Psychological Type and Student Views of the “Origins Debate”: 

A Brief Summary

Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Psychology

University of Wisconsin – Marathon County

The purpose of this research is to explore the relationship between personality type differences and student views of the “origins debate”.  Along the way, I hope also to explore the question of whether theistic evolution is, in the minds of students, a view distinct from creationism and secular evolution (a genuine “third way”) or, alternatively, whether it largely represents an intermediate or compromise position between these other two views.  I also plan to consider the relationship between epistemology (mental process or how one draws conclusions) and metaphysics (mental content or what conclusions one draws) within the student population.

In this study, 429 UW Colleges students were administered a 50-item questionnaire (the Origins Attitude Survey) measuring attitudes about biological origins and related matters.  Of these, 232 individuals also completed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.   Based on responses to the origins attitude survey, students’ level of belief in God and their degree of acceptance of evolution were measured separately, to yield a fourfold classification scheme:  belief in God but not in evolution (creationism or CR);  belief in both God and evolution (theistic evolution or TE);  belief in evolution but not in God (secular evolution or SE);  and belief in neither (other or OT).   Among students surveyed, 56% were creationists, 13% were theistic evolutionists, 16% were secular evolutionists, and 15% were “other”.  Put differently, 69% of students believe in God and 29% believe in evolution.  This is roughly comparable to figures established by national opinion surveys such as those conducted by the Gallup Organization and the Pew Forum.  Average student responses to the individual Origins Attitude Survey items are listed in Table 1, following.

For those unfamiliar with Jung’s personality theory, a brief summary is provided here.  Jung proposed that four irreducible functions underlie all mental activity.  In the standard Myers-Briggs terminology, they are known as Sensing (S), iNtuition (N), Thinking (T), and Feeling (F). 

Both Sensing and iNtuition are means of gathering information about the world without otherwise analyzing or prioritizing it.  As such, they are opposing forms of Perceiving (P).  Sensing involves a here-and-now, observant focus on present realities as they present themselves to the five senses;  hence, individuals who emphasize Sensing as their means of information-gathering tend to become practical, detail-minded, concrete, and application-oriented.  In contrast, iNtuition involves a broad-brush, conceptual or imaginative focus on future possibilities as they arise from the unconscious mind or by means of a “sixth sense”;  hence, individuals who prefer iNtuition are likely to become creative, big-picture, abstract, and theory-oriented. 

Once information is gathered, it can be evaluated or assessed using either of two so-called Judging (J) functions, either Thinking or Feeling.  Thinking involves an impersonal, objective analysis with a focus on causes and effects, leading to an orientation among those who prefer Thinking that is calm, consistent, logical, and efficient.  Feeling, on the other hand, involves a personal, subjective assessment focused on personal and collective values, producing among those who prefer Feeling a style that is emotional, individualizing, empathic, and harmony-seeking. 

Each of these functions can be expressed either in an outward-looking, Extraverted fashion or an inward-looking, Introverted manner, and one of these two modes dominates the entire personality.  Finally, a person can either be drawn to closure and structure (a so-called Judging type) or to openness and flexibility (a so-called Perceiving type) in the conduct of their outer lives.  Thus, the four possible preferences (E or I, S or N, T or F, J or P) together yield 16 possible psychological types (e.g., INFP).

The frequency of the 16 psychological types in the sample is summarized in Table 2.  Types with both iNtuition and Feeling (NF types) were overrepresented in the sample relative to national samples of college students, perhaps because most subjects were psychology students and NFs are typically drawn to psychology as a result of their interest in possibilities (N) for people (F).

There were statistically significant relationships between psychological type and attitudes about origins in this study.  CR and TE respondents were statistically higher in Feeling, and SE and OT respondents higher in Thinking, suggesting that theists vs. nontheists utilize strikingly different ways of turning inputs (data) into conclusions.  This may suggest an underlying genetic propensity to view the world in either personal or impersonal ways. 

CR and SE respondents, though opposite in many respects, were statistically higher in Judging, while TE and OT respondents were higher in Perceiving.  This makes sense given that Judgers seek closure and certainty (whether theistic or atheistic certainty) that might preclude seeing any value in their opponents’ positions, while Perceivers seek openness and flexibility (which might include a desire to find value in both sides of a debate or a tendency to presume that no simple answers can be correct).

Each worldview was characteristically adopted by different types.  Creationists are most likely to be ISFJ or ESFJ, among the most traditional and group-minded of the types.  Secular evolutionists are most likely to be INTJ or ENTJ, among the most iconoclastic and individualistic of the types.  Theistic evolutionists are most likely to be ISFP or INFP, among the most tender-minded and harmony-seeking of the types.  Thus, individuals’ core motives may shape their worldview preferences in interesting ways.

To some extent, this study suggests that, as students view the world, TE is an intermediate or compromise position between CR and SE.  On a majority of the origins inventory items, TE respondents endorsed the items at a level in between the responses of CR and SE individuals (suggesting that a primary motive for these students is to split the difference between CR and SE or to mediate in some way between them).  However, on some items, TEs respond uniquely.  TEs were the most likely of the three groups to agree that “science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God”, that “both those who believe in God and those who do not may be rational persons”, that “both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the public schools”, and that “God used evolutionary processes to create life”.  TEs were less likely than the other two groups to agree that “there is an inherent conflict between science and religion” and that “if evolutionary theory is true, it is fatal to all forms of religious belief”.  To this extent, TE represents a unique point of view that is a “third way” all its own, rather than a mere compromise between creationism and secular evolution.

For students, links between epistemology and metaphysics were modest at best.  Though it would seem logical to presume that epistemological views of such items as the existence of extrascientific sources of truth, the religious neutrality of the scientific method, the capacity for human certainty, and the like would be correlated with worldview stances like CR, TE, and SE, this did not largely prove to be the case.  Nor did personality type differences correlate significantly with epistemological items on the attitude survey.  It appears that, for most students, their conclusions about reality are not grounded in a well thought out theory of knowledge.  What students believe about God, about evolution, and about the relationship between science and religion does not appear, for the most part, to be a product of independent thinking.  This seems true for all worldview groups.

Overall, this study provides modest support for the notion that personality differences significantly mediate student beliefs about the origins debate.   This research may suggest that some (by no means all!) disputes about origins may reflect “arguments about the shape of the table” (for instance, Feeling types are more likely to be religious, Thinking types more secular, as a result of how each type naturally views reality).  This may encourage a greater willingness to find value in the ideas of others with whom one disagrees, and may suggest a way to disagree more respectfully.

Table 1.  Origins Attitude Survey means (N = 429 UW Colleges students), normalized to 0-100 scale range

Table 2.  MBTI type distribution for N = 232 of respondents who also completed the MBTI (fall 2009)

Back to Main Page