Türkçe bir örneklemde enneagrama dayalı kişilik tiplerinin sıklığı: Web tabanlı kesitsel bir çalışma

Year 2020, , 211 - 218, 01.06.2020

Zekeriya Aktürk Kenan Taştan

https://doi.org/10.21601/ortadogutipdergisi.722751

Abstract

Amaç: Enneagram yüzlerce yıldır bilinmesine rağmen, bu alandaki araştırmalar azdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkçe konuşan bir örneklemin kişilik tiplerinin sıklığını analiz etmek ve farklı kişiliklerin oranlarını demografik verilerle karşılaştırmaktır.
Yöntem: Enneagram’a dayalı bir araç olan Taştan Kişilik Tipleri Envanteri Google Formlar’da barındırıldı ve üniversitenin akademik web sayfası üzerinden kullanıma sunuldu. Çevrimiçi yanıtlar 08.04.2015 ve 22.8.2019 tarihleri arasında toplanmıştır. Çalışmanın katılımcıları Türkçe konuşan ergenler ve yetişkinlerdir.
Bulgular: Bu araştırmada 1646 katılımcının verileri analiz edildi. Ortalama (± SD) yaş 29,48 ± 11,03 yıl idi. En sık karşılaşılan ana kişilik tipi 2 numaralı “yardımcı” (n = 335, %20,4), 8 numaralı “meydan okuyucu” ise en sık karşılaşılan kişilik kanadıdır (284, %17,3). Tip 8 kişilik sıklığı artan yaşla birlikte azalırken, tip 3 kişilik için tersi doğruydu (χ² = 130,623, p <0,001). Tip 1 kişilik erkeklerde daha yaygın iken (n = 51 (%9,5) ve n = 63 (%5,7)), tip 4 kadınlarda neredeyse iki kat fazlaydı (n = 48 (%8,9’a karşılık n = 183 (%16,5)) (χ² = 28,835, p <0,001) Ayrıca, eğitim düzeyi arttıkça tip 1 kişilik olasılığı da artmaktadır (χ² = 67,316, p <0,001).
Sonuç: İncelenen nüfusun kişilik tiplerinde demografik değişkenler açısından farklılıklar vardır. Bu bulgular kişilik tipinin beşikten mezara kadar aynı olmadığını, eğitim ve yaşla değişebileceğini düşündürmektedir. Enneagram kişilik tiplerinin tanımlanmış popülasyonlardaki belirli hastalıklarla ilişkisi araştırmalıdır.

Keywords

kişilik, kişilik değerlendirmesi, psikometri

Frequency of personality types based on enneagram in a Turkish sample: A web-based cross-sectional study

Abstract

Objectives: Although the Enneagram is known for hundreds of years, research in this area is scarce. The purpose of this study was to analyze the frequency of personality types of a Turkish-‎speaking sample and compare the rates of different personalities with demographic ‎data.‎
Methods: The Tastan Personality Types Inventory, an instrument based on Enneagram, was hosted at Google Forms and made available via the university’s academic web page. Online responses were collected between ‎08.04.2015 ‎and ‎‎22.8.2019. Participants of the study were Turkish speaking people aged adolescents and adults.
Results: Results for 1646 participants were analyzed. The mean (±SD) age was 29.48±11.03 years. The most commonly encountered main personality type was number 2, “the helper,” (n=‎335, 20.4‎%), while ‎number 8, “the challenger” was the most frequently encountered personality wing (‎284, 17.3%). The frequency of type 8 ‎personality was decreasing with increasing age, while the reverse was true for type 3 ‎personality (‎χ²=130.623‎, p‎<0.001). While the type 1 personality was more common among males (‎‎n=51‎ (9.5%) vs. n=63‎ (5.7%‎)), the type 4 was almost ‎twice common among females (‎n=‎48 (‎8.9% vs. ‎n=183‎ (16.5‎%)) (‎χ²=28.835, p<0.001). Also, the probability of type 1 personality was increasing as ‎the level of education increased (‎χ²=67.316, p‎<0.001).
Conclusion: There are differences in the personality types of the studied population concerning demographic variables. These findings imply that personality is not a lifelong constant entity, but it can change with age and education. Further studies should investigate the relationship of the Enneagram personality types with certain disease entities in defined populations.

Keywords

personality, personality assessment, psychometrics

References

• Carlson EN. Meta-accuracy and relationship quality: Weighing the costs and benefits of knowing what people really think about you. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016 Aug; 111(2): 250-64.
• Guimond S, Massrieh W. Intricate correlation between body posture, personality trait and incidence of body pain: A cross-referential study report. PLoS One. 2012; 7(5).
• Tastan K. [Combating Stress According to Personality Types]. Elazig: Grafikkent Dijital Baski Merkezi; 2012.
• Bucher MA, Suzuki T, Samuel DB. A meta-analytic review of personality traits and their associations with mental health treatment outcomes. Clin Psychol Rev. 2019 Jun; 70: 51-63.
• Butcher JN. Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory. Corsini Encycl Psychol. 2010: 1-3.
• Song Y, Shi M. Associations between empathy and big five personality traits among Chinese undergraduate medical students. PLoS One. 2017; 12(2): e0171665.
• Hojat M, Zuckerman M, Magee M, Mangione S, Nasca T, Vergare M, et al. Empathy in medical students as related to specialty interest, personality, and perceptions of mother and father. Pers Individ Dif. 2005; 39(7): 1205-15.
• Lee BK, Bahn GH, Lee W-H, Park JH, Yoon TY, Baek S Bin. The relationship between empathy and medical education system, grades, and personality in medical college students and medical school students. Korean J Med Educ. 2009; 21(2): 117-24.
• Kupfer DJ, Drew FL, Curtis EK, Rubinstein DN. Personality style and empathy in medical students. J Med Educ. 1978.
• Ginsburg SB. Gurdjieff unveiled: an overview and introduction to Gurdjieff’s teaching. London: Lighthouse Workbooks; 2005. 138 p.
• Tastan K. Development and Validation of a Personality Type‎ Inventory‎ Based on Enneagram. Konuralp Tıp Derg. 2019; 11(1): 112-8.
• Lee JS, Yoon JA, J DK. [Effectiveness of enneagram group counseling for self-identification and depression in nursing college students]. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013; 43(5): 649-57.
• Eckstein D. The Couple’s Enneagram Questionnaire (CEQ). Fam J. 2002; 10(1): 101-8.
• Baron R, Wagele E. The Enneagram Made Easy: Discover the 9 Types of People. New York: Harper Collins Publishers; 1994.
• Yilmaz ED, Gencer AG, Aydemir O, Yilmaz A, Kesebir S, Unal O, et al. Validity and reliability of nine types temperament scale. Egit ve Bilim. 2014; 39(171): 115-37.
• Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007; 4(10): 1623-7.
• Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007.
• Roh H, Park KH, Ko HJ, Kim DK, Son H Bin, Shin DH, et al. Understanding medical students’ empathy based on Enneagram personality types. Korean J Med Educ. 2019 Mar; 31(1): 73-82.
• Allen J, Brock SA, Ford S. Health care communication using personality type: patients are different! Heal Expect. 2002; 5(2): 182-3.
• Komasi S, Zakiei A, Ghasemi SR, Gilan NR, Veisi A, Bagherirad D, et al. Is enneagram personality system able to predict perceived risk of heart disease and readiness to lifestyle modification? Ann Card Anaesth. 2019; 22(4): 394-9.
• Hur Y, Lee KH. Analysis of Medical Students’ Enneagram Personality Types, Stress, and Developmental Level. Korean J Med Educ. 2011; 23(3): 175-84.
• Sunar D, Fisek G. Contemporary Turkish families. Fam Glob Perspect. 2005: 169-83.
• Riso DR, Hudson R. The wisdom of the Enneagram: The complete guide to psychological and spiritual growth for the nine personality types. Bantam; 1999. 99-100 p.
• Riso DR, Hudson R. Understanding the enneagram: The practical guide to personality types. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2000.
• Allen J, Brock SA. Health Care Communication Using Personality Type: Patients are Different! Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis; 2000.