Students' perceptions of Jesus' personality as assessed by Jungian-type inventories.

The present study was the first phase of an exploration of college students' perceptions of the personality of Jesus Christ as assessed by two Jungian-type inventories, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1998) and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II (Keirsey, 1998), which categorize personality along four dimensions: Extraversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, and Judgment/Perception. Along with an overall exploration of students' perceptions, the present study focused on whether students were likely to make self-based attributions in their perceptions of Jesus' personality. Results indicated that students perceived Jesus to be an Extravert Feeler and made self-based attributions along the Sensing/Intuitive dimension, with 43% perceiving Him to be an Intuitive-Feeler and 37% perceiving Him to be a Sensing-Judger. Perceptions of Jesus as a Judger or Perceiver were divided, with those placing more importance on modeling Jesus more likely to see Him as a Judger, and those placing less importance on modeling Him perceiving Jesus as a Perceiver.

**********

The present study explored students' perceptions of the personality of Jesus Christ as measured by two Jungian-type inventories, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II (Keirsey, 1998) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, specifically focusing on whether participants were likely to make self-based attributions in their perceptions of Jesus. Both the Keirsey and the Myers-Briggs assess personality along four dimensions (Extraversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, and Judging/Perceiving), none of which are intended to be indicative of mental health or illness, but reflect behavioral preferences which embody strengths as well as challenges (Keirsey, 1998; Myers, 1987).

Past research has already suggested a relationship between personality type and various aspects of religiosity. Michael and Norrisey (1991) proposed that each of the four gospel writers exemplified one of the four basic Myers-Briggs types (Sensing-Judging, Sensing-Perceiving, Intuitive-Feeling, Intuitive-Thinking) thus perceiving Christ and His work from the perspective of his own type. Such an interpretation suggests that each gospel writer would have assigned meaning and importance to Christ's actions based on his own personality which would result in the gospel accounts varying somewhat in terms of events recorded and the importance attached to those events. Accordingly, Michael and Norrisey suggested that readers of the Scripture will feel more drawn to the gospel which was written from the perspective of his/her own personality type.

Likewise, other studies have explored the connection between religiosity and personality. Bunker (1991) asserted the importance of expressing one's spirituality in a way most satisfying to, and consistent with, one's personality type. Bassett, Mathewson, and Gailitis (1993) indicated a relationship between personality and preferred interpretations of Scripture.

Personality type has also been associated with the interpretation of ambiguous information (Frederickson, 1995). Frederickson found that subjects in his study made self-based attributions when presented with a list of ambiguous characteristics which they were asked to identify as descriptive of extraversion or introversion. Extraverts, as characterized by the Myers-Briggs, tended to label ambiguous items as characteristic of extraversion; introverts tended to attribute introversion to the same ambiguous items. Frederickson concluded that in the absence of a clear cut behavioral display of extraversion or introversion, subjects in his study tended to make attributions based on characteristics of their own personality type, "thus assuming a greater self-other similarity than may actually exist" (p. 34).

Frederickson's (1995) findings seem noteworthy given Goldsmith's (1997) assertion that Jesus' personality seems somewhat ambiguous to us today. Goldsmith proposed that while the person of Jesus had a personality which could have been categorized in Myers-Briggs terminology, people today cannot know for certain what that categorization would have been, since Jesus, at different times, displayed behaviors characteristic of each of the aforementioned dimensions and because the scriptures simply do not provide the specific information needed to make such a categorization. Goldsmith's position suggests that there is ambiguity in the information given about Jesus' personality.

Therefore, given the research indicating a relationship between personality and religiosity, the tendency toward making self-attributions when presented with ambiguous information, and the assertion that the information regarding Jesus' personality is rather ambiguous, a question emerges: When reading scripture regarding Jesus' life, are we likely to make self-based attributions regarding Jesus' personality, thereby perceiving a greater similarity between Christ and ourselves than may actually exist? The present study explored this question, along with a more general exploration of student perception of the personality of Jesus Christ.

The idea of a relationship existing between one's perception of Jesus and one's own personality is not new. In fact Piedmont, Williams, & Ciarrocchi (1997) explored the same and found that self-ratings of personality accounted for 11% of the variance in subjects' perception of Jesus' personality. However, Piedmont et al. utilized the Adjective Checklist (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983), whose items are inclusive of both attractive and unattractive personality descriptors and the five-factor model of personality (e.g., McCrae & John, 1992), which makes distinctions between healthy and unhealthy traits. The present study, however, sought to explore the same question from a different perspective. Using Jungiantype inventories, whose dimensions are not intended to be indicative of health or illness, precluded the possibility of respondents simply answering in ways that described Jesus as healthy and well-adjusted, a possibility which seems likely given that many persons, even those not claiming the Christian faith, see Jesus as a good person who had admirable qualities. Using inventories such as the Myers-Briggs or the Keirsey whose dimensions are not intended to embody good or bad facilitated an exploration of other possible influences in the attribution of characteristics to Jesus' personality, namely that of attributions based on one's own personality.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were students from a private, Baptist University in the mid-South who volunteered for the present study. Some earned extra credit for their participation, and some were recruited by the researcher based on the fact that they had taken a Jungian-style inventory at the same institution at some time prior. Of the 79 participants, 52 were female and 27 were male, ranging in age from 18 to 54 (mean age = 22). Participants were primarily White (94%) and, although represented a variety of religious backgrounds, the majority (61%) were Baptist.

Of the 79 participants, 35 had taken a Jungian-type inventory for themselves at some time prior; therefore the number of scores for which analyses could be computed to determine the presence of self-based attributions was limited.

Instruments

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/The Keirsey Temperament Sorter II. Two Jungian-style personality indicators, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1998) and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II (Keirsey, 1998), were utilized in the present study. All participants completed the Keirsey online in order to measure their perceptions of Jesus' personality. Those participants who provided their own personality profiles did so from previously obtained Myers-Briggs or Keirsey online results.

Jungian inventories have been used extensively in psychological (e.g. Frederickson, 1995; Healy & Woodward, 1998; Opt & Loffredo, 2000) and religious (e.g., Bunker, 1991; Michael & Norrisey, 1991) research, suggesting their usefulness for the present study. The use of, and comparison of scores between, the Myers-Briggs and the Keirsey were deemed appropriate based on the findings of Kelly & Jugovic (2001) which indicated that the two instruments measure the same constructs and that the individual scales of the two instruments are correlated to a moderate to strong degree for both genders (correlations ranged from .60 on the Judging/Perceiving scale for men to .78 on the Thinking/Feeling scale for women).

The use of both inventories, rather than only one, also served a practical purpose for the present study. Since the Myers-Briggs is routinely administered at this particular institution for career and course of study planning, many students had already taken the Myers-Briggs previously, thereby increasing the number of participants who would be able to report their own Jungian-type scores. While the Keirsey is not given routinely on campus, it can be taken online which makes it easily accessible to students and cost-effective for the present study.

The Myers-Briggs and the Keirsey categorize personality along four dimensions. The first dimension is that of Extraversion/Introversion, with the distinction being whether one is energized primarily from other people (Extraversion), or from within (Introversion). The dimension of Sensing/Intuition indicates whether the individual prefers attaining information through the physical senses, focusing more on the realities of the present and practical application (Sensing), or through intuition, focusing beyond sensory data onto possibilities and patterns that make up the big picture (Intuition). The Thinking/Feeling dimension refers to the individual's style of decision-making which can be characterized primarily by logic and objective analysis (Thinking) or by warmth and concern for the values of the persons involved, even when that goes against logic (Feeling). Finally, the Judging/Perceiving dimension denotes the way in which an individual deals with the world, whether it be through a life of structure and regulation, enjoying the completion of projects (Judging), or that of spontaneity, adaptability, and the flexibility of options remaining open (Perceiving) (Keirsey, 1998; Myers, 1987).

Individuals taking the Myers-Briggs or the Keirsey answer questions regarding their preferences, then are provided a profile reflective of those preferences. A profile consists of four dimensions, one from each of the four dichotomies previously described. There are 16 possible profiles which can be condensed into four basic personality profiles: Sensing-Judgers, Sensing-Perceivers, Intuitive-Thinkers, and Intuitive-Feelers (Keirsey, 1998; Myers, 1998).

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979) was utilized in the present study in order to explore self-esteem as a mediating factor in making self-based attributions. Specifically, it was examined whether participants scoring higher on self-esteem would be more likely to perceive a similarity between Jesus and themselves than those scoring lower. The Rosenberg is a global measure of self-esteem encompassing 10 items to which participants respond according to whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. The Rosenberg was chosen for the present study due to its clarity, simplicity of administration, and cost-effectiveness. Due to the relatively small sample size, and to decrease the chance of overlooking self-esteem as a factor, scores for the Rosenberg were categorized in three ways: (a) with a designation for high, moderate, and low scores; (b) with only high and low scores included in analyses, deleting moderate scores; and (c) with a designation for high and low scores with every respondent being designated as one or the other.

Questionnaire. Participants completed a questionnaire designed for the present study to ascertain demographics and information on religiosity. In order to compute a chi-square test with a relatively small sample size, categories were created for participant age and academic level. Determining appropriate age categories was rather arbitrary, but I wanted to learn if there was a difference between older, nontraditional students, and younger traditionals, and even between younger traditionals and those who were nearing graduation. Academic levels were collapsed into two categories (freshmen/sophomores and juniors/seniors).

Measuring religiosity is difficult due to the ambiguity of the term religious. Therefore, in addition to requesting information on religious background and current affiliation, the questionnaire posed three questions regarding the importance of religion for these participants: (a) "At present, how active are you in your church or religious group?," (b) "How knowledgeable do you believe yourself to be regarding Jesus' life?," and (c) "How important is it to you to model your life and behavior after Jesus?" Participants were asked to respond to each question on a 3-point scale: Not at all, Somewhat, or Very. Information on religious background and affiliation were not used in analyses due to the homogeneity of the sample. (For the total sample, there were nine categories of response, with 63% being Baptist; for the subsample, there were seven categories of response, with 60% being Baptist.)

Likewise, lack of diversity prevented an adequate statistical analysis of race as a mediator for students' perceptions (five categories of response, with 94% being White).

Participants were also asked whether they had ever taken the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and, for those who had, permission was requested for access to their scores through the appropriate university office.

Procedure

Students who agreed to participate were told that the present study would explore students' perceptions of the personality of Jesus Christ and were asked to take the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II online, answering the questions as they believe Jesus would answer them. They were then to print out and hand in to me the results which consisted of the preferred dimensions that emerged from their answers to inventory questions, reflecting their beliefs about Jesus' preferences and, consequently, his personality.

Participants were not told that the present study would explore the possibility of their making self-based attributions, since that knowledge might influence their answers to Keirsey items and compromise the validity of the study. Therefore several precautions were taken to prevent the participants' gaining full knowledge of the study's intent. First, participants completed the questionnaire after the Keirsey so that the questionnaire's request for their own scores would not alert them to the full intent of the study. Second, participants were not required to take a Jungian-type inventory to obtain their own personality profile for the present study. Finally, the questionnaire inquired as to what the participants believed the purpose of the study to be. A small percentage of participants (11%) seemed aware of the study's purpose, with statistical analysis indicating that their scores were not significantly different from those of participants who were not aware of the intent.

After completing the Keirsey, participants also completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

RESULTS

To learn students' perceptions of the personality of Jesus, I computed a chi-square test for the 16 possible Jungian personality types, each of the four dimensions, and each of the four basic personality profiles, to determine whether students chose any personality type more frequently as depicting that of Jesus Christ.

Significant differences were found for students' perceptions of Jesus' overall personality type [chi square](7, N = 79) = 43.63, p < .001, with 4 of the 16 individual types accounting for over 84% of participants' perceptions in the present study. Approximately 25% of the participants perceived Jesus as having an ESFJ personality type; approximately 22% perceived Jesus as having an ENFP personality; approximately 20% perceived Jesus' personality as that of an ENFJ; and approximately 18% perceived Him as an ESFP (see Table 1 for a description of these personality profiles).

Significant differences were found along the Extravert-Introvert dimension, [chi square](1, N = 79) = 71.20, p < .001, with 97% of participants seeing Jesus as an Extravert, and along the Thinking/Feeling dimension [chi square](1, N = 79) = 44.06, p < .001, with 87% perceiving Him to be a Feeler.

A significant difference was also found among the four basic categories of Jesus' personality type [chi square](3, N = 79) = 32.24, p < .001, with two of those types emerging as more common, that of the Intuitive-Feeler (43%) and the Sensing-Judger (37%), with those perceiving Jesus as a Sensing-Perceiver being fewer (18%) and those perceiving Him as an Intuitive-Thinker being the smallest in number (3%).

Neither self-esteem nor most of the demographic variables were found to be related to students' perceptions of Jesus' personality. However, a two-way contingency table analysis revealed a relationship between students' perceptions of Jesus as a Judger or a Perceiver and one of the religiosity variables, the importance of modeling life after that of Jesus, Pearson [chi square](1, N = 78) = 9.01, p = .003, Cramer's V = .34, with those claiming it very important to model their lives after Jesus more often seeing Him as a Judger, and those claiming it somewhat important to model Jesus primarily seeing Him as a Perceiver. Due to the expected frequency being low for those responding that modeling life after Jesus was not at all important (which had only 1 respondent), I removed this category in order to make a computation possible.

To explore the possibility that participants made self-based attributions in their perception of Jesus, I computed two-way contingency table analyses for those participants for whom their own personality profiles were available. Results indicated that Sensing participants were more likely to see Jesus as Sensing; Intuitives were more likely to perceive Jesus as Intuitive, Pearson [chi square] (1, n = 35) = 6.56, p = .01, Cramer's V = .43. A two-way contingency table analysis of age and the presence or absence of a selfbased attribution for the Sensing/Intuitive dimension indicated that students 21 years of age and older were more likely to make self-based attributions than those who were younger, Continuity Correction (1, n = 35) = 3.92, p < .048, Cramer's V = .40. (The Continuity Correction, which is more conservative than the Pearson chi-square, was reported for this analysis due to the small sample size yielding an expected count of less than five in one of the four categories.)

Neither gender, academic level, self-esteem, nor measures of religiosity were found to be related to any tendency to make self-based attributions.

DISCUSSION

The present study indicated that students tended to perceive Jesus as an Extravert Feeler, but were divided regarding whether Jesus should be characterized as Sensing or Intuitive, Judging or Perceiving, with the former related to the participants' own Sensing/Intuitive dimension and the latter related to the level of importance the participants placed on modeling their lives after Jesus.

The finding that students overwhelmingly perceived Jesus as an Extravert is interesting, particularly since their perceptions did not mirror their own Extraversion/Introversion scores as expected. The perception of an extraverted Jesus might reflect a tendency within American culture to value extraversion over introversion (Keirsey, 1998). If one assumes extraversion to be better, one might conclude that Jesus, being the perfect human being, would have been an extrovert. Such an assumption might make it easier to identify those instances when Jesus sought out the crowds and worked quite well among them (e.g., Matthew 9:35-36; Mark 1:38-39), and easier to overlook those times when Jesus met the crowds only after attempting to get away by Himself (Matthew 14:13-14), spending time in deliberate solitude where he seemed to prepare, or energize, Himself for what lay ahead (Mark 1:35-39; Matthew 26:36-42).

Making an assumption that Jesus was extraverted based on a cultural bias might make it difficult for introverts in such a culture to accept and affirm their own behavioral preference as legitimate and valuable; not something to be overcome, or even tolerated, but something to be appreciated and blessed. Such an assumption might also make it easier for extraverts to overlook the strengths of introversion and the benefits introverts bring to their interactions with others. Those working toward their own spiritual growth, or those responsible for facilitating growth in others, might do well to remember that both extraversion and introversion have their own strengths and each make different, yet equally valuable, contributions to the lives of others.

The fact that most participants perceived Jesus as being dominated by His Feeling dimension is consistent with Goldsmith's (1997) suggestion that perhaps more than any other dimension Jesus could be said to be a strong Feeler due to His reputation as a healer, a comforter, and one who unselfishly sought to meet the needs of others. This finding also echoes that of Piedmont et al. (1997) whose respondents tended to perceive Jesus as being a "compassionate, considerate, warmly embracing individual" (p. 367) who worked "to reduce conflicts ... and to foster increased feelings of respect among people" (p. 368), all characteristics of the Feeler.

The finding that the importance of modeling life after Jesus was related to students' perceptions of Jesus as a Judger echoes a similar finding of the Piedmont et al. (1997) study in which participants who rated themselves as very involved in their religion viewed Jesus as "dutiful, self-disciplined, and deliberate" (p. 368), which is rather characteristic of the Judging personality trait. It is possible that those who see Jesus as a Judger are more likely to see Him as having a very definite plan regarding their behavior, a more organized structure from which they may express their behavioral choices, thus facilitating a stronger need to model their lives more specifically after the life He led. Likewise, those who view Jesus as Perceiver might be more likely to see Him as rather flexible in His expectations for their own behavior, allowing them more spontaneity, and being less likely to have an unbending plan for the behaviors they exhibit. This perceived flexibility might prompt these participants to see less need to model the specific behaviors of Jesus' life.

It is interesting that only the Sensing/Intuitive dimension was indicated as an area of self-based attributions. Related to Frederickson's (1995) finding, if ambiguity of an event prompts the making of self-based attributions, then maybe participants did not perceive ambiguity in terms of Jesus' Extraversion and Feeling dimensions, but did in terms of His being Sensing or Intuitive. Indeed, Jesus did meet others' needs with the practicality and eye for detail characteristic of the Sensing types, as seen in His healing of the blind man (John 9:6-7), His feeding of the five thousand (Matthew 14:15-21), or while on the cross His charge to John to care for His mother after His death (John 19:26-27). Yet Jesus also seemed to have the Intuitive's flair for seeing beyond the visible when He praised those who would one day, without seeing, still believe (John 20:29), or in His focus away from the physical needs of the moment onto the bigger picture of spiritual needs as he gently reprimanded Martha's fretting over the details and affirmed Mary's choice to sit and listen (Luke 10:38-42).

Finding that we make self-based attributions in our perceptions of even one area of Jesus' personality provides a warning for assumptions that we are inclined to make as to the person of Jesus. If we perceive Jesus' behavioral preferences as simply a reflection of our own, we run the risk of making Jesus similar to us rather than seeking to be like Him. There is also the tendency to assume that what we would do in any given situation is what Jesus would do, which could lead to a failure to look critically at our own behavior, and perhaps too critically at the behavior of others of different personality types. However an awareness of this tendency can remind us to exercise caution in the assumptions we make about Jesus' behavior and increase our acceptance of those whose behavioral preferences are different than our own. (While one could justifiably argue that too much acceptance of others' behavior, specifically in areas of morality and ethics, would not be advisable, Jungian inventories are not attempting to assess the morality or ethics of behavior. Rather, Jungian inventories attempt to assess such behavioral preferences as the manner in which we go about attaining information [e.g., whether we are more Sensing or Intuitive], with none of the preferences intended to denote a weakness in morality or ethics. Therefore, acceptance of the individual's behavioral preference does not suggest an acceptance of any and all behaviors.)

In addition to simply being aware of the tendency toward self-based attribution, a next step in countering such a tendency might be through the studying of Scripture with those of different personality types as one would likely find in any congregation, Sunday School class, or Bible study group. The sharing of thoughts and insight, particularly with those who are also aware of the tendency toward self-based attributions, could provide the challenge necessary to keep our own bias in check. Such study should not take the place of study based on sound Biblical hermeneutics but could be a complementary component, particularly when the focus is on those behaviors of Jesus which seem to be rather ambiguous and therefore potentially more open to personal bias.

In fact, the idea of addressing within the church our tendency toward self-deception in the reading of Scripture has been suggested by Sappington (1994) in his call for research-based programs in which psychological knowledge could be put to direct use in facilitating Christian living. Results from the present study could be applicable to such a program in educating Christians on the role personality seems to play in the perceptions held of Jesus.

The split in student perception between Jesus as a Sensing type and Jesus as an Intuitive was further reflected in the finding that 43% perceived Jesus as an Intuitive-Feeler and almost 37% perceived Him as a Sensing-Judger, together accounting for 80% of the sample (see Table 2 for distribution and description of each of the four basic types). The fact that fewer students saw Jesus as a Sensing-Perceiver or an Intuitive-Thinker is consistent with other results obtained. For instance, the Intuitive-Thinker's focus on autonomy and achievement would seem to be inconsistent with a perception of an Extraverted Feeler Jesus who is out among the people meeting needs, and the Intuitive-Feeler's emphasis on relationships, empathy, and helpfulness to others. Likewise, the Sensing-Perceiver's focus on the spontaneous enjoyment of life in the moment would seem to be inconsistent with the Sensing-Judger's desire for respectability and conformity, which seem to be more in line with this sample's perception of Jesus.

The indication that a tendency toward making self-based attributions in the area of Sensing/Intuition increases with age might indicate that life experience increases, or at least solidifies, self-based attributions. However, given the absence of similar findings in other studies, caution should be used in making such an interpretation until future research can explore this finding more completely.

While for the most part demographics did not mediate responses for participants in the present study, different findings might emerge in future research with a larger, more diverse, population. Research with a more diverse population would allow for an exploration of differences between those of various religious affiliations and those with more varying levels of commitment to their religious faith. (Among the present sample, 84% claimed to be at least somewhat active in their religious group; 82%, that modeling their lives after Jesus' was very important; with 100% claiming to be at least somewhat knowledgeable about Jesus' life.)

A sample more ethnically diverse might explore the possibility of cross-cultural differences in perceptions of Jesus' personality, specifically as those differences relate to a culture's valuing of some dimensions over others.

A larger sample size would also allow for stronger statistical analysis (i.e., multiple regression) to explore whether an interaction of variables might account for some of the differences observed in perception patterns. A larger sample might also increase the representation of different personality types among participants which would strengthen the external validity of the study, insuring its generalizability to those of all personality types. The present sample was balanced along the Extraversion/Introversion and Sensing/Intuitive dimensions, but not so for the Thinking/Feeling, Judging/Perceiving, or four basic types (see Tables 3 and 4 for distribution of participants' personality profiles).

Finally, since one could argue that any one inventory cannot describe the personality in a completely comprehensive manner, replication of the present study using other measures of personality (e.g., the five-factor model-McCrae & John, 1992), might be an important direction for future research. Such research could, hopefully, support the findings of the present study while contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of people's perceptions of Jesus' personality.

In summary, the present study found perceptions of Jesus' personality to be clear and well-defined in the areas of Extraversion and Feeling. Jesus as an Extravert was a salient perception which might reflect the influence of a culture which values extraversion over introversion. The perception of Jesus as a Feeler held by many in the present study is consistent with a New Testament image of Jesus as a comforter and seeker of harmony. Other dimensions of the Jungian-type inventories, however, were less commonly held and appeared to be related to participant variables. One such variable was that of the participants' personality which seemed to mediate perception in areas of ambiguity, in this case whether Jesus was Sensing or Intuitive. The perception of Jesus as a Judger or a Perceiver was related to the level of importance participants placed on modeling their lives after that of Jesus.

Although future research should proceed with a larger, more diverse sample, utilizing additional measures of personality, this study has effectively set the stage for future exploration by providing a glimpse of one population's perceptions and finding evidence, in one area, for making self-based attributions onto the personality of Jesus.

Table 1 Profiles Chosen Most Frequently as Personality of Jesus

         ESFJ (25%)                         ENFJ (20%)

(Extravert/Sensing/Feeler/Judger)  (Extravert/iNtuitive/Feeler/Judger)
Energized from environment         Energized from environment
and others. Focuses on             and others. Focuses on
present reality and practical      possibilities. Seeks harmony
application. Seeks harmony         in decision-making. Prefers
in decision-making. Prefers        structure and projects
structure and projects             completed.
completed.

         ESFP (18%)                         ENFP (22%)

(Extravert/Sensing/Feeler/         (Extravert/iNtuitive/Feeler/
Perceiver) Energized from          Perceiver) Energized from environment
environment and others. Focuses    and others. Focuses on possibilities.
on present reality and practical   Seeks harmony in decision-making.
application. Seeks harmony in      Prefers spontaneity and flexibility
decision-making. Prefers           of options.
spontaneity and flexibility of
options.

Descriptors for each type taken from Myers, I. B. (1987). Introduction
to Type. Palo Alto, CA Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Table 2 Distribution of Participants' Perceptions of Jesus' Personality
According to Four Basic Types

        Intuitive Feeler                      Sensing Judger
          43%  N = 34                         36.7%  N = 29

"Idealists" are future-oriented;   "Guardians" enjoy doing for others;
focus on growth, human potential,  value reliability, security,
and relationships; value empathy,  respectability, and conformity; are
helpfulness, and integrity.        joiners; make good supervisors.

        Intuitive Thinker                     Sensing Perceiver
          2.5%  N = 2                         17.7%  N = 14

"Rationals" trust reason; are      "Artisans" are focused on the
analytical; value knowledge,       present; like action; enjoy life; are
autonomy, competence, and          risk-takers, spontaneous, flexible,
achievement.                       artistic, and playful.

Description of four basic types taken from Keirsey, D. (1998).
Personality: Character and Temperament.
Retrieved from http://www.keirsey.com

Table 3 Distribution of Four Basic Personality Profiles for Subsample of
35 Participants

Sensing Judgers     n = 17 (48.5%)
Intuitive Feelers   n = 15 (43%)
Intuitive Thinkers  n = 2 (5.5%)
Sensing Perceivers  n = 1 (3%)

p < .001 ([chi square] = 24.31, df = 3)

Table 4 Distribution of Individual Personality Dimensions for Subsample
of 35 Participants

Extraversion  n = 16 (46%)  Sensing     n = 18 (51%)
Introversion  n = 19 (54%)  Intuition   n = 17 (49%)
Thinking      n = 6 (17%)*  Judging     n = 28 (80%)**
Feeling       n = 29 (83%)  Perceiving  n = 7 (20%)

* p < .001 ([chi square] = 15.11, df = 1)
** p < .001 ([chi square] = 12.60, df = 1)

REFERENCES

Bassett, R. L., Mathewson, K., & Gailitis, A. (1993). Recognizing the person in Biblical interpretation: An empirical study. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 12(1), 38-46.

Bunker, D. E. (1991). Spirituality and the four Jungian personality functions. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 26-34.

Frederickson, C. G. (1995). Self-based attributions in the perception of extraversion and introversion. Journal of Psychological Type, 35, 31-34.

Goldsmith, M. (1997). Knowing me knowing God: Exploring your spirituality with Myers-Briggs. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The adjective check list manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Healy, C. C., & Woodward, G. A. (1998). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and career obstacles. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 32(2), 74-85.

Keirsey, D. M. (1998). Personality: Character and Temperament. Retrieved from http://www.keirsey.com

Kelly, K. R., & Jugovic, H. (2001). Concurrent validity of the online version of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(1), 49-59.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An Introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.

Michael, C. P., & Norrisey, M. C. (1991). Prayer and temperament: Different prayer forms for different personality types. Charlottesville, VA: The Open Door, Inc.

Myers, I. B. (1987). Introduction to type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Myers, I. B. (1998). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Opt, S. K., & Loffredo, D. A. (2000). Rethinking communication apprehension: A Myers-Briggs perspective. Journal of Psychology, 134(5), 556-570.

Piedmont, R. L., Williams, J. E. G., & Ciarrocchi, J. W. (1997). Personality correlates of one's image of Jesus: Historiographic analysis using the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25(3), 364-373.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.

Sappington, A. A. (1994). Psychology for the practice of the presence of God: Putting psychology at the service of the church. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 13(1), 5-16.

AUTHOR

HOWELL, SUSAN H. Address: UPO Box 1263, Campbellsville University, 1 University Drive, Campbellsville, KY 42718. Title: Associate Professor of Psychology. Degrees: BA, Campbellsville College; MEd, EdD, Umiversity of Louisville. Specializations: Psychology of religion; personality; human development.

SUSAN H. HOWELL

Campbellsville University

I thank Royce Simpson, Patrick Bamwine, and Clarence Rohrbaugh who provided statistical guidance and assistance. I also thank the students who served as participants in this study. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susan H. Howell, UPO Box 1263, Campbellsville University, 1 University Drive, Campbellsville, Kentucky 42718. Email: [e-mail]