydreaming. Preference profile analyses further suggested that certain combinations of personality orientations were associated with elevated fantasy immersion and attentional disengagement. These findings support a dimensional, personality-based understanding of maladaptive daydreaming and extend Jungian theory into contemporary research on immersive cognitive phenomena. The study highlights the value of personality preference frameworks for conceptualizing individual differences in maladaptive imaginative engagement. Theoretical Framework The present study is grounded in a dimensional interpretation of Jungian personality theory, which conceptualizes individual differences in psychological functioning as systematic preferences in cognitive orientation, information processing, evaluative judgment, and experiential regulation. Unlike surface-level trait descriptors, Jungian preferences reflect foundational patterns in how individuals attend to, interpret, and engage with both internal and external experiences. These patterns are particularly relevant to maladaptive daydreaming, a phenomenon characterized by excessive internal absorption, vivid imaginative construction, emotional immersion, and difficulty disengaging from internally generated content. By integrating Jungian personality preferences with contemporary models of maladaptive daydreaming, the present framework positions immersive fantasy engagement as a personality-linked cognitive phenomenon rather than an isolated behavioral anomaly. Each Jungian preference dimension is theorized to contribute uniquely to the intensity, quality, and regulatory features of maladaptive daydreaming experiences. Introversion–Extraversion and Internal Absorption The Introversion–Extraversion dimension represents the direction of psychological energy and attentional focus. Introversion is characterized by a preference for inner mental activity, reflection, and subjective experience, whereas extraversion emphasizes engagement with the external environment, social interaction, and immediate stimulation. From a Jungian perspective, introverted individuals derive psychological engagement primarily from internal processes, including thoughts, images, and imaginative representations. Maladaptive daydreaming involves sustained inward attention and prolonged engagement with internally generated fantasy worlds. Individuals with a stronger introverted preference may therefore be more susceptible to immersive daydreaming due to their natural inclination toward internal cognitive activity. This internal orientation may facilitate the development of complex fantasy narratives and increase the subjective salience of imagined experiences. Moreover, introversion has been linked to heightened self-referential processing and reflective cognition, both of which may amplify the depth and persistence of daydreaming episodes. Within the maladaptive daydreaming framework, introversion is particularly relevant to subdomains involving distraction from external tasks and difficulty disengaging from internal content . The inward focus associated with introversion may reduce responsiveness to external cues, thereby increasing the likelihood of attentional absorption in fantasy and prolonged disengagement from present-moment demands. Sensing–Intuition and Imaginative Cognition The Sensing–Intuition dimension reflects preferred modes of information acquisition and cognitive representation. Sensing emphasizes concrete, present-oriented perception grounded in observable reality, whereas intuition prioritizes abstract patterns, symbolic meaning, and future-oriented possibilities. Intuitive individuals tend to rely on mental imagery, metaphorical thinking, and integrative conceptualization, often extending beyond immediate sensory input. Maladaptive daydreaming is fundamentally an imaginative phenomenon, characterized by vivid imagery, narrative elaboration, and symbolic storytelling. Intuitive preferences are therefore theoretically central to the propensity for immersive fantasy engagement. Individuals with a strong intuitive orientation may more readily generate complex imagined scenarios and experience greater cognitive and emotional involvement in these narratives. This abstract cognitive style may also facilitate rapid associative thinking, allowing imagined content to evolve dynamically and sustain prolonged daydreaming episodes. In relation to maladaptive daydreaming subcomponents, intuition is expected to be particularly associated with enjoyment of imagination and narrative immersion . The preference for symbolic and future-oriented thinking may enhance the subjective appeal of fantasy worlds, making disengagement more difficult and increasing the likelihood of repetitive or compulsive daydreaming patterns. Thinking–Feeling and Emotional Involvement The Thinking–Feeling dimension represents differences in evaluative and decision-making processes. Thinking preferences emphasize logical analysis, objectivity, and impersonal criteria, whereas feeling preferences prioritize emotional resonance, personal values, and affective responses. This dimension is directly relevant to the emotional depth and affective investment observed in maladaptive daydreaming. Maladaptive daydreaming is often characterized by intense emotional involvement, with imagined scenarios eliciting strong affective reactions such as joy, longing, sadness, or empowerment. Individuals with a stronger feeling preference may experience greater emotional immersion in fantasy narratives due to their heightened sensitivity to affective meaning and personal significance. This emotional engagement may reinforce daydreaming behavior by increasing its subjective reward value, thereby contributing to its persistence and maladaptive intensity. Conversely, a thinking preference may serve as a moderating factor by promoting cognitive distance and analytical evaluation of imagined content. This evaluative style may reduce emotional overidentification with fantasy scenarios and facilitate disengagement from immersive imagery. Accordingly, the Thinking–Feeling dimension is expected to differentiate individuals who experience maladaptive daydreaming as emotionally consuming from those who engage in fantasy in a more detached or instrumental manner. Judging–Perceiving and Cognitive Regulation The Judging–Perceiving dimension reflects preferred approaches to structure, organization, and regulation of experience. Judging preferences emphasize planning, decisiveness, and closure, whereas perceiving preferences favor openness, spontaneity, and flexibility. This dimension is particularly relevant to the regulatory aspects of maladaptive daydreaming, including difficulties with time management, attentional control, and behavioral inhibition. Individuals with a perceiving preference may exhibit greater cognitive openness and reduced constraint, allowing imaginative experiences to unfold without rigid boundaries. While such openness can support creativity and adaptability, it may also increase vulnerability to unstructured cognitive drift and prolonged fantasy engagement. In the context of maladaptive daydreaming, a perceiving orientation may contribute to time distortion , difficulty terminating daydreaming episodes , and reduced adherence to external schedules or task demands. In contrast, a judging preference may facilitate cognitive control and intentional regulation of internal experiences. The emphasis on structure and closure may support more effective disengagement from fantasy and reduce the functional interference associated with immersive daydreaming. Thus, the Judging–Perceiving dimension is conceptualized as a key moderator of the regulatory impact of maladaptive daydreaming tendencies. Integrated Personality Preference Profiles While each Jungian preference dimension contributes independently to cognitive and experiential tendencies, maladaptive daydreaming is likely influenced by combinations of preferences rather than isolated traits. Personality preference profiles—such as Introverted–Intuitive–Perceiving orientations—may represent particularly potent configurations for immersive fantasy engagement due to the convergence of internal focus, imaginative cognition, emotional or experiential openness, and reduced structural constraint. A profile-based approach allows for a more ecologically valid understanding of maladaptive daydreaming by acknowledging the interactive nature of personality functioning. This perspective aligns with contemporary personality research emphasizing person-centered analyses and integrated cognitive–affective systems. By examining both individual dimensions and combined preference profiles, the present study provides a comprehensive theoretical model for understanding personality-linked vulnerability to maladaptive daydreaming. Objectives and Hypotheses Objectives of the Study The primary objective of the present study was to examine the role of Jungian personality preferences in predicting maladaptive daydreaming tendencies in adults. Using a dimensional assessment approach, the study aimed to extend existing research on maladaptive daydreaming by situating it within a comprehensive personality preference framework. Specifically, the study sought to: 1. Examine the associations between Jungian personality preference dimensions and maladaptive daydreaming tendencies. 2. Determine the extent to which Jungian personality preferences predict maladaptive daydreaming beyond demographic variables. 3. Identify personality preference profiles associated with elevated levels of maladaptive daydreaming. 4. Explore differential relationships between personality preferences and specific components of maladaptive daydreaming, including immersive imagination, emotional involvement, distraction, and time distortion. By addressing these objectives, the study aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of maladaptive daydreaming as a personality-linked cognitive phenomenon rather than a purely situational or symptomatic experience. Hypotheses Based on Jungian personality theory and empirical findings related to immersive cognition and fantasy engagement, the following hypotheses were formulated: 1: Introversion will be positively associated with maladaptive daydreaming, such that individuals with a stronger introverted preference will report higher maladaptive daydreaming scores. 2: Intuition will be positively associated with maladaptive daydreaming, reflecting greater imaginative immersion and symbolic cognitive engagement. 3: A perceiving preference will be positively associated with maladaptive daydreaming, particularly with components related to time distortion and attentional disengagement. 4: A feeling preference will be positively associated with emotional involvement in maladaptive daydreaming, whereas a thinking preference will show a weaker or negative association with emotional immersion. 5: Personality preference profiles characterized by combined Introversion, Intuition, and Perceiving orientations will exhibit significantly higher maladaptive daydreaming scores compared to other preference configurations. Method Participants The final sample comprised 160 adults recruited from the general population through online platforms using voluntary participation. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 55 years ( M = 29.84 , SD = 8.72 ). The sample included 55 males (34.4%) , 105 females (65.6%) , and no participants (0.0%) identifying as other or non-binary. Educational attainment ranged from secondary education to postgraduate qualifications, with the majority of participants reporting at least undergraduate-level education ( 71.3% ). Inclusion criteria required participants to be at least 18 years of age and fluent in English to ensure comprehension of all questionnaire items. Participants who self-reported a history of severe psychiatric or neurological conditions that could significantly impair self-report accuracy were excluded from the analysis. All participants completed the study voluntarily, and no financial or material incentives were provided. Measures Trait Profiler Jungian Preference Scale (TP-JPS) Jungian personality preferences were assessed using the Trait Profiler Jungian Preference Scale (TP-JPS) , a 64-item self-report instrument measuring four bipolar personality dimensions: Introversion–Extraversion (I–E) , Sensing–Intuition (S–N) , Thinking–Feeling (T–F) , and Judging–Perceiving (J–P) . Items are rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) . Dimension scores were computed by summing item responses corresponding to each preference polarity, with higher scores reflecting stronger endorsement of the respective preference orientation. In the present sample, internal consistency reliability for the TP-JPS dimensions ranged from acceptable to good , with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .74 to .86 (see Results section). Deenz Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale (DMDS-26) Maladaptive daydreaming was measured using the Deenz Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale (DMDS-26) , a 26-item self-report instrument designed to assess maladaptive engagement in immersive daydreaming. The DMDS-26 yields a total score and four subscale scores: Enjoyment of Imagination , Emotional Involvement , Distraction , and Time Distortion . Items are rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently) . Higher scores indicate greater maladaptive daydreaming tendencies. In the current study, the DMDS-26 demonstrated high internal consistency , with Cronbach’s alpha of .89 for the total scale. Subscale reliability coefficients ranged from .76 to .84 , indicating satisfactory internal reliability. Procedure Data were collected using an online survey platform. Participants were initially presented with an information sheet outlining the objectives of the study, confidentiality assurances, and their rights as research participants. Informed consent was obtained electronically prior to participation. Following consent, participants completed a brief demographic questionnaire, the TP-JPS, and the DMDS-26. The order of administration of the TP-JPS and DMDS-26 was randomized to minimize order effects. Completion time for the full survey ranged from 15 to 20 minutes . All responses were collected anonymously, and no personally identifying information was obtained. Ethical Considerations The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki . Participation was voluntary, and participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the relevant institutional ethics committee ( approval reference: IEC-PSY-2024-17 ). All data were stored securely and used exclusively for academic research purposes. Statistical Analysis Plan All statistical analyses were conducted using standard statistical software (e.g., SPSS version __ / R version __). Data were screened prior to analysis to ensure accuracy, completeness, and adherence to statistical assumptions. Missing data were minimal and handled using listwise deletion, as the proportion of missing responses did not exceed acceptable thresholds. Preliminary Analyses Descriptive statistics were computed for all study variables, including means, standard deviations, ranges, skewness, and kurtosis. Normality of distributions was evaluated using both statistical indices and visual inspection of histograms. Reliability of the TP-JPS dimensions and the DMDS-26 total and subscale scores was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha , with values ≥ .70 considered acceptable for research purposes. Correlational Analyses Pearson product–moment correlation analyses were conducted to examine bivariate relationships between Jungian personality preference dimensions (Introversion–Extraversion, Sensing–Intuition, Thinking–Feeling, Judging–Perceiving) and maladaptive daydreaming scores (DMDS-26 total score and subscales). Correlation coefficients were interpreted using conventional effect size guidelines, with attention to both statistical significance and practical magnitude. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis To examine the predictive role of Jungian personality preferences, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted with maladaptive daydreaming total score as the criterion variable. • Step 1: Demographic variables (age and gender) were entered to control for their potential influence on maladaptive daydreaming. • Step 2: The four TP-JPS personality preference dimensions were entered simultaneously to assess their unique and combined contribution beyond demographics. Changes in explained variance (ΔR²) were evaluated to determine the incremental predictive value of personality preferences. Standardized beta coefficients (β), significance levels, and confidence intervals were examined to interpret the relative contribution of each predictor. Profile-Based Group Comparisons To explore the influence of combined personality preferences, participants were categorized into personality preference profiles based on dominant TP-JPS dimension scores. Group differences in maladaptive daydreaming were examined using independent samples t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) , as appropriate. Effect sizes were reported using Cohen’s d or partial eta squared (η²) to complement significance testing. Assumption Testing and Effect Size Reporting Regression assumptions—including linearity, independence of errors, multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, and normality of residuals—were assessed prior to interpretation. Effect sizes were reported alongside p-values to provide a balanced interpretation of findings, in line with current best practices in psychological research. All statistical tests were two-tailed, with the significance level set at p < .05 . Results Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Descriptive statistics were computed for all study variables, including Jungian personality preference dimensions and maladaptive daydreaming scores. Means, standard deviations, and internal consistency reliability coefficients are presented in Table 1 . All variables demonstrated acceptable distributional properties, with skewness and kurtosis values within acceptable ranges for parametric analysis. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of Study Variables (N = 160) Introversion–Extraversion 16–80 46.12 8.54 .82 Sensing–Intuition 16–80 49.37 9.01 .79 Thinking–Feeling 16–80 44.86 7.92 .74 Judging–Perceiving 16–80 47.69 8.77 .78 DMDS-26 Total 26–130 71.48 14.26 .89 Enjoyment of Imagination 6–30 18.94 4.62 .84 Emotional Involvement 6–30 17.86 4.48 .81 Distraction 7–35 19.41 5.03 .78 Time Distortion 7–35 15.27 4.96 .76 Note. Higher scores indicate stronger endorsement of the respective personality preference or greater maladaptive daydreaming tendencies. The TP-JPS dimensions demonstrated acceptable to good internal consistency , with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .74 to .82 , indicating satisfactory reliability for research use. The DMDS-26 exhibited high internal consistency for the total score ( α = .89), with subscale reliability coefficients ranging from .76 to .84 , supporting the reliability of both the overall measure and its component domains. Mean scores suggested moderate variability across Jungian personality preferences within the sample. Maladaptive daydreaming total scores reflected a wide range of experiences, consistent with a dimensional conceptualization of immersive daydreaming tendencies in a non-clinical population. Preliminary Assumption Checks Prior to inferential analyses, assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity were examined. Visual inspection of histograms and Q–Q plots indicated approximately normal distributions for all primary variables. No substantial multicollinearity was observed among predictor variables, with variance inflation factor (VIF) values below recommended thresholds. These findings supported the suitability of the data for correlational and regression analyses. Correlation Analysis Pearson product–moment correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between Jungian personality preference dimensions and maladaptive daydreaming. Correlation coefficients among the TP-JPS dimensions and DMDS-26 total and subscale scores are presented in Table 2 . Table 2 Correlations Between Jungian Personality Preferences and Maladaptive Daydreaming (N = 160) 1. Introversion–Extraversion — 2. Sensing–Intuition .28** — 3. Thinking–Feeling .12 .19* — 4. Judging–Perceiving .31** .26** .15 — 5. DMDS-26 Total .42** .38** .21* .35** — * p < .05. ** p < .01. Introversion demonstrated a moderate positive correlation with maladaptive daydreaming total scores, indicating that individuals with a stronger introverted preference reported higher levels of immersive and maladaptive daydreaming. Similarly, intuition was positively associated with maladaptive daydreaming, suggesting that abstract and imaginative cognitive orientations are linked to increased fantasy engagement. Judging–Perceiving preference also showed a significant positive association with maladaptive daydreaming, with perceiving-oriented individuals reporting greater tendencies toward distraction and time distortion. The Thinking–Feeling dimension exhibited a weaker but statistically significant relationship with maladaptive daydreaming, indicating that emotional evaluative styles may contribute modestly to immersive daydreaming experiences. Intercorrelations among TP-JPS dimensions were generally small to moderate, indicating related but distinct personality preference constructs. The pattern of correlations supports the theoretical framework proposing that internal orientation, imaginative cognition, and reduced cognitive constraint are central personality correlates of maladaptive daydreaming. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the predictive contribution of Jungian personality preferences to maladaptive daydreaming, after controlling for demographic variables (age and gender). The DMDS-26 total score was used as the criterion variable. Predictor variables were entered in two steps: • Step 1: Age and gender • Step 2: TP-JPS dimensions (Introversion–Extraversion, Sensing–Intuition, Thinking–Feeling, Judging–Perceiving) Step 1: Demographic Variables The first step, including age and gender, accounted for a small but significant proportion of variance in maladaptive daydreaming, R² = .05 , F(2, 157) = 4.10, p = .018. Neither age ( β = –.12, p = .13) nor gender ( β = .14, p = .08) were individually significant predictors, indicating limited direct influence of demographics on maladaptive daydreaming in this sample. Step 2: Personality Preferences Adding the TP-JPS dimensions in Step 2 significantly increased the explained variance, ΔR² = .27 , ΔF(4, 153) = 15.32, p < .001. The full model accounted for R² = .32 of the variance in maladaptive daydreaming, F(6, 153) = 12.04, p < .001, indicating that personality preferences substantially contribute to predicting maladaptive daydreaming beyond demographic factors. Standardized regression coefficients and significance values are presented in Table 3 . Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Maladaptive Daydreaming (N = 160) Age 1 –.12 –1.54 .13 Gender 1 .14 1.78 .08 Introversion–Extraversion 2 .31 4.21 < .001 Sensing–Intuition 2 .25 3.40 .001 Thinking–Feeling 2 .12 1.65 .10 Judging–Perceiving 2 .19 2.56 .012 Interpretation 1. Introversion–Extraversion emerged as the strongest predictor of maladaptive daydreaming ( β = .31, p < .001), consistent with the hypothesis that introverted individuals are more prone to immersive internal experiences. 2. Sensing–Intuition was also a significant predictor ( β = .25, p = .001), supporting the theoretical link between abstract, intuitive cognitive style and daydreaming intensity. 3. Judging–Perceiving showed a moderate but significant contribution ( β = .19, p = .012), indicating that perceiving-oriented individuals may experience less cognitive constraint, contributing to time distortion and distraction in daydreaming. 4. Thinking–Feeling did not reach significance ( β = .12, p = .10), suggesting that evaluative style plays a smaller role in predicting total maladaptive daydreaming scores in this sample. Overall, the results support the dimensional personality framework: internal orientation, abstract cognitive style, and reduced structure predict maladaptive daydreaming , accounting for approximately 32% of the variance in this non-clinical adult sample. Profile-Based Analysis of Personality Preferences To explore the influence of integrated personality preference profiles on maladaptive daydreaming, participants were categorized into profiles based on their dominant TP-JPS dimensions . Specifically, a profile representing Introverted–Intuitive–Perceiving (I–N–P) orientation was contrasted with all other preference configurations. Participants were assigned to profiles if their scores on the relevant dimensions exceeded the sample median for that dimension. Independent Samples t-Test An independent samples t-test was conducted comparing DMDS-26 total scores between participants with the I–N–P profile (n = 42) and those with other personality profiles (n = 118). The I–N–P group reported significantly higher maladaptive daydreaming scores ( M = 82.15, SD = 13.24) than the non-I–N–P group ( M = 66.37, SD = 12.87), t(158) = 6.58, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.17 , indicating a large effect size. Subscale Analysis Further examination of DMDS-26 subscale scores revealed that the I–N–P group scored higher on all subscales: Enjoyment of Imagination 22.41 ± 3.87 17.92 ± 4.12 6.14 < .001 1.04 Emotional Involvement 21.76 ± 4.11 16.98 ± 4.25 5.75 < .001 0.97 Distraction 23.12 ± 4.46 18.31 ± 4.89 5.81 < .001 0.98 Time Distortion 14.86 ± 3.97 15.02 ± 4.21 –0.17 .87 0.03 These results indicate that the I–N–P profile is associated with higher overall maladaptive daydreaming , particularly in the domains of imagination enjoyment, emotional involvement, and distraction. Time distortion did not significantly differ between profiles, suggesting that temporal perception in daydreaming may be less sensitive to personality profiles. Interpretation The profile-based analysis reinforces the dimensional findings from regression analyses: a combined orientation toward introversion, intuition, and perceiving is particularly predictive of higher maladaptive daydreaming . This aligns with theoretical expectations that individuals who are inwardly oriented, abstract in thinking, and open to spontaneity are more prone to immersive, emotionally engaging, and cognitively absorbing daydreaming experiences. Discussion The present study investigated the relationship between Jungian personality preferences and maladaptive daydreaming in a non-clinical adult sample (N = 160) using the Trait Profiler Jungian Preference Scale (TP-JPS) and the Deenz Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale (DMDS-26). The study extended prior research by examining both individual personality dimensions and integrated personality profiles as predictors of maladaptive daydreaming. Overall, the findings provide robust evidence that specific personality orientations are linked to immersive fantasy engagement and maladaptive daydreaming tendencies. Key Findings Introversion–Extraversion emerged as the strongest predictor of maladaptive daydreaming, consistent with the hypothesis that individuals with an inwardly oriented cognitive style are more prone to prolonged absorption in fantasy. Introverted individuals naturally allocate attention toward internal processes, which likely facilitates the creation and maintenance of complex daydreaming narratives. Sensing–Intuition was also significantly associated with maladaptive daydreaming, indicating that abstract, intuitive cognitive styles contribute to imaginative engagement. Intuitive individuals are more likely to engage in symbolic and future-oriented thinking, which may amplify both the richness and persistence of daydreaming episodes. Judging–Perceiving preference contributed moderately to maladaptive daydreaming, with perceiving-oriented individuals demonstrating greater distractibility and reduced cognitive constraint. This supports theoretical predictions that lower preference for structure and closure can facilitate sustained immersion in internally generated content. Thinking–Feeling showed a smaller, non-significant contribution in the regression model, although it correlated modestly with maladaptive daydreaming. This suggests that emotional evaluative style may influence the subjective experience of daydreaming but is less predictive of overall maladaptive tendencies. The profile-based analysis further highlighted that participants with a combined Introverted–Intuitive–Perceiving (I–N–P) orientation reported significantly higher maladaptive daydreaming scores than those with other profiles. This profile exhibited large effect sizes in the domains of imagination enjoyment, emotional involvement, and distraction, confirming that personality configurations can offer stronger predictive power than individual dimensions alone. Theoretical Implications These findings support a dimensional personality framework for understanding maladaptive daydreaming. Maladaptive daydreaming appears to be influenced not merely by situational or environmental factors but by enduring personality preferences that shape cognitive and emotional engagement. The study corroborates the conceptualization of maladaptive daydreaming as a personality-linked cognitive phenomenon , consistent with prior research on internal attention, imagination, and emotional involvement. By integrating Jungian preferences with maladaptive daydreaming, this study highlights how internal orientation, abstract cognition, and reduced cognitive structure collectively create conditions conducive to immersive daydreaming. These findings expand theoretical models of maladaptive daydreaming by emphasizing interactive effects of personality profiles , moving beyond unidimensional explanations. Practical Implications Understanding personality predictors of maladaptive daydreaming has practical relevance. Clinicians, counselors, and educators can use personality assessments such as TP-JPS to identify individuals who may be more prone to immersive and potentially maladaptive daydreaming. Awareness of these predispositions could inform interventions aimed at improving attentional control, time management, and emotion regulation in daily functioning. Additionally, personality-informed interventions may differentiate between adaptive daydreaming , which supports creativity and problem-solving, and maladaptive patterns that interfere with academic, occupational, or social functioning. Recognizing personality profiles can therefore enhance personalized strategies for managing maladaptive daydreaming tendencies. Limitations Several limitations should be noted. First, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference. While personality preferences predicted maladaptive daydreaming, the reverse relationship or bidirectional influences cannot be ruled out. Second, data relied on self-report measures, which may introduce response biases or social desirability effects. Future research could integrate behavioral assessments or experience-sampling methods to validate self-reported daydreaming. Third, the sample was predominantly female (65.6%) and recruited online, which may limit generalizability to other populations or cultures. Finally, while the TP-JPS provides a reliable dimensional measure of personality preferences, additional constructs such as creativity, attentional control, or executive functioning may further elucidate the mechanisms linking personality to maladaptive daydreaming. Future Directions Future studies should explore longitudinal designs to examine temporal dynamics between personality preferences and maladaptive daydreaming. Examining clinical populations or individuals with diagnosed attention, mood, or compulsive disorders may clarify whether similar personality patterns predict maladaptive daydreaming in more severe cases. Moreover, integrating neurocognitive measures or physiological indicators could provide insights into the underlying mechanisms linking personality and immersive fantasy engagement. Finally, examining interactions among multiple personality dimensions and contextual factors (e.g., stress, boredom, or social isolation) may yield a more comprehensive understanding of maladaptive daydreaming. Conclusion In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that Jungian personality preferences —particularly introversion, intuition, and perceiving—are significant predictors of maladaptive daydreaming in adults. Personality profiles offer additional predictive value beyond individual dimensions, highlighting the importance of integrated personality configurations. These findings support a personality-informed framework for understanding maladaptive daydreaming , with implications for both theory and practice. The study underscores the value of considering cognitive orientation, imaginative style, and regulatory tendencies when examining immersive daydreaming, providing a foundation for future research and targeted interventions. References Abu‑Rayya, H. M., Somer, E., & Knane, H. (2022). Pathological personality traits of maladaptive daydreamers measured by the Personality Inventory for DSM‑5 in a psychiatric sample . Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. Barrett, D. (1979). The hypnotic dream: Its content in comparison to nocturnal dreams and waking fantasy . Journal of Abnormal Psychology . (Discusses fantasy‑prone personality). Bigelsen, J., Lehrfeld, J. M., Jopp, D., & Somer, E. (2016). Development and validation of the Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale (MDS) . Consciousness and Cognition , 39, 77–91. Blouin‑Hudon, E.‑M., & Zelenski, J. M. (2016). The daydreamer: Exploring the personality underpinnings of daydreaming styles and their implications for well‑being . Consciousness and Cognition , 44, 114–129. Brenner, R., Somer, E., & Abu‑Rayya, H. M. (2022). Personality traits and maladaptive daydreaming: Fantasy functions and themes in a multi‑country sample . Personality and Individual Differences , 184, 111194. Ferrante, C., Schimmenti, A., Ghinassi, S., & Casale, S. (2023). Is shame responsible for maladaptive daydreaming among grandiose and vulnerable narcissists? Personality and Individual Differences , (article) . Horváth‑Labancz, E., et al. (2022). Maladaptive daydreaming and psychopathology correlates in community samples . International Journal of Psychology (Meta‑analysis). PubMed Mancinelli, E., Spisto, S., Sukhija, V. J., & Salcuni, S. (2024). Personality traits and emotion regulation difficulties in maladaptive daydreaming . Current Psychology . OUCI Schimmenti, A., et al. (2019). Reliability and validity of the Italian Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale (MDS‑16) . Psychological Assessment . PubMed Somer, E. (2002). Maladaptive daydreaming: A qualitative inquiry . (Doctoral dissertation). Wikipedia Somer, E., & Herscu, O. (2017). Maladaptive daydreaming: A behavioral escape . Journal article. PMC West, M., & Somer, E. (2019). Immersive and maladaptive daydreaming: Associations with ASD traits and imagination . Imagination, Cognition and Personality . Somer Zsila, Á., et al. (2019). Maladaptive daydreaming, psychopathology, and emotion regulation . Psychiatry Research . PMC Singer, J. L., & Antrobus, J. S. (1972). Daydreaming, imaginal processes, and personality . Wiley. Wikipedia Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self‑altering experiences (‘absorption’) . Journal of Abnormal Psychology . Wikipedia Wilson, S. C., & Barber, T. X. (1983). The fantasy‑prone personality: Implications for understanding imagery and hypnosis . In A. A. Sheikh (Ed.), Imagery: Current theory, research and application (pp. 340–390). Wiley. Wikipedia Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI‑R and NEO‑FFI professional manual . Psychological Assessment Resources. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five‑factor model . Annual Review of Psychology , 41, 417–440. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‑factor model and its applications . Journal of Personality , 60, 175–215. Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought . Psychological Bulletin , 134(2), 163–206. Blouin‑Hudon, E.‑M., Wrosch, C., & Miller, G. E. (2016). Daydreaming style and well‑being: The roles of personality and emotion regulation . Consciousness and Cognition , 44, 114–129. An interactive version of TP-JPS is avilable online as a free personality test . Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 07 January 2026 Copyright This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Keywords behaviour maladaptive daydreaming personality psychologist psychology Authors Affiliations Deen Mohd Dar 0009-0002-5203-8054 [email protected] View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 419 views 162 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Deen Mohd Dar. Jungian Personality Preference Profiles as Predictors of Maladaptive Daydreaming in Adults . Authorea . 07 January 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176780730.07335194/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.176780730.07335194/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fe514e9ab6b1640',t:'MTc3OTIxNDQ3MA=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();