Idea Transcript
t •
52
Chapter VI. *•
Conolualon and Steamary. The possibilities Inherent In the Hypothetical
Framework are threefold? (1) That a particular hypothesis is established and “T
the assumed relationship between a particular personality oharac. teristla and a particular religious belief or practice is thereby justified.
' . (2) That a particular hypothesis la set aside and the
assumed relationship between a particular personality characterletlc and a particular religious belief or practice
is not
justified. (3) That, in qplte of a particular hypothesis being set aside, a significant personalty difference is observed among the particular religious groups. TMb is closely related to the second possibility. The six hypotheses were tested by the relevent Rorschach Indices and four of them were set aside. The evidenoe in the case of the other two was found to be inconclusive. The first possibility did not materialise. It is true that the hypotheses (d) and (f) sere neither disproved not esta blished. But such inconclusive evidence can hardly be considered significant in an experimental study. It is the second ana the third.possibilities that materialised in the comparative analysis. In other words, there was no positive indication of any influence of religion on the personality of members of religious groups. It Is significant
I
•
53.
•that several comparisons suggested a personality difference contrary to the hypothetical expectation. The difference in HjfM, •for example, suggests that the Buddhists are of a higher level of aspiration than the other two groups* The difference in Fo implies that the Buddhists are less flexible than either the Oatholies or the Muslims. Similarly flum.G finds the Muslims to be more extra*r
tensive than the Buddhists. But these Indices have little signi ficance when considered singly (Ainsworth, 1954). However this type of evidence favours the conclusion that there is no positive indication of religion exerting any influence on personality of members of religious groups. It may be suggested that several reliable tests, Instead of one, should have been used in this study, A number of sub-scales of the MMPI will no doubt be of special help here. But as already pointed out in Chapter III, such tests cannot be used in a study of this type unless they are adapted or standardised in the country where euoh an investigation is to be carried out. It may be suggested that the influence of a particular religion on the personality of members of that particular reli gious group, la far too subtle to be measured by the Rorschach or for th»t matter by any psychological tests.
It is true that the
Rorschach interpretation has been undergoing considerable change
T
and modification in recent years and that most of the interpreta tive hypotheses applied in this study have not yet been established experimentally. But the Rorgohach, with all the criticism levelled against it, la a very sensitive Instrument. Its efficiency in probing both the oonsolous and unconscious influences makes it particularly suitable for an investigation of this type.
!?4 It should be pointed out here that out of the 22 . obmparisone between the Buddhists and the Catholics, both of whom •
*
elong to the same ethnic group, only 5 showed any significant difference, while 12 comparisons between the Buddhists and the Muslims who belong to a different ethnic group and 10 compari sons between the Catholics and the latter showed significant differences. However, in view of the circumstances In which the florechaoh wag administered to the Muslim females, it is doubtfdl wh* whether this difference can be attributed to the ethnic factor. Another aspect of the problem that claims our attention here is the intellectual level of the subjects.
The results of
the Intelligence Test positively indicate that all the 125 subjects to whom it was administered are of average and above average levels of intelligence. The fact that even the other 25 subjects are teachers by profession rules out the possibility of their being of an interior intellectual level. This is confirmed, generally Speaking, by their FLR, M, W, 0 (which was not relevant to any of the six hypotheses), Content including k% and Succession. It is clear, therefore, that the ttiree groups of our subjects were of the same intellectual level. It should be pointed out here that the personality dimensions selected for this r§td.3y are not the only ones exposedv ^
to the influence of religious beliefs and practices of these subJects, For example, the Buddhist doctrine of non-violanoe (Ahlmsa) may be assumed to exert a considerable influence on the personality of Buddhists. It would be Interesting to study whether Buddhists
1
are less aggressive in their responses than followers of other
4
55
religions iffiich hare no place for such a philosophy. ,
The present study hag boon confined to the lay followers
-\^0f the three religions concerned. A comparative study, of per sonality of their clergy would be of greater interest. It Is also possible to compare the personality of members of clergy with that of lay followers. One more approach to the problem of personality differences In religious groups ie to study members of the same religious groups who belong to different races and lands*
Summary. In this study of personality differences in religious groups, the Borschaoh was administered to 60 Buddhists, 60 Roman Catholics and 50 Muslims of Ceylon, each group consisting of an equal number of males and females* They were teachers by pro fession and 26 to 35 years of age.
They were also tested for
religiosity and were given a group test of intelligence*
Six
personality characteristics were selected for the study, namely, (a) Level of Aspiration, (b) Rigidity and Flexibility, (o) Ego Control, (d) Optimism and pessimism, (e) Quilt and (f) Extratension and Introversion, They were assumed to be influenced by the following religious beliefs and practices respectivelyi (a) Rebirth of Buddhists, Everlasting Life in Heaven or Eternal Hell of Roman Catholics and Muslims; (h) Flexible religious oonduot of Buddhists, Rigid religious conduct of Roman Catholics and Muslims* (o) Karma of Buddhists, Kismet of Muslims, Free Will of Catholics; (d) Doctrine of suffering of Buddhists;
I
56
•
(e) Rebirth of Buddhists, Heaven and Hell of Roman Catholics ,and Muslima; (f) No*soul theory of Buddhists, sot#, theory of Roman* Catholics and Muslims. The following six hypotheses based on the assumed relationship between personality dimensions and religious beliefs and practices were set upt (a) The level *
of Aspiration of Buddhists is lower than that of Roman Oatho* lies and Muslims who conversely are of a higher level in this respect; (b) That Buddhists are more flexible in their atti tudes than Roman Catholics and Muslims who conversely are more rigid; (e) That Roman Catholics have more ego control than either Buddhists or Muslims who conversely have less of It; (d) That Buddhists are more pessimistic than Roman Catholics and Muslims who oonversely tend to be more optimistic;
(©)
Buddhists feel the sense of guilt to a lesser extent than Roman Catholics do and the latter in turn feel less of it than Muslims; (f) That Buddhists tend to be more extratensive than Roman Catholics and Muslims who conversely tend to be more introversive. Each hypothesis was tested by means of a number of relevent Rorschach indices.
Rone of the six. hypotheses was
significantly established. It was, therefore, concluded that there is no positive evidence of any influence of the partloular religious beliefs and practices on,the personality of members of the particular religious groups. It was, however, suggested that further studies with several reliable tests would be needed.