{"title":"Psychological type, religion, and culture: further theoretical and empirical perspectives (Part V)","authors":"C. Lewis","doi":"10.1080/13674676.2023.2215092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Special Issue of Mental Health, Religion & Culture marks Part V of a series entitled Psychological Type, Religion, and Culture... (Lewis, 2012a, 2012b, 2015a, 2015b, 2018, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). This series has been a somewhat occasional fixture in Mental Health, Religion & Culture. However, recently, there has been a concerted effort to make this series more frequent (Lewis, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d), and in doing so, becoming a more established resource for researchers and practitioners alike, interested in examining the relationship between psychological type theory and religiosity, with a particular reference to culture. Indeed, the contribution and success of these previous collections on psychological type has served as the impetus for extending that work further. In addition to this Editorial, this Special Issue comprises of one theoretical article and eight empirical articles. Of these empirical articles, six measure psychological type with the 40-item Francis Psychological Type Scales (FPTS; Francis, 2005) and one with the SIFT method. The FPTS is nowwell established in the literature in the psychology of religion for measuring psychological type (for example see Francis, 2009; Lewis, 2012a, 2012b, 2015a, 2015b, 2018, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d; Village, 2011). First, Lloyd (2022) provides a review that examines and evaluates the long-running conflict in personality psychology: that between advocates of the Five-factor Trait-based (McCrea & Costa, 1989) model and those of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & Myers, 1980) approach. Lloyd (2022) notes “Given the many similarities of the two present paradigms, a unified approach would have a good claim to be the best current portrayal of personality” (p. 817). Second, four papers report on the examination of the psychometric properties of the FPTS (Chaim, 2022; Francis & Village, 2022; Village & Francis, 2022a, 2022b). Francis and Village (2022) report on two samples (N = 185 and 392) of adults participating in short courses relevant for Christian ministry, the satisfactory psychometric properties of the FPTS including the factor structure, internal consistency reliability, and concurrent validity with the 126item Form G (Anglicised) version of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Village and Francis (2022a) report on 209 adults enrolled in a university ministry training course on the satisfactory psychometric properties of the FPTS. Moreover, they also report on the concurrent validity of the FPTS with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised shortened version (Eysenck et al., 1985) on 78 of the original sample. Village and Francis (2022b) report on 2,769 clergy and churchgoing participants, the concurrent validity of the FPTS with the abbreviated Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised (Francis et al., 1992). Chaim (2022) reports on a variety of samples of Polish adults a review of recent research on the Polish adaptation of the FPTS.","PeriodicalId":47614,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health Religion & Culture","volume":"25 1","pages":"953 - 955"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health Religion & Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2023.2215092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This Special Issue of Mental Health, Religion & Culture marks Part V of a series entitled Psychological Type, Religion, and Culture... (Lewis, 2012a, 2012b, 2015a, 2015b, 2018, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). This series has been a somewhat occasional fixture in Mental Health, Religion & Culture. However, recently, there has been a concerted effort to make this series more frequent (Lewis, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d), and in doing so, becoming a more established resource for researchers and practitioners alike, interested in examining the relationship between psychological type theory and religiosity, with a particular reference to culture. Indeed, the contribution and success of these previous collections on psychological type has served as the impetus for extending that work further. In addition to this Editorial, this Special Issue comprises of one theoretical article and eight empirical articles. Of these empirical articles, six measure psychological type with the 40-item Francis Psychological Type Scales (FPTS; Francis, 2005) and one with the SIFT method. The FPTS is nowwell established in the literature in the psychology of religion for measuring psychological type (for example see Francis, 2009; Lewis, 2012a, 2012b, 2015a, 2015b, 2018, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d; Village, 2011). First, Lloyd (2022) provides a review that examines and evaluates the long-running conflict in personality psychology: that between advocates of the Five-factor Trait-based (McCrea & Costa, 1989) model and those of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & Myers, 1980) approach. Lloyd (2022) notes “Given the many similarities of the two present paradigms, a unified approach would have a good claim to be the best current portrayal of personality” (p. 817). Second, four papers report on the examination of the psychometric properties of the FPTS (Chaim, 2022; Francis & Village, 2022; Village & Francis, 2022a, 2022b). Francis and Village (2022) report on two samples (N = 185 and 392) of adults participating in short courses relevant for Christian ministry, the satisfactory psychometric properties of the FPTS including the factor structure, internal consistency reliability, and concurrent validity with the 126item Form G (Anglicised) version of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Village and Francis (2022a) report on 209 adults enrolled in a university ministry training course on the satisfactory psychometric properties of the FPTS. Moreover, they also report on the concurrent validity of the FPTS with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised shortened version (Eysenck et al., 1985) on 78 of the original sample. Village and Francis (2022b) report on 2,769 clergy and churchgoing participants, the concurrent validity of the FPTS with the abbreviated Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised (Francis et al., 1992). Chaim (2022) reports on a variety of samples of Polish adults a review of recent research on the Polish adaptation of the FPTS.
本期心理健康、宗教与文化特刊是“心理类型、宗教和文化”系列的第五部分。。。(Lewis,2012a,2012b,2015a,2015b,20182021a,2021b,2021c,2021d)。这个系列在《心理健康、宗教与文化》中偶尔会出现。然而,最近,人们共同努力使这个系列更加频繁(Lewis,2021a,2021b,2021c,2021d),并在这样做的过程中,成为研究人员和从业者的一个更成熟的资源,他们都有兴趣研究心理类型理论和宗教信仰之间的关系,特别是文化。事实上,这些以前关于心理类型的收藏的贡献和成功推动了这项工作的进一步扩展。除了这篇社论外,本期特刊还包括一篇理论文章和八篇实证文章。在这些实证文章中,6篇用40项弗朗西斯心理类型量表(FPTS;Francis,2005)测量心理类型,1篇用SIFT方法测量。FPTS现在已经在宗教心理学的文献中建立起来,用于测量心理类型(例如,见Francis,2009;Lewis,2012a,2012b,2015a,2015b,20182021a,2021b,2021c,2021d;Village,2011)。首先,Lloyd(2022)提供了一篇综述,考察和评估了人格心理学中长期存在的冲突:基于五因素特质(McCrea&Costa,1989)模型的倡导者和Myers-Briggs类型指标(Myers&Myers,1980)方法的倡导者之间的冲突。Lloyd(2022)指出,“鉴于目前两种范式的许多相似之处,一种统一的方法可以很好地宣称是当前对个性的最佳描述”(第817页)。其次,四篇论文报道了FPTS的心理测量特性的检查(Chaim,2022;Francis&Village,2022;Village&Francis,2022a2022b)。Francis和Village(2022)报告了两个参与与基督教事工相关的短期课程的成年人样本(N=185和392),FPTS的令人满意的心理测量特性,包括因子结构、内部一致性可靠性和与Myers-Briggs类型指标的126项表G(英国化)版本的同时有效性(Myers&McCalley,1985)。Village和Francis(2022a)报告了209名参加大学部委培训课程的成年人,他们对FPTS的心理测量特性感到满意。此外,他们还报告了FPTS与艾森克人格问卷修订缩短版(Eysenck et al.,1985)对78个原始样本的同时有效性。Village和Francis(2022b)对2769名神职人员和去教堂的参与者进行了报告,FPTS与缩写的艾森克人格问卷的同时有效性进行了修订(Francis等人,1992)。Chaim(2022)报道了波兰成年人的各种样本——对波兰适应FPTS的最新研究的回顾。