Psychological type, religion, and culture: Further empirical perspectives

Introduction

In the contemporary empirical psychology of religion, the individual difference tradition remains a dominant perspective (e.g., Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009; Wulff, 1997). Within this approach research has been undertaken that has located religiosity within the various major theoretical models of personality (Piedmont, 2005). From such research a number of conclusions can be drawn. First, the examination of the Freudian theory (1927/1961) that religion is an obsessional neurosis demonstrates that higher obsessional personality trait scores, rather than obsessional symptoms scores, are associated with greater religiosity (for a review see Lewis, 1998, 2003). Second, the location of religiosity within Eysenck's Three-dimensional Model of Personality (e.g., Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985), demonstrates that lower Psychoticism scores (i.e., tendermindedness), rather than extraversion or neuroticism or Lie Scale scores, are associated with greater religiosity (for a review see Francis, 1992; Lewis & Francis, 2014). Third, the location of religiosity within Costa and McCrae's Five-factor Model of Personality (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987, 1999), demonstrates that higher agreeableness scores and conscientiousness, rather than openness, extraversion or neuroticism scores are associated with greater religiosity (for a review see Saroglou, 2002). Fourth, the location of religiosity within Cattell's 16-factor Model of Personality Cattell's (1946, 1957, 1973) has been the subject of limited research. Data from two studies demonstrate that religiosity is significantly associated with five of the 14 personality factors: higher scores on factor G (conformity), factor I (tendermindedness), and factor Q3 (self-discipline), and with lower scores on factor E (submissiveness) and factor F (sobriety). Also religiosity is significantly associated with two of the four second-order factors: lower scores on extraversion (indicating a relationship with introversion), with lower scores on tough-poise (indicating a relationship with emotionality) and with lower scores on independence (indicating a relationship with a lack of independence) (Bourke, Francis, & Robbins, 2007; Francis & Bourke, 2003).

Recently within this research tradition, Jungian psychological type theory (Jung, 1971) has become more visible, as a growing number of studies have demonstrated the explanatory power of type theory to predict individual differences in religiosity (for recent reviews see Francis, 2009; Ross, 2011). Particular contributions to this growing body of knowledge have been made by recent special issues of Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion (Village, 2011) and Mental Health, Religion & Culture (Lewis, 2012a, 2012b). Indeed, the success of the previous collection on psychological type (Lewis, 2012a, 2012b) served as the impetus for extending that work further. The present aim of this Special Issue was to build on the recent research reported by Lewis (2012a, 2012b) and elsewhere (e.g., Francis, 2009; Ross, 2011; Village, 2011), by providing a forum for the review and extension of research on the relationship of psychological type theory to religiosity, with particular reference to culture. Within this collection, psychological type is overwhelmingly measured by the 40-item Francis Psychological Type Scales (FPTS; Francis, 2005). Exceptions are one study (Smith, 2015) that employed the 126-item Form G (Anglicised) of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCauley, 1985) and one study (King, 2015) that employed personality-critical analysis (King, 2010).

In addition to this Editorial, the Special Issue comprises of 17 empirical articles. These articles are divided across two issues of the journal and are presented thematically. Part one (Issue 9) contains eight articles (Francis & Crea, 2015; Payne & Lewis, 2015; Randall, 2015; Robbins & Powell, 2015; Royle, Norton, & Larkin, 2015; Smith, 2015; Watt & Voas, 2015; Village, 2015). Of these, seven articles are focused on Church leaders. Payne and Lewis (2015) report on a sample of 268 Anglican clergymen serving within the Church in Wales using the FPTS. Watt and Voas (2015) report on a sample of 1480 clergy serving within the Church of England using the FPTS. Smith (2015) reports on a sample of 11 curate-training incumbent pairs (and one additional incumbent) during a three-day residential programme organised by an Anglican Diocese in England using the 126-item Form G (Anglicised) of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Randall (2015) reports on a sample of 185 Anglican clergy in England and Wales using the FPTS. Robbins and Powell (2015) report on a sample of 120 clergywomen and 436 clergymen from Protestant denominations who completed the Australian National Church Life Survey using the FPTS. Royle et al. (2015) report on a sample of 26 clergywomen and 89 clergymen serving within the Reformed Church in the US located in two synods in the New York metropolitan using the FPTS. Francis and Crea (2015) report on a sample of 155 Roman Catholic priests in Italy using the FPTS. One article is focused on Biblical scholars. Village (2015) reports on a sample of 338 members of the Society of Biblical Literature using the FPTS.

Part two (Issue 10) contains nine articles (Baker, 2015; Francis, Fisher, & Annis, 2015; Francis, Robbins, & Powell, 2015; Francis, Stone, & Robbins, 2015; King, 2015; Lankshear & Francis, 2015; Ross & Francis, 2015; Muskett & Village, 2015; Walker, 2015). Of these, five articles are focused on Church members. Baker (2015) reports on three samples taken from the online Personality and Belief in God Survey. All three samples consisted of individuals who grew up attending church as a child. The first sample was made up of 2326 individuals who continue to attend church as adults (1137 females and 1189 males), the second was made up of 10,515 individuals who no longer attend church and are now atheists or agnostics (2677 females and 7838 males), and the third was made up of 1977 individuals who no longer attend church yet still retain some sort of belief in God (1134 females and 843 males) using the FPTS. Francis, Robbins, and Powell (2015) report on a sample of 2355 participants in the 2006 congregation survey of the Australian National Church Life Survey using the FPTS. Lankshear and Francis (2015) report on a sample of 120 men and 161 women attending Sunday services in Southwark Cathedral, England using the FPTS. Muskett and Village (2015) report on a sample of 1356 members of the Friends associations of six English cathedrals (775 women and 581 men) using the FPTS. Walker (2015) reports on a sample of 390 individuals who attended a Christmas carol service in a Church of England cathedral using the FPTS. Lankshear and Francis (2015) report on a sample of 120 men and 161 women attending Sunday services in Southwark Cathedral, England using the FPTS. One article is focused on church visitors. Francis, Fisher, and Annis (2015) report on a sample of 2339 visitors to St Davids Cathedral in rural west Wales using the FPTS. One article is focused on young people. Ross and Francis (2015) report on a sample of 149 adolescents (16–18 years of age) using the FPTS. One article is focused on the Bible. King (2015) applies the technique of personality-critical analysis to the Fourth Gospel. One article is focused on Preaching. Francis, Stone, and Robbins (2015) report on a sample of 76 Evangelical Anglican churchgoers using the FPTS.

Conclusion

The present aim was to build on the recent research reported by Lewis (Lewis, 2012a, 2012b) and elsewhere. In doing so, this Special Issue of Mental Health, Religion & Culture provides a further forum for the review and extension of research on the relationship of psychological type theory to religiosity, with particular reference to culture. It is hoped that this Special Issue has illustrated further some of the diversity and richness of such research. This collection clearly attests to the ongoing momentum of this specific research tradition, and itself serves as a further springboard for future research.

This Special Issue would not have been possible without the assistance of a number of people. We wish to acknowledge the authors who provided stimulating articles and efficient revisions, and our reviewers for their judicious and insightful evaluations of the manuscripts submitted. We are particularly grateful to the regular Co-Editors of Mental Health, Religion & Culture for their continued enthusiasm and support for this, and indeed previous projects on psychological type.