本研究旨在探索大学生时间管理倾向与人格类型的关系，考察不同人格类型的大学生时间管理倾向特点，推进相关研究的深入，为针对不同人格类型的大学生开展独特的时间管理训练提供理论依据，提高时间管理培训的效率和效果，增强大学生的时间管理能力。 本文采用青少年时间管理倾向量表、迈尔斯-布里格斯性格类型指标M中文版(MBTI-M)，对350名大学生进行问卷的发放和调查，对294份有效问卷进行数据统计和分析，并抽取4名被试进行访谈，对质性材料进行质性分析，得到以下结论： 1、大学生时间管理倾向总体水平处于中等偏上。时间管理倾向的三个分量表和总分在性别和年级上没有显著差异。不同专业类型的大学生在时间管理倾向上存在显著差异。文科生的时间监控观、时间效能感和时间管理倾向总分都显著高于理科生。 2、大学生在人格维度的分布上没有显著差异。大学生人格维度在性别和年级的分布上没有显著差异。不同专业的大学生在内外倾维度上有显著差异。文科生外倾型显著多于理科生，而理科生中内倾型显著多于文科生。 3、大学生在人格类型的分布上没有显著差异。大学生人格类型在性别、年级和专业的分布上均没有显著差异。 4、大学生人格维度与时间管理倾向存在显著相关。内倾型大学生时间监控观显著高于外倾型，在时间效能感和总分上都显著高于外倾型。感觉型与直觉型大学生在时间管理倾向各维度及总分上没有显著差异。思维型的大学生时间监控观和总分显著高于情感型。判断型的大学生时间管理倾向的各维度及总分都显著的高于知觉型。大学生的人格四维度能够解释时间管理倾向总分的总变异量的26.3%。 5、大学生人格类型与时间管理倾向存在显著相关。四种人格类型的大学生在时间管理倾向各维度及总分上都有极其显著的差异。SP型（技艺者）大学生的时间价值观得分显著低于其他三种类型。在时间监控观、时间效能感及时间管理倾向总分上，SJ型（护卫者）和NT型（理性者）的大学生得分显著高于SP型和NF型。在四种人格类型中，时间管理倾向较高的是SJ和NT型，较低的是SP型和NF型（理想主义者）。 6、四种人格类型的大学生时间管理特点不同。SP型人倾向于随机应变，不喜欢受计划束缚；SJ型人倾向于制定详细的计划，并坚决执行；NF型人会制定大致的计划，但执行过程断断续续；NT型人会制定大致的计划，并有坚定的意志力保障执行。

This research aims at exploring the relation between college students’ time management disposition and their personality types, studying the time management characters of college students who have different personality types, and providing theoretical evidence for time management training directed against college students of different personality types. The results are helpful for increasing the efficiency of time management training, and improving the time management ability of college students. The paper adopted Adolescent Time Management Disposition Scale and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Chinese M version). Three hundred and fifty college students engaged in this investigation and 294 questionnaires were valid. Four participants were interviewed after the questionnaire survey, and then both the quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed. The research results show that: 1．The overall level of the college students’ time management disposition is above-average. There are no significant differences on gender and grade in time management disposition and its three dimensions. There are significant differences on major: students from science major have significantly higher score than those from social science in the sense of time control, time efficacy and total score. 2. There are no significant differences in the distribution of students on the personality dimensions. There are significant differences on E-I dimension form different majors. Extroversion type in the social science students are significantly more than science students, while introversion type in the science students are significantly more than social science students. 3. There are no significant differences in the distribution of students on the personality types. There are no significant differences on gender, grade and major in the distribution of students on the personality types. 4. College students’ personality dimensions are significantly correlated with time management disposition. Introversion type students’ sense of time control are significantly higher than the extroversion type, and their time efficacy and the total score was significantly higher than extrovert. Sensitive type and intuition type students’ time management disposition have no significant differences on each dimension and total scores. Thinking type students’ sense of time control and total score are significantly more than feeling type. Judging type students’ time management disposition total score and its three dimensions are significantly higher than perceiving type. College students’ personality dimensions have26.3% prediction rate with time management disposition. 5. College students’ personality types are significantly correlated with time management disposition. Four kinds of personality types students’ time management disposition and its three dimensions have significantly differences. SP type students’ sense of time value are significantly lower than the other three types. On the sense of time control, time efficacy and total score, SJ and NT type students’ scores are higher than SP and NF type. In the four types, SJ and NT type students’ time management disposition are higher, while SP and NF are lower. 6. Four personality types students’ time management character are different. SP type students tend to act according to circumstances, disliking be tied to plans; SJ type students tend to develop detailed plans and strictly implement them; NF type students tend to develop a rough plan, but the implementation process is intermittent; NT type students tend to develop a rough plan, and implement the plan resolutely.