Supporters of unidimensional approach concern the necessity for this kind of group into factor it is maybe not specific if or not they give you a far greater understanding of individual behaviour and that they can unknown the picture ( Lukaszewski, 2010 twenty two. Lukaszewski , flingster online W . ( 2010 ). Udreka zycia. [torment away from lives] . Sopot : Smak slowa . ). Inside their thoughts, the research of their consequences for the everyday human every day life is so much more important than just identifying the particular types of the latest FOPD, like in the research based on the scary administration theory (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2015). Hence, it can be determined that it doesn’t matter what accurately i determine the object of FOPD, several central activities continue to be the same: the fact we experience worry therefore the proven fact that in the all of the circumstances they inquiries dying-brand new fragility regarding human lifestyle. By comparison, Yalom (2008b) believes one demise nervousness was a mix of distinctive line of, virtually specific, worries, around that the central concern is worries out of private annihilation-worries from ceasing in order to survive. In this see, it’s legitimate so you’re able to are convinced that the two tips (unidimensional and you will multidimensional) don’t ban each other but ensure it is a much better knowledge of additional portions off human lifetime in which the FOPD functions an crucial form. When you look at the structure of your FOPD, you are able to identify each other a general measurement and you will an excellent number of particular versions making it up; this new issue which should be the focus are determined of the objectives while the precision of instruments used.
A comparison of the individually categories indicates, first and foremost, that one sort of FOPD (e
grams., fear of life immediately after death, concern with the process of passing away otherwise concern with one’s body after passing) occur individually of the then followed personality expectations, and you will next, that sort of FOPD that will be popular once the independent inside you to definitely class is utilized in most other categories throughout the assortment regarding significantly more generally outlined sort of FOPD ( Ochsmann, 1993 31. Ochsmann , Roentgen . ( 1993 ). Angst vor tod und auch sterben. Beitrage zur thanato-psychologie. [fear of death and passing away. Efforts to thanatopsychology ] . Gottingen : Hogrefe . ). Including observations strongly recommend an effective hierarchical construction of FOPD.
And there is inaccuracies in the literature on definition and you may build of one’s FOPD, the purpose of the present data were to check it from inside the a nuanced way, into Furcht vor Tod und Sterben Fragebogen (Passing and you will Passing away Stress Collection, FVTS) as an empirical example. A lot more specifically, i hypothesised you to (a) the fresh inconsistencies and contradictory results in prior browse have been on account of the current presence of the entire anxiety about dying basis, which could be meaningfully differentiated into specific forms of the fresh new FOPD; and (b) the brand new FOPD perform end up in keeps an excellent hierarchical framework. To evaluate whether the framework of the FVTS made-up the overall anxiety about passing together with way more specific forms of FOPD, i performed good bi-foundation confirmatory basis analysis. To check whether or not the framework of your own FOPD try hierarchical inside characteristics, we went some exploratory architectural equation activities given that recommended when you look at the Goldberg’s (2006) 13. Goldberg , L. R . ( 2006 ). Carrying it out the bass-ackwards: The development of the hierarchical basis formations on ideal down . Journal off Lookup into the Identification , 40 , 347 – 358 . . top-down processes.
Players and you can techniques
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 Many years = ; 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.