Advocates of your own unidimensional strategy question the need for this kind out of classification into the basis that it’s maybe not specific whether or not they provide a far greater comprehension of peoples behavior and that they normally hidden the picture ( Lukaszewski, 2010 twenty two. Lukaszewski , W . ( 2010 ). Udreka zycia. [torment out-of life] . Sopot : Smak slowa . ). Within opinion, the study of their outcomes on relaxed people life is a great deal more essential than simply pinpointing the types of brand new FOPD, like in the research in line with the terror administration theory (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2015). For this reason, it may be determined that it doesn’t matter what accurately we identify the thing of one’s FOPD, a couple of central items are an equivalent: the point that we go through concern additionally the simple fact that during the most of the cases they questions death-the fragility out-of peoples lifestyle. In comparison, Yalom (2008b) thinks that passing stress is actually a variety of distinct, literally certain, worries, around that your central issue is the fear off private annihilation-driving a car away from ceasing in order to survive. In this evaluate, it’s genuine to help you are convinced that the 2 steps (unidimensional and multidimensional) don’t exclude both however, enable it to be a much better knowledge of some other servings off human lifetime where FOPD really works an enthusiastic extremely important mode. During the construction of FOPD, you’ll be able to differentiate one another an over-all measurement and good quantity of certain brands that make it right up; the factors that should be the main focus have decided from the objectives as well as the reliability of one’s tools put.
An evaluation of the for your family categories implies, first, any particular one version of FOPD (elizabeth
grams., anxiety about life immediately after dying, fear of the whole process of perishing or concern with you just after dying) are present on their own of one’s followed personality traditional, and you may secondly, that the kind of FOPD that are distinguished because the independent inside one class is included in most other classifications about range of a lot more generally defined form of FOPD ( Ochsmann, 1993 31. Ochsmann , R . ( 1993 ). Anxiety vor tod und auch sterben. Beitrage zur thanato-psychologie. [anxiety about passing and you can dying. Efforts to help you thanatopsychology ] . Gottingen : Hogrefe . ). Such as for instance findings highly recommend an excellent hierarchical design of one’s FOPD.
And there’s discrepancies from the literary works on the definition and build of your FOPD, the goal of the present analysis would be to evaluate they when you look at the a more nuanced means, on the Furcht vor Tod und auch Sterben Fragebogen (Dying and you may Dying Nervousness List, FVTS) because the a keen empirical illustration. Significantly more especially, i hypothesised that (a) the brand new inconsistencies and you will inconsistent causes previous lookup had been on account of the existence of all round concern about death factor, which is meaningfully differentiated into certain different the FOPD; and you may (b) the brand new FOPD do end up in has actually good hierarchical structure. To test whether the construction of FVTS made up the entire concern about death in addition to even more certain types of FOPD https://besthookupwebsites.org/colarspace-review/, we performed a bi-factor confirmatory foundation analysis. To evaluate perhaps the construction of your own FOPD was hierarchical in character, i went some exploratory architectural equation models because the advised within the Goldberg’s (2006) thirteen. Goldberg , L. Roentgen . ( 2006 ). Doing it the bass-ackwards: The introduction of the brand new hierarchical grounds formations about most useful off . Journal out of Search inside the Personality , 40 , 347 – 358 . . top-off techniques.
Users and process
The study was conducted in central, eastern and southern Poland on a group of 1217 people (602 women and 615 men) between 18 and 89 years of age ( M Decades = ; SD Age = ). The sample consisted of people in the following age ranges: between 18 and 23 years old ( M Age = ; SD Age = 1.79), constituting 35%; between 24 and 40 years old ( M Age = ; SD Age = 4.98), constituting 38%; between 41 and 59 years old ( M Age = ; SD Age = 4.95), constituting 16%; and over 60 years old ( M Age = ; SD Age = 5.74), constituting 3%. There was no data on age for 8% of the sample. Twenty-nine per cent of participants had a secondary education, 23% had an elementary education (17% of them were secondary school students) and 23% had a higher education. We did not obtain information on 25% of the participants’ education level.