Matthew J. Baker a & Mandy Robbins b a Warwick Religions and Education Research Unit, Institute of

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [University of Haifa Library] On: 26 December 2012, At: 06:32 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Mental Health, Religion & Culture Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: American on-line atheists and psychological type Matthew J. Baker a & Mandy Robbins b a Warwick Religions and Education Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK b Division of Psychology, Institute for Health, Medical Sciences and Society, Glyndŵr University, Plas Coch Campus, Mold Road, Wrexham, Wales, UK Version of record first published: 21 Sep To cite this article: Matthew J. Baker & Mandy Robbins (2012): American on-line atheists and psychological type, Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15:10, To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

2 Mental Health, Religion & Culture Vol. 15, No. 10, December 2012, American on-line atheists and psychological type Matthew J. Baker a and Mandy Robbins b * a Warwick Religions and Education Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK; b Division of Psychology, Institute for Health, Medical Sciences and Society, Glyndwˆ r University, Plas Coch Campus, Mold Road, Wrexham, Wales, UK (Received 6 April 2012; final version received 6 June 2012) A sample of 10,627 American atheists (7763 males and 2864 females) completed the Francis Psychological-Type Scales as part of the Personality and Belief in God Survey on-line. Compared with USA population norms, both male and female atheists displayed significantly higher levels of preference for introversion, thinking, and judging. The two predominant types among female atheists were ISTJ (40.8%) and INTJ (11.7%), compared with 6.9% and 0.8% respectively in the wider population. The two predominant types among male atheists were also ISTJ (41.4%) and INTJ (14.4%), compared with 16.4% and 3.3% respectively in the wider population. These large over-representations suggest that certain psychological types are much more likely to embrace atheism than others. Additional research is needed in order to test this hypothesis further. Keywords: psychological type; personality; atheists; belief in God Introduction Scholars in the psychology of religion have speculated that the personality of atheists is different from those who subscribe to a religious worldview (Beit-Hallahmi & Argyle, 1997; Caldwell-Harris, Wilson, LoTempio, & Beit-Hallahmi, 2011). Beit-Hallahmi (2007) has postulated that atheists will, in personality terms, represent the mirror image of those who are religious. This speculation has largely focused on the USA where atheists are a much smaller group than they are in Europe and as such have been considered an out group (Caldwell-Harris et al., 2011). At the present time there is a lack of research into the personality of atheists in contrast to a growing body of research on those who are religious. Over the last 30 years, a growing number of studies have used psychological-type theory to profile Christians from a variety of different denominations. The idea behind psychological-type theory, originally proposed by Jung (1971), is that personality differences can be best explained in terms of four dichotomous preferences: two orientations, two perceiving preferences, two judging preferences, and two attitudes toward the outside world. The two orientations, defined as extraversion (E) and introversion (I), are concerned with how individuals obtain their energy, with extraverts preferring to draw energy from the outer world of people and things and introverts preferring to draw energy from the inner world of ideas. The two perceiving functions, *Corresponding author. mandy.robbins@glyndwr.ac.uk ISSN print/issn online ß 2012 Taylor & Francis

3 1078 M.J. Baker and M. Robbins defined as sensing (S) and intuition (N), are concerned with how individuals perceive the world, with sensers preferring to focus on the details and on present realities and intuitives preferring to focus on the big picture and on future possibilities. The two judging functions, defined as thinking (T) and feeling (F), are concerned with how individuals reach their judgements, with thinkers preferring to rely on objective logic and feelers preferring to rely on their subjective appreciation of the personal and interpersonal factors involved. Finally, the two attitudes toward the outer world, defined as judging (J) and perceiving (P), are concerned with how individuals approach day-to-day life, with judgers preferring an organised and planned approach and perceivers preferring a flexible and spontaneous approach. Taken together, these four dichotomous preferences generate 16 discrete psychological types. Psychological-type theory has been employed among churchgoers in the USA, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. In the USA, Gerhardt (1983) reported on a sample of 83 Unitarian Universalists and Rehak (1998) on a sample of 76 Evangelical Lutherans. Gerhardt (1983) found a preference for IN_J among Unitarian Universalists and Rehak (1998) found a preference for I_F_ among the Evangelical Lutherans. In the United Kingdom research has mainly focused on Anglican churchgoers: Craig, Francis, Bailey, and Robbins (2003), Francis, Duncan, Craig, and Luffman (2004), Francis, Butler, Jones, and Craig (2007), Francis, Robbins, Williams, and Williams (2007) and Francis, Robbins, and Craig (2011) with sample sizes of 101, 327, 158, 185, 3304, respectively. The overall picture that emerges from this research is a predominance of ISFJ. In Canada, Delis-Bulhoes (1990) reported on samples of 48 Roman Catholics and 154 Evangelical Protestants, and Ross (1993, 1995) on samples of 116 Anglicans and 175 Roman Catholics. Delis-Bulhoes (1990) found among the Roman Catholics a preference for ISFJ and among the Evangelical Protestants a preference for ISTJ. Ross (1993) found among the sample of Anglicans a preference for INFJ and among the Anglophone Roman Catholics (1995) a preference for ISFJ among the women and I_TJ among the men. In Australia, Robbins and Francis (2011) reported on a sample of 1527 churchgoers from several different denominations and found preferences for ISFJ and ESFJ among the women and ISTJ and ISFJ among the men. Robbins and Francis (2012) found among a sample of 1474 practising Roman Catholics a preference for ISFJ and ESFJ among the women and ISTJ and ESTJ among the men. In summary, this overview of churchgoers suggests that ISFJs and ESFJs are more likely to be churchgoing Christians than other psychological types. A number of the studies detailed above compare their findings to the published population norms. For those studies that have conducted such a comparison (e.g., Francis et al., 2007; Robbins & Francis, 2011), it would seem that the two SFJ types are over-represented among churchgoing populations. Against this background, the aim of the present study is to build on and to extend the growing research literature on the relationship between psychological type and religious affiliation in three ways. First, whereas the existing research has concentrated exclusively on churchgoing Christians, the present study focuses on atheists. It explores the question of whether or not atheists are indeed the mirror image of churchgoing Christians. If Beit-Hallahmi (2007) is correct then atheists will present a predominantly NTP profile. Second, given the small proportion of atheists in the USA and the fact that they have been considered to be an out group, the present study is based in the USA. Third, the present study will compare the data gathered with the USA population norms published by Myers, McCaulley, Quenck, and Hammer (2003).

4 Mental Health, Religion & Culture 1079 Method Procedure During 2011 and 2012, the Personality and Belief in God Survey was made available online and individuals over the age of 19 were invited to participate via social media websites using a snowball sampling technique. Individuals who selected I do not believe in any sort of God, gods, or Higher Power as the phrase that best described their current view about God and who indicated that they currently reside in the USA were added to the American atheists sample. Participants A total of 10,627 American atheists (7763 males and 2864 females) completed the survey. The average age for both males and females was 34 (SD ¼ 12). Among the females, 88.8% self-identified as white, 2.5% as Hispanic, 1.2% as Asian, 1.1% as black, and 6.4% as mixed or other. Among the males, 89.5% self-identified as white, 3.1% as Hispanic, 1.8% as Asian, 0.7% as black, and 4.9% as mixed or other. Analysis of the visitor statistics for the survey website indicated that the majority of the participants accessed the questionnaire via Facebook, Reddit (a social news website), or Pharyngula (a popular atheist blog written by biologist PZ Myers). Measure Psychological type was assessed by the Francis Psychological-Type Scales (FPTS: Francis, 2005) which were included as part of the Personality and Belief in God Survey. This 40- item instrument comprises four sets of 10 forced-choice items related to each of the four components of psychological type: extraversion versus introversion, sensing versus intuition, thinking versus feeling, and judging versus perceiving. Recent studies have demonstrated that this instrument functions well in terms of reliability. For example, Francis, Craig, and Hall (2008) reported alpha coefficients of 0.83 for the EI scale, 0.76 for the SN scale, 0.73 for the TF scale, and 0.79 for the JP scale. Data analysis The research literature on psychological type has developed the distinctive method of analysing and displaying type data in the form of type tables and therefore this convention was used in the present study. Type tables are designed to test the statistical significance of differences between groups (in this case, between atheists and the general population) by means of the selection ratio (I), an extension of the chi-square. Results The four scales of the Francis Psychological-Type Scales achieved satisfactory alpha coefficients according to DeVellis (2003): introversion and extraversion 0.80; sensing and intuition 0.62; thinking and feeling 0.64; judging and perceiving Table 1 presents the type distribution for the 2864 female atheists who participated in the survey. These data demonstrated that the female atheists displayed preferences for

5 1080 M.J. Baker and M. Robbins Table 1. Type distribution of female atheists in America. The 16 complete types Dichotomous preferences ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E n ¼ 629 (22.0%) I ¼ 0.42*** n ¼ 1168 n ¼ 206 n ¼ 109 n ¼ 335 I n ¼ 2235 (78.0%) I ¼ 1.64*** (40.8%) (7.2%) (3.8%) (11.7%) I ¼ 5.89*** I ¼ 0.37*** I ¼ 2.33*** I ¼ 13.78*** S n ¼ 1979 (69.1%) I ¼ 0.92*** þþþ N n ¼ 885 (30.9%) I ¼ 1.23*** þþ þþ T n ¼ 2236 (78.1%) I ¼ 3.19*** F n ¼ 628 (21.9%) I ¼ 0.29*** J n ¼ 2287 (79.9%) I ¼ 1.42*** P n ¼ 577 (20.1%) I ¼ 0.46*** þ Pairs and temperaments ISTP ISFP INFP INTP IJ n ¼ 1818 (63.5%) I ¼ 2.20*** n ¼ 135 n ¼ 50 n ¼ 83 n ¼ 149 IP n ¼ 417 (14.6%) I ¼ 0.78*** (4.7%) (1.7%) (2.9%) (5.2%) EP n ¼ 160 (5.6%) I ¼ 0.22*** I ¼ 2.00*** I ¼ 0.18*** I ¼ 0.62** I ¼ 2.95*** EJ n ¼ 469 (16.4%) I ¼ 0.60*** þþ þþþ ST n ¼ 1622 (56.6%) I ¼ 3.05*** SF n ¼ 357 (12.5%) I ¼ 0.22*** ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP NF n ¼ 271 (9.5%) I ¼ 0.49*** n ¼ 50 n ¼ 20 n ¼ 35 n ¼ 55 NT n ¼ 614 (21.4%) I ¼ 3.61*** (1.7%) (0.7%) (1.2%) (1.9%) I ¼ 0.58 I ¼ 0.07 I ¼ 0.13 I ¼ 0.79 SJ n ¼ 1724 (60.2%) I ¼ 1.22*** þþ þ þ þþ SP n ¼ 255 (8.9%) I ¼ 0.35*** NP n ¼ 322 (11.2%) I ¼ 0.61*** NJ n ¼ 563 (19.7%) I ¼ 2.95*** ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ TJ n ¼ 1847 (64.5%) I ¼ 4.31*** n ¼ 269 n ¼ 81 n ¼ 44 n ¼ 75 TP n ¼ 389 (13.6%) I ¼ 1.42*** (9.4%) (2.8%) (1.5%) (2.6%) FP n ¼ 188 (6.6%) I ¼ 0.19*** I ¼ 1.50*** I ¼ 0.17*** I ¼ 0.47*** I ¼ 2.86*** FJ n ¼ 440 (15.4%) I ¼ 0.37*** þþþ þþ þþþ þþþþ IN n ¼ 676 (23.6%) I ¼ 2.66*** EN n ¼ 209 (7.3%) I ¼ 0.45*** IS n ¼ 1559 (54.4%) I ¼ 1.41*** ES n ¼ 420 (14.7%) I ¼ 0.40*** ET n ¼ 449 (15.7%) I ¼ 1.24** EF n ¼ 180 (6.3%) I ¼ 0.16*** IF n ¼ 448 (15.6%) I ¼ 0.44*** IT n ¼ 1787 (62.4%) I ¼ 5.25*** Jungian types (E) Jungian types (I) Dominant types n % Index n % Index n % Index E-TJ *** I-TP *** Dt.T *** E-FJ *** I-FP *** Dt.F *** ES-P *** IS-J *** Dt.S *** EN-P *** IN-J *** Dt.N ** Note: Total n ¼ *p ; **p ; ***p

6 Mental Health, Religion & Culture 1081 introversion (78%) over extraversion (22%), for sensing (69%) over intuition (31%), for thinking (78%) over feeling (22%), and for judging (80%) over perceiving (20%). The two most frequently occurring types were ISTJ (41%) and INTJ (12%). In other words, the two I_TJ types accounted for 53% of female atheists. Table 1 also compares the type distribution for the atheist females with the type distribution for females in the USA national representative sample (N ¼ 1531) published by Myers et al. (2003). These data demonstrated that the female atheists displayed a significantly higher preference for introversion than females in general (78% compared with 48%), a significantly higher preference for thinking (78% compared with 25%), and a significantly higher preference for judging (80% compared with 56%). Although the female atheists demonstrated an overall preference for sensing, compared with females in general, this preference was slightly lower (69% compared with 75%). In terms of the 16 discrete types, compared with females in general, among the female atheists there were significant over-representations of INTJ (12% compared with 1%), ISTJ (41% compared with 7%), INTP (5% compared with 2%), ENTJ (3% compared with 1%), INFJ (4% compared with 2%), ISTP (5% compared with 2%), and ESTJ (9% compared with 6%). Table 2 presents the type distribution for the 7763 male atheists who participated in the survey. These data demonstrated that the male atheists displayed preferences for introversion (80%) over extraversion (20%), for sensing (67%) over intuition (34%), for thinking (90%) over feeling (10%), and for judging (74%) over perceiving (26%). The two most frequently occurring types were ISTJ (41%) and INTJ (14%). In other words, the two I_TJ types accounted for 56% of male atheists. Table 2 also compares the type distribution for the atheist males with the type distribution for males in the USA national representative sample (N ¼ 1478) published by Myers et al. (2003). These data demonstrated that the male atheists displayed a significantly higher preference for introversion than males in general (80% compared with 54%), a significantly higher preference for thinking (90% compared with 57%), and a significantly higher preference for judging (74% compared with 52%). Although the male atheists demonstrated an overall preference for sensing, compared with males in general, this preference was slightly lower (67% compared with 72%). In terms of the 16 discrete types, compared with males in general, among the male atheists there were significant over-representations of INTJ (14% compared with 3%), ISTJ (41% compared with 16%), and INTP (8% compared with 5%). Discussion The present study set out to establish the psychological-type profile of American atheists and to compare that profile to USA population norms. The data demonstrated that the atheist population differs significantly from the general population when it comes to psychological type with noticeable over-representations of INTJ, ISTJ, and INTP among both male and female atheists. This suggests that these psychological types might be more likely to embrace atheism than others. The type most over-represented among both male and female atheists, INTJ, is described by Myers (1998) as follows: Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long-range explanatory perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Sceptical and independent, have high standards of competence and performance for themselves and others. (p. 13)

7 1082 M.J. Baker and M. Robbins Table 2. Type distribution of male atheists in America. The 16 complete types Dichotomous preferences ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E n ¼ 1579 (20.3%) I ¼ 0.44*** n ¼ 3213 n ¼ 216 n ¼ 124 n ¼ 1117 I n ¼ 6184 (79.7%) I ¼ 1.47*** (41.4%) (2.8%) (1.6%) (14.4%) I ¼ 2.53*** I ¼ 0.35*** I ¼ 1.24 I ¼ 4.34*** S n ¼ 5161 (66.5%) I ¼ 0.93*** þþþ þþ N n ¼ 2602 (33.5%) I ¼ 1.19*** þþþþ T n ¼ 7015 (90.4%) I ¼ 1.60*** F n ¼ 748 (9.6%) I ¼ 0.22*** J n ¼ 5729 (73.8%) I ¼ 1.42*** P n ¼ 2034 (26.2%) I ¼ 0.55*** þ Pairs and temperaments ISTP ISFP INFP INTP IJ n ¼ 4670 (60.2%) I ¼ 2.07*** n ¼ 672 n ¼ 80 n ¼ 123 n ¼ 639 IP n ¼ 1514 (19.5%) I ¼ 0.78*** (8.7%) (1.0%) (1.6%) (8.2%) EP n ¼ 520 (6.7%) I ¼ 0.29*** I ¼ 1.02 I ¼ 0.14*** I ¼ 0.38*** I ¼ 1.71*** EJ n ¼ 1059 (13.6%) I ¼ 0.59*** þ þþ þþþþ þþþ ST n ¼ 4775 (61.5%) I ¼ 1.48*** SF n ¼ 386 (5.0%) I ¼ 0.17*** ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP NF n ¼ 362 (4.7%) I ¼ 0.35*** n ¼ 206 n ¼ 37 n ¼ 71 n ¼ 206 NT n ¼ 2240 (28.9%) I ¼ 1.95*** (2.7%) (0.5%) (0.9%) (2.7%) I ¼ 0.47*** I ¼ 0.07*** I ¼ 0.14*** I ¼ 0.66** SJ n ¼ 4166 (53.7%) I ¼ 1.25*** þþþ þ þ þþþ SP n ¼ 995 (12.8%) I ¼ 0.45*** NP n ¼ 1039 (13.4%) I ¼ 0.69*** NJ n ¼ 1563 (20.1%) I ¼ 2.25*** ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ TJ n ¼ 5292 (68.2%) I ¼ 2.03*** n ¼ 684 n ¼ 53 n ¼ 44 n ¼ 278 TP n ¼ 1723 (22.2%) I ¼ 0.97 (8.8%) (0.7%) (0.6%) (3.6%) FP n ¼ 311 (4.0%) I ¼ 0.16*** I ¼ 0.79** I ¼ 0.09*** I ¼ 0.35*** I ¼ 1.32 FJ n ¼ 437 (5.6%) I ¼ 0.30*** þ þ þþþþ þþþþ IN n ¼ 2003 (25.8%) I ¼ 1.91*** EN n ¼ 599 (7.7%) I ¼ 0.52*** IS n ¼ 4181 (53.9%) I ¼ 1.33*** ES n ¼ 980 (12.6%) I ¼ 0.40*** ET n ¼ 1374 (17.7%) I ¼ 0.75*** EF n ¼ 205 (2.6%) I ¼ 0.12*** IF n ¼ 543 (7.0%) I ¼ 0.33*** IT n ¼ 5641 (72.7%) I ¼ 2.20*** Jungian types (E) Jungian types (I) Dominant types n % Index n % Index n % Index E-TJ I-TP *** Dt.T E-FJ *** I-FP *** Dt.F *** ES-P *** IS-J *** Dt.S *** EN-P *** IN-J *** Dt.N *** Note: Total n ¼ *p 5.05; **p 5.01; ***p

8 Mental Health, Religion & Culture 1083 That INTJs in particular might be more likely to embrace atheism than other psychological types makes sense in light of the above description. The combination of scepticism, independence and high standards could make this type more likely than others to question the supernatural claims made by religion and to rely on personal inquiry over tradition and conformity. ISTJ, although less over-represented than INTJ due to their high frequency in the general population as well as the atheist population, was nonetheless the predominant type among both male and female atheists, comprising over 40% of the sample. ISTJ is described by Myers (1998) as follows: Serious, quiet, earn success by concentration and thoroughness. Practical, orderly, matter-offact, logical, realistic, dependable. See to it that everything is well organized. Take responsibility. Make up their minds as to what should be accomplished and work toward is steadily, regardless of protests or distractions. (p. 13) The significant over-representation of the two I_TJ types in addition to the INTP type in part supports the hypothesis that atheists will present the mirror image of churchgoers. Two of the three over-represented types, INTJ and INTP, mirror churchgoers in terms of functional pairs (i.e., the middle two letters). For churchgoers, _SF_ is over-represented, whereas for atheists _NT_ is over-represented. However, the hypothesis that atheists would have a greater tendency towards Perceiving (P) is not supported by the data. Although the present study has broken new ground in terms of using psychologicaltype theory to explore issues related to religious affiliation, there remain two important weaknesses with the study. First, although sex was controlled for by analysing the data for males and females separately, age and ethnicity were not. The national representative sample used to establish USA population norms had an average age of 46 (SD ¼ 17) whereas the American atheist sample had an average age of 34 (SD ¼ 12). Also, the national representative sample was weighted so that it matched USA census data in terms of ethnicity whereas the American atheist sample was less diverse with 89% of both males and females self-identifying as white. Second, due to the fact that the American atheist data were collected entirely online and was thus limited to individuals who frequent atheist-related websites and/or Facebook, it is unclear as to whether the sample truly represents American atheists in general. However, despite these weaknesses, the present study has demonstrated that the relationship between psychological type and atheism is an area worth researching further and has laid a strong foundation for future research to build upon. References Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2007). Atheists: A psychological profile. In M. Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism (pp ). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Beit-Hallahmi, B., & Argyle, M. (1997). The psychology of religious behaviour, belief and experience. London: Routledge. Caldwell-Harris, C.L., Wilson, A.L., LoTempio, E., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2011). Exploring the atheist personality: Well-being, awe, and magical thinking in atheists, Buddhists, and Christians. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14, Craig, C.L., Francis, L.J., Bailey, J., & Robbins, M. (2003). Psychological types in Church in Wales congregations. The Psychologist in Wales, 15, Delis-Bulhoes, V (1990). Jungian psychological types and Christian belief in active church members. Journal of Psychological Type, 20,

9 1084 M.J. Baker and M. Robbins DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. London: Sage. Francis, L.J. (2005). Faith and psychology: Personality, religion and the individual. London: Darton, Longman and Todd. Francis, L.J., Butler, A., Jones, S.H., & Craig, C.L. (2007). Type patterns among active members of the Anglican Church: A perspective from England. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 10, Francis, L.J., Craig, C.L., & Hall, G. (2008). Psychological type and attitude towards Celtic Christianity among committed churchgoers in the United Kingdom: An empirical study. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 23, Francis, L.J., Duncan, B., Craig, C.L., & Luffman, G. (2004). Type patterns among Anglican congregations in England. Journal of Adult Theological Education, 1, Francis, L.J., Robbins, M., & Craig, L. (2011). The psychological type profile of Anglican churchgoers in England: Compatible or incompatible with their clergy. International Journal of Practical Theology, 15, Francis, L.J., Robbins, M., Williams, A., & Williams, R. (2007). All types are called, but some are more likely to respond: The psychological profile of rural Anglican churchgoers in Wales. Rural Theology, 5, Gerhardt, R. (1983). Liberal religion and personality type. Research in Psychological Type, 6, Jung, C.G. (1971). Psychological types: The collected works (Vol. volume 6). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Myers, I.B. (1998). Introduction to type. Mountain View, CA: CPP. Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., Quenk, N.L., & Hammer, A.L. (2003). MBTI Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Mountain View, CA: CPP. Rehak, M.C. (1998). Identifying the congregation s corporate personality. Journal of Psychological Type, 44, Robbins, M.J., & Francis, L.J. (2011). All are called, but some psychological types are more likely to respond: Profiling churchgoers in Australia. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 22, Ross, C.F.J. (1993). Type patterns among active members of the Anglican church: Comparisons with Catholics, Evangelicals and clergy. Journal of Psychological Type, 26, Ross, C.F.J. (1995). Type patterns among Catholics: Four Anglophone congregations compared with Protestants, Francophone Catholics and priests. Journal of Psychological Type, 33,